The Economy Bomb - Ticking Down Faster

Action America ^ | May 10, 2004 | John Gaver

[Action-America]

The Economy Bomb
Ticking Down Faster

More proof that legislative attacks upon the wealthiest 1%
of Americans could soon wreck our economy.

---

May 10, 2004 by John Gaver Publishers note: To reflect the large amount of relevant new data that has emerged over the last year, we felt that the annual update to our popular Tick-Tick-Tick article deserved a new name. Although this article contains much of what is in that article, the additional volume of new data actually constitutes a significant rewrite. Unfortunately, this means that the Economy Bomb is ticking down faster.

Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay one third (33.9%) of all federal individual income taxes collected.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers earn only 17.5% of all federally taxable individual income.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay 12.8% higher tax rate than they did ten years ago, amounting to one third more (36.5%) of the total individual income tax load.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are facing frivolous lawsuits in phenomenal numbers, simply because our lax tort laws make them easy targets of opportunity.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are in more danger of government seizure (forfeiture*) of their private property than ever before in our history.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are Leaving the USA at the highest rate in history.

An insidious, creeping cancer is eating away at our economy. Not only the Income Tax, but other legislative and regulatory attacks on wealth are forcing many of the people who pay the lion's share of taxes, to leave the United States and because of some of that legislation, they are taking their wealth with them, thus, very disproportionately reducing the tax and investment base in the United States.

The facts cited throughout this article are based upon statistics and calculations derived from data released by the US Internal Revenue Service, the US Census Bureau and supported by other reputable sources. Links are provided to the source data, throughout this article. We ask you to note the impeccable sources of the statistics presented here, since it is the integrity of those sources, as well as their variety, that seals the case. We invite you to follow the links provided and see for yourself. The facts are real and cannot be denied. Examine the numbers, use your own assumptions and do the math for yourself. When you recalculate the numbers, using your own assumptions, you will see just how serious the problem really is. It's real and it's daunting and it could very well spell disaster for the US economy, if certain positive actions are not soon taken.

The IRS numbers cited above are not some bureaucrat's pie-in-the-sky projections, but rather, they are are totals of actual IRS receipts, that are released every year, about 18 to 24 months after the close of a the tax year. A link to the raw IRS data for this year and an explanation of it can be found in the the companion article to this article, "1986-2001 IRS Collections Data by Income Category" (www.ActionAmerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.html).

Let's start by looking closer at some of that IRS data and see how those numbers work out.

• There were roughly 129 million tax returns filed in 2001.
• The IRS collected $888 billion in personal income tax in 2001.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) earned 17.5% of the income.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) accounted for $300.9 billion in income tax paid
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) paid over one third (33.9%) of the $888 billion total individual income tax collected that year. Do the math ($300.9 billion / $888 billion).
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) paid almost double their share of taxes (1.9 times) in relation to income. Do the math (33.9% of taxes / 17.5% of income).
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (income over $292,913 in 2001) now carry 37% more of the tax burden than they did 10 years ago, when their share of the tax burden was only 24.8%. Do the math (33.9% / 24.8%).

Since the original publication of "Tick-Tick-Tick - The Economy Bomb", the earlier version of this article, in 2000, more oppressive legislation, aimed squarely at the top-earning 1% has made matters even worse. This is presenting a serious problem for the top-earning 1%. But, before you start shedding crocodile tears for those poor top income earners, remember that these people are almost all problem solvers. To them, this is only a speed bump. To you and me, it's quite a different issue. You see, it is their legitimate and justified response to the problems being created for them by, US laws and the US tax structure, that represents a ticking time bomb that presents an even more serious threat to the remaining 99% of taxpayers. If you make less than $292,913 per year, then that's you.

What's wrong with making the wealthy pay?

Many people who look at the above statistics will immediately say, "So, what's wrong with making the people with the most money, pay more tax?" Many people seem to think that the wealthy have, in some way, committed some horrible sin, just by being wealthy and such being the case, they should be forced to pay a larger proportional share of the tax burden, as penance. Such absurd arguments are not only immaterial, but serve to show how completely uninformed of the real problem now facing the United States, many people are. The problem that I am talking about is a direct result of the position in which the wealthy now find themselves.

