American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
With the due date for filing individual income tax returns having recently passed, this seems like a good time to reflect on the annual ritual of self-flagellation that Americans are forced to endure at the beginning of each year. The April deadline has become a sort of rite of passage for citizenship, although as things stand today almost half of all workers don’t pay any income tax at all.
Following are some random facts (in no particular order) about our income tax laws, who pays and who doesn’t, and the impacts our system of taxation has on the nation’s productivity:
When the 16th Amendment to the Constitution established the federal income tax in 1913, the intent was to tax only the very rich. Rates began at 1% and increased to 7% for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1% of the population paid any income tax at all, compared with almost 50% of taxpayers paying as much as 35% of their taxable income today.
The top 5% of wage earners pay almost 60% of total individual income taxes, while the top 10% pay about 70%, and the top 50% pay approximately 97%. Translation: Just half of all taxpayers pay almost 100% (96.93%) of all income taxes, while almost 50% pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has approximately 91,000 employees (FTEs or full-time equivalents), and a total budget of $11.4 billion.
Estimates of unreported commercial activity in the U.S. amount to as much as one trillion dollars a year, and the IRS Oversight Board report for fiscal 2007 notes that the tax gap, “the difference between what is owed and what is collected…is estimated at $345 billion of lost revenue annually.” Question: If it’s an underground economy, how does the IRS know how much income is not reported?
The Cato Institute reported that businesses and individuals now waste over 6.4 billion hours on federal tax compliance activities each year, which the Tax Foundation estimated amounted to $265.1 billion in 2005. That’s equivalent to over three million people working full time, just to deal with tax compliance. This amounted to a 22% tax compliance surcharge on the total amount collected through the tax system.
In the 1920s the federal tax code was comprised of about 40 pages of rules. Today, according to the Virginia Chapter of NRSTA (Interesting Tax Facts), the tax code, regulations and IRS rulings now require over 66,000 pages to document. Between 1986 and 1996, there were over 5,000 changes in the tax code. In 1996 alone over 700 pages of tax law changes and regulations were adopted by the IRS.
When the General Electric Co. filed the corporation’s tax return electronically, it took 24,000 pages to document. The Associated Press (June 1, 2006) noted, “If GE had sent paper forms, the return would have staked up eight feet high…”
In 1993, the General Accounting Office (GAO) audited the IRS for the first time in its history and found widespread evidence of financial malfeasance and gross negligence, including the fact that the agency was not able to account for 64% of its congressional appropriation.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) “was created in 1969 to target 21 – yes, 21 – millionaires who had managed to avoid paying any taxes at all.” (Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2007). “This year more than three million taxpayers will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax on the(ir) 2006 income. But next year (2007) that number could rise to 23 million…” Note: it didn’t, only because Congress passed a so-called “patch” to prevent it.
The federal income tax, currently as high as 35% of taxable income, is increased by as much as 11% in state and local income taxes, plus another 6.20% and 1.45% in social security and Medicare taxes, which makes the total tax burden for some taxpayers almost 54%, not including excise, sales and property taxes, along with a host of other taxes, assessments and fees to numerous to mention. Medieval serfs were required to give only one-third of their production to the lord of the manor, and they were considered slaves.
Households in the lowest 20% of income received about $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid (in 2004), while those in the top 20% received only 41 cents in benefits. (Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 1, March 2007).
Our tax laws have become so complex and contradictory that no one, not even the most brilliant tax professionals, including IRS experts, fully understand them.
It’s worth noting, I think, that when I started practicing public accounting in the early 1960s, the filing deadline was March 15, not April 15, and only one 90-day extension was permitted. Today, the due date for filing is April 15, and it is possible to obtain a six-month extension - to October 15 - primarily because of the increased difficulty of obtaining the necessary information and the complexity of preparing and filing tax returns.
Many societies view taxation as a contest between tax collectors and citizens, with payment or avoiding payment of taxes as the prize. But we are different we are told, because Americans voluntarily, that is, willingly, file tax returns and pay their taxes.
Baloney! If that’s true, why do we hear so much about taxes not being paid by people who work or do business in the “underground economy”? Would you file a tax return if you were not afraid of the consequences of not filing?
