Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Taking Mo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Taking Mo

    http://exiledonline.com/manhattans-w...re/#more-23949

    This article was first published in the New York Press.
    Wall Street bankers and retired hedge fund billionaires have been talking about fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, preparing the masses for austerity measures and cuts in social services—which we are told are regrettable, of course, but necessary nonetheless. Well, here is the perfect welfare program for the bailout queens to show off their fiscally conservative chops: Let’s see them cut federal farm subsidies, which funnel billions of dollars to the richest Americans, including notables like Ted Turner, David Letterman, Scottie Pippen, Paris Hilton’s grandpa, Charles Schwab, Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen and just about every single one of Sam Walton’s degenerate heirs.

    Most people know next to nothing about this $20 billion-a-year welfare for the rich program, probably because the billionaires want it that way. Why get the masses worked up? Best to let them think the $200 billion they spent from 1995 through 2006 went to friendly farmers with cute farmhouses, rather than to Chevron or Kenneth Lay. Better to let urban entrepreneurs call themselves backyard farmers and toil away for the locavore movement, than to realize that their rich neighbors are reaping actual “farm” subsidies.

    Now, farm subsidies weren’t always this criminal and, until fairly recently, had been doing what New Deal programs were designed to do: help the little guy. But the freemarket “reforms” of the Reagan-Clinton Era warped the welfare, redirecting farm subsidies from the have-nots to the have-mores, bankrupting all but the biggest farmers and depositing farm subsides into the bank accounts of the rich.

    There’s no need to go to Iowa to see this welfare-for-the-rich in action. You can see it on the Upper East Side, where billionaire elites collect huge welfare checks from the government just for being rich, while a few blocks away, in one of the poorest, most ghettoized districts in the United States, the city’s black population is being purged from food stamp rolls for smoking some dope. Because, as Mayor Rudy Giuliani once wisely said, “As soon as they stop being dependent on the government, they’re moving in a much healthier direction.”

    Norman B. Champ Jr: Wall Street Welfare Prince
    But brutal freemarket ideas don’t apply to members of Manhattan’s genteel farmer class, even billionaires like Norman B. Champ III, who received nearly a half-million dollars in welfare payments for poor farmers, despite the fact that he lives in a multimillion dollar co-op at 828 Park Avenue. From 1995 to 2006, he raked in a total of $405,807 in dairy, corn and soy subsidies via his stake in the Champ family’s dairy farm in Missouri, his home state. Handout-for-handout, even Reagan’s mythic Cadillac-driving Chicago welfare queen and her $150,000 welfare scam got nothing on Champ, who could buy a Lamborghini and still have money left over to reupholster his private jet.

    Norman B. Champ III, 47, was born into a wealthy, upper-crust Missouri family and lived a privileged life (the Champs had a Missouri village named after them in their honor: the Village of Champ). He graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, went to England for a masters in war studies from King’s College and earned a law degree—cum laude, of course—from Harvard, after which he finally settled down at Chilton Investment Company, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. He had added three titles to his name—Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer—by the time the markets crashed. He lost no time jumping ship to a cushy government job with the Securities and Exchange Commission, coming on board in January 2010 to start a new life as a financial regulator at the SEC’s New York Inspections and Examinations Division. He now leads a team of 100 hardworking investigators in a crusade to crack down on the shady dealings of his hedge-fund buddies.

    An upper-crust billionaire type who lives in one of the nation’s wealthiest ZIP codes and collects welfare meant for struggling farmers? Whatta champ!

    He might not be what most of us expect a welfare queen to look like, but that’s only because we have been duped by the whole poverty thing, convinced that the crumbs we throw the needy are a huge burden on our budget. So we look for any way to cut them off. For those who want to observe a real subsidy queen in his natural habitat, there’s no better place than Park Avenue. I am not trying to be ironic here. The people are literally welfare queens: They live where queens live and take money from the poor like queens do.