The wealthy are being systematically backed into a corner by our government. They are paying double their share of taxes. They are facing frivolous lawsuits by the greedy, in ever growing numbers. Their businesses dealings are being saddled with onerous Patriot Act requirements that often take so much time that otherwise profitable deals end up costing money, if they happen at all. And, their property is being confiscated (forfeited) by the government at an ever increasing rate. Everything for which they have worked so hard, is now being threatened by the same government, whose job it is to protect citizens from just those types of abuses.

Should we then be surprised if the top-earning 1% of taxpayers, facing an untenable situation, take the only legal route left open to them, even if such a response threatens the very fabric of the US economy? I think not. Their response is really quite simple.

The wealthy are leaving.

Since most of those who leave are seeking privacy, they avoid leaving many trails and thus, factual data about expatriation is very difficult to come by. Because of that, in past versions of this annual article, although I have used a number of very reliable sources to come up with the best estimates available, at the time, I only presented the most conservative estimates. As it turns out, new factual information that I have uncovered, originating from the US Census Bureau, indicates that I should have been using the most generous estimates and even so, those numbers would have been well below reality.

According to the US Census Bureau, as reported in the "2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service" (6.2 MB download), by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the wealthy are leaving the United States in record numbers. According to that report, last year, roughly 363,000 US citizens and permanent residents quietly left the United States permanently. Now granted, not all of those 363,000 expatriates were rich. But, think about it. How many do you think were poor? How many do you think were even middle class?

Personally, I think that it would be reasonable to expect that 80 to 90 percent were, at least, somewhat wealthy. But, don't use my estimates. Use your own. Just keep in mind that poor people come to the United States, with their hand out, because of all the economic benefits that our government offers them, using our taxes. Why would the poor leave? In fact, for all of their protestations, even our middle class has it much better here than in any other country. The only class of people who can have it better in another country are those who are at least moderately wealthy - roughly, the top-earning ten percent (those who earn at least $92,754 a year).

Furthermore, that INS report indicates that this is the highest expatriation rate ever. Other data, such as records of citizenship and permanent residency applications at key foreign consulates, support these facts and some even indicate that the problem is much worse than suggested by the US Census Bureau. But what's worse, is that this exodus appears to have increased significantly since that report; most notably, since the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. It cannot be denied. The wealthiest Americans are leaving the USA for more wealth friendly climates at the highest rate ever.

"So what? Let'em leave!"

One of the most absurd statements that I have heard, in response to the above facts is, "So what? Let'em leave." In fact, that attitude is actually contributing to the problem and making it much worse. You see, as a result of one of the laws (discussed below) designed to punish the wealthy for leaving, the wealthy are now taking ALL of their investment capital with them, when they leave. And, therein lies the true problem. When the wealthy leave, it creates severe problems for the rest of us, since we are the ones who have to make up the difference in taxes.

What really surprises me is that even a few well-meaning conservatives, who realize that the real problem is Native Capital Flight, have fallen into the greed trap, right along with the liberals. In fact, the most inane argument that I have heard on this issue has come uniformly from both ends of the political spectrum and goes something like, "Well, we just need to pass more laws to keep the wealthy from taking their money out of the country." Duh?!!!...

It is precisely those laws that are some of the primary reasons why Native Capital Flight has become such a severe problem in the first place. To the wealthy, each such law represents yet another brick in an economic Berlin Wall, that they see being erected by our government and meant to limit their financial options. But, by limiting the financial options of the wealthy, instead of forcing the wealthy to stay here, those laws are actually forcing them to move more of their wealth out of the US, while they still can. Of course, the more wealth a person has invested offshore, the more likely he will be to see expatriation as a viable option.

This creates serious problems for you.

To some, who have not achieved such wealth, the wealthy who are fleeing the US, for more wealth friendly jurisdictions, are "cowards", "unpatriotic" and "quitters", who we don't want around, anyway. Be that as it may, I won't argue those points here. That's because what people think about them is immaterial to the problem at hand. Like them or not, when the wealthy leave, it creates serious problems for those who remain in the US.

To understand the threat that this represents, we must look at what this all means for the other 99% of taxpayers (those who make less than $292,913 per year)? Why is the fact that a handful of wealthy people are leaving and taking their money with them, such a problem for you? After all, wouldn't it take a tremendous number of wealthy people leaving, to have a noticeable effect upon our economy? Actually, no. Until you look at the actual numbers and do the math, it doesn't appear to be a serious issue, but it is. So lets look at the numbers again and this time, let's do the math.