Putting aside the government’s hype and PR initiatives, the reason our income tax system is so successful is FEAR. Fear of being audited, fear of being assessed, fear of tactics employed to collect unpaid taxes, fear of intrusion into our personal affairs, fear of not being able to defend ourselves against the unlimited power of government in general and the IRS in particular.
I believe the IRS has carefully cultivated this image over a period of many years. Who can say that they don’t have a sudden, albeit perhaps brief, fearful reaction when they find a letter or notice from the IRS in their mail? I know I do, and I’m a retired CPA. I don’t want to hear from them, ever! When I do get some sort of communication from my friendly tax agency (federal or state), I just know it’s going to cost me time, money and aggravation. Perhaps you’ve noticed over the years that around tax time it’s common to see a spate of media stories about prosecutions for tax fraud. In my opinion, that’s no accident.
One of Ronald Reagan’s many sage observations sums up the situation rather neatly: “The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.” For my part, I believe Americans are over-taxed and under served by their government, while our politicians are constantly looking for ways to impose new taxes under the radar of public scrutiny and awareness. Will it ever end? Probably not, until we have allowed ourselves to be taxed into near or complete oblivion.
Should price gouging be a felony? Should it be a crime for someone to take advantage of market conditions and make too much profit? How can the government let big corporations and rich industrialists get away with making so much money simply because they are in a position to control the supply and manipulate prices? It’s not fair. What about the little guy?
“There ought to be a law” is an old cliché. So, why not prevent “price gouging” and “excess profits” by passing laws to regulate everything involved in producing and delivering all goods and services?
Unfortunately, there is one small problem: defining “price gouging” and “excess profits.”
So, what are they? You tell me. I haven’t a clue, and I’m a retired CPA.
Should “profit” be determined solely on the basis of markup? Just how much should businesses be allowed to mark up the cost of their raw materials and/or labor? Do we need a law against prices that double the cost, or more, such as cosmetics, drugs, groceries, restaurants, dry cleaners, actually just about anything?
Seems simple, doesn’t it? But, just how should cost be figured? Does it include labor and materials plus all the other expenses of running a business? That is, literally everything and anything that’s necessary to run an enterprise. How about the salaries of the owners or executives who manage businesses? Should they be considered part of the cost of doing business?
Is it even possible to create legislation that regulates literally everything involved in the process? And, what about the cost of implementing such laws: defining, regulating and policing them?
A commentary that circulated on the Internet highlighted huge markups that drug manufacturers make on the active ingredients in their products. At first glance, the raw data is quite shocking.
Here are some examples of the spread between the selling prices of some popular drugs and the cost of the active ingredients used in manufacturing them: Celebrex - 21,712%; Claritin - 30,306%; Lipitor – 4,696%; Prevacid – 34,136%; and Prilosec – 69,417 %. If anything ever seemed excessive, markups of this order certainly seem to qualify, don’t’ they?
However, the problem with this type of information is that it omits the other numbers that are needed to make a judgment, that is, all the costs of manufacturing, distributing and marketing the products. In other words, the full cost of doing business.
Many people think businesses earn as much as 50% or 60% of the prices their products or services sell for. In fact, they may end up keeping as little as one or two percent of their revenue or sales, as in the case of supermarkets, or it may be five to ten percent, as with restaurants. The oil companies, which are currently being castigated by just about everyone, manage to keep (net) only “8.3 cents per dollar of sales. Beverage companies and cigarette makers, by contrast, earned 19.1 cents. Drug makers, 18.4 cents. Indeed, all manufacturers, 8.9 cents on average, made more than ‘Big Oil.’” (“Profits of Doom,” IBDeditorials, May 1, 2008).
What about those individuals who make substantial profits on investments in public companies, starting their own businesses, or real estate? Many people invested in IBM, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Yahoo!, Cisco and other enterprises that ultimately became hugely successful, making them rich in the process. Should they also be subject to “excess profits” taxes?
Or, what about those homeowners whose properties increased in value by 500% or 1,000%, or more. Are those “excess profits” that should be taxed to prevent people from taking advantage of market conditions?