    Map to the Subsidy Stars
    Billionaires Leonard Lauder, Mark Rockefeller and his dad, David Rockefeller, are just a few of the more famous names exploiting their salt-of-the-earth legal status. Over the past decade, however, millions of dollars in corn, dairy, peanuts, cotton, soy and livestock subsidy payments from the federal government have gone to countless rich rank-and-file Manhattanites few people have ever heard of: It’s all right there in the farm subsidy database maintained by the Environmental Working Group. William Lesse Castleberry, a tax attorney who oversees leveraged buyouts, received $133,680 in cotton subsidies through an Arkansas farm. Mary W. Heller, a photographer with a studio on East 74th Street, got $143,783 via a farm in Kansas for growing wheat and sorghum. William Philip Walsh, who recently purchased a $2.9 million luxury condo with interior design done by Armani, was paid $212,463 to not farm his land. Phyllis A. Joyner, a 77-year old peanut farmer with a swanky Greenwich Village apartment and over $7 million worth of beautiful land in rural Virginia, received $239,624 for her peanut crops.

    They’re not your typical crusty overalls wearing farmers. But then, the small family farmers we picture in our heads, who live on their land with their family and rise with the rooster to milk the cows, aren’t around much these days (except maybe in Brooklyn backyard imaginations). And if they are, they probably aren’t receiving any assistance from the federal government anyway, says Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. “American taxpayers have been writing farm subsidy checks to wealthy absentee land owners, state prison systems, universities, public corporations, and very large, well-heeled farm business operations without the government so much as asking the beneficiaries if they need our money,” explained Cook in 2007, when his organization published a database of farm subsidy recipients from USDA records.

    It wasn’t meant to be this way. Farm subsidies first began as part of the New Deal and were designed to help small, family farms struggling through the Great Depression. These days, this well-intentioned program exists only in name. Successive deregulation and various other freemarket “reforms” have turned farm subsidies into just another welfare-for-the-rich program, bypassing the very farmers it was designed to help and depositing billions in taxpayer money straight into the bank accounts of corporations and wealthy Americans.

    Here’s what the New Deal program looks like today, after Reaganism had a couple of go’s at it: From 1995 to 2006, the federal government spent about $200 billion on agricultural subsidies, 75 percent of which ended up in the bank accounts of the richest top 10 percent of farmers. It’s welfare in reverse, taking from the many and giving it to the wealthy. And the richer you are, the more assistance you deserve.
    You can see this logic at work in Manhattan, where the fattest farm subsidy checks are mailed to the richest zip codes. Like the $825,346.56 addressed to Kent M. Klineman at ZIP code 10020, one of Manhattan’s wealthiest, with an average income of more than $500,000: 10 times higher than the rest of America. In fact, Klineman, who got the cash from 1995 to 2006 for growing wheat and sunflowers and raising livestock on a South Dakota cattlebreeding ranch called Eagle Pass Ranch, just might be the most subsidized farmer in Manhattan. But you probably wouldn’t have caught this 77-year-old Harvard Law School grad (this alma mater appears quite often among Manhattan’s subsidy queens) at the ranch, shoveling and trucking manure and inseminating the sows. Judging by SEC records, Klineman is more of a wheeling and dealing finance type, running venture capital companies, private investment funds and assorted dubious finance companies. Also keep in mind that in 1974, Klineman was among 13 people indicted on various fraud charges in a 100-million Madoff-style Ponzi scheme that involved selling millionaires and movie stars fraudulent shares in an oil-drilling outfit called Home-Stake Production Co., by promising astronomical returns, which were paid out not from profits but from money put in by the newest round of sucker investors. Liza Minnelli, Barbra Streisand, Bob Dylan, Barbara Walters and Mike Nichols, among others, were purportedly bilked for hundreds of thousands of dollars. But it wasn’t just naďve Hollywood entertainers that were scammed. The heads of some of America’s biggest corporations, including the president of American Express, the chairman of General Electric, and the chairman of Pepsi, were all caught up in the scam. In the end, the scam’s ringleader—Robert S. Trippett— got away with a scolding and a small fine, while charges against Klineman were eventually dropped.

