| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/20 |
| 2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high |
11/19 Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
thing. No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
properties sold to pay for the tax.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
\_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
on it. Now it's mine. I should be able to do what I want with it.
Taking it from my estate upon death means giving it to other people
who had absolutely nothing to do with earning it. Giving it to my
family & friends means giving it to people who physically,
emotionally, and/or financially helped me earn it. For example,
a man who spends all his time working has less time to spend with
his family. It cost the family something. When dad/husband is
dead, the least they should get is the money he earned for them
while away from them. Neither the government nor any strangers
getting 'entitlements' are entitled in any way to his earnings.
They already got their cut when he earned it. I have no interest
in hearing from the ultra wealthy about their solutions for the
country which always seem to involve things that don't hurt the
billionaires or their families in any way. Buffet is obviously
a great investor but he is in no position to dictate social or
tax policy for the Little People. He should stick with what he
knows: investing in successful companies other people built.
\_ You say you should be able to do what you want with your
money and not be taxed on the transfer. When you buy goods from
a merchant, you pay sales tax, even though you've already paid
\_ not all states have a sales tax. i also have a choice to
buy elsewhere or not at all. death is mandatory.
taxes on the money you used to pay the merchant (presumably).
Wealth is taxed more or less whenever it changes hands; why
should it matter if the transfer is due to death instead of a
voluntary transfer? And if you think the government didn't
help you earn that money, you need to brush up on both your
civics and your economics.
\_ the government helped. they got paid the first time.
i see no reason to pay them a second time when my family
hasn't been paid the first time and it cost them a lot
more than it did some random government chosen recipient
through random vote-buying 'entitlement' program.
if you want to tax the rich, just go for it and create a
straight wealth tax. go tax buffet a few billion a year
(i think 10% is fair) just for having money.
\_ Good luck getting your ideas implemented into law.
\_ Would you prefer to return to hereditary aristocricy? This guy
is another rich guy doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes
and would rather that someone else pay it for him. What else is new?
\_ The important thing isn't income disparity (which is increasing)
but lifestyle disparity (which is decreasing). -- ilyas
\_ What does this even mean?
\_ What it means is that income differences matter less and
less. There was a thread on this in the past. Personal
computers, cell phones, reliable cars, electronics, etc.
are getting cheaper and better all the time, which means
the poor in America can afford many of the same 'bits
of lifestyle' as the rich. This is why a straight
income comparison is misleading, the rich spend more and
more of their surplus on 'brand differentiation' not
quality. -- ilyas
\_ Not so sure of this. Look at the crappy food the poor
eat. The lead-based toys and other cheap Chinese imports
from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and their
lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
eat, their lead-filled toys, and other cheap Chinese
imports from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and
\_ It's a free country, people are free to eat and
play whatever/whenever. Ultimately, people are
responsible for their own actions. If they want
to smoke to death or play with lead laden toys,
that is their choice.
\_ Sure, but there are a lot of people who
cannot afford a healthy lifestyle even if
they want to live one. This isn't about
choice, but about opportunity. The poor eat
far more often at McDonald's because of the
price and they pay for it with their lives.
Many would probably prefer organic grassfed
beef burgers, but it's not an option for them.
\_ Like I said, this is a free country, if the
rich can afford more options, then they will
pick the better options. So what? It's been
like that way since the dawn of mankind.
How are you going to "solve the problem"
for the poor? Communism? Socialism?
More regulations?
\_ You're arguing against your own strawman.
I didn't say we need to do anything about
it. I am just disputing the assertion that
lifestyle disparity is decreasing even as
income disparity increases.
\_ I dispute that notion about McDonald's.
McDonald's is not cheap when compared to
home cooking using modest ingredients.
For example, just cooking rice/potatoes/
any commodity staple, cheap veggies,
and some cheap meat from Safeway is going
going to be healthier and cheaper than
McD's in all likelihood. However McD's is
fast. Maybe some of the poor have no time
to cook, because time is a luxury. But
I think it's mostly their own laziness:
most people can do better than McD's.
(You don't even need meat, of course.)
\_ You're very wrong. I cannot make a
double cheeseburger for myself for 99
cents even if I use the worst
ingredients I can find. Yes, I can eat
plain white rice for cheaper, but that
misses the point. My girlfriend and I
cook a lot - more than most people -
and it's always the same or more
expensive than eating fast food. Sure,
the quality is better, but it costs more.
