Defending the American Dream

"Of course, if you are a Marxist, you believe that all jobs emanate from government and that only those in government should be allowed to have lot's of money."

I am not a marxist. The free enterprise system is the best thing going, but it is not perfect. It has its kinks. That is why you need gov't regulation and progressive taxes to keep it working right. We do not need to go as far as some of the European countries in regs, but our rich folks ain't hurting the way they let on that they do.

I am not sure you really understand capital. If the billionaires leave, their wealth is still in the form of AMerican dollars. They might transfer the bank account to the Caymans, but the Cayman bankers still have to invest it somewhere. Guess where the majority of it will be invested? Probably here. And if not, there is nothing in our laws which currently prevent any American from investing money overseas. You are panicking over nothing. Fear is the little mind-killer. parsy.

parsifal: I am not a marxist.

Yeah, right!

parsifal: That is why you need gov't regulation and progressive taxes to keep it working right.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. ...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

--- Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto

Careful. Your PINKO is showing.

parsifal: ...but our rich folks ain't hurting the way they let on that they do.

Huh? Where do you get the idea that the rich are hurting at all. Long before the pain gets much more than noticeable, they just move to a more hospitable environment. Why deal with a bunch of selfish, power hungry lawmakers, when moving is so easy?

parsifal: I am not sure you really understand capital. If the billionaires leave, their wealth is still in the form of AMerican dollars.

You are obviously a product of public education. Even if you don't follow the advice of the investment advisors yourself, the wealthy live by their advice. As a result, the wealthy generally have their wealth split among each of the major investments, including:

US and foreign currency
US and foreign stocks
US and foreign corporate bonds
US and foreign real estate (including mineral rights)
Gold and other precious metals
Precious stones

When the wealthy are forced to leave, they just convert their US currency, stocks and bonds to additional foreign currency (Euros, Yen, etc.), foreign stocks and foreign bonds. They mortgage their US real estate to foreign banks and buy more foreign real estate. There is, of course, no need to convert precious metals and stones.

Your lack of understanding of wealth is exceeded only by your envy of the wealthy. Karl Marx would be proud of you.

When the wealthy and even the semi-wealthy are forced, by our government, to leave, they generally leave NOTHING behind. Their wealth and the jobs and opportunity that it provides will go elsewhere. Cars manufactured in Mexico may be cheaper, but that won't matter much to you, since your job and the salary that it pays will be in Ireland, Russia, Mexico or some other country and you won't even be able to afford the price of a bicycle. But at least, you will be able to feed on your pride, knowing that Karl, Hillary and Teddy would be proud of your sacrifice, to give the central government more power over the proletariat.

As for me, I can afford to leave if things get bad enough and I do have an exit strategy. But, I don't want to leave. I was born here. I like the American people and their attitude. But, if anything could make me leave, it would be my fear of my own government. The reason that the wealthy are leaving now, is that they have a lot more to lose than do most others and they can afford it.

Just because your envy of the wealthy has made you hate them, doesn't change the fact that they are the ones who provide the jobs and opportunity that this nation now offers. Without the wealthy and their money, the US economy will devolve into a Marxian paradise, where the government provides all the jobs and the people get whatever the government decides to allow them. Even selling Amway will look good.

Love'em or hate'em, this country will be in for a long dark period without the wealthy and the jobs and opportunity that their wealth provides. Certainly, the American people are and an industrious lot, who will be able to rebuild, should it come to that. But, my concern is to keep it from coming to that.

Our lawmakers should stop worrying about how they can vote themselves more power over the people and start passing laws meant to encourage the wealthy (and others) to stay, rather than punish them for leaving. And, if our lawmakers won't do that, then we need to replace them at the next election.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

this is hard too read
i like your dollars
i dont have cent's.
tee hee that makes me laugh
you are funny
i like you
i agree with you

As our elected representatives argue among themselves about how best to exert even more legislative control over citizens and corporations, in the name of "fighting terrorism", they fail to realize that just that sort of draconian legislation is actually brewing a virtually unseen crisis of terrifying proportions. Combine that with the effects of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and more data that we have uncovered and what you have is a recipe for disaster.