    But in the mid-90s, Klineman was implicated in another securities swindle, this time a mini version of an Enron stock pump-and-dump operation, which involved some two-bit computer company called EIS International. Whatever scam they were running, a shareholder class action lawsuit against Klineman and his partners alleged that Klineman, who EIS’s company’s Treasurer and Director, intentionally disseminated misleading information to investors the the aim of inflating the company’s stock and then cashed out just before the whole scam imploded, making over $1 million in the process. A settlement was reached nearly a decade later, forcing Klineman and two of his business buddies to fork over $3.9 million (plus a million or so in fees) to the scammed shareholders.

    Like Carlito, Klineman “never convicted on no dope.” But even if he was slapped with a felony or two, there would be no reason for him to panic. His sweet $69,000 a year farm subsidy would continue unaffected, regardless of his criminal history. That’s nice, because if Klineman was a food stamp pawn living in Harlem, or any other ghetto in America, he’d have to deal with a harsh Clinton-era welfare reform that introduced poor people to the “one strike you’re out” law that forbids states to provide food stamps or cash-assistance to anyone with a single drug-related felony conviction, permanently—as in for life. “No one, including pregnant women or people participating in drug treatment, is exempt from the ban.” New York was kind enough to begin the lifetime exclusion only after the second conviction.

    “What, you think you like me? You ain’t like me motherfucker, you a punk.”
    Farmers have come to expect preferential treatment from the government. While the rest of us are constantly slapped with new laws, regulations, taxes and fees, farmers have been left to do their own thing because they are too fragile to be squeezed for cash like the off-farm masses. Aside from being exempt from things like zoning laws (a farmer’s property is taxed at a fraction of its market value), they get tax breaks, tax credits, tax abatements and all sorts of other perks that shrink their overall tax exposure to just about nothing, regardless of their wealth. So not only do they milk taxpayers for billions in subsidies, they do not even contribute their fair share.

    Subsidies and tax breaks? That’s free money times two. Naturally, the rich have been exploiting America’s kindly treatment of its farmers from day one, widening loopholes, relaxing restrictions and turning farms into personal tax havens and petty cash machines that allowed them to give less, while taking more.

    Even a Capitalist Hall of Fame family like the Rockefellers, known for their generous charities and contributions to culture, turn out to receive government welfare.

    Mark F. Rockefeller, a fourth-generation industrialist, probably had taxes on his mind when he purchased roughly 5,000 acres of farmland in Swan Valley, Idaho, and started receiving subsidy checks at his capitalist lair in the Rockefeller Plaza. Starting in 2001, the federal government has been giving him $54,500 a year to not farm his land. That’s right: The government gives your money to a member of the ultimate capitalist clan, which has a combined worth of more than $200 billion, to just laze around, not work and let his fields weed over. It’s what they call a “conservation payment” program, in which the government pays farmers to convert their land into something natural, like wetlands or whatever other eco-friendly habitat might be appropriate for the environment.

    It worked out well for Rockefeller. By some strange coincidence, his farmland happened to be right next to an upscale fly-fishing resort he opened up with his wife in 1999. The place, called South Fork Lodge, plays host to groups of rich, middle aged men who pay $1,000 a day to fish in elegance and beauty with a personal fly-fishing guide. According to its website, “South Fork Lodge rests on a dramatic bend of eastern Idaho’s world famous South Fork of the Snake River in scenic Swan Valley. As you prepare to spend your day on one of the most scenic and majestic fly-fishing rivers in America, you will marvel at the breathtaking views from your room or the Lodge patio.”

    What their guests probably don’t know is that they’ll be paying for some of those views twice: once to South Fork Lodge and once to Mark F. Rockefeller himself.

    Rockefeller gets double the welfare by gaming the generous tax breaks built into agricultural land. It appears that instead of having South Fork Lodge own the land surrounding the resort and suffer the full force of a normal property tax rate, Rockefeller has had the business buy up just enough property to house the hotel’s various structures, while he purchased all the open space the resort needed—riverfront real estate for fly-fishing, outdoor activities and background scenery—in his own name and dedicated it to farming.