We repeatedly hear politicians complain about how much money various businesses make, such as the oil companies, drug manufacturers, hospitals and doctors, Wal-Mart, just about any company or industry that garners public attention.
But, who would determine the amount of profit that is too much? Would some board, commission or agency decide how much businesses should be paying for the raw materials they use in manufacturing or what they should be spending on advertising or perhaps the wages they should be paying, or how much their rent should be, or what they should pay for any product or service they use, or how much they should be allowed to mark up their costs?
The entire process is a “slippery slope,” guaranteed to become a nightmare of rules and regulations, much like the tax code.
To those who may think they know how to create and implement legislation that can make price gouging illegal or tax “excess or windfall profits” without destroying the incentive to produce, good luck! I confess, it’s above my pay grade.
Senator Everett Dirksen (1896-1969) has been credited with saying, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” His comment is often quoted, but we rarely hear anyone talk about another aspect of his observation, which is: Just how much money is a billion dollars? Or, what can we pay for with that amount of money?
Today, we hear and see the word, “billion,” constantly. Multi-billion dollar government budgets are routinely debated and approved, and we seem to think nothing of it. There’s hardly a flicker from anyone. As a matter of fact, more often it’s the opposite, ranging from simple disinterest to boredom. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that “pork” is piled onto appropriations bills as if the budget is a bottomless money pit for the convenience of our legislators, who are generally free to spend public funds with little or no public disclosure. The entire process is structured to enable them to ignore public good for personal advantage, without being held accountable.
I can remember a time when the idea of a billion dollars was a source of wonder at the sheer magnitude of that amount of money. Today, it no longer seems to elicit any response at all, other than lack of concern. But, a billion dollars does add up to “real money,” especially when you look closely at what it can buy.
The 2008 Edition of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) “2008 Congressional Pig Book” notes, “In fiscal year 2008, Congress stuffed 11,610 projects (the second highest total ever) into the 12 [federal] appropriations bills worth $17.2 billion.”
With this in mind, consider the following illustrations of just how much money a billion dollars, or $17.2 billion, actually is:
Based on the average national income of $38,611 (www.aft.org), the $17.2 billion in pork barrel expenditures appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2008 could support over 445,000 families for one year. Or, it could pay the salaries of all members of Congress plus those of the entire Congressional staff and the legislators’ total office expense budgets for 17 years, with money left over. Which is the better use of funds?
In many third-world countries, where the average annual income is less than $500, $17.2 billion could provide support for more than 34 million people for one year or 3.4 million people for ten years.
At $10,000 per student, $17.2 billion could pay the costs of schooling for 1.72 million children (K-12) for one year; or for the entire college educations of 430,000 students (at, say, $40,000 each).
At a median (half above/half below) salary of $50,872 a year, nationwide, $17.2 billion could pay for over 338.000 secondary school teachers for one year, or more than 33,800 teachers for 10 years.
At $100 per visit, $17.2 billion could pay for 172 million doctor appointments. Based on an average of four doctor visits per year, it could provide health care for 43 million people for one year. Coincidentally, that’s roughly the number of Americans who reportedly do not have any health insurance. In addition, at an average prescription drug expense of $100 a month, $17.2 billion could cover the prescription costs for over 14 million people for one year, or 1.4 million patients for 10 years.
For those who live in apartments, at a rental rate of $1,000 a month, $17.2 billion could provide housing for over 1.4 million residents for one year.
For the investment minded, at 5% per annum, the earnings on 17.2 billion dollars would be $860 million a year. Looking at it from the viewpoint of seniors who collect Social Security, with the average retiree receiving about $1,000 a month, the investment income could permanently provide annual retirement payments to almost 72,000 people. Isn’t that how Social Security should work, instead of as a form of “Ponzi scheme,” which would be illegal if it were not the government doing it?
Now we are hearing about trillion-dollar budgets, which makes the scope of our federal finances even more difficult to comprehend. The bigger the numbers, the easier it becomes to waste or hide large expenditures in the various budgets.