The wealthiest people in the United States - those who have achieved the American Dream - those who pay almost all of the taxes - those who are responsible for the vast majority of US investment capital - are leaving the United States large and growing numbers. This isn't news. We have known about the growing expatriation rate for some time and common sense tells us that it isn't the poor who are leaving. But, new data that we have uncovered confirms that it is indeed, the wealthiest Americans, who are being forced to leave. Furthermore, we can now expect to see this government induced capital flight increase dramatically in the near future, as a result of the growing media attention to this issue and the effect of the terrorist attacks.

This is a very serious problem, because as we have shown in previous articles, if only the top earning 1% of taxpayers leave (just over a million taxpayers), it will mean a loss of over one-third of income tax revenue, requiring a 50% tax increase for those who remain.

It would be a serious mistake to call those who are leaving, unpatriotic. After all, what could be more patriotic than defending the American Dream. In fact, all that they are doing is responding to a recent spate of oppressive laws, designed to punish the wealthy for having achieved the American Dream. If anyone in this equation is unpatriotic, it is our elected lawmakers, who are attacking the American Dream and forcing these patriotic Americans to defend what they have achieved, by taking it elsewhere.

Those who have followed our articles on Action America (http://www.ActionAmerica.org) in recent years are already aware of this disconcerting trend of government induced capital flight that has been growing like a cancer, just under the surface. But, rather than report on an issue and then just set back on our laurels, we're constantly looking for new sources of information that might indicate that things are either better or worse than first reported. The reason for this article is that we have, indeed, uncovered new information.

It's getting worse.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but it looks like the flight of wealth from our shores is much worse than originally reported; worse even than reported in our annually updated article on this subject, "Tick-Tick-Tick - The Economy Bomb" which you can find at (http://www.ActionAmerica.org/taxecon/ticktick.html). There are three new facts that point to this ominous conclusion. Actually, it is two new facts and one that has been around for a while, but it took some work to uncover it.

1) The major media is taking notice.

In recent weeks, I have read numerous news articles about how Congress is considering several different pieces of legislation aimed at preventing major corporations from reincorporating in offshore jurisdictions, in order to remain competitive with their foreign rivals and punishing those corporations that leave anyway. What those corporations are doing is referred to as corporate expatriation and is not only legal, but in many cases, necessary in order to stay competitive with their foreign rivals. But, it's not corporate expatriation that this article concerns. I only mention it, because it demonstrates that the media is beginning to take notice of capital flight issues.

In previous articles on the subject of capital flight, we have pointed out that even though the number of wealthy individuals choosing to leave the United States, for more wealth friendly climates, is increasing rapidly, the worst flight will not occur until the media takes notice of what is happening and draws attention to the problem.

Oops! The media is taking notice.

Granted, the current news is not about the government induced individual expatriations that represent a true threat to our economy, but only about corporations that expatriate and cause no real harm to the economy in the process, since their jobs stay here. But, if the media is now reporting the smoke of government induced corporate expatriations, how long do you think it will be before they find and begin reporting on the fire of government induced individual expatriations?

As the media tries to bleed every ounce of interest out of the story of corporate expatriations, it's almost certain that some industrious journalist, eager to make a name for himself, will soon stumble across the facts surrounding expatriation of wealthy individuals. After all, it's not that hard to run across that info, once you start looking. For example, let's just take two likely search terms that a journalist might use in such research and try them on the Google search engine (http://www.google.com). Since we are talking about "expatriation" and "capital flight", let's use those terms.

Note: To enter a two word phrase into Google, you need to quote the phrase. So, to see how easy it will be for a journalist to stumble across this information, go to Google and enter:

"capital flight" expatriation

On July 4, 2002, if you entered that search criteria on Google, you would have found that 11 out of the 42 listed links related to the increasing level of expatriation of wealthy individuals. In fact, 5 out of the 10 links on the first results page directly addressed individual capital flight and four of those were Action America articles.