The chart to the right shows in blue, the percentage of individual income tax revenue that the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers were responsible for in 2001 and the percentage of tax revenue that the rest of us paid, in red. The full circle represents the amount of personal income tax revenue that must be collected to fund the government for a year. It demonstrates that if only the top-earning 1% of taxpayers were to leave the USA permanently, we would all be in a world of hurt, since those who remain would face a greater than 50% tax increase, just to stay even. Without that 1% of the wealthiest Americans, every remaining taxpayer would have to pay over 50% more in taxes to equal what was lost. Can you afford that?

Those who argue that Americans with the most money should be taxed at a higher rate will find themselves being taxed at a much higher rate, instead. If you are paying $5,000 in income tax today, then imagine paying an additional $2500 in taxes. If you are paying $25,000, then imagine paying an additional $12,500. If you are paying $100,000 - well if you are paying $100,000 in income tax, there's a good chance that you already have your bags packed and your second passport in hand, so you don't need to imagine anything.

As the most wealthy leave, the additional tax burden shifts to the next level down, so lets think about the fact that the top-earning 5% of income earners pay 53.25% of all taxes collected. While the wealthiest 1% are "escaping" ("escape" is the popular term used by expatriates), do you think that the top-earning 5% will just be sitting around waiting for a 50% tax increase? Of course not. And, when they leave, your tax bite will more than double!

Then, of course, there is the top earning 10%. But, I wouldn't worry about them. By that time, the government will have either repealed all of the wealth punitive laws and abolished the Income Tax, in lieu of a National Retail Sales Tax, to encourage the wealthy to return, which is really unlikely, or they will have done what so many other repressive governments have done when faced with native capital flight on a massive scale - they will have closed the borders to keep the remaining wealth in the country.

But then, as shown by every case where that has happened, ranging from Nazi Germany in the 30's to South Africa in the 70's and 80's, to to the more recent case of Malaysia, even closing the borders to capital, only increases native capital flight, albeit on an illegal basis. So, maybe you should worry about losing the top-earning 10%, after all, because if they can manage to get out with their wealth in tact, your taxes would almost triple! Have I got your attention?

Although it's interesting to think about, for other reasons that I will explain, I seriously doubt that it will ever get that far.  The problem goes much deeper.  But, staying with just the tax issue for now, let's look at the actual numbers.

Do the math.

Here is the math for the top-earning 1%:

100% - 33.9% of taxes lost = 66.1% of taxes left

33.9% _{= 51.3% additional tax burden for those remaining}
66.1%

Here is the math for the top-earning 5%:

100% - 53.3% of taxes lost = 46.7% of taxes left

53.3% _{= 114% additional tax burden for those remaining}
46.7%

THAT'S MORE THAN DOUBLE!

Here is the math for the top-earning 10%:

100% - 64.9% of taxes lost = 35.1% of taxes left

64.9% _{= 185% additional tax burden for those remaining}
35.1%

THAT'S ALMOST TRIPPLE!

Think about it. If only the top-earning 1% of taxpayers leave the United States, the remaining taxpayers will find that they will have to pay more than 50% more taxes. 1% is not that much. If you were to put 100 pennies on a table and then take away just one, you couldn't tell the difference visually. In fact, I will demonstrate later, just how quickly we could lose that 1%. Then, consider that if 5% of taxpayers leave the United States, the tax burden will more than double. And yet, our government is making it almost impossible for the wealthy to remain in the United States. Legislative attacks upon people with any significant degree of wealth is a ticking time bomb for our economy and we haven't even touched on the issues of frivolous litigation or government confiscation of private property.

It creeps like a virus.

The legislative issues contributing to this growing exodus have gone largely unnoticed, since the growth in expatriation of the wealthy has taken place over so many years. It really began back in 1968, shortly after the riots at the Democrat National Convention in Chicago. This is not to say that it was a problem at that time. Let's just say that the trickle of expatriates that any country experiences became a barely noticeable flow at that time. If it had stayed at that level, it would not be a problem today. But, indications are that the flow increased slowly, but steadily until the 1980's. For a short time during the Reagan administration, there was an attempt to roll back some of the wealth punitive, anti-privacy laws and tax rates that were contributing to this exodus and indications are that it did have a significant effect. But, such is the nature of the income tax and the lust for ever more power that often infects elective officeholders, that no sooner than President Reagan left office, the attacks resumed and have been increasing since. So has expatriation of the wealthy.

