Date: 14 May 2008 14:55:33 -0700 From: "Senator Tom Harman" <senator.harman@senate.ca.gov> To: freebsd-i386@freebsd.org Subject: Harman Report: May 14, 2008 Message-ID: <130605-APP1sFU3b2ty00009eaf@smtp.cssrc.us>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A = [1]3D"Senator =0D=0A =0D=0A= =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = Harman Report: May 14, 2008 =0D=0A=0D=0A =0D=0A= =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = News of the Week= =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A [2]With Your Free Time and Extra= Money...=0D=0A =0D=0A= =0D=0A = [3]Vested= Interest=0D=0A =0D=0A= =0D=0A = [4]Paid= Sick Leave for All?=0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = [5]Death Tax=0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = [6]Waste Watchers Update: The Bucks Don't Stop at the Education= Department=0D=0A =0D=0A= =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A= =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A=0D=0A With Your Free Time =0D=0Aand Extra Money... = =0D=0A The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has released its annual study= about what it takes to comply with the federal tax code, and it is not= good news for Americans. Those who use the 1040 forms spent an average= of 24.2 hours and $207 to complete their returns this year. That is up= from 23.3 hours and $179 just three years ago. If you are self-employed,= you had it the worst: more than 80 hours. In all, Americans spent 6.65= billion hours last year complying with federal tax laws. =0D=0A That= time is spent because the complexity of the tax code has multiplied. David= Keating, the study's author, writes, "Seventy-three years ago= the Form 1040 instructions were just two pages long. Even when the income= tax became a mass tax during World War II, the instructions took just four= pages. Today taxpayers must wade through 143 pages of instructions, well= over triple the number in 1975 and nearly quadruple the number in 1985,= the year before taxes were `simplified.' Today's short form,= at 48 lines, has double the number of lines on the 1945 version of the= standard 1040 tax return." =0D=0A The amount we spend on stuff= to help us pay our taxes is huge: $102 billion for software, postage, tax= preparers, etc. And it is likely to get worse before (if) it gets better.= NTU warns us that the Alternative Minimum Tax could apply to more than= 30 million taxpayers in the next three years and its complexity will have= more of us spending more time and more money all to make the IRS happy. = =0D=0A To see the NTU's tables and calculations, as well as read= about how tax professionals get different bottom lines when working with= the same set of taxpayer information, see the study here: =0D=0A[7]http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=3D926&org_na me=3DNTU = =0D=0A [8]Back to the top = =0D=0A Vested Interest =0D=0A A recent Wall Street= Journal article by Stephen J. Entin, president of the Institute of Research= on the Economics of Taxation, takes on the current debate about extending= the Bush tax rate cuts or focusing on tax credits for rearing children.= He observes that fewer people are interested in tax rate reductions because= fewer people are actually paying taxes, and that some conservatives are= pushing for the family benefit. Entin writes, "The bottom half of= the income distribution pays barely 3% of the income tax," and he= notes the Tax Foundation's finding that "over 40% of the population= owes no federal income tax, and about half who owe nothing actually get= net refunds." =0D=0A Thus, "[f]or people who pay no income= tax, general government is practically a free good." Indeed, if they= can get all the government they need without paying and have more tax credits= that give them even more money back, they are all for it. The problem is= the rest of us end up paying more because the cost for general government= does not go down. Indeed, with so many free riders, it just keeps going= up. Entin says that if that happens at the expense of "growth-oriented= tax reforms, the loss in pre-tax income may be greater than the tax breaks."= I agree with his conclusion that "the true pro-family solution is= less government, not more." =0D=0A[9]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770167885700061.html?mod=3 DdjemEditorialPage = =0D=0A [10]Back to the top = =0D=0A Paid Sick Leave for All? =0D=0A I saw= the footage of Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) presenting her= AB 2716 in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. The bill passed= out of that committee easily on a 6-2 vote and out of the Assembly Judiciary= Committee on a 7-3 vote. The bill currently resides in the Assembly Appropriations= Committee. The bill is a massive mandate that will require anybody who= employs a person for at least seven days a year in California to provide= paid sick leave benefits. This is a policy the city of San Francisco recently= put in place. =0D=0A The usual business lobbyists spoke against the= bill, talking about how this is bad for business. The opposition did not,= however, have a single speaker from San Francisco to testify how bad this= law has been for businesses there. But what really bothers me is nobody= is objecting to how huge an assault this is on our basic freedoms. This= is not a creeping Leviathan; it is the genuine article. Is there any level= of government meddling the people of California will resist? =0D=0A Under= this bill, if you employ a baby sitter, gardener, tree trimmer, whatever,= for what adds up to seven days a year, not only must you provide paid sick= leave, you will need to keep track whether the sick leave is taken for= that person, a relative, a friend, whomever. Unless you do all this, you= will be a law-breaker. The best way to not be a law-breaker, of course,= will be to not employ people at all. =0D=0A I remain very disappointed= by the absence of voices defending out basic liberties. If we do not fight= for limited government, the American founding will have been in vain. This= philosophical issue is far more important than whether businesses have= greater costs. =0D=0A To see an edited version of the hearing on this= bill, go to: =0D=0A[11]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHcz1yB8u73U = =0D=0A [12]Back to the top = =0D=0A Death Tax =0D=0A Billionaire Warren Buffet= testified before Congress recently arguing that the estate (a.k.a. "death")= tax