Are we getting our money’s worth from government, or is too much of it being wasted? Like the man said, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
The foregoing illustrations clearly demonstrate the misplaced priorities of our legislators. I believe financial impact reports should be required for all major appropriations bills. But, that’s just my opinion.
Can the government stop the decline in home prices?
Can they avoid more loan defaults?
Can they engineer a soft landing for the mortgage loan industry?
Is the crisis already over?
Where are we in the process?
Can the government actually manage the situation?
Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently “endorsed the need for government intervention, saying that letting markets take their own course could destabilize communities, reduce the property values of nearby homes and lower municipal tax revenues.” He is asking lenders to consider “cutting the principal of some customers’ loans to prevent foreclosure, noting, “When the source of the problem is a decline of the value of the home well below the mortgage’s principal balance, the best solution may be a write-down, perhaps combined with a government-orchestrated refinancing.” (Bernanke pushes government help to curb foreclosures, Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2008).
Bernanke also recommended legislation permitting the FHA to “increase its scale,” along with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CN), who are calling “for up to $300 billion in loan guarantees from the Federal Housing Administration to refinance loans that homeowners can’t afford as long as the original lender reduces the principal on the loan to 85% of the home’s current market value.” (Many problems with mortgage bailouts, CNNMoney.com, April 22, 2008).
This plan to induce lenders to write-off a portion of loans that “homeowners can’t afford,” is a very bad idea. In exchange for taking an immediate 15% write-down, the federal government will provide replacement financing, thus effectively transferring the remaining risk of loss to the taxpayers. It would favor borrowers who foolishly took larger loans than they could afford or on terms they could not handle and lenders who knowingly made high risk loans to unqualified applicants. If property values continue to drop, it would simply result in another round of defaults and losses. To his credit, President Bush has threatened to veto this legislation if Congress should pass it.
Who would we really be bailing out, anyway, lenders or borrowers? And, where would the $300 billion come from? Certainly not government reserves, because there are none, which leaves more borrowing as the source of funding.
Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway fame, currently ranked by Forbes magazine as the richest man in the world, recently told Bloomberg.com, “The worst of the crisis in Wall Street is over.” However, “in terms of people with individual mortgages, there’s a lot of pain left to come.” Mr. Buffett’s conclusion was echoed by Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, who is reported to have also said that the worst of the credit crisis is over.
According to Cyril Moulle-Berteaux, writing in the Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2008), it is very likely that the housing crisis is already over, pointing out that the current “bust is nearly three years old.” He further notes, “New home sales are down a staggering 63% from peak levels of 1.4 million. Housing starts have fallen more than 50% and, adjusted for population growth, are back to the trough levels of 1982.”
We should not be influenced by media sob stories about people losing their homes and avoid any attempts to have the government further interfere in the market. Real estate cycles have occurred many times before, and we should simply let this one finish playing out, especially since it looks as though it may have already bottomed.
Why is it that when people spend public funds they often seem to lose touch with reality? How many times have we seen individuals we consider to be upright, responsible citizens, who normally personally live within their means, suddenly become spendthrifts with a public purse? What is there about holding elective office that somehow makes it acceptable for politicians to spend more money than we can afford or to run up bills for things they would never think of doing in their personal lives?
The reflexive answer to a budget shortfall always seems to be to raise taxes. Look for something to tax, anything, but whatever you do, don’t cut back appears to be the politicians’ motto. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
The credo of most politicians appears to be: Raise taxes and expand the budget when the economy is healthy and generating more money than government needs, then raise them again to cover the shortfall when revenues decline. But, never curtail spending and never give anything back to the taxpayers if it can possibly be avoided.
Witness the annual fiscal charade that invariably takes place in California. Even with the state facing a massive budget shortfall, the state’s legislators continue to receive raises. The Sacramento Bee observed (December 3, 2007), “California pays legislators at least $30,000 more than any other state, but numerous city or county managers, auditors or school superintendents receive far higher paychecks.”
Writing in Forbes.com (9/1/03), Rich Karlgaard noted, “California took in 44% of its revenue from fewer than 10,000 capital gains tax payers in 2000. The state’s legislators insisted on basing the budget on what was clearly understood to be a temporary spike in tax revenues. When the easy money flew off, so did the tax receipts.”