Evidence from key foreign consulates indicate that the number of US citizens requesting foreign citizenship or permanent residence applications for those countries, jumped significantly in the months after the Democrats in Congress tricked George H. Bush into a huge tax increase and the numbers have continued to rise. Other jumps occurred just after the Clinton tax increase and again, after the HIPAA legislation was signed into law in 1996. Indications are that in the first year of the George W. Bush administration, the expatriations increased much more slowly, as the wealthy seemed to think that maybe Bush would relieve some of the pressure on them. But, shortly after the President signed the USA Patriot Act into law, all of the indicators show that expatriations quickly shifted into high gear again.

Just the timing of those increases points even further to the fact that those who are leaving are wealthy, since each of those events represented an attack on wealth. The slower increases in the first year of the Bush administration indicate that the wealthy expected Bush to roll back some of the previous administration's wealth punitive legislation. But, with the passage of the Patriot Act, they knew that they were wrong and expatriation spiked again.

Again, let's do the math.

As shown above, approximately 363,000 mostly wealthy Americans chose expatriation in 2002. That rate has been increasing at a rate significantly higher than the growth of wealth in this nation for many years. Even so, for our calculations, we will assume that the number of wealthy Americans that are leaving remains stable, which further assumes that Bush and Congress hold back any more legislation that the wealthy see as detrimental to themselves, their business or their rights. Granted, with the onerous Patriot II waiting in the wings, that's a very rosy assumption. But this is, after all, meant to demonstrate a "best case" scenario. To see how bad it might really be, we invite you to recalculate, using your own assumptions.

Based upon past history, currently proposed legislation and other incentives, it would probably be reasonable to assume a 10-20 percent growth in expatriation every year. But, my purpose is to be as conservative in my projections as possible. So let's just stick with the stable rate assumption. Multiply it out and you will find that if that rate continues for just three more years, the number of wealthy Americans that may have left the United States in that time (including 2002) could easily reach over 1.4 million or well over the 1.3 million taxpayers that make up the top 1% of taxpayers and that number could be well over 2 million in five years (see table). Note: Numbers expressed in thousands

Year	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Annual Expatriation	363	363	363	363	363	363
Total Since 2002	363	726	1089	1452	1815	2178

What this means, is that if this rate of expatriation continues for only four more years, what appears to be a minor problem today, could turn out to be a catastrophe for the US economy tomorrow. Remember that in 2001, the top-earning 1% amounted to only 1.29 million taxpayers. You can see that it's quite possible that most of those people could be gone by the time Bush leaves office.

Granted that not all of those expatriates are going to be wealthy. But, ask yourself, "how many of them do you really think will be poor or even middle class?" Use your own estimates, based on common sense. After all, the poor don't leave unless they have to. They can't afford it. But, we are making it increasingly expensive for the wealthy to stay.

Other than the US Census numbers and sparse data from foreign consulates, there is a lot of ancillary data that points to the fact that wealthy Americans are expatriating at phenomenal rates. This ancillary evidence ranges from telltale social indicators to more hard numbers. For example, only a few short years ago, it was very difficult to find the single small bar or restaurant in most foreign countries, where American expatriates would gather. Today, they are more common than car dealerships. It seems that there are now quite a few in every small country.

On the other end of the spectrum is the Forbes Magazine annual lists of "400 Wealthiest Americans" and the "Worlds Billionaires". An analysis of those lists in recent years shows that while the number of billionaires in the US dropped by 13%, the number of worldwide billionaires grew by over 80% in the same time period (1999-2001). (See, "Defending the American Dream" at http://www.ActionAmerica.org/taxecon/defdream.html for more on this point.) Then there is the annual Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini Ernst & Young "World Wealth Report". A comparison of the 2002 and 2003 versions of that report will show you that there were 100,000 fewer millionaires in the US at the end of 2003, than were here in 2002. There is no doubt about it. The wealthy are leaving in large and increasing numbers.

But, consider this. Let's just assume that the Census numbers are off by a whopping 50% and that the expatriation rate is only half as high as the US Census numbers indicate and not increasing, we still have a serious problem. Do the math. Then consider that in reality, those 2000 Census numbers are probably off in the other direction and that expatriation is, in fact, increasing at an even higher rate than the Census Bureau predicted back in 2000, due to events and legislation that have transpired since the 2000 Census. It might be much worse...

Actions speak louder than words.

