Opinions about Current Events: January 2013

By Rick Adamson 1.16.13

I would like to present you with a table which shows some statistics about tax return filers in 2009 along with some information about our population. Then I will explain the numbers and make some observations.

Let’s start with the table. Federal Income Taxes based on income tax returns for 2009[1] Click here to retrieve the worksheet.[2] [3]

Observations:

About one half of the population does not file tax returns. About one half of those who do file make under $32,196 per year and pay about 2 percent of all income taxes. Portions of the population that do not file include children, retired people and the sick but it also include a lot of people who live off of illicit activities.

Therefore, 3/4 of the population either do not file or if they do file they pay very little in income taxes. Conversely, 1/4 of the population pays 98 percent of all income taxes.
When our politicians talk about saving taxes for a certain percentage of the people they are incorrect. They should say a certain percentage of taxpayers because as illustrated in the table ½ of the population do not file or pay taxes and are, therefore, not affected by changes in tax rates.

As the table shows, the income tax system is highly progressive (the more one earns the more they pay). In addition, many States collect income taxes and that system in progressive.

People should realize that there is another part of the system that taxes just about everything we purchase and that system is highly regressive (not based on income). There are State and local sales taxes. There are property taxes, toll road fees and there are hidden Federal and State taxes on gasoline, utility bills, insurance policies, you name it. So, it is hard to argue that we are under taxed.

Between 2009 and 2012 revenue increased by 34 percent while spending increased by 74 percent. This excludes social security and Medicare because these programs are (or should be) paid for by withholdings from workers’ paychecks. These programs are, therefore, not considered “entitlements” by this writer. These two programs must be put back on a sound footing by increasing taxes and extending the eligible age and by reducing fraud.

Mandatory spending (entitlements and interest on our debt) was 38 percent of all spending in 1970, 64 percent in 2012 and is projected to be 82 percent by 2040. We are quickly approaching the point where there will be hardly any money left to pay for anything else, including salaries for the Congress! [4]

Households that have a net worth of $1,000,000.00 or more (excluding their home) amount to approximately 2 percent of all households. These households are roughly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Only about 200,000 families earn $1,000,000 or more per year (.014 percent of all taxpayers). This group tends to lean toward the Republicans by about 3:1. [5] [6]

Many people consider the Republican Party to be the party of the rich. The facts do not support that belief. There are just as many rich Democrats as Republicans. This belief, it seems, is due to the fact that many Republicans talk about cutting spending thus some segments of the population take that to mean cutting their benefits. Further, the Democrats have successfully bought this segments’ vote by supporting massive entitlement programs that are now out of control. They refuse to look seriously at the problem of spending simply because they are afraid of offending their constituents who may decide not to vote for them again.

Since Johnson, under the “Great Society” program, we have spent $14 Trillion on welfare programs aimed at reducing the poverty level, revitalizing slums, providing benefits for dependent children, Medicaid and many other so called welfare programs. However, it has not worked. We have not reduced the poverty level or improved conditions in the slums of New York, Chicago and Detroit, among others, one bit. The programs simply have not worked. They have only insured that those affected have become dependents of the Government. See article by Thomas Sowell. We need to come up with a more effective system for helping the needy one that rewards and encourages them to improve their circumstances and does not encourage the breakup their families.

You can see from the table that by far most Americans are not rich (defined as income above approximately $100,000.00 per year). There are about 14 million of them out on a total population of 305 million) and it is clear that there simply are not enough rich people to pay all of the Country's bills. See article by John Stossel The solution, therefore, seems to be to figure out how to create more good paying jobs so that more people are working and making more money and, therefore, paying taxes. In addition, we have to cut back spending. We are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar spent which cannot go on forever.

At the same time, we need to change our culture in order to instill in our young people the fact that it is their personal responsibility to develop a skill and/or get an education because this is the most assured way to get ahead financially. We have a cultural problem because almost 30 percent of our young people do not graduate from high school. This is in spite of the fact that a high school education is provided free to all of our citizens and others. And, in my opinion, any child that wants to go to college can go. There are numerous ways to finance that education if one wants it bad enough.

