I'll Have the Free Health Insurance, Please

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

Stop the presses! Yesterday's USA Today/Gallup poll revealed that most Americans favor national health care... as long as they don't have to pay for it. Then who should? Employers, for the most part, disregarding that higher costs mean fewer jobs. "All those rich guys" comes in second, a soft drink tax is third. But we already know there's no free Mexican food, remember?


The employer idea comes with the kicker that if employers don't provide health insurance then they have to pay a "fee" to the gummint. For what, exactly? Presumably to reimburse the gummint for providing health care of its own. But doesn't that make the gummint the health insurance provider of first resort? Yes, it does. You're an employer and you have a choice between finding an insurer and negotiating rates and claims and all the rest or just pay that fee and be done with it. That would be a no-brainer for most over-worked employers. Expensive, maybe, but simple.


This only makes sense if you believe that health insurance coverage is the right of everyone in America. If you believe that, then you might also believe that everyone is entitled to own their own home. That's what BarneyF and ChrisD (of the sweetheart loan that you didn't get) have been pushing for a decade and look where that got Fannie and Freddie... and us.


There is a reason this business model doesn't work anywhere. For instance, GM isn't going to give away 2010 Volts to anyone who wants a car because they're in business to make a profit. Remember profits? They're good, not bad. If you want a Volt, save or borrow or do without. Same with health insurance. You're free to get it and you're free to do without and yes, we'll make exceptions for those unable to fend for themselves. The slogan "From each according to his needs, to each according to his ability" has never worked anywhere.


I also lean toward the message in the warning "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until the government provides it for free."


* * * * *


Private jetter Steve Rattner was our car czar. You knew that, didn't you? He quit yesterday after six months of orchestrating an auto industry bailout that may cost American taxpayers $100 bil. Seems as though he's been named in a pay-to-play investment scheme in NY. (Is pay-to-play all they do in NY?) TimmyG spun it that Rattner had "decided to transition back to private life and his family in New York City." OhhhKay! A multi-state, multi-line car dealer put it a different way: "They just did everything wrong." You mean like spending $100 bil -- a half-bil+ a day -- in six months? For nothing? The new czar is a steelworkers union exec. He doesn't know anything about cars either.


* * * * *


Fun facts #1: Goldman Sachs (GS) earned $9.54 bil in 2006 and $11.6 bil in 2007, dipping to $2.04 bil in 2008. In the second quarter of this year (2Q09) they earned $3.44 bil.


Fun fact #2: GS received $60 bil in bailout money, either directly, through loans or funneled from AIG.


Fun fact #3: GS set aside $11. bil for salaries and employee benefits for the first half of this year. That's, um, an $772,854/year average salary, company-wide. Of course the janitors don't get that, just the Ivy Leaguers and Stanfordites who caused the financial meltdown in the first place, so figure ten times that for the upper, say, third at GS. Assuming a 2,200-hour work year, your stim was just over an average hour's pay for all of them, five minutes for the upper third. In return for that, they wrecked the American economy. Can you even remember where your stim went? Can you remember where your country went?


Fun fact #4: Median American family income in 2007 (most recent year reported, half higher and half lower) was $50,233. That's, oh, around ten hours pay for my mythical upper third at GS. You = $23/hour, they = $3,512/hour.


Not-so-fun conclusion: The gap between them and you is insurmountable. They can't see you from where they are, so how can they understand your troubles? Your economy may be in the tank but theirs is just fine, thank you. You got a $400 stimulus payment, remember? They got $60 bil, of which they re-paid $10 bil and think it was payment in full.


Do you really think they're going to mind a soft drink tax? Health care will NOT be paid for by the rich. It will be paid for by you. Problem is, you're not going to get what you're paying for.


Just remember this simple phrase: "Your failure to plan does not create a crisis on my part."




I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

What Tax Surcharge?

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

NYTimes pimps the health care bill's 1% tax surcharge proposal like this: "House Democrats will ask the wealthiest Americans to help pay for overhauling the health care system with a $550 billion income tax increase".


"Ask"? That plays better to readers than "force". Taxes are not voluntary payments that you are asked to submit. They are extracted from taxpayer wealth by law with the idea that the government needs money to run on and to provide essential services. Fair enough, the government actually does need money to run.