should be maintained. He said that the tax system should not further= reward those who already won the "ovarian lottery," and warned= that the disparity between the rich and poor was getting too great in the= U.S. Mr. Buffet is a very smart man, but his reasoning on this issue is= way off. He did note that he himself, as a billionaire, benefits greatly= from the tax system and he mentioned that his wife's estate paid= over $110 million in taxes upon her death. But he suggests that it should= have been more. Maybe it is time for the flat tax at a low rate but on= all income so that everyone, including Buffet, pays his fair share. = =0D=0A Here's the thing: if he, as a billionaire, wants to write= the federal government a check anytime, he can. There is a special fund= set up for the government to take gifts of any size from anyone who wants= to pay just for the fun of it. If he wants the government to have some= of his money, then he can give it. Perhaps he has done that already, I= do not know, but I do know that not everyone shares his affinity for government= programs and neither they, nor their heirs, should be compelled to make= such contributions. While his wife's estate, and no doubt his own,= will barely notice the estate tax, people of much lesser means will struggle= over every penny. The death tax does not just affect billionaires, but= regular families who own property or have family businesses. Sometimes= those assets add up to the level that triggers the tax even though the= beneficiaries of the estate would not be considered rich by you or me.= Their inheritance might make the difference in whether they and their children= can become rich by developing that property or growing that business, but= many miss out on that opportunity because the government demands its bite= of the pie after the funeral. In fact, the hearing at which Mr. Buffet= testified included people telling stories about how their family had to= sell the inheritance just to pay the taxes. Maybe he should have listened. = =0D=0A [13]Back to the top = =0D=0A Waste Watchers Update: The Bucks Don't Stop at the Education= Department =0D=0A After years of litigation -= costing millions of taxpayer dollars - the California Department= of Education has finally settled with a whistle-blower turned former employee.= This whistle-blower claimed retaliation by the Department and former Superintendent= of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin when he reported massive fraud in= the department. =0D=0A According to the Sacramento Bee ([14]April 23, 2008), the California Department of Education= paid "$4.25 million to the former worker who said he suffered= retaliation after he reported corruption to then Superintendent Delaine= Eastin." =0D=0A The trouble began when the California= Department of Education dished out millions of dollars, not to California's= classrooms, but to people seemingly just trying to make a buck off the= system. "The case centered on corruption in a program that= handed out money to community-based organizations between 1995 and 2000= to teach English and citizenship to recent immigrants. Some of the schools= that got grant money didn't even exist." =0D=0A You= would expect a heap of praise for a whistle-blower doing the right thing= in reporting the massive fraud. Instead, he was allegedly punished for= his actions, which in the end cost taxpayers even more money that could= have gone towards the true goals of the Department...Education. = =0D=0A Shockingly, "A 20-year state worker, said= that when he and others reported $11 million in misappropriations to Eastin,= she ignored them. Then he was transferred to a job with no duties, leading= to stress that he said triggered two heart attacks and put him in a wheelchair." = =0D=0A The whistle-blower's "first jury trail in 2002= led to a $4.6 million verdict. The department appealed, and the case was= sent back for another trial. But the jury awarded...$3= million more." =0D=0A Unfortunately, for taxpayers= who footed the bill, that wasn't the only cost. "Over= seven years, it has paid another $1.2 million to law firms for defending= the state through two jury trials and appeals." The legal= fees went to two separate law firms - one defending the Department= and the other representing Eastin, the former superintendent. =0D=0A Over= the last 13 years, the Department did not stem the money flowing to attorneys= defending itself against its own employees. Nor did the former superintendent= decry this expenditure as money that should go toward education. Instead,= she justified the spending, and so has the current superintendent, whose= department has not been forthcoming about how much they spent. =0D=0A This= leaves the taxpayer, who continue to send more of their hard-earned dollars= to Sacramento hoping someone will do right by the children...put the= buck in the classrooms. =0D=0A [15]Back to the top =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = HOME= PAGE | [16]BIOGRAPHY= | [17]CONTACT ME |= [18]CSSRC=0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A = =0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A _________________________________________________________________ [19]CLICK= HERE TO UNSUBSCRIBE References 1. 3D"http://cssrc.us/web/35/" 2. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#1" 3. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#2" 4. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#3" 5. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#4" 6. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#5" 7. 3D"http://www.ntu.org/main/press_papers.php?PressID=3D926&org_name=3DNTU" 8. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#0" 9. 3D"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770167885700061.html?mod=3DdjemEditorialPage"= 10. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#0" 11. 3D"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHcz1yB8u73U"= 12. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#0" 13. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#0" 14. 3D"http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/882653.html"= 15. file://localhost/tmp/3D"#0" 16. 3D"http://cssrc.us/web/35/biography.aspx" 17. 3D"http://cssrc.us/web/35/contact_us.aspx" 18. 3D"http://cssrc.us/default.aspx" 19. 3D'http://cssrc.us/web/35/subscribe.aspx?mode=3Du&cat=3D15&id=3D102445&code=3D'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?130605-APP1sFU3b2ty00009eaf>