    It’s win-win for Rockefeller’s business, allowing South Fork Lodge to offer commercial services on land for which he pays almost no taxes. The lodge charges $1,700 per night for its outdoor safari type quarters, complete with servants and a personal chef, which they offer to guests who want to rough it in a “gorgeous wilderness retreat nestled in the cottonwoods and aspens of the South Fork of the Snake River Canyon Section.”

    A tax free slice of Rockefeller heaven
    Two of Rockefeller’s spinoff businesses— which provide guided fly-fishing trips—also exploit the tax-free property, using it for private boat-launches, riverfront access and camping. If you were wondering why wealthy guys like him would go all the way out to places like Idaho for a lousy couple of grand in subsidies, do the math: He’s making a fortune off the land. Rockefeller pays a pitiful property tax of roughly $10 per acre, something like 1/60th of what it should be. Adding up the 5,000 acres or so, he gets a massive tax break of $500,000 or more.

    But rich subsidy queens don’t need to travel far to filch their fair share of taxpayer wealth; they can do it right where they live and work.

    Failed dot-com entrepreneur Craig Winn lives in Albemarle, Va., and paid $1,000 in taxes on a $3.5 million estate by converting its 50 acres into conserved farmland. All his rich neighbors, including pop culture hacks Dave Matthews and John Grisham, enrolled their land in the tax saver program, too. Hell, even Walt Disney World became a farmer by putting some cows to pasture on its land in Orlando to shave millions off its tax bill. Hewlett-Packard opened up a Christmas tree farm on its massive Houston campus, which saved it (and cost Houston) half a million dollars a year in taxes.

    No wonder America is starting to feel like a third-world country. Fighting two wars and bailing out banks is enough without having the rich plundering our country right out from under us. It’s not just property taxes, either. In the past decade, two-thirds of corporations doing business on U.S. soil paid no income taxes. The rich aren’t just not paying their fair share, they’re not paying anything at all.

  • #2
    Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

    Terrific article, c1ue! I wish I had had the second last line at my fingertips in a coversation I just had. ("In the past decade, two-thirds of corporations doing business on U.S. soil paid no income taxes.")

    I just had a phone discussion with an otherwise very nice nurse from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, our health insurance company. When I complained that Blue Cross wouldn't cover a medication that works very well for me, insisting that I get a cheaper and less effective medication, she explained that Blue Cross is having trouble with high costs in Massachusetts. (She was calling me from North Carolina.) The reason health insurance in Massachusetts is so expensive, she explained, is because everybody has to be covered. What's worse, she said, is that, "You know, a lot of those people who can't afford insurance buy it right before they're going to get sick." (The bastards!)

    When I said we should have single-payer health care like they have in Europe, where people get better care and live longer than us, she said, "Yes, but look at those high taxes." I responded, "We pay high taxes too, and all we get for them are bombs." If only I had known to say, "In the past decade, two-thirds of corporations doing business on U.S. soil paid no income taxes."

    Thanks for the excellent piece.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

      Very similar thing here in Europe with Farm Subsidies. The bigger you are the more you get.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

        Dave, you clearly need a little help here. We need to further cut corporate taxes- to stimulate the economy.

        I thought everybody knew that.

        (Where's the sarcastic 'smiles' in our choices! Needed here.)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

          Originally posted by don View Post
          Dave, you clearly need a little help here. We need to further cut corporate taxes- to stimulate the economy.

          I thought everybody knew that.

          (Where's the sarcastic 'smiles' in our choices! Needed here.)
          The phrase, "two-thirds of corporations doing business on U.S. soil paid no income taxes" means nothing with regards to the rates of taxation on businesses.
          Let me ask you a question: if a corporation with $X in assets makes no profit over a given time period, should they pay income taxes?

          According to the article linked in the useless statement made by Dave Stratman, "The report neither identified any companies nor specified how they avoided tax liability."

          So how can you possibly derive any conclusions on how heavy or light the tax rate is when you have literally no meaningful information?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

            Originally posted by don View Post
            Dave, you clearly need a little help here. We need to further cut corporate taxes- to stimulate the economy.

            I thought everybody knew that.

