I am in the process of working on a new approach to an American History textbook on the collegiate level, which will tell a much broader story that includes not just wars, presidents and social history, but a significant amount of economics, political science, intellectual history et al. The first volume actually begins in 1400 and ends in 1500 -- just eight years after Columbus lands on San Salvador, accidentally sort-of discovering the Americas. It's necessary because students today have no idea of the world into which this country was born. The individual segments are told in present tense (for the purpose of immediacy) and are each limited to 10 numbered paragraphs of no more than about 1,500 words total (so that students might actually read them). So here is the segment on Sir Arnold Savage, the man who engineered the principle that taxation was only legit when approved by the people and their representatives ... in 1404. Because it is the second segment on English history in ...

President Obama insists that mandatory health insurance is not a tax, and compares it to automobile insurance. But now we also know that, under at least the Baucus bill, if you don't purchase health insurance you may be fined $25,000 and sent to prison for a year. The necessity for this non-taxation is driven by the President's assertion that we all need to become one big health insurance risk pool : He noted that consumers currently pay higher health insurance premiums due to the costs run up by hospitals and other facilities providing care to uninsured people. Those unable to afford health insurance should get government help, Obama said, but others who can afford coverage but choose not to get it should face coverage requirements similar to those for auto insurance. "What it's saying is ... that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance,...

First, the one who howls describes the current pending legislation to prevent banks from capriciously changing the interest rates charged on existing credit card balances, and then he goes on to make a point as politically incorrect as it is critical to understanding how the economy actually functions: There is legislation pending in Congress to restrict the ability of lenders (e.g. credit card issuers) from changing rates on existing debt. They ask if it is fair for someone who took on a debt thinking it would be at 15% to suddenly find it is at 25%. But how are tax increases any different. I make 10-20 year investments in my company, and the expected tax rate is a hugely important assumption in whether it makes any sense for me to put my capital in a particular venture. How is a large increase in taxes on returns from my past investments any different than changing the interest rate on an existing debt? Then Coyote discusses the fact that huge new regulatory skeins ostensibl...

A lot of our friends suggest that the question of greater taxation has been settled, that patriotic, adult Americans understand that that they have to be willing to pay significantly more taxes to improve education, infrastructure, health care, and that only rightwing extremists, racist tea baggers, and fanatic libertarians are still concerned about our tax burden. Apparently not so. Kilroy provided the link that sent me to this March 2008 study by the University of Delaware regarding what kind of tax burden First State citizens would be willing to accept in order to improve public education. The results are ... surprisingly libertarian for a State that is portrayed as a leading light in the Obama-nation. Here are the results: 83% of Delaware citizens reject the idea of a sales tax to support education. 76% of Delaware citizens reject the idea of increasing income taxes to support education. 66% of Delaware citizens reject the idea of increasing property taxes to support educatio...

... even though nobody seems to be listening. Two examples: one, David Axelrod's comments regarding the Tea Party tax protests on Face the Nation , where one line has been highlighted and another one--the big lie--completely overlooked. Here's the complete transcript of the relevant portion of the broadcast: SMITH: What do you make of this spreading and very public disaffection with not only the government, but especially the Obama administration, the TEA parties this week? You even have the governor of Texas even using the word secession? Should Texas be allowed to secede? AXELROD: Well, I don’t think that really warrants a serious response. I don’t think most Texans were all that enthused by the governor’s suggestion. SMITH: But what about the first part of the question? (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy. SMITH: Is this unhealthy? AXELROD:...

... but when some of our friends published this Gallup Poll chart ... To assert that 48% of Americans think that the amount they pay in taxes is about right — and while this is the most positive tax survey that Gallup has taken, it is pretty clear that folks have been moving to that position for awhile. I’m not sure of this is a question of coming to terms with paying for the government you want (in direct opposition to the wingnut you can have allthe government you want for free — just not the social safety net stuff), but this is looking like we are growing up abit. It struck me that we really ought to take into account the datum provided by Coyote (from Kevin Drum, posting at that notorious conservative rag Mother Jones ): Not bad! 49% think their income taxes are just fine or even a bit low. Except for one thing: this chart shows exactly the opposite of what it seems. Consider this: about 40-50% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. That’s zero dollars. I think we...

Not as Treasury Secretary, or anything, but as the person responsible for writing the history of the US tax code. It's an intriguing document ; here are several of my favorite paragraphs: Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. ... To raise money for the War of 1812, Congress imposed additional excise taxes, raised certain customs duties, and raised money by issuing Treasury notes. In 1817 Congress repealed these taxes, and for the next 44 years the Federal Government collected no internal revenue. Instead, the Government received most of its revenue from high customs duties and through the sale of public land. ... The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the [civil] war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Governmen...