But whom do you think the Gray Lady chose to illustrate the tax pitch? Why, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the people who write our tax laws. Problem is, CharleyR doesn't pay his own taxes!


CharleyR failed to report rental income from his Caribbean villa either on his 1040 or his congressional disclosure forms. He got caught scamming the NYC Housing Authority regarding his FOUR rent-controlled apartments, scamming the DC Housing authority about his DC residency and caught in a sweetheart loan deal whereby he doesn't pay interest on a contributor's loan to buy said villa. In fact, CharleyR has defended a Caribbean tax shelter (you know, where the wealthy don't pay taxes) on behalf of a principal donor to his own foundation. BTW, forgiven debt, i.e. interest payments that you haven't made for ten years, is taxable income.


Did I mentiono that CharleyR writes the tax laws, or at least oversees their writing. Oh, I did? Thanks to ProPublica for last year's overview of CharleyR.


It'll all be OK pretty soon, though, because CharleyR filed some House ethics complaints against himself. Say, did you know that statements made in a House ethics investigation can't be used in a later criminal trial? Neat side-step, Charley. And if you're not paying your own taxes, why not add a 1% surcharge to someone else's?


* * * * *


The WSJ headline is "Obama Exhorts Africans to Fight Corruption, Embrace Democracy". Well, yes, that is as good a banality as any. Too bad he didn't mention any of that in Moscow... or to the Iranian protesters.


* * * * *


In the '60s our marginal tax rate was as high as 90% and that spurred the growth of aggressive tax shelters. Watch for it again when the rich take exception to paying a surcharge for nationalized health care. And BTW, the plan still only covers 1/3 of our uninsureds. National health care is gonna cost more. Know how I can be so sure? CharleyR added a provision to increase the tax surcharge in one year. Has congress ever authorized a tax that they didn't implement? Nah, didn't think so, and what's a surcharge to CharleyR if he doesn't pay in the first place?


* * * * *


The gummint wants to sell 36 F-18 SuperHornet jet fighters to Brazil. OK, exports are good for America and Brazil's a reasonably friendly ally. Problem is, Brazil wants a "big portion" of the plane's components to be made in... Brazil. Boeing's gonna do it, too, resulting in 5,000 new jobs in Brazil. Nanci Pelosi is all about "... jobs, jobs, jobs!" when she's pitching health care reform. Not so much, I guess, when it comes to exporting 5,000 defense jobs.


* * * * *


Not much gained in the prez's international journey. Turns out that most of the G-8's members don't want to sign on to a new global warming bill and the major developing nations adamantly refuse to, something we have mentioned in the past. Then in Moscow we gave up some missiles and got in return... nothing. In Ghana, well, nothing. There's nothing to get in Ghana.


* * * * *


Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. P. J. O'Rourke

Cash for Clunkers

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

There are these two fellas, see? Joe and John. They both own clunker pick-up trucks that you or I wouldn't be seen dead in. Well, I might, seein's I drive an '88 Ford F-150. But I digress.


They both would really like to buy new pick-up trucks. Problem is, Joe can afford one and John can't. So, who does the gummint help buy his new truck? Why Joe, of course, the guy who could buy one without any help. He does allow, though, that he didn't mind the free $4,500 "cash for clunkers" that he got from the gummint. John, who really did need help to buy a new truck, gets to keep his clunker. You know, the one that's overheating the earth and all? The one like mine? No help for ol' John.


Does this make sense to you?. We paid Joe money that he didn't need in order to get him to buy a new truck sooner than he intended. That helps Joe (duh, free money and all), the UAW and it pays back some political debts. Plus, everyone in the picture where Joe gets his new keys gets to smile.


On the other hand, that's John over there, shaking his head and wondering " I work and pay taxes too. Why is the gummint giving my tax money to Joe so that he can buy a truck that I can't afford when I'm the one who needs the help?"


That's the conundrum: Why are we giving money to people who don't need it? Why are we pushing Joe into further consumer debt as a matter of national policy? Consumerism and mass consumption are NOT good for Joe or John or for you. The administrations sells cash-for-clunkers as one way to reduce our national dependence on foreign oil. It may be, but at what cost?


