Tuesday - October 07, 2008

Apologies to Dr. Suess

Uncle Sam and Congress-man

That Uncle Sam!
That Congress-man!
We do not like your bailout plan!
We do not like your taxing plan!

Should we pay so stocks don’t tank?
Should we pay for Barney Frank?

We should not pay so stocks won’t tank.
We should not pay for greedy banks.
We do not like your bailout plan,
We should not pay it, Congress-man.

Mr. Paulson made a call
For a plan to soak us all.

Could you, would you Mr. Bush,
Could you, would you push, push, push?

We should not pay you, Mr. Bush,
So Mae won’t fall upon her tush.

We should not pay you, AIG,
Though you ask on bended knee.
We should not pay you, Freddie Mac,
Just to lighten up your pack.
We should not pay for any bank,
Even one that’s in the tank.

We should not pay for umpteen years
Just because the market fears.
We do not like your bailout plan.
We do not like it, Uncle Sam.

We should not pay you, Mr. Raines,
You, the source of all our pains.
Franklin Raines don’t give a hoot,
He got a golden parachute.

This bailout plan sure is working well. The Dow closed under 10,000 yesterday. Thanks Congress.

Posted by Christopher     on 10/07/2008 at 07:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Finance and Investing • Satire • Taxes •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - September 30, 2008

Bureaucrats in an Italian town are trying to impose a new ‘rain tax’ on residents.

At first I was going to ignore this story but .... I got to thinking about it.
Hang on there I thinks ....

Back Date Taxes three years?  That doesn’t look right.  And so here’s the very short story.

Wet Italian town imposes ‘rain tax’
Bureaucrats in an Italian town are trying to impose a new ‘rain tax’ on residents.

By Urmee Khan
Last Updated: 11:16AM BST 30 Sep 2008

Authorities in Ravenna in the Emilia Romagna region have added 3 per cent to water bills to maintain and improve drainage systems by arguing that heavy rain causes severe damage to infrastructure, buildings and agriculture in the Po valley.

The local water board, which wants to backdate the new tax three years, claims that the payments will save it €1 million (£800,000) a year.

Gianluca Dradi, head of environmental policy for Ravenna city council, likened the proposal to a “utility service”, similar to paying taxes for streets to be cleaned.

“Including the cost in water bills is more equitable,” he told the Repubblica newspaper.

“Those who pay more for their water use, such as factories, will pay proportionately more than households, which by comparison will pay relatively little,” he added.

However consumer organisations in Ravenna are urging householders not to pay up.

“This is just another tax in disguise,” said Roberto Passino, a spokesman for a protest group.

The case will continue until a final decision is reached.

Ravenna, in the North East of Italy, is connected to the Adriatic by a canal which was overwhelmed by floods in 1636. A network of canals was built to divert nearby rivers and drain marshland, creating a protective belt of agricultural land around the city.

The Po delta receives 750mm of rain a year, mostly in November, December and January.

http://tinyurl.com/3rta8c

Posted by peiper     on 09/30/2008 at 09:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Taxes •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - July 31, 2008

Another Inconvenient Fact

You’ll certainly hear this story a few hundred billion times* in the next couple of days:

I bet that took a big bite out of the money available for dividends to the tens of millions of stockholders!  Go read the rest at The New Editor.

* I’m wondering, since “billions and billions” is a quantity known as a Sagan, should a “hundred billion” be called a Mugabe?

Posted by Drew458     on 07/31/2008 at 04:10 PM   
Filed Under: • Oil, Alternative Energy, and Gas Prices • Taxes •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - July 19, 2008

Right of households to rubbish bin collection by councils to be abolished

THIS IS THE ANTI-SOCIAL ACT OF A LEFT WING LABOR GOVT. 
I can’t imagine the town or city councils telling homeowners to drop dead BUT ...
I suppose that they could tell homeowners to contract out for trash pick up the same way we did in California.
Thing is tho, in our particular situation, the household is currently paying out £1700 a year to the city council.  We have no street lights or sidewalks on this street.  I’m not at all certain what the payments do cover, outside trash pick ups.  They did provide rat control (outside the house fortunately) two years in a row.  That was interesting btw.  Someone came out and put poison down this hole and spent the time to come back for something like three weeks treating the area.  They could have done it in one day with gas.  But they aren’t allowed to use it here.  ??  It’s thought they come from the field across the road which is a farm and grows rape seed, among other things.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 11:30AM BST 19/07/2008

The legal right of all householders to have their bins emptied by their local council is to be abolished, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

The government is to give councils the power to refuse to collect rubbish if home owners fail to abide by draconian rules which may include leaving bins in the right place, sticking to weight restrictions and following strict recycling policies.

Labour is quietly pushing the new rules through parliament without any debate after it proposed amendments to a 130-year-old law which has, until now, made it a statutory duty of local authorities to collect household waste.

There are fears that the changes to the law will lead to large increases in fly-tipping, bonfires of noxious substances and rat infestations around uncollected waste. Despite this, there will no reduction in council tax for home owners.