Bill Leonard, a member of California’s State Board of Equalization, observed: “When California raises taxes on people the liberals define as ‘wealthy,’ the actual collections do not meet expectations. Back in 1991, Governor Wilson bought into the liberal logic for a moment and raised taxes on the upper-income brackets. The following two years, revenues were $1 billion short of forecast each year. Currently, the top one percent of taxpayers in California contributes 40 percent of the state income tax, and the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of the tax… Our tax system has gotten so hyper-progressive that a single taxpayer can affect revenue estimates. Last year a wealthy taxpayer settled his tax liability for $200 million…what is clear is the state’s spending level is already overly dependent on a few wealthy individuals gaining financial windfalls, and then paying taxes on them. We are fast running out of Californians who can do this.” (The Leonard Letter, May 5, 2008).
Furthermore, “…state spending has soared under Schwarzenegger even faster than it did under his predecessor…” His budget “spends 34% more than when he took office just four years ago. His spending plan was based on the fallacy that revenues would continue to pour into the state’s coffers.” (ibdeditorials.com, December 17, 2007).
Columnist Dan Walters noted, “The good news is that California politicians, who have sidestepped the state’s shameful and ever-worsening budget mess for six years, may finally face the music. The bad news is that they really don’t have a clue how to close the chronic deficit, given its three-dimensional nature.” (Sacramento Bee, December 16, 2007)
“The widely followed UCLA California forecast took the state to task in its 2008 outlook for a budget ‘based on a combination of overly optimistic projections of revenue, wildly optimistic assumptions that spending would decrease on its own and a handful of accounting gimmicks to make up the difference’…Anyone with half a brain knew that soaring tax revenues were about to reverse, based on the housing crash, which has hit California harder than the rest of the U.S.” (ibdeditorials.com, December 17, 2007)
Too many politicians seem to think their job requires them to spend more money - and never to save anything. No project seems to be too insignificant for them to fund. Whatever the cause, they invariably believe it’s worth the cost.
If Californians do not insist on controlling their government’s budgets, we can look for our politicians to borrow more money and/or raise taxes again to cover the shortfall. If that happens, more taxpayers will leave the state, especially businesses and “the rich,” while those who pay little or no taxes will continue to move in - a disastrous combination. It’s a serious mess!
Enlisting felons in the military has recently been highlighted by the media. Frankly, I never thought about the fact that the U.S. armed forces accept them as recruits. Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose, and perhaps a bit naïve, given the behavior that’s generally considered acceptable in our society today.
The military does, in fact, accept some felons, albeit they are a small percentage of the total enlistments. There is an established procedure for permitting them to apply and for screening the applicants, so the question appears to be more one of how it’s handled than should our armed forces be doing it at all.
CBS4denver.com recently reported, “Those numbers represent a fraction of the more than 180,000 recruits brought in by the active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines during fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. But they highlight a trend that has raised concerns both within the military and on Capitol Hill.”
The enlistment of convicted felons increased “from 824 in 2003 to 1605 in 2006. The services allow these felons to enlist under what is known as the ‘moral waivers program,’ which allows the military to examine the circumstances in which the crime was committed in order to determine the stability of the individuals and evaluate their likelihood of serving their country morally and honorably.” The factors that are considered include the age of the applicant at the crime was committed, “the possible motives for which the crime was committed, and an interview process.” (Marty Angelo Ministries, Inc., “Armed forces see increase in ex-felons enlisting,” www.martyangelo.com/ex_cons15.htm).
“The services use a waiver process to let in recruits with felon convictions, and many of the crimes were committed when the service members were juveniles.” (www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008, April 21, 2008)
A study by Michael Boucai, a visiting researcher at Georgetown University, “argues that a more forthright, well-informed and humane public engagement with the question of ex-offender enlistment could help promote the development of policies and programs for more effectively integrating ex-offenders into the Armed Forces…most of these recruits become fine service members, and military service often has a strong rehabilitative effect. The real problem is that, increasingly, the military fails to recruit the best and the brightest.” (www.palmcenter.org)
The types of offenses that qualify for moral waivers range from felonies to various degrees of traffic, i.e., both minor and serious traffic violations, and use of illegal substances. For example, the Army forgives, without granting a “moral waiver,” pre-service abuse of drugs, whereas the Marines require a “moral waiver” for even a single use of marijuana.