            (Where's the sarcastic 'smiles' in our choices! Needed here.)
            Yes, but! You see, what we have today is a weird not so new socialist system that defines success as being a part of a government sponsored organisation and the only mechanism they recognise that will enable prosperity is grants from sub departments. For example, here in Europe, it is now quite impossible for any individual, such as an inventor, to get at any funding for development of their invention. Yes, they will SAY the funding is there, but it is only there if the inventor gets into bed with an existing major company or a government department. Free enterprise by the individual is distinctly frowned upon. To claim to be an INDIVIDUAL is to immediately place yourself into the line of fire. Such socialist systems do not like individuals; they want team players.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

              Originally posted by Ghent12
              The phrase, "two-thirds of corporations doing business on U.S. soil paid no income taxes" means nothing with regards to the rates of taxation on businesses.
              Let me ask you a question: if a corporation with $X in assets makes no profit over a given time period, should they pay income taxes?
              Certainly the above statement inarguable.

              But let me ask a different question:

              Why would these corporations exist at all if they don't actually make any money?

              A second question would be:

              Why would anyone put any money in a corporation that doesn't actually make a profit?

              Certainly the stock market doesn't reflect the fact that 2/3rds of the companies aren't unprofitable.

              As Chris Coles has noted, the present system is screwed up in so many ways it is indescribable - not least which the real profits being made are not being taxed in order to support the societies said corporations live off of.

              What is far more likely is that many of the members of this 2/3rds group use all sorts of dodges, tricks, and accounting flim flam to reduce their tax burdens to zero.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                Certainly the above statement inarguable.

                But let me ask a different question:

                Why would these corporations exist at all if they don't actually make any money?

                A second question would be:

                Why would anyone put any money in a corporation that doesn't actually make a profit?

                Certainly the stock market doesn't reflect the fact that 2/3rds of the companies aren't unprofitable.

                As Chris Coles has noted, the present system is screwed up in so many ways it is indescribable - not least which the real profits being made are not being taxed in order to support the societies said corporations live off of.

                What is far more likely is that many of the members of this 2/3rds group use all sorts of dodges, tricks, and accounting flim flam to reduce their tax burdens to zero.
                Your main point is certainly well-taken. The system is horribly corrupt and distorted. That's what tax codes of impossible breadth and depth do.

                An answer to your questions would be: capital being squandered, lost, or transferred outside this nation. That's somewhat easy to recognize, given the time frame between 1998-2005. Individuals profit occasionally, but not necessarily corporations as much. Still, many did profit.

                Additionally, the stock market indices reflect mostly large corporations, which are hardly the majority.

                A more philosophical question: why should the government ever want to tax profits--the rewards for providing a desired service/product and the whole and sole incentive for providing more of said service/product?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                  Some one once said what the point in collecting taxes when the government continues to run budget deficits and continues to increase the debt. Arguing who and what rates should be paid at this point is pointless, the system continues to get more corrupt and delusional. It is survival of the fittest now.

                  PS an article similar to this was run in the WSJ about 2 years ago, this is well known and out in the open.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                    Originally posted by Ghent12
                    An answer to your questions would be: capital being squandered, lost, or transferred outside this nation. That's somewhat easy to recognize, given the time frame between 1998-2005. Individuals profit occasionally, but not necessarily corporations as much. Still, many did profit.

                    Additionally, the stock market indices reflect mostly large corporations, which are hardly the majority.
                    I've said this before (I think), but I'll say it again: while certainly some of the 'non-profit' might be due to the reasons above, I'd bet money that it is not the primary reason.

                    My experience with this is personal: in 1992, my mother was put onto a scheme by her accountant where she paid a $80K down payment on a fiber optic ditch digging machine. Said machine was then leased to another person - the actual operator - who then took over insurance, remaining payments via the lease, etc etc. with a buyout after 2 years where she received her money back.

                    Why would she bother, you might ask? Because she got an $80K writeoff on her taxes.

                    The result was she paid half as much taxes that year as I did, despite an income 3 times larger.