The thing is, Joe was gonna buy a new truck anyway. Maybe c-f-c motivated him enough ($4,500 of enough) to buy it a little earlier than he had planned but he was gonna buy it anyway. Count one truck sold. OTOH, if we had helped John buy a truck (in the same way, say, as we're helping banks and car companies who need some help to get back on their feet) then we could count two trucks sold and two clunkers off the road, more car jobs saved, the whole shebang. For the math-challenged, two is better than one.


Unfortunately, only the "haves" get the c-f-c incentive. "Have nots"? Sorry, not you, you gotta keep driving your clunkers. "You gotta have money to get money" is a perverse modern twist. Our national divide grows. There's a better way:


Hey gummint! Don't give away our hard-earned tax dollars to incentivize consumerism. There are too many other problems on the table and this doesn't fix any of them long-term.


Let the people who can afford new trucks buy them, but don't help them buy them. Let the folks who can't buy new save their money or buy used or take public transportation (you know, those systems you told us would solve our transportation problems?) or, God forbid, walk or carpool.


Count on it: The administration is selling us out to pay for its stimuli and bailouts. Did anyone NOT see this coming? I wonder how many Obama voters thought he would wind up being an auto industry shill?


"C'mon down! We got 45 hunnerd bucks an' a shiny red truck right here for ya'll, but don't wait!"


Wait. Consumer debt shifts the economic crisis to you.


The gap in our economy is between what we have and what we think we ought to have - and that is a moral problem, not an economic one. Paul Heyne

1st Half of 2009 - A Retrospective

We Tax All the Others and Pass the Revenue on to You

This is where I get all wispy and look at my foolishness from the past six months. First off, let's look at what I got wrong


SOOO Wrong


Chrysler will either fail in bankruptcy or succeed by renegotiating or voiding its debt and contracts, including salaries, pensions and health insurance. A judge will decide and s/he won't prefer one group of same-class creditors over another. (April 30)


This is the only one I'm admitting to, but it's a biggie. If you think there are others, comment here and I guarantee I'll post it.




Jury's Still Out

No major health care reform this year or any time soon. DOA, despite CharlieR's "by the end of 2010" promise. Ain't gonna happen, folks. No will, no money. Maybe some window dressing, that's all. (Feb. 5)

Watch For It... The prez to bring on Bill Clinton as some sort of buck-a-year "special advisor" on budget and the economy. (March 12)


GM and Chrysler aren't ever going to repay their bailout "loans" and Fiat will go away -- just like they did in 1984 -- as soon as they have milked the American taxpayer out of his last free dollar. (March 31)


We just call 'em like we see 'em and that's how we see CK, a preening political hack-in-waiting. Waiting for, say, Uncle Teddy's seat to open up. (April 21)


Dems, you don't have a thing to worry about in 2010. The GOP has already been reduced to firing blanks on the sidelines... The GOP has nothing to offer these days. Until that changes, until a leader comes forward with an agenda that resonates with America, we're going to remain a one-party nation, Bob's party... What is troubling is the silence. Where did you go, GOP? What ideas do you have to make things better for all of us, Dems and Repubs alike? Where is your charisma, your leader, your next Contract With America? You'd better find something and someone, and quick, and it better be more than just carping about what the prez is doing. And BTW, Michael Steele ain't it. (May 1)


Just as we're going to get mileage taxes plus gas taxes to make up for better fuel economies, we'll surely hear a push to tax pot, and is it such a leap to then tax all forms of now-illegal products? (May 19)


We have squandered our descendant's fortunes and the money won't be coming back. (June 1)

Got These Right


There are going to be tax increases, no matter how much you make or who you voted for or what you believe about how much government should spend and on what. They're coming because the new administration can't be seen to back off on its promises to tax everyone but you. (Jan. 12) Hello cap and trade.


Big increases are coming for all the traditional sin taxes. If you make your living catering to any of those penchants, think about a career change. (Jan. 12)


We're spending -- call it a trillion and try not to cry -- and it's gonna take a while? How much would it take to start it working today? We're spending a tril and no one is demanding anything to show for it? Are you freakin' kidding me? No wonder some of it is going for dividends and bonuses for failure. No one is saying STOP! (Jan. 12 again. It's worth a re-read.)