It's cheaper than a good restaurant
meal, but not by much. Restaurants have
economies of scale that I can't match.
Maybe if you have 9 kids you start to
get close.
\_ In terms of actual food value the
rice is better, so it's not missing
the point.
Anyway, the 99 cent cheeseburger
uses frozen, crappy meat and not a lot
of it, and ultra cheap buns that are
mostly air anyway. The cheese is process
cheese. If you make your own you would
spend more because you'd use better
things, but you don't have to. There's
nothing else on that except condiments.
I think you can pretty easily make meals
that have more "food value" than those
burgers per dollar. If you really
wanted you could also cooperate with
other poor families to create that
"economy of scale" thing.
\_ We're not talking about "food
value". I am using McDonald's as
an example of the type of fast
food that the poor eat and
comparing it to the type of fast
food that the wealthy eat. If
you want to talk about cooking at
home, then the wealthy can live even
better. Your argument is "Don't
eat fast food at all" which misses
the point of the comparison. BTW, I
would be very unhappy if I ate plain
rice every day and I would harm myself
or others.
\_ We're not? I am. You said: "poor
people eat McD's because of the
low price... pay for it with
their lives... would prefer
organic grassfed". I'm just
saying that if they wanted to
they could eat tasty alternatives
that are healthier, or for not
much more, cook their own
hamburgers. I'm not saying
not to eat fast food. I'm saying
that it's a choice.
Many millions of people eat
"plain rice" every day.
\_ If you tried to subsist on a
diet of only rice, you would die.
\_ That's not what I suggested in
my original reply.
their lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
quality is much better. Are you one of those people
who thinks a handmade leather Italian shoe and a
machine-made shoe made in Mayalsia out of rubber
are equivalent because they provide equal utility
and the main difference is 'brand differentiation'?
The wealthy live better and tend to live "smaller"
in that they care more about things like
environmental toxins and political issues in
faraway lands. The poor just want the cheapest shoe
possible, regardless if it will turn their toes green.
Important products that everyone used to have, like
organic food, are now only affordable to the wealthy.
Those products are more important to a good quality
of life than the fact that LCD televisions are now in
reach of the common man.
\_ It's true that some things that were more available
in the past like organic food or hand-made furniture
are less available/more expensive today, but you are
being disingenious by ignoring the VASTLY LARGER
number of things that were invented and
made affordable to the general population. Again,
it's true that premium brands tend to be better made
(although not always, for instance luxury car brands
tend to be less reliable than hondas/toyotas).
I am merely saying that the gap in lifestyle has
been shrinking for the last 100 years. If you are
truly concerned about 'the gilded age' trends,
you need to look at lifestyle, not income. Of
course, 'lifestyle differences' are much harder to
quantify and talk about, we are not talking about
numbers in a bank account. -- ilyas
\_ In general, a bigger bank account means a
\_ In general, a bigger the bank account means a
better lifestyle. A much bigger bank account
means a much better lifestyle. I don't think
this has changed very much. I know where
you're coming from (a king in 1400 lived less
well in many ways than we commoners today)
but I don't see a trend where this disparity
has really changed much over the last, say,
40 years at least. In fact, the gap seems to
be widening if you look at statistics like
home ownership.
\_ Yes, of course income is strongly and
positively correlated with lifestyle quality.
My claim of decreasing lifestyle gap comes from
the observation that mass production,
specialization, and other capitalist
institutions result both in innovation
(invention of additional ways to improve
lifestyle), and efficiency (current lifestyle
improvements strongly tend down in price).
The only way for the lifestyle gap to be
increasing is if the number of qualitative
lifestyle changes was increasing faster due
to inventions than existing lifestyle
to inventions faster than existing lifestyle
was trending down in price. But there is
little evidence for this. Innovations
to differentiate products for wealthy
consumption seem to favor premium brands as
value-in-itself, various 'intangibles'
(like hand-crafted assembly), and health
and environmental consciousness. These things
are valuable, but that the rich increasingly
turn to these things is hardly evidence of
a widening lifestyle gap. -- ilyas
a widening lifestyle gap. (I would
be surprised if long term home ownership
trends weren't strongly positive, btw). -- ilyas
\_ How about looking at home ownership or
at the number of dual income families
compared to, say, the 1950s? Even in my
own family in the 1970s, neither my mom
or dad had a college degree and they
worked entry level jobs. They still had
a house in the suburbs, two brand
news cars, and sent the kids to private
school even though my mom took 5 years
off work to help with the kids. That
still happens in parts of the country,
but the fact that it's much less common
now is evidence that the gap is
increasing, since the rich live as
well as ever and yet the middle class
lifestyle is eroding.