Even dropping the quotes in the search does not significantly change the outcome of the search, other than increasing the number of results. One National Review article that was returned verifies, "As taxes continue to soak up a larger percentage of the GDP, the number of U.S. citizens moving out of the country is increasing". If National Review is reporting on this ominous trend, how long do you think it will be before other major news sources pick up on it?

The major media, in general, has not yet realized how serious this is. But, as you can see, it's only a matter of time. Whether the story is broken in the Wall Street Journal, on Fox News or through any other large news outlet, the other news organizations will jump all over it and the word will spread like wildfire. In fact, as pointed out above, it actually looks like National Review is beginning to take notice.

Many wealthy individuals are already aware of this flight, but have no idea how serious it is. Oh, most wealthy Americans know a couple of people who have expatriated, but they think that those expatriations were one-of-a-kind events and that expatriations, in general, are infrequent and of little concern. When stories about expatriations start showing up in the media every day, they will realize just how serious a problem it really is and start planning their own escape. ("Escape," by the way, is the common term used by most US expats to describe expatriation. That in itself, is a sad commentary on where our government has brought us.)

Other Americans, who are already in the process of planning to expatriate, will speed up their departure, knowing that in response to such news, the government will try to slam the door shut on expatriation. This additional boost in expatriations will certainly become part of the news, which will encourage even more expatriations and that cycle will continue until such time as the government really does close the borders. But as history shows, even that won't stop capital flight.

Unfortunately, our lawmakers are so obsessed with their own power and control, that they are unlikely to realize in time, that their attempts at control are only making matters worse.

2) New evidence proves it is the wealthy who are leaving.

As we have shown in previous articles, there is ample evidence of the growing number of expatriations. However, the amount of dollars concerned has been, until now, a matter of conjecture and projections. This new evidence actually ties dollars to these expatriates.

For many years now, Forbes Magazine has been publishing annual lists of the 400 Wealthiest Americans and the World's Billionaires. When most people look at those lists, they just look at the names and net worth of the people on the lists. But, we have discovered that those lists tell a much more important story, if you dig deep enough.

Since Forbes has been using the same basic procedures to build those lists for years, I got to wondering if those lists might reflect the same alarming level of capital flight that we, at Action America, have been reporting on. They did.

In fact, the Forbes lists show that since 1999, the number of US billionaires has dropped by over 13%, with a 7% drop in average net worth, while the number of billionaires worldwide has increased by over 80%.

Think about what those numbers say. Either wealth is leaving the United States at an alarming rate and moving offshore or wealthy people in the United States are losing huge amounts of money, while wealthy people in the rest of the world are making tremendously more money. It doesn't matter which explanation you accept, because if you accept the second scenario, how long do you think wealthy Americans will continue to stay in such an inhospitable business environment before adopting the first scenario. What it comes down to is that the land of opportunity no longer offers the greatest opportunity.

You won't find the above information quoted in any major media source. I had to take it upon myself to do the research. For your information, the lists that we used were the Forbes 400 Richest Americans and the Forbes World's Billionaires for 1999, 2000 and 2001. Since the information was not easily downloadable, we had to copy and paste the Forbes data for the last few years, from dozens of web pages, into a single worksheet. We totaled up the number of billionaires in the US and worldwide for each year, along with their combined net worth and used that to calculate an average net worth for each group. If you want to go to that effort (3 to 12 hours, depending on the speed of your Internet connection), you will come up with the same results.

By doing the research yourself, you eliminate a lot of the spin. This is especially true, when you use non-political data, such as the Forbes lists. Perhaps it is for that reason that nobody in the major media ever thought to use the Forbes lists in such a manner. I certainly don't believe that Forbes has been tweaking their lists to make a political statement, just waiting for someone to stumble across that data. In fact, such unbiased information from a non-political source soundly substantiates the information that we have derived from many other sources that might be considered political.

3) Since September 11, more people who can afford it, are leaving.

Within a month after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we learned that foreign consulates of a couple of favored haven nations had noticed a significant rise in the number of requests for information concerning how to obtain citizenship and/or permanent resident status in their countries. At that time, however, we could not get further information from other countries, so we did not report on our assumption that these two countries were likely representative of other haven nations, as well.

