Monday, January 6, 2014

CORPORATE NON-TAXATION

(From a 2014 e-mail to a professor at Boston University--see 4/26/16.)

I have come to believe that the corporate income tax, assessed on just about all corporations, has become basically a pass-through expense that is ultimately NOT borne by the shareholders but instead is really laid upon the workers, the suppliers and/or the customers.  That becomes possible whenever the "rising tide lifts all boats," so there is no competitive disadvantage to paying those taxes.  It's just part of the cost of doing business for all corporations.  That scenario is not likely to change, so the corporate income tax, which was once considered a fair trade for the limited liability gained by shareholders, is now an anachronism.

I say repeal the corporate income tax, then tax all dividends as ordinary income.  I would allow a pass-through deduction or tax credit for corporate income plowed back into certain capital investments at the corporate level, and I would net out losses for pass-through treatment as well.

Alternatively, I would certainly levy a US tax on ALL net corporate income regardless of locus, then allow credits for taxes actually paid elsewhere!  I thought that was the rule--I am shocked that corporations are able to place their otherwise-taxable incomes "off-shore" beyond the reach of the US Tax Man.

The revenues lost by repeal of corporate taxes need to be replaced with more taxation of individuals, especially upper-income individuals.  The locking in of the so-called 2001 "Bush" tax cuts by Pres. Obama for taxable (not gross) incomes up to $450K was unconscionable, given that the MEDIAN annual household gross income in the US is now somewhere below $52K.  Meanwhile, Pres. Obama also RAISED the FICA payroll withholding rate back to its former full level.  Wealthier folks don't pay much FICA--lower incomes pay (in addition to income taxes) FICA on 100% of their likely gross incomes!  No one talks about the economically adverse affect of FICA sucking currently spendable dollars out of the economy.  The only such discussions are about means-testing Social Security and/or misusing payroll-tax-increased FICA receipts to supplement the deficit-driving, grossly inadequate income-tax receipts.

But, I digress.

I am also in favor of repealing the reduced personal capital-gains tax and replacing it with an amortizable capital-investment tax credit, given to an investor upon making an initial investment, subject to a sliding-scale recapture if the investment is liquidated within a given period of time after it is made.  Thus, the longer the investment were held, the less the recapture, then zero recapture after a designated period, like 7 years.  This would have the effect of rewarding the MAKING of an investment, not its liquidation as the reduced cap-gains tax does.  

I would then tax capital gains, per se, at the ordinary-income level, subject to offset with capital losses as now.  This should be fine for the average investor/taxpayer, who would receive the net benefits of making investments up front, regardless of what he or she might be paying as cap-gains taxes.  The investment tax credit should be an "appropriate" percentage of the total investment.  I don't know the numbers, but there should be no net loss of revenues for the govt.

I think payroll taxes are regressive and should be the focal point of a lot of ongoing discussion about taxation, but very few people take the payroll-tax burden into account when discussing taxes.  I would repeal the Medicare payroll tax outright and fund Medicare from general revenues, then means-test the bottom end of Medicare with sliding-scale deductibles, covering the high end for everyone, totally independent of the insurance companies.  The insurance-centric "Obamacare" is a needlessly complex mess; it may be better than the status quo, but it is not nearly as good as it COULD have been with simply "Medicare For All."


I realize, of course, that my ideas are probably not politically feasible at this time.


Saturday, January 4, 2014

A-THEISTS vs. ANTI-THEISTS

(The following is taken from an e-mail sent around Xmas, 2013)

I have been an atheist for the better part of 50 years--perhaps longer.  I really don't remember--it was some time between high school and college when it started.  It was gradual--there was no "thunderclap" of sudden enlightenment!  I know that I attended church services on occasion even after I was pretty sure of what I believed (or didn't).

I am NOT "anti-theist."  There is a difference.  A lot of believers think that all us "a-theists" are "anti-theists"!  Even some proclaimed atheists are really "anti-theists" by my reckoning, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who was a very courageous, fearless woman who fought well and hard for true religious freedom by resisting the tendency of those working in government to mis-use public resources to spread their personal messages of belief and indoctrinate others, especially schoolchildren.  Unfortunately, O'Hair was really AGAINST all religion (especially Christianity) and mocked it often.  Many so-called Christians were very mean to her and her family, and she became quite mean in return.  "Eye for an eye," I suppose!  She and some of her family were finally murdered by someone seeking to rip them off.