\_ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
-- ilyas
\_ Home ownership has been trending up
since the 50s (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
\_ But if you look at the numbers
you'll notice that it's the
over65 segment which rose even
while more and more families
became dual income households. I
think that is significant. I also
don't think dual incomes have as
much to do with social norms as
with the need to make ends meet.
I think you acknowledge that
there is greater income disparity.
I think it is patently obvious that
what follows is a lifestyle disparity.
You can't point to a shrinking
disparity because of this
nebulous 'brand differentiation'
without more data that I haven't seen
you produce.
\_ So that's it? That's your
evidence? All this is evidence of
is that housing costs rose faster
than effective income. You need a
lot more comprehensive argument to
counteract the vast evidence for
my conclusion (for instance look
at the availability of consumer
electronics since the 70s, or
car quality, or power/price of
personal computers, or a thousand
other things). There is more to
lifestyle than a house, that's why
I say you need to average over
everything. -- ilyas
\_ Most households spend over
50% of their net income on
housing, so it's a lot more
important than anything else.
You can say that electronics has
gotten better since 1970, but
how does it follow that the
disparity between the quality of
the lifestyles of the rich and
the poor has gotten smaller?
I don't think the standard
of living now for the lower
classes in the US is higher
than ever, but it certainly
is for the wealthy. QED,
unless you want to make the
argument that the lower
classes (or even middle
class) are living better
than ever. From my observation,
I wouldn't say the middle class
lives a better lifestyle than
the 1950s even we now have
a lot more gadgets and the
average car is nicer than it
was.
\_ Your notion of 'better'
is strange and confusing.
-- ilyas
\_ Here's an idea to
help you understand: Look
at household debt now
versus at some point in
the past. Having more
useless crap doesn't mean
we live a better life.
\_ So cars, personal
computers, the internet,
home electronics,
medical advances, etc.
are 'crap?' Gotcha!
The number of dual income families has
apparently been trending up since the
50s, but that in itself is not
evidence of a 'squeeze' (but changing
social norms for women). Neither is
your anecdote. -- ilyas
your anecdote. Even changing percentages
for specific expenditures like housing
or healthcare is not, in itself,
evidence of a squeeze. (This is why
lifestyle is difficult to talk about,
you have to average over everything).
-- ilyas
\_ So you admit that people are working
longer hours, getting paid less and
having to commute more, but in the
face of all this, you claim that their
lifestyle has "improved." How about
the fact that crowding has increased
over the last decade? Food insecurity?
\_ Is it true the vast majority of
"food-insecure" adults are
overweight?
\- panem et circensus. lcd televisions in the reach
of the common man keeps people from boredom
and involved in petty politics and/or
revolutions. lcds and football games are like
the romans bread and circuses. feed 'em so they
dont starve, and keep 'em entertained...and you
wont have to worry about public unrest. it was
true in roman times, and it's at least as valid
today. panem et circensus
\- ps b i am gay
\- ps i am gay
\_ This is not psb's voice, btw.
\_ There is so much wrong with this I'm having a hard time starting.
1) False dichotomy
2) Are you saying we don't have a hereditary aristocrisy? I
guess the Kennedys don't exist?
3) Anyone with enough liquid assets can easily get around this
by:
- setting up a non-profit and donating money to it
- appointing their children as the board of directors and
compensate them quite well
4) I've just started my own business. The death tax would force
my kids to sell off my share.
\_ Who do you propose to pay the tax burden instead? How long
has America had an inheritance tax? This guy (and you) all
made money knowing full well what the rules are, why should
we change them in the middle of the game to favor you even
more? And isn't the first $5M untaxed anyway? Why should a
bunch of people who did nothing to deserve a windfall benefit
at the expense of everyone else?
\_ Here's a key concept: It's not your money to take away.
If I can't give my property to my children, I don't own it.
It's one thing to fund the government, it's another to be a
communist. -op
\_ I notice you have not answered the first question, nor
are you able to do so. You claim that anyone who is in
favor of any taxes whatsover is a communist? You are
a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy people.
a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy
people.
\_ I don't like to have conversations with stupid
people. I said "funding the gov't is one thing".