... let me suggest you get a life. I don't agree with Governor Sebelius' policy views, and I don't like the agenda she's been picked to pursue. But that's neither here nor there regarding the question of her tax problems . At first, like everybody else, I groaned when I saw the headlines and the figure of around $7,800 in back taxes and interest. Then I read that this amount comes from the combined total of three different years , and breaks down as follows: -- Charitable contributions over $250 are supposed to include an acknowledgment letter from the charity in order for a deduction to be taken. Out of 49 charitable contributions made, three letters couldn't be found. -- Sebelius and her husband took deductions for mortgage interest that they weren't entitled to. The couple sold their home in 2006 for less than what they owed on the mortgage. They continued to make payments on the mortgage, including interest. But since they no longer owned the home they ...

I particularly like this piece from the Port Huron (MI) Times Herald by City Councilman and local Libertarian chair Mark Byrne not so much because I agree with every jot and tittle, but because he demonstrates that there are different strategies available to deal with the Great Meltdown. Moreover, he also demonstrates that many Libertarians are thinking analytically about economic issues and realistic questions of taxation, rather than being slavishly limited in their viewpoints by ideological blinders: Libertarians predicted the housing bubble bursting and the mortgage crisis. We advocated preventing this by these proposals: Stop letting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make more loans to less-credit-worthy customers each year. Stop artificially making money cheap to borrow with low federal rates that encouraged borrowing for risky investments. A 21st-century tax system is needed now. We must switch from income, payroll and property taxes paid by the products produced here to a tax that tax...

I have thus far pretty much avoided commentary on the various and sundry administration appointees with tax problems. Oh, I might have groused in a comment somewhere or other, but I have consciously focused on lobbyists rather than tax cheats. So, first, I'll get the Libertarain-anarcho-capitalist part out of my system with an extensive snippet of Jim Davidson's rant over at Boston Tea Party : There's an old saying that "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." This appears to be an early gender equality cliche. US trade representative nominee Ron Kirk owes $10,000 in taxes. He earned more than a million dollars last year as a partner in Houston-based law firm Vinson and Elkins. He owes some of the money because of honoraria he received for yakking at events. He owes some of it because he took deductions for his season tickets to see the Dallas Mavericks (some sort of spherical ball team?) which apparently didn't comply with government rules for deduction...

... not that I know anybody who actually pays taxes on this anyway, but it would be nice to decriminalize the process. The NJ has a story today on how people are turning to bartered exchanges in tough times, which includes this segment: Bartering can be less expensive than buying because there are few overhead costs for rent or staff. However, not all costs are eliminated. The IRS considers barter dollars as identical to real currency for tax reporting, and barterers must obtain a special form, the 1099-B. Want change I can believe in? Stop ripping off private individuals who exchange goods for which both parties have already paid.

Clfford Thies points out an unlovely but very important truth about paying for everything by levying higher taxes on the wealthy: Lifting the caps on Social Security “contributions”, ending deductions for charitable and homeowners’ interest expense, raising the top federal personal income tax rate and the corporate tax rate, ending the capital gains tax preference … get the idea? If you have a high income, they’re coming after you. But, the idea that you can heavily tax the rich is bogus. As the author of the referenced article indicates, “If you look at the background of the top 1%, you realize that they meet my criteria of knowledgeable, worldly, disconnected to location for wealth, and willing and able to pay for proper legal advice.” In response to excessive taxes, these people will simply shift themselves and their wealth overseas. Instead of getting more out of them, the government will actually get less. During the next 4-8 years there will always be tax attorneys, tax shelters...

Years prior to the American Revolution, Ben Franklin attempted to explain to Crown officials why taxing the sugar trade to produce more revenue wouldn't work. He told them that if they raised the duty on a barrel of molasses, say, by two pennies, all that the merchants in New England would do was pass along the price increase to their English customers. Thus, the Crown would really be raising taxes on people in England, not the colonials in America.... The British never got it. But that's the essence of the argument that corporations don't pay taxes, they only collect them, acting pretty much as 21st Century tax farmers for the government. The cost of paying taxes is figured into the final cost of the goods or services they sell you, not paid out of profits. Here's an explanation from a small business owner in Delaware: I employ people. I hire new people when I need their services and I think I can keep them working and I think I can cover their costs. I’m not hirin...

I don't disagree with kavips that when GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Lee announces that he will oppose all tax increases if elected governor that the Judge is simply repeating a comfortable mantra without thinking through the consequences of his position. However, I think I would argue that kavips is guilty of some of the same failure of imagination: So what does Lee’s pledge of “no taxes” do to this state? It starves it… Road Repairs… forget about it… New schools,…. forget about it….More policemen…. forget about it… Prisoner health care… forget about it… Better testing …. forget about it.. environmental protection… forget about it… cancer studies…. forget about it… Bluewater Wind… forget about it… subsidies to build wind and solar… forget about it… Lower costs for Delaware children to attend Delaware’s Colleges and Universities.. forget about it.. Respectfully, I submit that this is as much a knee-jerk, talking point-type response as the original comment by Bill Lee. Why? Beca...