But today, ten months after those terrorist attacks, we are just beginning to see positive signs of a significant increase in expatriations of wealthy US citizens. That ten month delay is just about how long it would take most semi-prepared wealthy people to get their affairs together, in preparation for a move.

But, to make such preparations in that short a time, a person would have to already have a good idea of who to talk to and what to do. In other words, the only people who could prepare that fast would be those who were already considering expatriation as a risk management move, prior to the terrorist attacks. Since many tax consultants advise their wealthy clients to maintain an up-to-date exit strategy, as a worst case scenario, it is reasonable to believe that a significant number of wealthy people could, in fact, prepare that fast.

What's more troubling is that many wealthy people, who might have already left, were totally unprepared and are still planning their move. That number could be small or large. There is no way to know until they leave.

But, one thing is for certain. This is adding to an already serious problem, caused by an out-of-control IRS and unrestrained frivolous litigation in this country. In fact, if it were not for those more serious threats, I am sure that few of those who are leaving today would be fleeing the terrorist threat alone.

It is important to understand that the terrorist threat is not the primary reason that those people are leaving. Terrorism is just the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". If it were not for the out-of-control IRS, the terrorist threat alone would not be reason enough to cause most wealthy people to leave.

So, added together, here is what we have:

The wealthiest Americans are under attack in several ways.

IRS records show that the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay over 35% of taxes and the wealthiest 5% pay well over half of taxes.
The US taxes the wealthy just for dying.
Frivolous litigation is at an all-time high, with the US having far more lawyers, per 100,000 population, than any other country (ex: 307 in US, 82 in Germany, 12 in Japan).

The IRS is the most hated and feared agency in the history of the world.

2000 Discovery Health Channel Study of fears and phobias shows that Americans fear the IRS more than they fear God.
1999 survey of most despotic government agencies of all time (no longer available online) shows that Americans rank the IRS number 2, close behind Hitler's Gestapo and far ahead of the former Soviet KGB.
The USA is the only nation in the world where citizens risk losing all of their assets, due to a signature of a single non-elected bureaucrat, regardless of where those assets were acquired or may be domiciled. Worse yet, in a court challenge, the burden of proof is on the citizen.

Wealthy Americans are taking all their money and leaving in ominously large and growing numbers.

Expatriation increased from less than 40,000 in 1995 to about 100,000 in 2000.
Since the wealthy are most under attack by government, most at risk to frivolous litigation and most able to afford to leave, it follows that most expatriates are probably wealthy.
The Forbes data confirms the conclusion that wealthy individuals are indeed the people who are leaving.

Signs are that capital flight is getting worse.

The terrorist threat is causing an increase in capital flight, over and above expatriation caused by the IRS.
Expatriation will likely increase dramatically when the major media eventually delves deeper into this story and begins reporting the facts.
Major media sources are now beginning to take notice of expatriations.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from all of this.

The United States is on the verge of a crisis of calamitous proportion, created by an out of control IRS and draconian laws aimed at government control of all wealth.

The additional fear of unbridled frivolous litigation and the more recent fear of terrorism, though not principal causes, hasten the approach of this looming disaster. But, rather than repeal the laws that are causing this capital flight, our lawmakers only make matters much worse by passing even more oppressive legislation, which actually has the effect of making matters worse, by driving even more wealth offshore.

History has shown that no government has ever been successful at using force and intimidation to keep citizens with means from leaving the country and taking their wealth with them. Furthermore, every time that any government has attempted such tactics to keep the wealthy from leaving, their attempts, as has our government's, have had exactly the opposite effect. The only thing that will keep wealth from leaving any country is the same thing that generated so much wealth here and attracted so much foreign wealth to the United States in the first place - greater freedoms and less oppressive laws.

Since the root cause of this capital flight is clearly the IRS and since the IRS is a requirement of any method of taxation that is based on income, the obvious solution is to adopt a method of taxation that is not based on income and therefore, does not require such an abusive agency to insure the payment of taxes, through the use of intimidation of citizens, prying into their private financial affairs and summary confiscation of their property.

