Somebody's Watching You?

Like the old Motown hit by Rockwell (who I believe is Berry Gordy's son) "Somebody's Watchin' You," sometimes I think somebody's watching me or at least this blog.

Weeks or even days after I've written something, it shows up in the newspaper or magazine.  That's OK; I want to attribution.  It's just something to make me wonder.

For instance, in an editorial in this AM's Detroit News, there was reference to Warren Buffet's lament about his poor executive secretary who is in a higher income tax bracket than he is.  Months, if not years ago, I noted that surely Buffet takes advantage of tax loopholes by hiring tax lawyers and/or accountants to find those loopholes for him.  Why doesn't he merely take the standard deduction that the rest of us, those unable to take advantage of the myriad loopholes, take?  Why use the lawyers and accountants?  Then his secretary wouldn't be in a higher tax bracket.  And that same sentiment was expressed in the editorial this AM.  I usually get a few dozen readers of my blog, but only send out about 5 or 6 links to my recent posts.

I don't have a problem with Buffet taking advantage of what the law will give him.  After all, he didn't write the law.  The problem I have is that he's taking advantage of the same system he is gaming.  What exactly is he lamenting?  Is he really upset at loopholes?  Is it that his secretary has to pay more taxes, "more taxes" than who?  Maybe we should know what salary he pays her.  I'm guessing (heh heh) that she makes a whole lot more than I ever did.  Can't his attorneys and accountants find her some loopholes?  Or is it that he's lamenting that he doesn't have to pay as much, that is, at the same rate?  Nah, that can't be it.  Maybe it's the ridiculously complex federal income tax system, one composed of more than 10 million words.

Now, true, as defenders of the federal income tax morass cite, the actual IRS tax code isn't that long, only about 2.5 million words.  But federal tax regulations (I guess "regulations" mean we have to abide by them??????) add three times that amount.  And this doesn't include federal tax case law, either, often vital to understanding the code and regulations.  Of course most of us don't use all those pages, but that's not the point.

The editorial had a larger and more important point.  Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite.  But we already knew that, didn't we?  She and groups touting her candidacy have raised more than $250 billion (that's billion, as in b b b billion). About a third of that has come from the super PACS, you know, the ones who the Supremes ruled in favor in the Citizens United case.  Oh, Clinton has railed and railed against that decision, hasn't she?  But she keeps taking the money.  From the editorial, just the money Clinton has received from the PACs is about the same as Trump, Cruz, and Kasich--combined.  So, I ask, which candidate is "greedy?"  Who exactly is it taking money from the Fat Cats?  That Soros guy has given $7 million to Clinton and her supporting PACs.  Some of those Hollywood-types have kicked in $1 million or more, each.  From merely 7 of these Fat Cats, Clinton has raised almost $30 million.  Why do we keep hearing about the Koch brothers and how they are trying to buy elections, but not about these other guys?  Well we don't hear about them nearly as often and never in as disparaging terms.

I guess I am not opposed to the Citizens United ruling.  If people want to spend their money to influence elections, legally not through bribes, that seems OK.  I still think the way to end the influence of money is to force candidates to reveal who gave how much and the print that on the front pages for all to see.  Voters then, to stop this, should just vote for the lesser amount, regardless of party.  I'm guessing that would take one election cycle to get rid of much of the money.

But, as in so much else, I might well be wrong.  Out to run in the rain......