What happens when you tax millionaires? They leave.

The dems, some at least, are enraged that Obama caved and let the millionaires keep their current tax rates instead of raising them come January 1. Some states, New York, Oregon, and Maryland, I believe, raised taxes on their high-earners and what happened?

They left and now those states are collecting LESS revenue than before.
Rush Limbaugh is an outspoken example of millionaire flight. When the state of New York decided to stick it to him, Limbaugh moved his entire operation to Florida. They continue to audit him but haven’t been able to collect a dime. Limbaugh even sold his New York City condo at a large profit to eliminate having anything left in NY that can be taxed. Where before NY received some income from Rush, now, due to their tax policies, they receive none.

Here’s a cautionary tale from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.


Oregon finds tax doesn’t raise the money

Attempting to close its budget gap without doing what it should have done — cut spending — Oregon raised its “piggy-back” state income tax on the richest 2 percent of its residents last year.
As a result — Nevada legislators, please note — Oregon tax receipts are now … falling.
You can read the entire editorial here.

It seems that millionaires, regardless where they reside, aren’t stupid. Unless they inherited their money, millionaires are some pretty smart folks. They wouldn’t be millionaires if they weren’t. So what happens when the state decides to stick it to their millionaires? They leave—or move their money into areas with a lesser tax rate or perhaps not taxable. Some choose tax defeating alternatives like moving assets into trust funds or out of the state where income derived from those funds are taxed elsewhere. There are all sorts of options and millionaires and their financial advisers are finding them. The new question is, “What does the taxing authority consider ‘taxable income’? What if these assets were owned by a trust, or transferred in some different way … ?”

If BO had followed his party’s demands, I expect that off-shore accounts in the Bahamas and in Switzerland would have been growing about now.

(H/T to George in Las Vegas.)

Say, "Good night," Julius.

I’ve had to work with the FCC for a long time, at least a couple of decades, perhaps more. My previous job was to design systems to support Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS,) a federal mandate to the states to provide telephone communication for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The states would make contracts with my employer to provide this service. At it’s high point a few years ago, we had contracts with over thirty states and at least one foreign government.

From time to time, every other year it seemed, the FCC would propose enhancements to the basic service. The FCC drew its authority from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.) Most of the time, the FCC listened to providers. We listened to the FCC carefully. You see, the FCC also regulated our reimbursement for handling long distance calls. When the FCC dictated a few service or technology, we would examine and forecast costs and continuing expenses with a fine toothed comb. We needed to make sure our added expense and cost still provided a measure of profit given the fixed reimbursement rate from the FCC. It was my job to design the support systems and to determine the costs to provide these new services. In the process I was awarded six patents for innovative designs to provide the TRS services.

The question was, why did the FCC have to be involved when the original mandate was to the states? The states were forced by the feds to pass enabling legislation to comply with the ADA. How did the FCC come to be involved in a purely social requirement? The immediate response was because the service was from a telecommunications carrier.

In reality, FCC oversight wasn’t needed, nor required. The original mandate was to the states, not to the telecommunications carriers like AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and a few others. The states would issue Requests for Proposals and in turn would negotiate a contract with a TRS provider. The FCC got it’s nose into the tent because one of the basic services was to provide interstate long distance calling for the deaf.

It would be more prudent, perhaps, if the service was regulated by the ICC like trucking companies, IF any federal oversight was required at all. You see, the carriers were already regulated as part of their normal business. We, the TRS providers were being “double-dipped”, so to speak, by the FCC. First because we were a communications carrier and second because we were also a TRS provider.

There was no need for the FCC to be involved at all. The services to be provided was covered in the contract between the state and the provider. What benefits did the FCC provide?

None. Except to increase the overall cost of the service. And who paid for this? The people of the states. If you look closely at your next phone bill. You’ll probably see a line item for TRS. Usually this is a tax for every phone line and/or for every call you make. In a few cases it’s a flat charge added to your bill because you have a phone.

I’ve often wondered how much the cost could have been reduced if we didn’t have to jump through the FCCs hoops. You see the FCC was created during that great social failure known as the New Deal in the 1930s specifically to constrain the growth of AT&T. The social engineers at the time feared AT&T would become a monopoly.