That means I understand the need for taxes. However,
once you say "why should he get money?" you're a
communist.
communist. -op
\_ So who are you going to raise taxes on instead?
I am always amused when far right wingers claim
that the position supported by an overwhelming
majority of Americans is extremism.
\_ It's not amusing when far left wingers do it?
\_ If you can give me an example of that
happening, I guess I would let you know
if I thought it was funny or not. If you
mean people like ANSWER, yeah I think they
are pretty funny.
\_ It's a bad question. The question isn't "who
should we take from", it's "if we remove this
tax, what do we do". Firstly we should
eliminate the programs that are simply wealth
transfers. That'd take care of about 60% of
the federal budget. -op
\_ So you want to eliminate Social Security
so that the wealthy don't have to pay
estate tax. I see.
\_ They're 2 separate issues. SS is going
away anyway, but yes, I'm in favor of
eliminating it. Yes, I'm in favor of
eliminating the death tax. The first is
not to provide for the 2nd. -op
\_ Which "wealth transfers" are you
talking about then? There is no way
that "wealth transfers" are 60% of
the federal budget, unless you
include SS in that 60%.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
You can quibble about the percentage
of debt payment that should be
considered devoted to "past military"
but those numbers are all up to date
and accurate. Military + VA + debt
is already half the budget. Do you
call things like the Dept of Homeland
Security a "wealth transfer"?
And the death of Social Security has
been predicted many, many times, but
so far, she is still beating strong
and overwhelming popular.
\_ Who says it's so popular? Are
payroll taxes popular?
\_ 70 years of persistance in the
face of Conservative attempts
to eliminate it speak to its
popularity. You could also google
for a poll, if you really wanted
an answer.
\_ Slavery persisted a long time
too. I could google for one,
but I thought you might already
have had a source in mind. But
no, it was just something you
pulled from your ass.
\_ You really believe that
answers the point? Social
Security enjoys upwards of
70% support in any poll you
could find. In addition,
GWB's plan's disapproval
never dropped below 60%.
You seem to be something
pulled from an ass.
--scotsman
\_ that's the 70% of people
who plan to get a lot more
out of other people's
pockets than they'll ever
pay in who have no plan
for their own retirement.
that sort of number not
only does not impress me
but worries me that this
country is turning into a
nanny state socialist pit.
\_ If you don't like
democracy, leave.
\_ Should I quote the
line about
democracy being
great until people
figure out they
can vote themselves
goodies? The motd
is full of uber
geniuses today.
\_ Quote all you
want, you undemo-
cratic, elitist
thug.
\_ I don't know but 60% is not
"overwhelming". GWB's plan
is not the only alternative
to SS. SS as implemented is
broken and regressive.
\_ It is when approval
never got above 35%.
never got above 33%.
GWB's plan wasn't about
"fixing" it. There are
broken portions, and
changes need to be made,
but the pp spoke of
eliminating it. That's
an idea that you can't
sell to this country.
\_ I love that "his fair share". Define fair share. -op
\_ Arbitrarily: 50%.
\- The only question worth asking about the Renew America columnist
is "is he stupid or does he think you are stupid" ... i.e. "is
he stupid or is he disingeuous?". If you arent interested in
speculating on that Q, not worth reading.
\_ So everyone should pay 50%? -op
\_ From each according to his means, to each according to
his needs.
\_ I am a democratic and I am opposed to the death and
inheritance tax. It should be my god given right to give my
hard earned money to my children without tax. Take 50% of
that away is just robbery, plain and simple.
\- Grover Nordquist just got his wings.
\_ You haven't done much research on this subject, have you?
\_ Odds are that if you're not the uber-rich, you will be able to
give your money to your kids with a minimum of tax.
\_ And if you are the uber-rich, you will certainly be able to
give your money to your kids with no tax at all!
\_ How? If so, what the fuck is the inheritence tax
for? The not so rich father that didn't know better?
\_ It has been argued that inheritance taxes on the rich
exist as incentives for those worthies to donate
heavily to charities.
\_ But the real reason is "because we can"
\_ That's right, the same people who fought tooth
and nail against godless communism are now
taking rich people's money because they can.
See you in the food lines, comrade.
\_ Oh boo hoo, everyone has to pay taxes and
it has been thus since Roman times. Forgive
me if I don't shed a tear for you.
\_ That's a fascinating argument. All sorts
of shitty things have been true since Roman
times. Death, for instance.
\_ I think we should bring slavery back.