                    Secondly that the large corporations that are listed in the stock market - it is actually debatable how much different the ratio is. I've also said before that the tech giants: Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, and a few others - each paid essentially zero income taxes from 1995 to 2000. This was because of the writeoff they received for employees selling options.

                    Originally posted by Ghent12
                    A more philosophical question: why should the government ever want to tax profits--the rewards for providing a desired service/product and the whole and sole incentive for providing more of said service/product?
                    From my perspective, the exact same argument could be applied to labor: why should anyone work if they're going to be taxed for providing labor to create a desired service or product?

                    Well, the IRS won't accept that argument.

                    And either way the argument is false: corporations enjoy the same benefits of government as anyone else - if anything more so. Corporations benefit greatly from patent, corporate, and other laws. They also benefit greatly from infrastructure, from subsidies, from law enforcement, etc etc.

                    The difference is that corporations aggregate a huge amount of money which can then be used to specifically lobby for tax breaks. Individuals thus far have not been able to aggregate and do the same.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                      From my perspective, the exact same argument could be applied to labor: why should anyone work if they're going to be taxed for providing labor to create a desired service or product?
                      It's the same argument, one against taxation: why penalize productivity? Why? For no good reason, that's why...

                      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                      And either way the argument is false: corporations enjoy the same benefits of government as anyone else - if anything more so. Corporations benefit greatly from patent, corporate, and other laws. They also benefit greatly from infrastructure, from subsidies, from law enforcement, etc etc.

                      The difference is that corporations aggregate a huge amount of money which can then be used to specifically lobby for tax breaks. Individuals thus far have not been able to aggregate and do the same.
                      The argument is false in your view because of the seeming differentiation between corporate tax rate and labor tax rate. The overall point I would like to offer is that all taxes are too high, and the current services offered by government are not commensurate with the current taxation rate.

                      The effect of wealth aggregation is an entirely separate issue, and the laws about IP typically do not benefit corporations any more than individuals except by user rates, which are typical of wealth aggregation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                        Originally posted by Ghent12
                        It's the same argument, one against taxation: why penalize productivity? Why? For no good reason, that's why...
                        I guess it is a function of your view of government.

                        From my view, government does have its place - and having its place, requires money to survive. Taxation is pretty much the only way for it to get money.

                        And taxation itself is not necessarily a penalty on productivity. The question really is the return on payment.

                        Originally posted by Ghent12
                        The argument is false in your view because of the seeming differentiation between corporate tax rate and labor tax rate. The overall point I would like to offer is that all taxes are too high, and the current services offered by government are not commensurate with the current taxation rate.

                        The effect of wealth aggregation is an entirely separate issue, and the laws about IP typically do not benefit corporations any more than individuals except by user rates, which are typical of wealth aggregation.
                        I'd just point out that taxes are high primarily in the sense of what is received for the money lost. So I agree - not that taxes are high - but that the return is low.

                        As for wealth aggregation - it isn't wealth aggregation that I speak to. I don't actually care that Microsoft makes tons of money - rather it is their monopoly hold on the PC which serves as a tax on all PC users.

                        Microsoft would make tons of money no matter what, but its anti-competitive behavior has certainly maximized its haul. The patent system in the US was complicit in this.

                        Simultaneous to this tons of profits, its profligate abuse of stockholder equity in turn was used to also rob the government - both federal and local - of literally billions of tax dollars.

                        Where in this equation is productivity a factor?

                        Contrast this with a company like Adobe: also a virtual monopoly in a smaller market. But Adobe doesn't have anticompetitive practices; it was one of the first to operate on a 'freemium' model where a free service is used to build a large consumer base, with a subset of users paying for development and support costs as well as for premium software.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                          You have made an excellent, if unwitting, anti-government rant, c1ue.

                          I understand the criticism of IP laws because they do indeed interfere with the free market, with ingenuity, with productivity and with wealth creation for just about everyone. I certainly understand the logic behind them, but in practice their (ab)use has led to a slow-down of innovation and productivity. You highlight Microsoft, but I would point to the Wright Brothers as the epitome of IP law abusers. Although their planes used wing warping to control flight, they in effect patented controlled flight itself. Their aerodynamic autoresearch was impressive and a boon to technological innovation, but their patent was a crippling factor in the development of aircraft.