There are several such viable replacements. But, since time is of the essence, we must concentrate on those proposals that already have some support, are part of the national discussion and exist as proposals in Congress.

There are currently only two such proposals that are expressed in the form of bills in Congress. These two bills are the Fair Tax Act of 2001 (H.R.2525) and Individual Tax Freedom Act of 2001 (H.R.2717), both of which eliminate the IRS by completely replacing the income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax. Note that the much touted flat (income) tax is not a viable replacement for the current income tax, since it is itself, still an income tax, and as such, would NOT eliminate the IRS. On the same note, Americans should remember that our current income tax started out as a flat income tax. The income tax (both flat and progressive) has failed. It is now time to replace it with something that will solve the problems that the income tax has created.

Expatriation of our wealthiest citizens and the loss of our largest companies will continue until either the income tax is replaced with a method of taxation that does not punish citizens for the successful acquisition of wealth or the US economy finally implodes from lack of native investment capital. Failure to soon replace the income tax with a NRST is a recipe for certain economic disaster.

This has become a critical issue. Action America encourages our readers to study the two NRST proposals. To learn more about those proposals, go to Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) and Citizens for an Alternative Tax System (CATS). Most of all, we urge you to contact your Congressman and Senators and let them know that, come the next election, you will register your dissatisfaction in the voting booth, with any of your elected representatives, regardless of party, who fail to actively support the NRST.

Who is forcing the greedy goobers to leave? They got a billion dollars and they feel put upon? They feel like they have been shortchanged in their life? Think about it a second:

Suppose you are a 20 year old with one billion dollars. Assume you will live 50 more years. Do you know how much money you can spend each of the remaining years of your life? Would you believe twenty million dollars per year? (And that is if you earn zero interest on the unspent portion.)

Do you know how much that is each and every day of the year? Try about fifty-five thousand dollars per day 365 days per year. That's right. A billionaire could spend $55,000 per day. And this guy is whining? I'm sorry. If this country had a 5% income tax, theres people that would figure that was too much. If some billionaire is sitting around fretting about his income taxes, which represent IMHO, his social responsibility, then to heck with him. Let him move.

And what makes you think that the rich PROVIDE us jobs? Dude, we provide them labor. We trade our hours for their bucks and usually end up shortchanged in the process. I suggest that you find you some wealthy person to worship. Hang around them a few years and fawn over them. Then, after a few years, tell me that they don't put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

If you can't find a rich person to worship and adore, then move to one of them countries that has an aristocracy. You can find you some Duke or Earl to toady up to. And you know what? After a year or two of that, I bet you lose your faith in them, too.

If the rich move out, then many of us will take their place. Capital is not limited. We have land, skills, brains, and most of us are not afraid of sweat. And you still have not addressed the points that I made about how are the rich moving out of the country any different than the rich moving factories out of the country? The rich don't mind moving our jobs out to Mexico, so let them go live down there. Viva La Revolutione!!! parsy.

BRAVO; well done ! Just don't hold your breath, waiting for pArsy to " get it ". I've tried and tried and tried , for years; but he still clings, steadfastly, to his Marxism / class warfare beliefs. He doesn't even understand that he, himself, is part and parcel, of the very people, whom nhe rails against. He has the money ( NOT BILLIONAIRE )and the POSESSIONS; just not the sense nor inclination to realize what position he willingly places himself and his progeny ( as his heirs ) in.

The movement of production facilities to foreign countries is another of the legal ways the corps and individuals move all their wealth out of the reach of the IRS. I know companies that have done this and others that are considering it.

It starts put with Union problems, government regulation, tax issues, labor costs, or any of a number of the other things that have turned U.S. manufacturing into the hollow shell of what it used to be. Then they have a couple of contracts engineered in the U.S. but built overseas. Next they open a foregin division. The foreign division being more competitive grabs more and more of the work, while the U.S. division reorganizes, downsizes, and shifts assets.