It's the natural order, has been since
Roman times.
\_ I agree. MANIFEST DESTINY!!!
\_ Yes, we should outlaw death too. That
will work. Why not move someplace where
is no functioning government and therefore
no taxes? I think Somalia is a libertarian
paradise. You can have all the guns you
want, too.
is no functioning government and
therefore no taxes? I think Somalia is
a libertarian paradise. You can have all
the guns you want, too.
\_ Dailykos talking points!
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ Please give some examples of this happening.
\_ Cf. Gallo
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k15 (PBS)
Are you referring to this? It says here that
they paid their taxes, but over a number of years.
Do you mean something else?
\_ Check out the Straight Dope article. You're right,
they didn't avoid the tax entirely, but they've
reduced it significantly.
\_ By what percentage was their tax reduced? I
am not being contentious, I am just curious. |
| 5/20 |
|
| www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824 us Search: Submit Latest columns Alan Keyes Endowed by their Creator Wes Vernon The McCarthy investigations Grant Swank Pilgrims, Thanksgiving, and God Jim Kouri Politicians pander using taxpayers' money Warner Todd Huston The dangers of DNA research Matt C Abbott Fr. Catholic activist: hierarchy knew of now-defrocked monsignor's problems Madeline Crabb The 2008 election and the Church Donald Hank Silencing dissidents by snatching their children Grant Swank 100% pro-life Huckabee. Jim Kouri Bush accused of treating terrorists better than imprisoned Border Patrol agents Robert Meyer Grassley's investigation: Is it greener on the other side? Matt C Abbott Priest saddened by EWTN priest's departure; But I don't want to die for the IRS or for Warren Buffett. But the way the death tax law is written, if I want to pass on to my spouse and my kids the results of all the long hours and road trips, and moving from one end of the country to the other over the years in pursuit of feeding the family and building toward retirement, 2010 is the year I will have to die. Otherwise, the IRS will be standing by with its hand out before my grieving family can touch the money. Never mind that for years, the IRS (and state and local taxers as well) reached out and snatched up gobs of my hard-earned cash before I got to see any of it. As indicated above, this whole thing is getting personal not just for little old me, but for you and everyone in the country who owns a home to say nothing of small family farm or a business. As explained in a previous column, left-wingers on Capitol Hill forced President Bush in 2001 to compromise and phase out the inheritance tax over several years, with a proviso that once it fades out completely in the year 2010, it will pop up again at the previous full rate in 2011. So if you don't want your kids to be forced to sell the home they grew up in, 2010 is the year to die. If you wait and die in 2011, Warren Buffett and the IRS will thank you. Nancy Pelosi says repealing the Death Tax is "reverse Robin Hood." And isn't Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, amongst those good warm-hearted humanitarian liberals who warn us against the evil "rich"? And isn't Warren Buffett the world's second richest man? You mean the fact that he can't keep up with Bill Gates makes him a charity case? Liberal columnist Mark Shields has cited Buffett as a rare "good CEO." Ditto John Kerry, whose failed bid for the presidency last year cited Buffet's opposition to Death Tax repeal as an example of the mogul's civic minded concern for the common good, even though "he just got a bonanza." But it turns out Buffett has a financial interest in keeping the Death Tax on the books. For that, we are indebted to the research of Dick Patten's American Family Business Institute (AFBI) and by the Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau, whose intrepid pursuit of facts made him one of the most tenacious reporters in Washington during his stints with Investor's business Daily and Insight magazine. Last year, he imparted some interesting tid-bits on Warren Buffett for National Review Online. Buffet is the biggest stockholder in Berkshire Hathaway. He benefits from what Berlau calls "the destructive impact of the estate tax" which forces the grieving families of deceased breadwinners to sell off the property just to pay this pernicious tax whose class hatred motivation is to punish the kids whose parents had the foresight to plan for their future. The heirs have nine months in which to pay the Death Tax. While under the gun of that time limit, they are often forced to sell property of the deceased at fire sale rates. Berkshire Hathaway is in the business of playing the role of a more than willing buyer. The company scoops up property at below market value, and then takes its time to sell it at a tidy profit. Mr Buffett is also in the insurance business and, according to research by AFBI, one purpose of his operation is to sell insurance to enable people to pay the Death Tax. So it appears that if the Death Tax goes away, Mr Buffett loses in two ways. Fewer people will be willing to buy Death Tax insurance (if that's the right name for it), and fewer heirs will be willing to sell homes or small farms to his holding company. Kerry had one thing right about Buffett: "He's got a bonanza." Buffett has said we should not get rid of the Death Tax because that would be like "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the Gold Medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." Better that the money should go to needy