The FCC, for all practical purposes, killed competition and gave AT&T a virtual monopoly for phone service. It wasn’t until the 1980s that AT&T’s monopoly, created in part by the FCc, was broken up and AT&Twas forced to divest itself of the local exchange carriers like Southwestern Bell, Bell South, PacBell and others. The FCC finally performed its original mission—fifty years late. It finally allowed competition to emerge—like Sprint in the 1980s and more recently cable TV providers.

However, we’ve come full circle. Almost all of the local exchange providers have again been reabsorbed into a single company called—AT&T! So, what benefits did we ever get from the FCC? They’ve failed to perform their original purpose.

I propose that the FCC having failed to meet its original purpose, regardless whether that purpose was needed in the first place, has no mission and should be abolished as obsolete and a waste of taxpayer money. Others agree with me. Here’s an editorial from the Investor’s Business Daily that provides some additional information.

Kill Off The FCC

Regulatory State: Two days after the FCC voted to take over the Internet, it stands in the way of an agreement between private companies. This is an agency that should be targeted for elimination.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality, a regulatory framework that has been sold as a means of keeping the Web fair and open. In truth, the rules give government the authority to tell Internet service providers how to organize the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.
That’s enough meddling in private affairs for one week for any federal agency. But the FCC wasn’t finished.
Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed net neutrality despite a court ruling and bipartisan opposition in Congress, set conditions Thursday on Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal. He wants Comcast to distribute content in a way that he approves of and lets competitors access Comcast’s platform.
It’s almost amusing that these conditions are being applied in the name of the “public interest.”
Genachowski’s proposal isn’t binding. He still has to present his ideas to the other four commissioners and a vote must be taken. But neither one man nor one group should have the power to marshal private companies’ business operations.
Private media companies are not government-owned utilities.
Regulators such as Genachowski say they are merely trying to keep competition healthy and protect consumers.
But their efforts inhibit competition and obstruct innovation.
Cell phones, for instance, were delayed by the FCC for a decade. The cost of this hang-up to the economy, according to the National Economic Research Associates, was $85 billion.
Like generals fighting the last war, regulators make rules based on the way businesses operated yesterday. As they try to keep up with market dynamics, they inflict uncertainty into business decisions and put a boot on the neck of progress. When not held back by regulators, though, companies freely create new technologies and business models that increase competition.
What role, then, is there for regulators, especially those at the FCC, which oversees one of the most dynamic industries in the world? With the intense competition in telecommunications that has benefited consumers and led to wide commercial successes, there’s no need for a government referee in this sector.
There’s nothing the FCC does that can’t be eliminated, streamlined or handed over to another agency or department that has a legitimate function. (Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests broadcast licenses “could be handled by the Commerce Department, or by a greatly reduced FCC with binding limitations on jurisdiction.” The point is, the FCC as now constituted doesn’t have to do it.)
The FCC has been around for a while — it was established by the Communications Act of 1934. So it won’t be abolished overnight. But its elimination is a worthy goal.
Just another Roosevelt boondoggle like the New Deal. A social experiment that is nothing but a failure. Like Johnson’s Great Society, all of the social bills passed by the democrats have been failures.

Say, "Good night," Julius.

I’ve had to work with the FCC for a long time, at least a couple of decades, perhaps more. My previous job was to design systems to support Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS,) a federal mandate to the states to provide telephone communication for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The states would make contracts with my employer to provide this service. At it’s high point a few years ago, we had contracts with over thirty states and at least one foreign government.

From time to time, every other year it seemed, the FCC would propose enhancements to the basic service. The FCC drew its authority from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.) Most of the time, the FCC listened to providers. We listened to the FCC carefully. You see, the FCC also regulated our reimbursement for handling long distance calls. When the FCC dictated a few service or technology, we would examine and forecast costs and continuing expenses with a fine toothed comb. We needed to make sure our added expense and cost still provided a measure of profit given the fixed reimbursement rate from the FCC. It was my job to design the support systems and to determine the costs to provide these new services. In the process I was awarded six patents for innovative designs to provide the TRS services.

The question was, why did the FCC have to be involved when the original mandate was to the states? The states were forced by the feds to pass enabling legislation to comply with the ADA. How did the FCC come to be involved in a purely social requirement? The immediate response was because the service was from a telecommunications carrier.

In reality, FCC oversight wasn’t needed, nor required. The original mandate was to the states, not to the telecommunications carriers like AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and a few others. The states would issue Requests for Proposals and in turn would negotiate a contract with a TRS provider. The FCC got it’s nose into the tent because one of the basic services was to provide interstate long distance calling for the deaf.