It is not only billionares that are doing it. Mexico has over a million Americans living, working, and retiring there. Some of the Americans living in Mexico retired there because they could no longer afford to live in the U.S., they were people of modest means that got taxed out of the U.S.

You can find U.S. expatriates all over the world now.

parfsy ... you are so dead WRONG , that thedre just aren't enough words, in any language,to explain it to you. If, for one moment, you really believe all of the guff, that you keep typing ( and I, for one, having known you for years and talked to you about many other things,privately, do NOT believe that this is what you REALLY do believe!), then you shan't be able to support yourself, nor your family, being the lawyer, that you've now become. Stop this silliness. FR is NOT the place to test your opposition / lawyer skills. : - (

I am not a Marxist. I think that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people. I do believe that the gov't wastes a high percentage of the tax dollars it currently gets, but I think that is endemic to all gov'ts (and other large organizations. What I detest, is the way that conservatives fawn all over businessmen and the wealthy as if the country was supposed to be run for their benefit.

I am not anti-business. I am not anti-rich. I simply try to bring a different perspective to the problem. IMHO, the rich far too often are ate up with greed. They want more and more and more. So they spin this little tale about how gov't regulations are bad, taxes are bad, minimum wages are bad, and so forth and so on. Conservatives then buy into the tale hook, line, and sinker.

America is great because we have had a history of a fairly prosperous middle class. Read your DeToqueville. That gives all of us a vested interest in the country. But when a rich person gets "greed fever", then he starts to look for ways to play the system.

I have known many businessmen who have nothing but disrespect for a welfare-type mom who lies about her income to get food stamps and welfare. But these same businessmen lie like dogs to cut down their taxes. They are all for "truth and responsibility" from the welfare mom and for themselves on taxes, no matter what kind of lies they have to tell. I try to see both sides of the picture and I try to bring some insight to conservatives who generally have little problem dissing the welfare queen and ignoring the lousy cheating businessmen.

Conservatives are usually real astute at picking up on reality. Well, the reality is that many businessmen are nothing but sharks. Greed is a bad thing in lazy welfare bums and greed is a bad thing (and probably worse)in the wealthy. Good conservative thought, to me, comes down to RESPONSIBILITY. parsy.

think that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people.

You are aware I hope that "poor" people do not pay income taxes and then get the EIT on top of that? Tell me, how are the "rich" not paying more than their share?

Because, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But lest you also think I am a Marxist, please read this from Aristotle:

Now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best, and therefore it will clearly be best to possess the gifts of fortune in moderation; for in that condition of life men are most ready to follow rational principle. But he who greatly excels in beauty, strength, birth, or wealth, or on the other hand who is very poor, or very weak, or very much disgraced, finds it difficult to follow rational principle. Of these two the one sort grow into violent and great criminals, the others into rogues and petty rascals.

And two sorts of offenses correspond to them, the one committed from violence, the other from roguery. Again, the middle class is least likely to shrink from rule, or to be over-ambitious for it; both of which are injuries to the state. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience. On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded.

So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes.

Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best constituted in respect of the elements of which we say the fabric of the state naturally consists. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors' goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely. Wisely then did Phocylides pray- 'Many things are best in the mean; I desire to be of a middle condition in my city.'

Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.

Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme--either out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of the middle constitutions and those akin to them. I will explain the reason of this hereafter, when I speak of the revolutions of states. The mean condition of states is clearly best, for no other is free from faction; and where the middle class is large, there are least likely to be factions and dissensions. For a similar reason large states are less liable to faction than small ones, because in them the middle class is large; whereas in small states it is easy to divide all the citizens into two classes who are either rich or poor, and to leave nothing in the middle.

And democracies are safer and more permanent than oligarchies, because they have a middle class which is more numerous and has a greater share in the government; for when there is no middle class, and the poor greatly exceed in number, troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end. A proof of the superiority of the middle dass is that the best legislators have been of a middle condition; for example, Solon, as his own verses testify; and Lycurgus, for he was not a king; and Charondas, and almost all legislators.