causes such as Berkshire Hathaway. Now as to the politics of all this: Believe it or not, Senate liberals actually are set to impose a filibuster against the repeal of the Death Tax. one wonders why they would choose this as a "hill to die on," as they say. Or perhaps a maniacal fear of money in the hands of taxpayers instead of government bureaucrats? They might want to revisit the lesson of last year's Senate campaign in South Dakota. Democrat Tom Daschle thought he good pull the wool over the eyes of the folks back home even though he liked the Death Tax. Even though the race was close, his defeat was notable, given that he was the Senate's top Democrat. They know homeowners (57% of Americans) and other property owners will be watching. But if they're willing to follow the radical Left over the cliff of class hatred, that's their decision. That brings the issue down to a very personal level for me and millions of other Americans. Michael Moore, the foul-mouthed agitator who produced a movie last fall whose undisguised aim was to bring down President Bush, burst on the scene years ago with the movie "Roger and Me" Moore, of course, starred himself in a flick whose whole "plot" was about his following General Motors Chairman Roger Smith and badgering him to explain a business decision that supposedly would make Flint, Michigan "a ghost town." The whole movie centered on his effort to interview Smith. Of course, he would decide how to frame the questions and what to leave on the cutting room floor. Maybe I should do a movie chasing Warren Buffett around the world with a demand that he explain what he's got against the millions of homeowners in America or the small family farmers in South Dakota or a newsstand operator in Brooklyn or an independent diner-restaurant owner on Main Street, USA. Why should Buffett and the IRS pick up the pieces while these Americans whose earnings had already been taxed through one or more previous tax cycles are forced to cough up more after they meet their rewards? Maybe an original title: "Warren and Me" Time is running short. You might want to contact your senators, but you'll have to do it soon. |
| www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html Related Sites Historical Census of Housing Tables Homeownership by Selected Demographic and Housing Characteristics Homeownership rates in the United States and each state are presented for homes within different types of structures, one-person households, recent movers, and householders by age. Generally, homeownership rates rose in each decade since 1950, except in the 1980s when it remained unchanged increasing from 55 percent in 1950 to 66 percent in 2000. But, there was considerable variability among different household and housing types. Homeownership of one-family detached homes rose significantly in the 1950s, modestly in the 1960s and 1970s, dropped slightly in the 1980s, and shows an extremely small increased in the 1990s, reaching 87 percent in 2000 (see graph). For apartments in buildings with 5 or more units, homeownership rates have always been very low. Mobile homes (manufactured housing), like one-family detached homes, have always had very high homeownership rates. Among those who live alone, homeownership rates remained in the low 40 percents from 1950 to 1980, rising to 49 percent in 1980 and over 50 percent in 2000. In 1950, homeownership rates for one-person households were highest in three Midwest states: Iowa, Kansas, and North Dakota. However, in 2000, the highest rates were primarily found in the South, such as West Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida. The homeownership rate among recent movers was consistently in the lower 30 percents from 1960 to 1980, dropped to 29 percent in 1990, and rebounded to 34 percent in 2000. Its homeownership rate among recent movers was consistently in the lower 40 percents, dropped to 28 percent in 1990, and rose to 39 percent in 2000. Recent movers are defined as those who move into their homes in the 15 months prior to the decennial census. Among young homeowners, those under 35 years of age, the homeownership rate was fairly consistent over time. Between 1940 and 1990 it was in the low 40 percents, and dropped slightly to 39 percent in 2000. Rates for this group are not available prior to 1970 at the national level and are not available at the state level prior to 1980. Older householders (65 years and over) have always had high homeownership rates. Their homeownership rate increased from 68 percent in 1950 to 78 percent in 2000, rising fastest between 1980 (70 percent) and 1990 (75 percent). In 1960, only a small number of states had homeownership rates for older householders at 80 percent or more. By 2000, almost one-half of the states had rates at that level, with Utah topping the list at 87 percent. State homeownership rates are not available for this group prior to 1960. Alaska and Hawaii are NOT included in US total for 1950. |