Two pictures should tell this story. The first is from a recent kavips post, detailing the impact of Senator Barack Obama's tax plan for taxpayers in various increments of income. It seems to show exactly what the Obama campaign has been claiming all along: 95% of all Americans would do better under his tax plan. Now here's one from Fausta , that also shows what would happen at each income bracket regarding marginal tax rates under the Obama plan. This one seems to show what Senator John McCain has been saying throughout the campaign: the Obama plan actually raises taxes on a lot of middle class families: Both of these tables can be backed up by dense articles of explanatory economics, and each could be picked apart--but that's not my point. My point is this: most people read the headline [from a source whose ideology they are already predisposed to trust]; glance at the table, and then skim the opening paragraph that either claims exhaustive analysis proves Senator O...

While the rest of us were getting steamed over NASCAR giveaways, wooden arrow subsidies, and the usual pork in the Congressional Economic Sell-out Plan, Becky (the Girl in Short Shorts) looked a little deeper and found this particular piece of ugliness: The bill that came out of the Senate was not only stuffed with goodies for reluctant congressman, but such things as grants of immunity from federal law for clandestine activities of IRS agents—including the right to set up sting operations such as phony businesses, as well as accounting and tax preparation offices... From time to time Congress has authorized the IRS to do this type of subterfuge—but the bailout makes it a permanent feature of the American Police State. Not only that, but the IRS is now permitted to share information about you with federal law enforcement agencies investigating suspected "terrorist" activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. The information which can be shared is : ...

...and the current AP story on Alan Greenspan criticizing Senator John McCain's tax plan is a case in point. Greenspan critiquing the McCain plan (and even the Democratic glee at hearing that critique) are important pieces of news, and deserve the coverage. But, all of a sudden, about the twelfth paragraph, without any transition, the story jumps into problems McCain has connecting with his base and the impact of Sarah Palin on that process... ...which has not a damn thing to do with the rest of the story. So if you actually want to read a substantive story about what Greenspan said, go visit SwampPolitics.com , and hope that the AP sends some of its writers and editors back to English Composition 101.

At least that's what the NCCo instant ticket program for unsightly yards and properties really appears to be for. Last year, New Castle County collected $74,425 in fines for people violating code . But going through all that pesky red tape--you know, actual charges and a judge and all that--was apparently too time-consuming or too costly (kind of like those damn FISA surveillance rules), so authorities implemented the instant ticket . Here's how this new, highly efficient system works: Step one: some neighbor rats you out for an inoperable car parked in your driveway. Step two: an inspector shows up and writes you a $50 ticket. Step three: you either plead guilty and send in the money, or plead not guilty and send in the money. [Not much difference there, huh?] Step four: an official from the same organization that wrote you the ticket rejects your appeal [because, after all, that inspector doesn't have to worry about that funky old presumption of innocence thing]. S...

. . . which is not some derivative of Heritage, or Cato, or Grover Norquist, but a combination of those two obviously neo-con outfits, the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Disclaimer: do not read this as an endorsement of Senator John McCain's position; McCain's tax plan actually comes off worse by comparison in the opinion of the Tax Policy Center. So what's really, really , really scary is that this is apparently the best the Demopublicans have to offer . Second Disclaimer: Senator Obama claims that his tax plan would be far more progressive than Senator McCain's, in that the largest tax cuts would go to low-income taxpayers and the largest tax increases would be visited on the wealthiest Americans. However, as these excerpts show, the situation is much more complex than that. So what does the Tax Policy Center say about Senator Obama's plan? Here are the excerpts [but please go read the whole thing yourself]: As noted, both candidates may be ...

Oh, no, you have to go and make me think again . I'm only going to deal with two paragraphs right this instance (sort of my protest for being drawn away from meaningless athletic competition with possibly the ugliest American uniforms ever worn): So I believe in free marketing when it is small and there is enough give and take among all parties that some symbiotic balance is achieved between all parties. Then individual talent has a chance to move a species forward up the evolutionary ladder…. But when the market gets too big or it merges together so that only one man can control its direction, then I think it needs to be split up and returned back to where every entity must fight for its own existence….. What you make me think of here is the extremely persuasive argument of historian Fernand Braudel that economic activity should really be considered in three distinct albeit interacting spheres. Braudel was looking primarily at the early emergence of capitalism in the 15-18th Cent...