These considerations will help us to understand why most governments are either democratical or oligarchical. The reason is that the middle class is seldom numerous in them, and whichever party, whether the rich or the common people, transgresses the mean and predominates, draws the constitution its own way, and thus arises either oligarchy or democracy. There is another reason--the poor and the rich quarrel with one another, and whichever side gets the better, instead of establishing a just or popular government, regards political supremacy as the prize of victory, and the one party sets up a democracy and the other an oligarchy. Further, both the parties which had the supremacy in Hellas looked only to the interest of their own form of government, and established in states, the one, democracies, and the other, oligarchies; they thought of their own advantage, of the public not at all. For these reasons the middle form of government has rarely, if ever, existed, and among a very few only. One man alone of all who ever ruled in Hellas was induced to give this middle constitution to states. But it has now become a habit among the citizens of states, not even to care about equality; all men are seeking for dominion, or, if conquered, are willing to submit.

Because, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

There is no empirical evidence to support that assertion. Wealth is not a zero sum game. The Rich may be getting richer but it certainly does not follow that it is at the expense of the "poor".

And PS! I did too have bad dreams last nite. Giant spacemen chased me. I do not remember whether or not they caught me. I stayed away from the bar-b-que tonite but I did catch part of a Godzilla movie. parsy.

It doesn't ALWAYS follow, but sometimes (and I think OFTEN) it follows. A lot depends on how rich and how hard-working the poor. parsy.

The next timed, that you're out and about, looking at books, get one about Marx and his mronic theories. You ARE saying exactly ( " the rich should pay more in taxes than others " ), almost word for damned word, what he did ! THIS IS NOT CONSERVATISM ; THIS IS MARXIST CANT !

There is good and bad in every race, religion, sex, ethnicity, and asocial strata.The " greed " and dishonesty of the poor and the " welfare Queens " is far worse. They contribute NOTHING ; they just take, and take, and take. Trying to see All sides, has left you blind. Frankly, parsy, you just don't really know the REALLY weathy. Neither do you interact with the upper middle and upper classes , who DO make this country prosperous and workable. Yolu've known me, for a long time, yet , refuse to take our chats into conszideration, when you paint with such a hugely broad brush. Do you suppose that I and my husband and daughter and son-in-law are such exceptions, to your benighted view of those whom you continually heap such calumny upon ? What about YOU , dear ? Time to fess up and come clean about your own salary. Are YOU a lying crook,who is corrupt? : - )

I am not saying that everybody who is rich are greedy good-for-nothings. But neither is everybody who is rich a wonderful national asset. This article is about wealthy people who emigrate from America because they think their taxes are too high. My opinion is "Let them go. We don't need 'em!"

Greed is not something restricted to one economic class. Poor people are greedy. You think greed by the poor is worse. I disagree. Ask yourself how many people were devastated by ENRON. Or Worldcom. Or Global Crossing. But on average, these greedy white collar criminals will spend less time in the hoosegow than Tyrone of The Hood who robbed the all nite convenience store.

My quarrel with conservatives is that they pick up on lower class greed and miss upper class greed. Liberals, OTOH, pick up on upper class greed and miss the greed of the welfare class. I try to do it right and give 'em both heck.

As far as my salary, it is still small. I am only getting started in this new career and I am old. My family income is pretty high. I suspect that I will never sock it to my clients like most do. But I will be comfortable and happy. parsy.

Another PS---It's 1:46 here and I have to hit the sack. Can barely hold my head up. Nitey Nite! parsy the bleary-eyed.

Or maybe New Zealand - beautiful country, beautiful women, eminently drinkable beer. Heck, me and a few thousand other freepers, suitably armed, and we'll turn it back on the right track. ;)

,,, beautiful women? I've got a sheep in your size [major credit cards accepted]. As for the right track our Marxist government is considering raising petrol anywhere from 30c to $1 per litre. That will shut the country down. Every nation is going to have to pay tribute to the UN before long. This will be done by citizens paying vast amounts of taxes. It's Communism being allowed to evolve in another way. I'm betting the $US will end up being the one world currncey and a few people will do exceedingly well out of it.