| www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm GIF (4682 bytes) Current Military $727 billion: Military Personnel $136 billion Operation & Maint. Office of President $1 billion other military (non-DoD) $1 billion plus ... anticipated supplemental war spending requests of $20 billion in addition to $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan wars already incorporated into figures above Past Military, $461 billion: Veterans Benefits $85 billion Interest on national debt $376 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending) Human Resources $748 billion: Health/Human Services Soc. General Government $295 billion: Interest on debt (20%) Treasury Government personnel Justice Dept. Homeland Security (17%) International Affairs NASA (50%) Judicial Legislative other general govt. Physical Resources $116 billion: Agriculture Interior Transportation Homeland Security (17%) HUD Commerce Energy (non-military) Environmental Protection Nat. Commission other physical resources Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes FY 2008 Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion FY2008 federal piechart HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED C urrent military includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (eg, Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top). the government's deceptive pie chart Source:Washington Post , Feb. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds such as Social Security that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or dont pay) by April 17, 2007, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page. Hang Up on War Refuse to pay the federal excise tax on local phone service (the tax on long distance phone service was eliminated in 2006). This tax has been used symbolically as a war tax since the Spanish-American War * Leaflet with this flyer between now and Tax Day, Tuesday, April 17, 2007. There are peace groups around the country -- get out and be visible against the war! Whatever you choose to refuse--$1, $10, the 7% that pays for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or more -- send a letter to elected officials and tell them why. Though illegal, thousands of people openly participate in this form of protest. You can take control of your paycheck and avoid contributing to the military. Contact us for information or referral to a counselor near you. Contribute resisted tax money to organizations working to help people, provide needed services, or care for victims of war. Call the GI Rights Hotline if you are in the military and need help: 800-394-9544. RESOURCES You can order the following resources from the WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE, 339 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012. Click here to download Copies of the print version of this piechart are available for 10 each (1-199), 7 each (200 or more), 6 each (500+) plus 20% postage. You can also download an Adobe Acrobat version of it by clicking on the image to the left. El piechart en el espaol -- FY2008 * For sample brochures and resources on war tax resistance, send a self-addressed stamped (63) envelope to War Resisters League at the New York address below. Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 41%, and the War Resisters League claims 51%. Different groups have different purposes in how they present the budget figures. WRL's goal has been to show the percentage of money that goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying -- or not paying -- their federal taxes would know what portion of their payments are military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for different fiscal years. There are at least five different factors to consider when analyzing the US budget: * discretionary spending vs. Center for Defense Information (CDI) has used "discretionary" spending -- budget items that Congress is allowed to tinker with -- which excludes so-called "mandatory" spending items (such as interest on the national debt and retirement pay). WRL does not make such distinctions and lumps them together. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt. How much of the debt is considered "military" varies from group. Consequently, FCNL reports that 41% of the FY2006 budget is military (28% current military and 13% past military). WRL's figures are 51% of the FY2008 budget (31% current -- which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars -- and 20% past). WRL uses "outlays" rather than "budget authority," which is often preferred by the government, news media, and groups such as CDI. Outlays refer to spending done in a particular fiscal year, whereas budget authority refers to new spending authorized over a period of several future years. Consequently, CDI reported $421 billion in FY2005 budget authority for the military and $2,200 billion "over the next five years." While WRL reports outlays of $707 billion, plus an anticipated $20 billion in supplemental spending requests for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plus $461 billion in past military spending -- totaling $1,188 billion -- just for FY2008. Not all military spending is done by the Department of Defense. For example, the Department of Energy is responsible for nuclear weapons. Consequently, calculations of military spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the department or agency in charge of it. However, not everyone agrees what constitutes a military function. For example, WRL includes the 66% of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in military spending, while other groups do not. WRL uses "federal funds" rather than the "unified budget" figures that the government prefers. Federal funds exclude trust fund money (eg, social security), which is raised separately (eg, the FICA and Medicare deductions in paychecks) and is specifically ear-marked for particular programs. By combining trust funds with federal funds, the percentage of spending on the military appears smaller, a deceptive practice first used by the government in the late 1960s as the Vietnam War became more and more unpopular. Finally, there is some variation in figures because different fiscal years are used. FCNL sometimes does their analysis for the most recent completed year or FY2006 (Oct. WRL homepage Believing war to be a crime against humanity, the War Resisters League, founded in 1923, advocates Gandhian nonviolence as the method for creating a democratic society free of war, racism, sexism, and human exploitation. |