It would be more prudent, perhaps, if the service was regulated by the ICC like trucking companies, IF any federal oversight was required at all. You see, the carriers were already regulated as part of their normal business. We, the TRS providers were being “double-dipped”, so to speak, by the FCC. First because we were a communications carrier and second because we were also a TRS provider.

There was no need for the FCC to be involved at all. The services to be provided was covered in the contract between the state and the provider. What benefits did the FCC provide?

None. Except to increase the overall cost of the service. And who paid for this? The people of the states. If you look closely at your next phone bill. You’ll probably see a line item for TRS. Usually this is a tax for every phone line and/or for every call you make. In a few cases it’s a flat charge added to your bill because you have a phone.

I’ve often wondered how much the cost could have been reduced if we didn’t have to jump through the FCCs hoops. You see the FCC was created during that great social failure known as the New Deal in the 1930s specifically to constrain the growth of AT&T. The social engineers at the time feared AT&T would become a monopoly.

The FCC, for all practical purposes, killed competition and gave AT&T a virtual monopoly for phone service. It wasn’t until the 1980s that AT&T’s monopoly, created in part by the FCc, was broken up and AT&Twas forced to divest itself of the local exchange carriers like Southwestern Bell, Bell South, PacBell and others. The FCC finally performed its original mission—fifty years late. It finally allowed competition to emerge—like Sprint in the 1980s and more recently cable TV providers.

However, we’ve come full circle. Almost all of the local exchange providers have again been reabsorbed into a single company called—AT&T! So, what benefits did we ever get from the FCC? They’ve failed to perform their original purpose.

I propose that the FCC having failed to meet its original purpose, regardless whether that purpose was needed in the first place, has no mission and should be abolished as obsolete and a waste of taxpayer money. Others agree with me. Here’s an editorial from the Investor’s Business Daily that provides some additional information.

Kill Off The FCC

Regulatory State: Two days after the FCC voted to take over the Internet, it stands in the way of an agreement between private companies. This is an agency that should be targeted for elimination.
On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality, a regulatory framework that has been sold as a means of keeping the Web fair and open. In truth, the rules give government the authority to tell Internet service providers how to organize the traffic that flows over their infrastructure.
That’s enough meddling in private affairs for one week for any federal agency. But the FCC wasn’t finished.
Chairman Julius Genachowski, who pushed net neutrality despite a court ruling and bipartisan opposition in Congress, set conditions Thursday on Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal. He wants Comcast to distribute content in a way that he approves of and lets competitors access Comcast’s platform.
It’s almost amusing that these conditions are being applied in the name of the “public interest.”
Genachowski’s proposal isn’t binding. He still has to present his ideas to the other four commissioners and a vote must be taken. But neither one man nor one group should have the power to marshal private companies’ business operations.
Private media companies are not government-owned utilities.
Regulators such as Genachowski say they are merely trying to keep competition healthy and protect consumers.
But their efforts inhibit competition and obstruct innovation.
Cell phones, for instance, were delayed by the FCC for a decade. The cost of this hang-up to the economy, according to the National Economic Research Associates, was $85 billion.
Like generals fighting the last war, regulators make rules based on the way businesses operated yesterday. As they try to keep up with market dynamics, they inflict uncertainty into business decisions and put a boot on the neck of progress. When not held back by regulators, though, companies freely create new technologies and business models that increase competition.
What role, then, is there for regulators, especially those at the FCC, which oversees one of the most dynamic industries in the world? With the intense competition in telecommunications that has benefited consumers and led to wide commercial successes, there’s no need for a government referee in this sector.
There’s nothing the FCC does that can’t be eliminated, streamlined or handed over to another agency or department that has a legitimate function. (Ed Morrissey of hotair.com suggests broadcast licenses “could be handled by the Commerce Department, or by a greatly reduced FCC with binding limitations on jurisdiction.” The point is, the FCC as now constituted doesn’t have to do it.)
The FCC has been around for a while — it was established by the Communications Act of 1934. So it won’t be abolished overnight. But its elimination is a worthy goal.
Just another Roosevelt boondoggle like the New Deal. A social experiment that is nothing but a failure. Like Johnson’s Great Society, all of the social bills passed by the democrats have been failures.

A Merrier Christmas!

Following a long personal tradition, I’m up late–alone–on Christmas Eve–now Christmas. I enjoy the time to reflect a little, and to recall Christmases past.

