If you believe in the flat tax

[jput]

Not all the ethanol plants went up without NIMBY oppositions and govt. agencies going the whole 9 yards plus in an **bleep** exam.

But recall at the time,  the e-plants had the favor of the environmentalists believing in renewable energy and automobile pollution reduction.  That honeymoon is over.  

Meanwhile the radical enviromentalists absolutely hate Big Oil as the devil incarnate.  (Not that Big Oil doesn't deserve some criticism).  Public opinion is easily swayed.   "The China Syndrome" movie ended the construction of US nuclear power plants.  The television piece on Alar killed the market for apples for a long time.   "Silent Spring"  killed off DDT use,  so in many nations,  more people died of the malaria spread by mosquitos.

So public perception is a big deal.   krafty perceives that tax policy should "soak the rich"  so he refuses to consider a Flat Tax system where the rich couldn't hide behind so many loophole deductions.  But the fact is,  that congress-senate loves having the power to decide winners and losers in the increasingly more complex tax code.   They won't give up that power no matter how it would stimulate the nation's economy.  

As to the SCOTUS decision,  no political ads on television will change your mind nor mine.   The internet has opened up a new frontier of information and politcal advertising will plummet in importance.

[farawayguy]

"The China Syndrome" movie ended the construction of US nuclear power plants."

Fooled me - I thought Three Mile Island and Chernobyl ended it. Pretty sure they weren't movies, and for the record, I support nuclear.

[jput]

Chernobyl was widely known to be a combination of faulty USSR construction and plant operator mistakes. 

You get more radiation on a sunny day than what radiation was released by Three Mile Island.   But yes,  public perception has a lot to do with it.    Many other nations have found the flat tax to be a workable method of funding govt. functions.  

Unfortunately,  the fed. govt. operates on the base line budgeting system where every year,  govt. grows larger.   Govt. depts.  spend money wildly at the end of their annual budget allotment just so they don't take a cut in their next year's budget. 

Meanwhile,  in the real world of business,   farmers examine spreadsheets to examine our costs of production,  consider if there's somewhere we can made do with less imputs to produce crops,  raise livestock, produce milk-eggs-meat.   But in govt.  they just want to raise taxes rather than examine how they can make do with less.

[farawayguy]

The idea that those who support higher taxes for themselves, should pay extra is such a weak argument, it makes me think those who oppose higher taxes for the wealthy are just befuddled. I know Buffett is wealthy, but him paying more alone would have no affect on the deficit. It's a policy debate about tax levels these people are advocating. Unless the policy is adopted, even Buffett can't put the country on sound footing. I've known several wealthy folks who think they are underpaying, but I've only ever known one case of someone paying more than they are required to, and that was for image reasons when Romney told his accountants to overpay. And that actually made sense, because he could easily file an amended return after the election, so no real cost to him anyway.

[smokeyjay]

There's a little accounting problem with this assumption.  Buffet still owns the shares of stock in the company.  He pays capital gains taxes, which is taxed at a lower rate than personal income taxes.  He may pay his secretary more than he gets, but there are also IRS rulings on reasonable salary standards.  He is taking advantage of the lower capital gains tax rate by increasing shareholder value through the company rather than taking a large salary for himself.  A smart guy.

Plus, there is no legal way to "expense" profits by the company.  Making a profit, in his case, is buying and selling companies or shares in companies at a higher price than he paid.  In a normal business operation, profit is what is left over after expensing business costs, overhead, administrative costs, etc..  In the case of buying and selling shares of stock in a company, profit is taxable as long or short term capital gains.  There's no getting around it.  In Berkshire Hathaway's case, after tax profit is divided among shareholders after placing a  percentage into retained earnings.

[Kay/NC]

I would think the IRS pursuit of WB is more about establishing precedent for taxation of an entire class of income, which is far more important than the income of one individual or corporation, however flush. Haven't really followed the issue, and wouldn't hold my breath for a timely resolution.

[Kay/NC]

You know, that part about the congressional dole via tax code is a very apt point. If not for a chance at winning in the tossup of tax policy, there is no need for lobbying as much, and thus less of a free for the honorables system need exist.

[jput]

Ding,  ding,  ding,  winner, winner,  chicken dinner.    This is exactly why the current income tax code is a complicated mess that even has my CPA scratching his head (why he has no hair). 

Washington DC is all about money and power,  staying in office for a lifetime rather than congressmen-senators being there doing what's best for their country.    Occasionally the rare legislator comes along who refuses to play that game.  But he/she can't get any reforms done because the good ol' boys club from both parties is in charge.

We've reached the tipping point where there are so many takers on govt. food stamps,  subsidized housing,  disability,  unemployment,  etc.  for the makers to support that it is unsustainable.   Many of the makers have sized this up,   gone Galt and drop out of the system as much as they can because Washington DC won't cut the waste and fraud.    Just the money fraud in the Earned Income Tax Credit is enormous.   But EITC fraud won't be touched because it buys votes.

[Kay/NC]

There was a fast track tiwards the return of nuckear power in the US again, until Fukushima. That ongoing tragedy -another reactor appears to be melting down, releasing unheard-of amounts of radioactivity - has shut that door most of the way for another generation.

I think a smattering of new construction may yet move firward, but that still leaves up with no storage for spent rods in existing plants, whoch is in itself a big NIMBY accomplishment.

My first " activist" meeting was a public hearing on the Southeast Compact...a forced collection of seven Southeastern states, formed in order to site a new disposal site, once Barnwell, SC, was maxed out. That was around thirty years ago, and the isdue still hasn't been solved, as far as I know. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss, and sometimes ignorance is required, just so one can sleep at night.

[jput]

What France does in their heavy use of nuclear power,  is reprocess those fuel rods,  extracting even more energy from them.   However a jimmy carter era ban is still in place in the US because reprocessing spent rods creates nuclear bomb material.   Hindsight is golden.  If Japan had elevated its backup diesel powered pumping stations and fuel supply above the sunami wave levels,  they would have been able to safely shut those reactors down.   Woulda,  coulda, shoulda. 

Again politics and misinformation trumps having low cost energy to spur US economic activity.  Whether it is the need for sensible tax reforms,   cleaning up corruption,  the NIMBY crowd and radical enviromentalists (many of them are anti-capitalists,  green on the outside but commie red on the inside),  the growing taker crowd,  class warfare,  etc.,  the USA is headed for the Thelma and Louise ending.