TCFR raise tax revenue. Get over it. (Jan. 13)


If there is an economic crisis that requires massive amounts of public money for bailouts and stimuli, then shouldn't there be some oversight about where it's going? There hasn't been so far and no sign of that improving on Mr. Obama's watch. (Jan. 13)


But there is no such thing as a "national version" of freedom. Others may not define your freedom! That's what freedom is all about. There is only... freedom. (Jan. 20)


There is a modern reign of terror in Russia. (Jan. 21)


There's no free Mexican food. Somebody always gets stuck with the check. Can you look your kids in the eye and tell them it's going to be... them? Poor them. (Feb. 8)


We're already being set up for the failure of the stimulus bill. "It's not perfect" says the prez. Here's a thought: If you wanted it to be better, maybe someone should actually have read the freakin' bill before we spent the $800B! (Feb. 17)


One of the problems these days is that there are no responsible plans issuing from the other side of the aisle. There isn't one single viable national alternative to anything that the Obama administration is doing. (March 9)


The second stimulus is already on its way, count on it. (March 10)


Let me say this again. No significant health care reform AND energy policy reform AND economic recovery in the first two years of this administration. Whatever political capital the prez has left is going toward economic recovery. (March 12)


"The plan" calls for 8% unemployment this year. It's going to hit 10% before Christmas. (March 12)


All those new jobs? You can forget them, too. Sham. No money + no incentive to invest = no new jobs. (March 17)


I've seen this movie before. I think the prez goes to China or Russia pretty soon. (March 19... eerie, huh?)


Consumer borrowing shifts the crisis to you (March 19... and read the rest of that column, too)

This just in: There is no upside when you loan someone money to buy a bunch of someone else's bad debt. (March 23)


This just in: TimmyG and the prez don't know how to fix the auto industry. (March 31)


We will fail, all of us. That's another universal. We all will experience sorrow and frustration and pain. We'll all be scared. The measure of us all is "Then what did you do?" (April 9)


Watch for the prez to "force" GM into bankruptcy in a month. (May 1)

Order or Anarchy?

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

Nicholas Confessore wrote a great article in the NYTimes. Ostensibly about the political chaos in NY, it extends to the chaos and seeming political hopelessness in NYC and major states like CA and IL. This article deserves your attention.


When does a gifted orator become just another political blowhard? We feel leaderless and adrift, with no one charting a meaningful political course for us. The Dems don't know how to do anything but spend and orate. The Repubs, well, they don't know how to do much of anything.


Where are we going? NY, CA and IL are symptoms of a national malaise. Who do you see that might pull us oput of it and give us some direction? There's a lot at risk and very little to reward political risk-takers. The Repubs have been no help at all. That leaves the Dems, some new third party, continuing the status quo or anarchy?


We all have to make a choice and back the people who most closely represent our political philophies. We can NOT allow ourselves to simply go along with those who promise to give us more for less or those who will lead us in return for our support of narrow issues.


Who's got a political package that you can support? Choose, then do something about it.


* * * * *


Dean Zerbe has an excellent article in Forbes about a new proposal for small businesses that make payments in excess of $600. If that's you, read it and think about contacting IRS for everyone you pay more than $600. Essentially, this transfers the burden of TIN verification to the small businessperson, not that IRS was really doing it anyway. It's an accountant's full employment measure at your expense.


There is zero chance that IRS will make any meaningful use of these reports but if it passes you'll probably get fined for not making them.


* * * * *


NY Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo keeps making news and looking good. NYTimes has an article about him cracking down on "pay-to-play" schemes that placed NY pension money in return for large "placement agent" fees. Cuomo recovered $30 mil of public money. Good onya, Andy. Watch his work launch him into presdential consideration.


* * * * *


TimmyG just finished a meeting of G8 finance ministers. The IMF warned "...there is an urgent need for governments to clarify their exit strategy to ensure that solvency is not at risk." Timmy G said Economic and financial recovery "will be stronger and more sustainable if we make clear today how we get back to fiscal sustainability when the storm has fully passed...". (Thank you, WSJ)


Those two statements are incompatible unless you think TimmyG actually has an economic crisis exit strategy. He doesn't.