Of course, officials of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies deny that expatriation of the wealthy is a problem. But, the government's actions belie their words. Consider this. If the government's claims are true, why did both Republicans and Democrats in Congress suddenly find it necessary to add an amendment to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (26 USC 877(a)(1)), that claims the right to tax expatriate Americans for 10 years after they renounce their US citizenship and are taxpaying citizens of another country, if the US government thinks that one of their reasons for expatriation was to legally avoid US taxes? (Find that hard to believe? Click on the link and read it for yourself.) Actions speak louder than words.

Why then, did they follow-up that abominable law with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which modified the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1182(a)(10)(E)) to permanently deny expatriates entry into the United States, if the US government thinks that one of their reasons for expatriation was to legally avoid US taxes? (Click on the link and read it for yourself.) Actions speak louder than words.

And, what does the government use, in both of those laws, to determine if tax avoidance was among the reasons for a taxpayer's expatriation? Income and/or net worth. If an expatriate had a net worth of $500,000 at the time of expatriation or earned more than $100,000 per year for the five years immediately preceding expatriation, then he is assumed, by the US government, to have expatriated to avoid US taxes. (It's in those links, in surprisingly easy to understand verbiage.) Actions speak louder than words.

These laws are clearly aimed at punishing anyone who has the audacity to be rich and leave with their wealth, intact. If the IRS and lawmakers are not seriously concerned about the number of wealthy taxpayers who are leaving IRS jurisdiction, then what reason would they have to pass such autocratic laws? Think about it. Actions do speak louder than words.

[Click here for the rest of the article.]

 

[winodog]

Thats sarcasm, right?

[HighWheeler]

Unless we can change the "minds" of some rat voters, this article is useless.

What makes this article essentially useless is that there is no listing of how much money you have to make at each level.

Without that, everyone who watches "The Rich and the Famous" on TV are convinced that they themselves are in the bottom half, and then thank God that the rats are screwing the rich.

So they keep voting rat.

[Penner]

Are there any other rich people you'd like to keep out of this country?

If people think that America is so oppressive a place to live, then it is probably better that they go somewhere else. Then I won't have to listen to them whine about how horrible it is to be rich in America.

[HighWheeler]

Hmmmmm.

Did you get that idea from de Führer?

How's the rat kool-aide taste today?

[Know your rights]

If the nouveau riche take their money and run, America will cease to exist.

Straw man. The proposition is that if the rich take their money and run, America will substantially worse off; and the article's author has made a strong case for that proposition.

This isn't about "punishing the evil rich". This is about preventing the creation of an aristocracy here

The difference is merely rhetorical, unless by "aristocracy" you mean something other than "the rich" ... in which case you should explain what you do mean by "aristocracy."

[Know your rights]

If people think that America is so oppressive a place to live, then it is probably better that they go somewhere else. Then I won't have to listen to them whine about how horrible it is to be rich in America.

And you'd gladly pay substantially higher taxes in order to not listen to them?

[HighWheeler]

"This is about preventing the creation of an aristocracy here, which the founding fathers were adamantly against."

OK, then if this idea of taxing the rich to prevent an aristocrasy was so adamant, then you should be able to cite several passages in the Federalist papers and The Constitution. Go ahead.

[Penner]

Are you sure you're posting at the right website?

Sorry. I forgot that on FR these days, wandering off of the beaten path is verboten.

[americanbychoice2]

For 16 years I lived in Europe and was considered an expatriot. I am now retired and live in the US again. I don't even consider moving back, even though I have an aging and ill mother in Germany. I simply could not afford living there anymore.
One very big and obvious fact was omitted though. The US is the only country that taxes an American citizens global income regardless of residency. I had to file a 1040 every year. There is such a thing called an international double taxation treaty which makes you pay the greater of the taxes. For instance, if an American pays no taxes to the host country, he/she will pay taxes to the US government without reaping any of the benefits.
Therefore, a "top 1% earner" will pay almost the same taxes to the US if he/she left or stayed in this country.

[CSM]

"Question is, where are all the wealthy departing to? There has to be somewhere that is more friendly to high income earners."

I'm trying to find the Gulch myself. I would love to shrug off this government funded theft of my time and earned income. I have even thought about selling everything, moving to a ranch and working for land.....

[moehoward]

bumperoo

[Action-America]

And as they walk out the door, strip them of their American citizenship and bar them from entry into the US for the rest of their lives. If they try to sneak back in, lock them up in prison and throw away the key.