The Conservatives described the plans as “disgraceful”, adding that bin men will now be able to use “any excuse not to empty your bin”.

Many Labour MPs fear the changes will add to a growing backlash against the government which has seen them slump in the polls.

Ian Gibson, a Labour MP who sits on the parliamentary committee which is scrutinising the changes, said: “It is a British way of life to have your bins emptied once a week. Taking that away is like losing your birthright.”

Phil Woolas, the environment minister, quietly added an amendment to section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 earlier this month which now states: “A waste collection authority is not obliged to collect household waste that is placed for collection in contravention of a requirement under this section.”

Town halls will be free to set their own rules on what constitutes a “contravention” of waste collection policies.

Councils could refuse to empty bins that are too far from a curb, are not placed directly outside a gate or are put out on the street too early.

The proposed changes amount to a reversal of the basic right of all households to have their rubbish collected, which was enshrined in law by the Public Health Act 1875.

The measures have already passed through two parts of a three-stage scrutiny process in parliament and will become law later this year if they are approved by the standing committee on climate change, which is dominated by Labour MPs.

It comes at a time when the government is already under fire over controversial fortnightly rubbish collections, which affect almost 20 million people, and “pay as you throw” schemes being trialled by some councils, in which bins are weighed and penalties imposed on people whose rubbish exceeds set limits.

Eric Pickles, the shadow local government secretary, said: “It is disgraceful that these new laws are being rushed through Parliament with no debate and no vote.

“People genuinely want to improve recycling and go green, but Labour’s policy of bin cuts and bin taxes will fuel fly-tipping, backyard burning and harm public health.

“These changes will fuel the public backlash at the Government’s rubbish policy. Under Gordon Brown, local residents are paying exorbitant levels of council tax, but are failing to get decent public services in return.”

Currently councils must collect rubbish from home owners unless it breaches one of two policies – “a closed lid” policy where the bin is not shut properly or a “side waste” policy meaning bin bags cannot be left alongside wheelie bins.

Whitehall sources said that the change in the law was proposed by central government and was not requested by councils.

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “It is in no way in councils’ interests to use tactics that would alienate local people. It would be wholly counterproductive for town halls to approach this issue in a heavy-handed way that could put people off dealing with their rubbish responsibly.

“Councils always provide people with straightforward information about what to do with their rubbish and work with residents to reduce the amount they produce and to encourage them to recycle.

“Britain is the dustbin of Europe, throwing away more per household than any other country in the EU. We have to change radically the way that we get rid of our rubbish and the days of tipping everything into a hole in the ground are long gone.”

Joan Ruddock, the minister for climate change, biodiversity and waste, said: “There is still a general duty to collect rubbish free from households. All that has changed is that when a household is given a formal notice, if they don’t abide by it then the council no longer has a duty to collect.”

(Free?  What Free?  Isn’t that one of the things taxes pay for? Or are taxes only paid to support the lifestyles of politicians? oh. right. forgot.  )

Government targets are for 40 per cent of household waste to be recycled by 2010, rising to 50 per cent by 2020. Policy papers show that officials want to limit rubbish collections in a bid “to compel householders to reduce their waste”.

Last month ministers also revealed that householders will face fines of £50 for failing to recycle their rubbish.

Councils will refuse to collect rubbish if homeowners break recycling rules

http://tinyurl.com/6hgcfg

Posted by peiper     on 07/19/2008 at 09:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Taxes • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 05, 2008

Today’s economics lesson

Posted by Christopher     on 06/05/2008 at 04:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Taxes •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - May 10, 2008

UK drivers pay highest fuel taxes in Europe, and probably the world!

For my compatriots back home who may not know ... simply double the prices mentioned here and you get US Dollars.
So the £900 mentioned here converts to $1,800.  And btw, I believe that might be a tad on the low side. Anyway ... even tho the Brit gal. is somewhat larger then ours, it isn’t so large that what Brits are being screwed for as to make it reasonable.  And Brits have been paying way,way more then Americans could imagine, and have been doing it for a very long,long time.  It’s an island that has to import many items, and Brits are paying dear for it all.

I think you’re now paying about $3 and change back home. Is that right?  Brits paying over $8.

UK drivers pay highest fuel taxes in Europe
By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

Last Updated: 2:34AM BST 10/05/2008

British motorists are paying the highest fuel taxes in Europe – and probably the world – a study has disclosed.
About 57p of the cost of a litre of petrol in Britain is tax, compared with 31p in Spain, 45p in Italy, 48p in France and 52p in Germany.

The Telegraph launched a campaign this week calling on Gordon Brown to scrap plans to increase road tax and a planned 2p per litre rise in fuel duty.

The average Briton pays almost £900 in petrol taxes annually.

The study, by the Association of European Automobile Manufacturers, shows that Britain has the highest fuel taxes of 27 European countries surveyed.

The tax is also higher than in America, Canada and Australia.

Edmund King, the president of the AA, which is supporting the Telegraph’s campaign, said: “We may be pleased that we have two English teams in the Uefa Champions League final but it is more worrying that we are top of the European fuel taxation league in terms of unleaded petrol and diesel.”