* * * * *


At the Chrysler bankruptcy, creditors who thought they were secured - and that being a secured creditor meant something - aren't, and unsecured creditors are ahead of them. This portends big things for those considering bankruptcy and their creditors. Creditor priority is a fundamental part of secured lending and all of a sudden it doesn't mean what we always thought. Stay tuned.

American Tsars

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

Why do we have American tsars? We call 'em czars for some reason but you know what I'm talking about. Rateitall identifies 18 of the odd political creatures. 18! What do they do and why do we need them? A couple of things for sure: They're not working alone (18 new staffs, offices, equipment, supplies, cars, expense accounts etc.) and they're not working for free (18 new staffs' pay and perks). For what?


We've had czars before. Are they redundant to their respective cabinet members? HHS v. Health Czar, that sort of thing. Can they make decisions without cabinet input or Congressional oversight? Do they? Yeah, likely they do.

William Manchester wrote American Caesar, the story of Douglas MacArthur and his usurpation of power from an uncooperative civilian American government. Is that something like what we have now, or is this a group of neo-governmental ministers who are taking power away from an uncooperative American populous and a timid Congress? Seven Days in May with Ivy League educations? I'm not warning of a neo-lib conspiracy, but I am beginning to wonder about it. Aren't you? Aren't our overblown cabinet departments enough for the prez? Why aren't they?


Who vets the czars? TommyD was the prez' Health Czar while he was waiting to be confirmed as SecHHS. Using him as an example, no one does very well and now we've got 18 of em.


Of what significance are a czar's decisions? To whom does the prez turn for critical advice and direction, his cabinet member or his czar, and why? Stay with HHS for a moment. It is a HUGE agency. Are they so short of talent that they have to sluff off decisions and recommendations to a czar and his staff? How is that possible?


Czars don't have Congressional oversight and they aren't subject to Congress' advise and consent role. They don't have to tell the public anything, file out more than pro forma reports or in any way justify their existence. They exist by executive fiat (no pun intended). Ask why.


* * * * *


Talk about fine print. Bailed-out banks are trying to pay back the bailouts so that they can start paying out big bonuses to their top people. That's what the bailouts did, preserved the earning capacity of mega-bankers at your expense. Don't be expecting your share any time soon. Or a thank-you.


Here's the thing: TimmyG tells Congress that even after they pay back the bailout money those banks will still have to follow government pay guidelines. Think about it. A publicly-owned private company will have to follow gummint pay rules because they took bailout money.


I'm no fan of big-money bankers. Far from it. But where/when did TimmyG and his Pay Czar Ken Feinberg get the expertise or the right to do this? Where did this self-annointed oversight come from? Want to know why? So that the successful banks won't be able to recruit talent from the unsuccessful banks by offering... bigger salaries.


Don't worry. The pay czar will fix things. After all, he's 31 and has no experience. He'll fit right in.


* * * * *


Need another reason to stay away from GM cars? How about this statement from the new CEO of GM, Ed Whitacre, Jr. (but from now on Mr. Ed here):


“I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.”


Well no WONDER the prez picked him. He's not too old to learn about cars. I'm hearing the words to Mr. Ed right now (thanks to bussongs.com):

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed.
  

Go right to the source and ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister Ed. 

People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mr. Ed will never speak unless he has something to say 

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?

Well listen to this: "I'm Mister Ed." 

I normally wouldn't care all that much but this Mr. Ed is running a business that we've just spent $50 bil on and it happens to be failing and taking our money with it. Is this the time for learn by doing? 

Interchangable managers regardless of experience is a government experiment that has failed over and over. I remember the "Blue Ribbon Plan" under which thousands of new inexperienced managers were hired in the 1970s. It was a predictable failure because... are you ready?... no one knew what they were supposed to be doing!!!


Mr. Ed is running GM. Roger Penske has raced and sold cars at the very pinnacle of his industry for decades, made scads of money and is looking for new challenges. He's had a lot of other automotive success. You see his yellow Penske Trucking vans and long-haulers everywhere on the highways and there is lots more. Penske is buying Saturn.