You obviously didn't take the time to read the whole article. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, referred to in that article, already denies reentry to wealthy expatriates. Follow the link. It's there in black and white. Furthermore, as also pointed out in the above article, although most expats do not officially renounce their citizenship, they are implicitly accepting that they will never return to the US, when they leave without paying the exorbitant patriotism penalty, of an additional 10 years of US income tax. You fail to understand that it is this very attitude of people like you and our elected officials, that we should strip the wealthy of their assets and citizenship, when they leave, that is one of the primary motivations for this exodus.

It seems that you are under the mistaken impression that the US actually offers something that these people may want. They're rich. Whatever amenity their new country doesn't offer them for free, they will buy with the money that they save, by moving offshore. In some countries, minor electric power outages may occur from time to time, so the wealthy expats buy commercial UPS systems. In some countries, phone service is either unreliable or has a lot of noise on the line, so the wealthy expats have satellite phones. They don't think like you. It's not, "What will the government do for me?", but, "Will the government stay out of my way and let me run my business?"

In 1999, when I asked a retired marine officer acquaintance, who had fled the US in 1997, if he didn't want to go back, his response was, "Why would I want to go back to a country that treated my like the 'enemy', (his word) simply because I had the audacity to make a few million dollars after I retired from defending that very same county?" BTW, he is still proud of his Marine service. Regardless of how he is dressed, when you see him, your first thought will be, "Marine". His house is filled with Marine paraphernalia and photos. He told me that leaving the USA was the hardest thing that he ever did, but that legislators, determined to control his wealth, left him no choice. When I asked him about family back in the US, he told me that with just a tiny portion of the additional income that he has earned since moving offshore, he had already paid to fly both his brother's family and his sister's large family to each visit him at each of his two homes (in two countries). I saw him a couple of years later and he told me that he had absolutely no regrets.

History has proven that the more a government tightens its grip on wealth, the more wealth slips out of its control. If the kid with the football keeps getting beat up by his teammates, after every game, pretty soon, he will take his football and find a new team to play with.

 

[Penner]

Thats sarcasm, right?

And a little exaggeration. I just don't agree with the article.

[CSM]

"If people think that America is so oppressive a place to live, then it is probably better that they go somewhere else. Then I won't have to listen to them whine about how horrible it is to be rich in America."

Wesly Mouch, is that you? It sure is easy to hate the "rich" when the hate is fueled by class warfare. What do you consider rich? I am by no means rich, but I pay 50% of my earnings in taxes.

[Badeye]

All I know is I opened a company in 1997, and became sucessful as a result of it. I've bought the home my wife and I had always wanted, and 15 acres of land, with a wonderful view. I've never cheated anyone, I've never cheated on my tax returns. In short, I played the game as it was explained to me up until 1997, and won.

Since I went from a median five digit income to a comfortable six digit income, I have listened closely the the Democratic Party. From what I can tell, they seem to think a man with a high school education, that doesn't need a government handout as some kind of "threat to humanity".

I have a news flash for the Democrats. I busted my ass to get where I am in life. I never asked the government for a damn thing, unless it was the wish it would just get the hell out of the way. Continuing to nominate hypocrites like Gore and Kerry, who are far more wealthy than I am today - FROM BIRTH - just pisses me off.

I've created a dozen in-house high paying jobs in a area of the country known for high unemployment even during the boom years of the 1990's (Appalachia Zone in Southern Ohio). I've been responsible since 1997 for hundreds of sub contractors working from their homes becoming very profitable in their own right, based on their hard work from coast to coast.

To keep telling me in effect, I"m an "evil 1%" just makes me even more determined to see you remain in the Minority, and to keep you out of the Whitehouse.

Keep saying people like me, who found the American Dream, are "whats wrong with the system". It ensures you will remain a shrinking minority within our political system for decades to come.

(Rant OFF)

[Dead Dog]

Hook me up!

[Dead Dog]

Thanks for being "Evil", keep it up!

[HighWheeler]

"I forgot that on FR these days, wandering off of the beaten path is verboten."

Saying something stupid and unfounded is forbidden.

And thanks for using the German word for forbidded, der Führer thanks you.

[Taxman]

Thanks for the ping, A-A. Excellent analysis, and timely.

[Badeye]

"Thanks for being "Evil", keep it up!"

No problem, I owe it to my family, and my country to do so.

In that order.