We now live in a World where low skilled work can be farmed out to other Countries. A World where if you want to earn a good income you must have a marketable skill. There is increasingly limited room in this Country for low skilled workers. We must realize that in order to succeed here we must do work that is innovative and intellectual in nature. Work that low skilled people in other countries cannot do for if they could the work would be farmed out to them. This is simply because people want products that are as inexpensive as possible and due to technology it is possible to have certain products produced in a Country with less expensive labor. A good example is Apple and its iproducts. The design and intellectual work is done in the U.S. while production is done elsewhere.

Too many of our citizens make bad decisions about their skills and/or education and have the expectation that the Government will take care of them. Our politicians talk about the importance of education all of the time. It is important but it is not something that can be fixed by throwing more and more money at, especially from Washington. If a person does not want an education we can not force it on them. We hear a lot of talk lately about teachers, good teachers. I think they are getting a bad wrap because if their students do not want to learn they will not. What about the family’s responsibility? It is a cultural problem!
We have to teach our folks that if they make bad decisions about their skill and/or education then there will be consequences and that the rest of us are not obligated to take care of them. The consequences are long hours and low pay, it is each individual’s decision.

The middle and upper class taxpayers need to realize that they represent less than 1/4 of the population and that they end up paying for almost everything the Feds spend. This is where the largest number of taxpayers is and, therefore, where the money must come from. Once this realization occurs, the middle class will get on the spending reduction bandwagon.

[1] http://taxfoundation.org/article_ns/summary-2009-federal-individual-income-tax-data
[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/cbo-rich-pay-outsized-share-taxes/
[3]http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_2009USbn_13bs1n#usgs302
[4] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/defens/
[5]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_political_party_has_more_millionaires
[6]http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html

By Rick Adamson 1.5.13

As a gun owner I fear an overreaction to the terrible event which just occurred in Connecticut. The act was despicable and my thoughts and prayers go out to the affected families.

However, the Government tends to attempt to solve problems in unusually incorrect ways which in many cases results in injustice and unwarranted inconvenience to the public. Take air travel for instance. It has become a chore to be avoided by many people. Rather than recognizing that, after arming the pilots and using more marshals along with the existing metal detectors and other existing measures (not to mention the fact that the passengers would NOW stop anyone attempting the hijack a plane), it is very unlikely that a 911 event could occur on a domestic flight, the Government has overreacted and made air travel very unpleasant.

The harsh measures now in place should be reserved for incoming foreign flights. That is where the risks are.

Now, I do not doubt that there are plenty and maybe too many guns in the Country but it is not possible to get rid of them all. The current laws are highly restrictive and, for the most part, work well if they are aggressively enforced.

One obvious change should be made. It relates to background checks for those wishing to purchase a gun from another individual. Exchanges between individuals are exempt from background checks whether they occur in ones home or at gun shows. It has been reported that up to 40 percent of guns purchased are not subject this check. This should be changed so that all transfers of guns are subject to these checks. Finally, the data collected that goes into the background check database needs to be looked at to insure that all of the proper and relevant information is being collected.

Federal prosecution on gun law violations is at an all time low. I do not know why so I guess we should ask Attorney General Holder. In that regard, I just heard Mayor Blumberg or NYC say that gun related murders in NYC are decreasing and have been for years. He said that this is because the NYPD aggressive pursue persons who have illegal guns. He also said that if you are caught carrying a loaded illegal gun there is a mandatory 3.5 year prison sentence. This seems to be helping in NYC. Unfortunately, Chicago and Detroit, among others, are on the other extreme. See the recent article by the Sun Times related to Chicago.1 Also, the Michigan Chronicle has and interesting article related to Detroit.2

You need to understand that the gun violence problem is not usually caused by purchasers of legally acquired weapons and ammunition. It is usually, perpetuated by individuals who have acquired their weapons and ammunition by illegal means. The exception seems to be certain young white men who are mentally deranged. Such deranged individuals would have, in all likelihood, found other means to commit their crimes if guns had not been available.

It is ironic to me to understand that in the U.S. the gun murder rate is the highest in areas which have the strictest laws relating to guns. And it has been proven that where concealed carry is allowed, crime goes down. This seems to be because criminals are less aggressive when they know (or suspect) that their victims might be armed. I think the key is the introduction of ambiguity into the situation that causes criminals to go elsewhere.

I suggest that, rather than arming teachers and principles, we assign a segment of each police department three schools to monitor. I would give them an unmarked car and have the visit each randomly throughout each school day. I would publicize the fact that cops are monitoring the schools. The ambiguity introduced by this “unknown” might scare away the criminals.