                          This again comes back to government services being incommensurate with taxation rate. Has it been Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior that is the main factor in stifling innovation, productivity, and wealth generation, or is it the force of law (violence) that allows them to behave that way in the first place? Business models aside, lawsuits lose their efficacy if the law is not on the plaintiff's side.

                          Originally posted by c1ue
                          Where in this equation is productivity a factor?
                          Exactly. Government has blinders on. We are on the fast track towards mob rule--a democracy--where productivity will be meaningless because emotion and public sentiment will be the highest values. Those mean ol' employers are daring to employ people, hence the government must protect the employees by ensuring they are no longer employable. Those mean ol' capitalists (Microsoft's would-be competitors) are taking a good idea and running with it, hence the government must protect the people from what they want to buy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                            Originally posted by Ghent12
                            You have made an excellent, if unwitting, anti-government rant, c1ue.
                            In many ways, I am against what masquerades as government today.

                            But it does not mean that I think government is inherently bad, nor do I believe that the 'free market' is in any way better or worse.

                            As I've noted before - in my view, capitalism as well as socialism are merely substitutes for the selfish vs. selfless view.

                            Too much selfishness, and you get Somalia as well as a complete breakdown of civilization.

                            Too much selflessness, and you wind up a sterile ant in an ant colony.

                            It isn't that patent law is inherently bad - it is that the present system is both out of date and hopelessly out of touch with present economic reality. A 17 year patent system was fine when the average adult productive period was about 20 years; with the advent of both longer lifespans and corporations - not to mention lawyers, the rules are simply too draconian.

                            And even though I inherently abhor Microsoft's practices, I freely grant that there has also been some good inherent in the standardization. My point was simply that in other fields such as railroad gauge widths, container systems, automobile safety and function, and the like - it was unnecessary for a single company monopoly to promulgate standardization.

                            I am curious, however, as to what your ideal government would look like in this modern world. It seems you are in favor of no taxes, therefore no government.

                            Yet this type of system hasn't worked anywhere that I am aware of: either because chaos resulted or because some feudal power intruded and took over the free, but defenseless region.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Manhattan’s Welfare Kings: How Billionaires Turned Farms Into Personal Tax Havens and Petty Cash Machines, Allowing Them to Give Less, While Takin

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              I am curious, however, as to what your ideal government would look like in this modern world. It seems you are in favor of no taxes, therefore no government.

                              Yet this type of system hasn't worked anywhere that I am aware of: either because chaos resulted or because some feudal power intruded and took over the free, but defenseless region.
                              I think we are in agreement more than we differ, but it is fair based on the positions I have taken to presume as you have.

                              I like the Constitution. I mean, I really like it, essentially as intended and as amended, with some exceptions, most notably the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments. I think the "commerce clause" could have been worded more precisely to avoid what it has evidently become--a way to circumvent the very restrictions on government that the Constitution outlines--and were actually used as written and intended, to stop states from blockading each other as they currently do, in effect, especially via health insurance policies. I wish that wars, when they occur, were declared by Congress.

                              As for taxation, I am not expressly against all forms of taxation, per se. I recognize that the government needs funds, especially to support a Constitutionally-required Navy (but not Unconstitutional standing armies, except during war time), the Judiciary, foreign diplomacy, and so forth. Also for appropriate "management of traffic" in constrained matters, such as parts of the RF spectrum, waterways, and so forth. As for sources of taxation, tariffs served well as a revenue source for the first half of our history; we need only avoid the political temptation for protectionist policies, which is easier under less democratic circumstances such as prior to the 17th Amendment. Usage fees for public assets and so forth can outline a stream of income as well.

                              The government does not need a large stream of revenue if its services are limited to the essential ones. No corporate support, no anti-corporate behavior. Moderately laissez faire, but with legal framework to support contract law and punish deception and violence. As for the rest, "the market" can fill in the gaps as it always does. Insert standard examples of FedEx and UPS, etc.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X