This article is about wealthy people who emigrate from America because they think their taxes are too high.

There you go again, trying to misconstrue the point, so as to bolster your unfounded argument. This article is not about expatriates who left because they thought that their taxes were too high. As repeated many times in the above article, they are leaving because of an out of control IRS, not tax rates. It is occurring as a direct result of many oppressive laws aimed at government control of wealth. It is occurring because of fear of an unaccountable agency that can confiscate all of your worldly assets, regardless of where in the world those assets were acquired or may be domiciled, without so much as a court order. It is occurring because opportunity is just better elsewhere. In fact, these points were highlighted in bold red letters, several places in the article, just to make it very clear that the problem goes far beyond the level of taxation.

What it comes down to is that the land of opportunity no longer offers the greatest opportunity.
This is adding to an already serious problem, caused by an out-of-control IRS and unrestrained frivolous litigation in this country.
The United States is on the verge of a crisis of calamitous proportion, created by an out of control IRS and draconian laws aimed at government control of all wealth.
The only thing that will keep wealth from leaving any country is the same thing that generated so much wealth here and attracted so much foreign wealth to the United States in the first place - greater freedoms and less oppressive laws.
Since the root cause of this capital flight is clearly the IRS and since the IRS is a requirement of any method of taxation that is based on income, the obvious solution is to adopt a method of taxation that is not based on income and therefore, does not require such an abusive agency to insure the payment of taxes, through the use of intimidation of citizens, prying into their private financial affairs and summary confiscation of their property.

Notice all of the highlights. At no point in that article does it suggest that the level of taxation is responsible for this flight of wealthy individuals. The article does not suggest that taxes be lowered. It clearly shows that the problem is the method of taxation, with other minor issues existing only as triggers that may push a wavering individual to take the jump offshore.

In my business ventures, I have had occasion to meet quite a few American expats and the subject of why they expatriated always comes up. Never have I heard any of them say that taxes were the reason. The primary reasons that I have heard, have been:

Unacceptably high risk of unwarranted IRS confiscation of ALL of their worldwide assets
Fear of other IRS abuses
Lack of privacy in their worldwide finances
Too many oppressive laws aimed at government control of private wealth
Fear of frivolous litigation
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
Fear that the US will eventually close the borders to wealth

In fact, most of the expats that I have met, tell me that although they have reduced their taxes since expatriating, the reduction has been marginal. That is because they still pay taxes in the various countries where their money is invested and they did have a portion of their income legally sheltered from US taxes before leaving. The level of taxes is most certainly not a driving issue.

It's all about an out of control IRS, oppressive laws and frivolous litigation. But then, as a lawyer, you stand to benefit from oppressive laws and an abundance of wealthy prospective defendants, don't you? Maybe I was wrong. You may not be a real Marxist, after all. It could be that you're just greedy,... just like the rest of the world.

You point out that greed is not limited to just one economic class. You are quite right. In fact, every person on earth wants more than he has. Greed is a basic instinct. In fact, the least trustworthy people that I have ever met, were those who claimed not to be greedy. The primary difference between Marxists and conservatives is that Marxists use that natural "desire for more" to create class envy, as a way to divide and conquer.

There's nothing wrong with greed. It's what makes us all strive for a better job, a nicer car, a bigger house or that dream vacation. The thing that makes the difference is how we go about expressing that greed. The most common difference between the wealthy and most of the poor and middle classes is that many of the poor and middle class (mostly liberals) limit their greed to themselves, while most of the wealthy realize that the easiest way to increase their holdings is to help others increase theirs and make a little bit in the process.

After all, it was the famous billionaire, J. Paul Getty, who once said: "I would rather have one percent of the effort of 100 individuals than 100 percent of my own effort." He knew well, as do most wealthy individuals, that in order to get the benefit of that 1%, he had to appeal to the greed of those others, by giving them a way to get more for themselves, in the process.

I think that I like the way the wealthy express their greed much better than the way many (not all) of the poor and middle class express theirs.