I think we must separate in our minds the problem with massacres like just happened in Connecticut and the daily carnage (which you do not hear so much about) occurring in our major cities and then think about how to correct those problems. The solution to the first problem will not necessarily correct the second.

With respect to the second category (daily carnage), more gun control laws will not make a difference. These criminals do not purchase their gun and ammunition legally. Therefore, we must track down and severely punish those who have illegal weapons and ammunition.

Check out this video from the Daily Caller:
George Will: Tougher gun laws, assault weapons ban won’t help

According to George Will there was no measurable difference between gun related crime when one compares the period before the 1994 gun ban to the gun band period 1994-2004 and to the post band period. This can only be explained by the fact that criminals do not acquire their guns through legal means, thus the ban had no effect on them.

With respect to the first category (mental incompetence), the solution is far more difficult. These individuals are clearly not of sane mind. Are they somehow brain washed (like a suicide bomber) and focused on their mission to such an extent that they cannot be stopped? Is it possible to become self brain washed and to become so focused on a mission that nothing else matters? Surely, we can come up with some measurements pursuit to which such as individual can be reported and treatment provided. For example, in the Connecticut matter, it has been reported that Mr. Lanza was estranged from his father and that his Mother, after determining that she could not handle him, was in the process of having him committed to an institution. In the Aurora massacre the perpetrator had been banded from his college compass after committing certain unbecoming acts and in the case of the Fort Hood slayings, the Army knew that the Officer involved had mental issues. In each of these cases there should have been an agency, maybe one run by the State, whereby these individuals could have been reported resulting in their inability to legally acquire weapons.

In conclusion:

We need to-

Strictly enforce current gun laws
Insure that all transfers of guns be subject to the Federal background check system
Enact a new law making it a federal offence to posses an illegal gun and/or ammunition and include mandatory sentencing guidelines
Increase the waiting period to at least 3 days
Install a system whereby a parent or other person of authority can report to the Government any individual who they think might be problem and should not be allowed to acquire a firearm
Do not go overboard by enacting punitive taxes on guns and/ammunition sales because this only punishes the innocent hunter or sportsman as criminals do not buy their weapons/ammunition legally

For a timeline of the worst mass shooting incidents across the globe over the past two decades by the NY Daily News. Click here.
This following information relates to the countries/areas mentioned in the above referenced article:

Norway. Gun ownership is a non-controversial subject in Norwegian politics. By far, the most crimes are committed with stolen weapons, not legally obtained ones. Most illegally-used guns are stolen from larger military storage facilities, although some may be acquired when stolen from private owners. Break-ins in private homes seldom lead to the theft of weapons, unless the owner has not followed the regulations.

There is no apparent public desire to introduce a concealed carry permit at this point in time, and there is no such license available to civilians3

South Korea. In practice, only hunters own guns in Korea. (And hunters are not many in Korea.) By regulation, hunters cannot keep their guns all the time -- they must keep their guns at the police station during off-season. Handguns are pretty much nonexistent among civilians.4

Britain. The UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. If you want to own a gun, it is very difficult to do so.5

France. Nowadays it is impossible to buy a gun without having belonged to a shooting club for more than six months or without a hunting permit. Otherwise the only people allowed to have guns are the military, the police, customs officers and some non- uniform police on surveillance.6 The result is that in France only the criminals are armed, while decent citizens, even those as brave as Anne-Lorraine, perish.7

Canada. As in many American cities, it is virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to obtain a permit to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense. Handgun carry permits for self-protection are issued "only in exceptional cases" where the issuing officer is "satisfied" of the applicant's need. A 600 page National Firearms Manual, prepared by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provides ample reasons for an officer to accept or deny a self-protection

South Korea. In practice, only hunters own guns in Korea. (And hunters are not many in Korea.) By regulation, hunters cannot keep their guns all the time -- they must keep their guns at the police station during off-season. Handguns are pretty much nonexistent among civilians.8

New Zealand. After the looseness of gun ownership in the USA and the craziness that is happening world-wide in trying to take away the ownership of guns from citizens who have done no wrong, I found that the laws in NZ concerning the ownership of small arms were quite sane. Whether it stays that way or not remains to be seen. We are, sorry to say, greatly influenced by Australia, and that country has recently enacted extremely draconian gun laws.9

Australia. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.10

USA. Gun law in the United States is defined by a number of state and federal statutes. In the United States of America, the protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. While there have been vigorous debates on the nature of this right, there has been a lack of clear federal court rulings defining this right until recently. The individual right to bear arms for self-defense was affirmed in the landmark United States Supreme Court cases District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia, and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, which incorporated the individual right to the states.