Penske and Saturn or Mr. Ed and GM: Which do you pick for long-term success and which to be continually bailed out with taxpayer money until we run out?


Penske. Mr. Ed. Who's going to get your business?


What was that, Mr. Ed?


“I don’t know anything about cars”



Follow up with


"Go right to the source and ask the horse"


Are you feeling stimulated yet?


* * * * *


Stop gabbin' and get me some oats. -- Mr. Ed
(Thank you, internetmoviedatabase.com)

Voting With Your Feet

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

Microsoft, Symantec and others don't like the idea of repatriating and taxing corporate income earned abroad. They're threatening to vote with their feet and move more of their businesses overseas. You can read more about it at Bloomberg.com. The prez wants to remove $190 bil in corporate overseas tax breaks.

This is the mega-corp version of Rush Limbaugh and others leaving New York for the tax-friendlier shores of Florida. When taxes are oppressive, those who can leave, do. Those who remain, with far fewer resources, are left to fill the revenue gap. The remaining economy enters its death spiral. Hello, New York and California.

Did you read that New York is shocked that its income tax revenue is down 49%? Wow, who could have seen that coming? Hint: It's not entirely the economy and it's not entirely Limbaugh's fault. There's no one at the helm and that's an iceberg up ahead, Gov. Patterson. It's too late to miss it. All you can do is try to mitigate the damage.

Rush isn't the only bigshot to leave. Super-rich ex-Dem major contributor Tom Golisano is also outta there. Same reason: Taxes are too high and government is out of control.

Meanwhile, there was a coup in the NY Senate today, with the Repubs taking over the majority with the help of two Dems (who are under some serious investigation, BTW). Don't look for any meaningful legislation in NY any time soon. Patterson will veto. The legislators will continue cashing their paychecks.

Did I mention The Taxblog Alternative? Things are going to get worse. Let me know when you get it.

* * * * *

I finally got a look at the Kerry campaign's tax lien. Not exactly as advertised, employment taxes, but for failure to file information returns, IRC 6721. Makes the "clerical error" defense a little more credible. I'll wait for more but in the meantime this needed to be said.


The tax was assessed (and the first bill went out) 01-07-08 and IRS' ACS finally filed the notice of lien 2-5-09, giving the campaign time to close up without regard to the debt.


* * * * *


Can you withhold welfare payments? CA is doing it. Has to, Arnie says. Sure, some people get hurt but taxpayers are already getting hurt.


Ask yourself, why can't governments stop giving away money? Just... stop.


Arizona just passed a drastically scaled-back budget after all but one of the Dems walked out. State agency spending would be cut by 6.4%. They would swoon at 25%. Doesn't matter much since the Dem governor will veto. Somewhere the concept of "the will of the people" is dying an agonizing death.


* * * * *


The Supremes just delayed the sale of Chrysler assets to Fiat. They want to see whether creditors' rights have been violated, as asserted by some Indiana pension funds who stand to lose everything if the sale goes through. They say, understandably, that they are being disadvantaged as the government ignores creditors' priorities in its haste to sell Chrysler and give the money to the UAW and other favored non-priority creditors. Makes sense to me. Everyone is supposed to play by the same rules. This will be interesting.


* * * * *


New Jersey has collected $64.4 mil to date through their income tax amnesty. Not yet the $200 mil they promised but they shouldn't have predicted the results in the first place.


As much as I hate tax amnesties -- they generally lead to expectations of further amnesties, thus becoming deterrents to tax compliance; see multiple tax amnesties and the 1986 immigration reform act for examples -- NJ has been modestly successful. It's hard to quantify the amount they might lose in foregone future compliance so there is no ready measure of success v. cost but at least they did something

Don't believe the part about deterring future compliance? Mass. has had three tax amnesties since 2002. Do you think Mass. taxpayers think there might be another? Of course they do, so why pay now? Disincentive.


France, seldom an illustration of sound fiscal policy, is adamantly refusing an amnesty for the massive amount of repatriated money coming back as the result of the recent crackdown in bank secrecy and tax havens (see tax-news.com) . Why shouldn't they? France is in its own revenue crisis caused in part by these very same tax cheats. This is NOT a no harm, no foul offense.


* * * * *


A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. -- Alexis de Toqueville