| www.csua.org/u/k15 Ernest Gallo Ernest Gallo is the hard-charging patriarch of the family-owned E&J Gallo Winery in Modesto, California. The company is the largest winemaker in the world, and the producer of several popular brands including Carlo Rossi wines and Bartles & Jaymes wine coolers. It is also a political powerhouse which over the years has given millions of dollars to candidates of both parties. For all its success, the business has in some ways kept a low profile. Eighty-six year-old Ernest Gallo gives few interviews and the winery offers none of the tours and tastings found at other California vineyards. Ernest Gallo was born in 1909 in the Sierra Nevada foothills of California, the first son of Italian immigrants. He grew up learning his father Joe's grape-growing business along with his two younger brothers, Julio and Joe. In 1933 the family was scarred by a tragedy when the boys' parents were found dead, an apparent murder/suicide in which the elder Joe shot his wife and then himself. Following his parents' deaths, Ernest became head of the family and the business. Ernest oversaw the winery's sales operations, Julio handled production, and youngest brother Joe was an employee. Ernest pushed to build the company, aiming at a broad national market and driving himself and his employees hard. He sometimes worked sixteen-hour days and took long sales trips around the country by car. In 1936, he reportedly was hospitalized six months for exhaustion. With the end of Prohibition, the Gallo brothers set out to dominate what was then a relatively small and down-market American wine industry. Ernest wanted the company to be the "Campbell Soup company of the wine industry" and effectively marketed cheap, fortified (20% alcohol content) wines like White Port and Thunderbird in inner city markets. A radio jingle for perhaps the Gallos' most notorious product went like this: "What's the word? According to author Ellen Hawkes, who wrote an unauthorized history of the Gallo family called Blood and Wine, Ernest later delighted in telling the story of driving through a tough, inner city neighborhood. Seeing a man on the sidewalk, Gallo rolled down his window and called out, "What's the word?" As the company grew, eventually becoming the largest winemaker in the country and then the world, it struggled to shed its low-rent image. A New Yorker cartoon about winedrinkers captured the dilemma. The drawing warmed the heart of Ernest Gallo and now hangs in his Modesto, California office. Ernest Gallo's approach to the political system is guided by the same lack of snobbishness. He goes wherever the market is and gives substantial campaign donations to both Republicans and Democrats. He and his late brother Julio -- who died in a 1993 auto accident -- used to divide the political chores in the same way they divided their winery responsibilities. Julio gave more to Republicans and Ernest largely to Democrats. The Gallos learned the value of political connections as they built their wine empire and dealt with liquor regulators at the national, state, and sometimes county levels. They contributed to the campaigns of then-Congressman Leon Panetta, US Senator Alan Cranston, and California Governor Pete Wilson. In 1978, Cranston pushed an amendment custom-tailored to allow the family to spread inheritance tax payments out over several years through the Senate. As the family has grown, so has its fortune, and Ernest has long been anxious to protect the business he plans to leave to his heirs. The 1978 measure was dubbed "the Gallo wine amendment" by Kansas Senator Bob Dole. In 1986, however, when Congress was changing the tax code, Dole took a different tack. When Dole supported a second tax amendment lobbied for by the Gallos, his PAC received $20,000 from Ernest, Julio and their wives in one day. The amendment passed and Bob Dole was on his way to cementing his relationship with the Gallos, who according to federal campaign records, have since become his top career benefactors. The Gallos have contributed $381,000 to Dole over the years and about $900,000 to foundations with which the Senator has been connected. Ernest Gallo has also been helpful to President Clinton who made him a co-chair of a fundraising lunch in San Francisco last September. Ernest raised $100,000 in a matter of days for that event. This was only weeks after Ernest had had a private meeting with the President, according to The Los Angeles Times, to discuss Chilean wine imports. The Gallo support for President Clinton and Majority Leader Dole paid off. Not only did Congress delay any action to increase Chilean wine imports this fall, but it passed increased funding for a wine promotion program that gives Gallo millions of dollars to promote its wines overseas. A bipartisan group of Senators derided the program this past October as one of a "dirty dozen" examples of corporate welfare, but the program has survived and its funding has been increased. Meanwhile, Ernest has taken the same hardball approach to family as he has to politics. In 1989 Ernest won a bitter court battle with his brother Joe who claimed that his elder brothers had denied him the share in the family business left to him by his parents. Joe was also barred from marketing a brand of cheese using the family name Gallo. As a result, the elderly brothers, to whom family had once meant so much, are now estranged. |