Apple 4th Gen iPad With Retina Wi-Fi 32GB For Verizon - MD523LL/A (Google Affiliate Ad)
Federal gun laws are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Most federal gun laws were enacted through:
National Firearms Act (1934)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired)

In addition to federal gun laws, most states and some local jurisdictions have additionally imposed their own firearms restrictions. See Gun laws in the United States (by state). (Under the American Economic Association JEL subject classification system, academic books and articles on gun control are classed under JEL K42 "Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law" reflecting that gun control is a criminal law subject.)11

Federal Law - The following list of prohibited persons are ineligible to own firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability

Fugitives from justice

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness

Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.

Illegal Aliens

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.12

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. The NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers.

NICS is accessed by an FFL, on the firearm buyer's behalf, by phone or computer. When contacted by phone, the communication is either with an FBI/NICS Examiner, who directly receives the information submitted by the FFL, or by proxy through a Call Center representative, who forwards the information electronically to the NICS. Whether an Examiner or a Call Center representative is contacted depends on the state in which the sale is conducted. When using a computer, an FFL representative can submit the buyer's information using the E-Check system which is a web interface to the NICS. An FFL can be an individual or an organization such as a retail store. An organization registered as an FFL minimizes the overhead involved in managing identification for multiple individuals who are employed by the organization.

By law, an FFL must receive a response from the NICS within 3 days or the firearm sale can proceed, although they are not required to do so. If, after 3 days, the sale is completed and later it is determined the buyer should not have received the firearm, then the firearm must be retrieved.13

Germany. To own a gun in Germany, one must posses a license issued by the police. Target shooters must be members of a legitimate club, must attend a 3-day safety class, and must pass a written and practical exam. Strict limits are placed on the number and types of guns one may own: "Assault weapons" (defined as guns having the "outer form" of a full-auto gun, regardless of actual functionality) are illegal, and the law limits target shooters to a maximum of 8 single-shot .22s. Perhaps surprisingly, a very wide range of guns are in fact legal, including almost any handgun available in the U.S., to people who hold the appropriate license. A dealer informed me that a particular H&K rifle was legal with a grey plastic stock, but would be considered an "assault weapon" if the stock were black. Hunting rifles and shotguns exactly like those in the US are available for sale, but the Germans seem to prefer double and triple-barreled guns (say, one 12ga. barrel, one .270, and one .44 mag, on the same break-action stock) to the more familiar bolt and pump repeaters.14

Finland. Finland has some of Europe's most relaxed gun laws. The minimum legal age for buying a gun is 15. After a deadly school shooting at Jokela high school last November, the Finnish government vowed to raise the minimum level to 18, but lawmakers and government are still debating legislation.15

Norway. A licence is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. Many categories of guns, including automatics and some powerful handguns, are banned from sale altogether.

Hunting and outdoor sports are popular in Norway. But the laws are strict in these areas, too. Shotguns and rifles must be stored in a secure place, typically a specially designed gun safe, as must ammunition. Police have the right to inspect an owner's home to ensure the law is being followed.16

Areas not covered in the above referenced article:

China. Man slashes 22 children near China school 17

Mexico. Mexico has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. But while drug cartels have well-stocked arsenals, law-abiding citizens struggle to get a permit to own a gun.18

Chicago. Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States. Illinois does not issue licenses for the concealed carry of firearms, nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states. Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form. Open carry is also prohibited in most areas. When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case. On December 11, 2012, these blanket restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, which gave the state 180 days to change its laws or appeal the decision.

To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, issued by the state police. Non-residents who may legally possess firearms in their home state are exempt from this requirement. There is a waiting period to take possession after purchasing a firearm — 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun. Private sales are allowed, and are subject to these same requirements. Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles is prohibited.
Illinois does not have state preemption for gun laws, and some local governments have enacted ordinances that are more restrictive than those of the state.19

See CHICAGO UNDER FIRE an article by The Chicago Sun Times.

It should be clear that most Countries have extensive gun control laws and despite that fact criminals find ways to acquire weapons and commit horrendous acts. So, gun control laws alone will not solve the problem.