When the boys were small the late hours were used to haul presents out of hiding, assemble if necessary, place under the tree, and do it all with absolute silence. Usually just before we were able to finally head to bed, one or both of them would be easing down the stairs to peek and inquire if Santa had already been and gone. We’d finally head to bed after we’d had about 30 minutes of silence from them. We sometimes had to resort to an ‘or else’ but their persistance generally won out by about 5 at the latest. I don’t recall much of Christmas afternoons back then. Now, my late hours are simply a time to remember when children were little, grandparents and parents were with us, and all seemed right with the world.

Now our boys deal with the same sorts of early morning excitement and I say ‘good enough for ’em!’–but really envy their joy in sharing Christmas with little ones. The Christmas days and the years go speeding away and, among all my wishes to friends and family, I wish for each of them to savor and file away all the pleasures, warmth, fun, and love of this day especially.

When visiting a favorite blog earlier today I came across a charming and fun video of a ‘performance’ of the Hallelujah Chorus from Quinhagak, Alaska. It will make you smile.

Merry Christmas to Crucis, Mrs. C., and all y’all! I’ll be seeing you next year.

A Merrier Christmas!

Following a long personal tradition, I’m up late–alone–on Christmas Eve–now Christmas. I enjoy the time to reflect a little, and to recall Christmases past.

When the boys were small the late hours were used to haul presents out of hiding, assemble if necessary, place under the tree, and do it all with absolute silence. Usually just before we were able to finally head to bed, one or both of them would be easing down the stairs to peek and inquire if Santa had already been and gone. We’d finally head to bed after we’d had about 30 minutes of silence from them. We sometimes had to resort to an ‘or else’ but their persistance generally won out by about 5 at the latest. I don’t recall much of Christmas afternoons back then. Now, my late hours are simply a time to remember when children were little, grandparents and parents were with us, and all seemed right with the world.

Now our boys deal with the same sorts of early morning excitement and I say ‘good enough for ’em!’–but really envy their joy in sharing Christmas with little ones. The Christmas days and the years go speeding away and, among all my wishes to friends and family, I wish for each of them to savor and file away all the pleasures, warmth, fun, and love of this day especially.

When visiting a favorite blog earlier today I came across a charming and fun video of a ‘performance’ of the Hallelujah Chorus from Quinhagak, Alaska. It will make you smile.

Merry Christmas to Crucis, Mrs. C., and all y’all! I’ll be seeing you next year.

A Family Tradition

Every family has traditions.  You may not think of them in that manner, but traditions they are. 

I grew up in a large extended family, mostly from my mother’s side.  Mom was the oldest of four. My Grandfather Miller was one of eight. I had cousins scattered over four states but the largest group was in southern Illinois.  The Clan, as it was known to many, had a Christmas tradition. This is my memory of that time of year.

The Gathering of the Clan        

War on Christians

It isn’t new, but the left continues to attack Christians. This time of year that means Christmas.  There has been numerous examples. One is from Virginia where a student group of ten is being punished for “tossing small candy canes” to students.  The group known as the Christmas Sweater club for the seasonal sweaters they wear was accused of acts to “maliciously maim students with the intent to injure.” The candy canes in question were two inches long, wrapped in plastic, weighing less than an ounce.

In another example, an arm of the federal government, the Federal Reserve, forced an Oklahoma bank to remove Christmas button and Bible verses.

 Federal Reserve examiners come every four years to make sure banks are complying with a long list of regulations. The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank’s Internet site also had to be taken down.
 Specifically, the feds believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, “…the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication … express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.”

 The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslim or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.

It’s not limited to just the US.  The UK Red Cross has banned Christmas to avoid offending Muslims, atheists and other non-Christians.  Well, what about offending Christians?  They’re more numerous in the UK than those others?

I could cite many more.  The attacks on Christians here at home are one of the triggers that created the Tea Party.  While all Tea Partiers are not Christian, a large number, maybe the majority, are.  Tea Partiers, as a whole, resent the attacks on our families, our traditions, and the principles of this Republic instituted by the Founders.


The worst offender against Christians in the federal government from the Department of Education to Treasury to NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizationss) such as the National Public Radio headquartered in Washington.  Nina Totenberg, apologized on-air, for attending a “Christmas” party.


When the new Congress is seated on January 4, 2011, there will be many changed instituted over the next two years.  Many changes…or there will be more dems and RINOs leaving office at the end of 2012.