All things considered, should the U.S. Armed Forces accept recruits who have been convicted of a felony?
My conclusion is that they should, with proper screening, which they appear to be doing. The idea that people who get into trouble early in life should be precluded from serving their country does not make sense to me, for several reasons: 1) rehabilitation of the individuals involved, 2) training for their future occupations, and 3) the potential of careers in the service.
If everyone who ever did something wrong or ran afoul of the law when they were young is forever foreclosed from future employment opportunities, we would undoubtedly end up with many more of them re-offending. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that every young person in America should be required to serve the nation in some capacity for at least one or two years.
The term “greedy corporations” or its equivalent seems to appear regularly in commentaries about oil and gas prices, pharmaceuticals, energy, minimum wage, housing, the mortgage crisis, tax policy, etc. – just about every economic or social issue. “Greedy corporations” and, by implication, their “greedy” owners are said to be responsible for many of the ills that befall our society. However, as Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy and they is us.”
To begin with, corporations aren’t greedy or generous or socially conscious or anything else, for that matter. They are merely a legal fiction, entities created by the state for the purpose of facilitating the conduct of business. They can sue and be sued in the courts, but they do not eat, breathe, love or hate, or vote, or any of the other things that people do. So, how can they exhibit such human characteristics as greed? And, if corporations can’t actually be greedy themselves, then perhaps it is their owners and managers who are.
And, who might these terrible people be? They are your friends, relatives, neighbors, church and community leaders, directors and executives of non-profit entities, school administrators - just about any leader of any enterprise, perhaps you yourself. No doubt you may think some of them are greedy, but certainly not all, or even most of them. Who qualifies as greedy and who makes that determination? You? Or are others deciding for you?
Major corporations, such as the Fortune 500 companies, are generally owned by many thousands or millions of shareholders, often through union pension trusts, retirement plans, mutual funds and other investment entities, which assemble the power of numbers to make large investments on behalf of their individual investors - “Us.” However, for the most part, small corporations are businesses that don’t have enough economic power to influence anyone. They are usually just vehicles for managing the affairs of a business, providing a way for their owner-operators to make a living. Their profits are often not much more than wages, and not too great a wage at that. Are these the greedy corporations we read or hear about so often?
Out of a total of approximately 5.6 million corporate tax returns filed in 2004 (IRS Statistics: Number of Returns, Receipts, and Net Income by Type of Business), freerepublic.com reported that over three million small businesses were “Subchapter S” (Sub S) corporations in that year. They pay little or no income tax on their earnings because they are treated like partnerships for tax reporting purposes. These are referred to as “pass through” entities, which means they simply pass their earnings through directly to the owners, who include them on their personal income tax returns and pay taxes on the corporate profits at individual rates.
Further demonstrating the extent to which “greedy corporations” are “Us,” in their “Outline of the U.S. economy,” www.usinfo.state.gov noted, “Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)…By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees.”
If corporations can’t actually be greedy, and if their owners are, for the most part, “Us,” where does the notion of “greedy corporations” come from, and why? The obvious answer is from the media and other special interest groups, such as politicians, who want to influence the public’s view of various issues.
The public is continually duped into accepting broad brush character assassination that is intended to influence their perceptions for political purposes. Just one example is the problem of escalating oil and gas prices, which politicians repeatedly use for political theater in an effort to enhance their own credentials as crusaders who are trying to regulate the market for their constituents.
No one ever seems to point out that the very people who label someone else as greedy are, in fact, often guilty of the same behavior themselves. Taxpayers are called greedy if they want to keep their own money, but politicians who want to take it from them and spend it themselves are not. Or, large corporations, as in drug, oil and energy companies, are labeled greedy when prices go up and their profits increase but not when prices go down and they lose money. It’s Ok to lose money, but apparently it’s greedy to make it, unless, of course, we are the ones making the profit.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