A true a-theist does not profess a belief AGAINST religion.  It makes no sense to me.  By my definition, an "a-theist" simply believes in nothing supernatural at all.  We are simply "without" religion; without "theism."  How can any of us know for sure?  I certainly cannot "prove" the NON-existence of a deity!  No one can prove the negative of anything!  It is a logical impossibility!  As far as I know, there may very well be a god, or devil, or angels, or whatever.  Nor do I demand that anyone who believes PROVE that their deity exists!  I hope I would never suggest such a thing.  I just don't care whether or not there is a deity somewhere.  I really don't think about it very much, one way or the other.  It is usually not a factor in my life.

Personal beliefs are private and deserve protection, by my standards.  Every one of us has the unquestionable right to believe whatever each of us wants to believe and express whatever any one of us wishes to express, EVEN IF it is offensive!  I like to say that the First Amendment guarantees the right to be offended!  I will fight to protect that right, because the rights of believers are essentially MY rights as well.  I recall that Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you do unto the least of my brethren, you do also unto me."  That is a core principle of mine.  The rights of the least of us (like Larry Flynt or Charles Manson) are the same rights as for all of us.

I will not, however, tolerate those trying to use or divert my tax dollars or my public property paid for or supported by my tax dollars to spread or proselytize their personal beliefs, pro or con, believer OR atheist.  I certainly don't do that!  Public property is not maintained for such purposes.  I believe that each of us has a right to say or protest whatever we may on public property, but those employed by government and paid by my tax dollars may not confuse their role as public servants with their exercise of private, non-governmental rights.  They must be "off the clock" whenever they choose to express their personal beliefs.  Thus, a judge or a schoolteacher may not use official property or time to proselytize personal beliefs.  That is not fair nor honest.  That is not exercise of a personal right but is, instead, misuse of official power!  That is taking money (salary) under false pretenses!

Some of my best friends are Christians, but I will not ever likely embrace any form of belief in supernatural deities, ghosts, fairies, angels, devils, elves or whatever.  I don't "believe in" magic.  I don't "believe in" Heaven or Hell.  I don't "believe in" miracles (although my graduation from law school and passing the bar exam come close!).  I don't "believe in" astrology.  I don't "believe in" the Hereafter.  I don't "believe in" Eternal Life.  I hope it is not true!  When I die I want to stay DEAD!  I don't "believe in" any of those things, but I am compelled to admit that they could all be true--I just don't care.  Nor do I care what anyone else believes, SO LONG AS they don't waste my time trying to convince me otherwise nor mis-use MY taxes or public property to push their personal messages onto others.

I have read the Bible completely (as was required my sophomore year in college).  I paid fairly close attention to that stuff in Sunday School growing up.  I think I understand the theological underpinnings of Christianity about as well as anyone else.  I also recognize some truths and events that occurred during the early days of church development (*) that grossly impeach the reliability of what passes for Christianity today.  But, again, I don't expect anyone else to embrace my skepticism.  But I also won't ever likely embrace the alternative!

Peter and Paul (who never lived during the time of Jesus) had a fairly strong disagreement about who should be the "targets" of conversion.  Paul makes reference to that dispute in one of his letters.  As Bishop of Rome, Peter believed that Christianity should be reserved for observant Jews ONLY, while Paul was trying to spread the "message" to the masses, traveling around and proselytizing among all the other peoples of the Mediterranean world.  Jesus had himself urged his followers to "go into a closet to pray" lest they make pests of themselves, smugly trying to impress others with their overt piety (Matthew, Ch. 6:6).  On the other hand, Paul vigorously promoted proselytization ("spreading the Message") to those who needed to hear it "for their own good," whether they were receptive or not.  Today's Christianity is really "Paulism," in my opinion, and I think it bears little resemblance to the fundamental teachings that are attributed to Jesus himself.  That is what I sincerely "believe," based upon a lot of reading and thinking.

People must be willing to accept that my atheism is just as strong and sincere as their religious beliefs!  After all, none of it is any more than just personal opinions of what may or may not be so.

UPDATE, 2/7/18: The absence of belief is not the same as the belief of absence!