Mr Brown is under growing pressure from Conservatives and his own MPs to help motorists.

A study from accountants Grant Thornton shows that the rise in oil prices will see the Treasury take over £1 billion extra in VAT on petrol – more than would have been garnered from the 2p duty rise.

A Treasury spokesman said yesterday: “The Government understands that families are feeling the pressure from high fuel prices. To respond to short-term pressures, we announced in the Budget that the 2 pence per litre increase, scheduled for April 1, will be deferred until October 1.

“Our immediate priority, however, is to encourage international pressure on the oil-producing countries in Opec to bring down high oil prices.”

http://tinyurl.com/69c535

Posted by peiper     on 05/10/2008 at 09:32 AM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous • Taxes •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - May 02, 2008

Is New York State Now The Federal Government?

That’s a strange and seemingly stupid question to ask, but I was certain that the regulation of interstate commerce was a power/duty reserved for the feds. A few weeks ago New York passed a convoluted tax that is going to require Amazon and other complex online retailers to collect NY state sales tax for them. While quite a few states have a Use Tax which requires citizens of that state to fork over tax money for everything they buy out of state, almost no one other than my mom actually complies, because it is obviously unenforceable. New York’s new “Amazon Tax” would close this “loop hole”, and if effective, would spread overnight to every other state, and the tax advantages of buying things on the internet would soon evaporate.

What makes the Amazon Tax interesting is the convoluted thought process behind it. Amazon is not one store anymore. Amazon is a reseller; more and more of what you shop for there doesn’t come from a place called “Amazon.com”, it comes from whatever Mom & Pop happens to have the product at the price point you want. Amazon simply redirects your order to the small businesses, and takes it’s little slice for that effort. There are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of these associated businesses, all over the country. Therefore, reasons NY, some of them must be in NY. Therefore an internet sale to Amazon from a customer in NY is a sale within NY so sales tax must be collected. Thus their new law.

There is a basic logically fallacy here which I can’t quite put my finger on. Something about not extrapolating from the individual to the general? Sounds close. Just because an Amazon affiliate is in NY doesn’t mean they are ALL in NY, so making a law requiring NY sales tax to be collected at Amazon is logically incorrect. And unconstitutional, by, as we have seen with Philthydelphia’s gun laws, that doesn’t stop laws from being passed at all.

New York has some of the highest taxes in the country, if not THE highest. The recent state budget is $122 Billion, for a state with a population of 20 million. This law is expected to collect about $50 million.

‘Amazon Tax’ Lands in New York
Controversial new law shifts collection requirement to online retailers in a move that other states could follow, but legal uncertainties abound. With the passage of the hotly debated state budget last night, New York legislators approved a bill that will require many online retailers to begin collecting sales taxes on purchases shipped to the state, even if they have no operations or employees working there.
New York Governor David Paterson is widely expected to sign the measure.  The so-called “Amazon tax” closes a loophole for Internet retailers who derive sales through affiliate programs in which Web site owners place a link to the merchant on their site and earn a commission on sales made from referrals. In lobbying for the bill, the industry group representing New York retailers had argued that the exemption from the sales-tax collection requirement gave out-of-state online retailers an unfair competitive advantage.
...
The controversial bill ends what for many New Yorkers had been tax-free online shopping, and experts predict that other states could follow suit with similar provisions. Consumers are required to report purchases they make online from out-of-state companies on their tax returns and remit a use tax, but many people are either unaware of that obligation or ignore it. Collecting those taxes from individuals has been an administrative impossibility.  New York expects the new requirement will generate about $50 million in revenue this fiscal year.
...
The tax was inspired in some ways by a 1992 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Quill v. North Dakota, the Court determined that out-of-state retailers cannot be required to collect sales tax on purchases sent to states where they did not have a physical presence. They argued that compelling merchants to adhere to the complexities of the state and local tax codes would place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

With the new law, New York is taking an aggressive stance on the Quill ruling, claiming that a retailer such as Amazon holds a physical presence in the state because it derives sales through its affiliates who live there, explained Hugh Goodwin Jr., a state and local tax attorney and partner at the global firm DLA Piper.

Amazon is suing of course. My guess is that a mere 98% of the population supports their suit.

Amazon Sues New York State to Void Sales Tax Rules
Before the ink on the bill has even dried, Amazon.com has filed a suit challenging New York State’s new law that forces online retailers to collect sales taxes on shipments to state residents.
...
The question is whether the vendors must collect those taxes on behalf of the state. Generally, only those companies that have a physical presence, such as an office or store, in the state of the purchase are required to collect the taxes.

The new law is based on a novel definition of what constitutes a presence in the state: It includes any Web site based in the state that earns a referral fee for sending customers to an online retailer. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of affiliates—from big publishers to tiny blogs—that feature links to its products.
...
The state law says that if even one of those affiliates is in New York, Amazon must collect sales tax on everything sold in the state, even if it is not sold through the affiliate. This is an extension of an existing rule that companies that employ independent agents or representatives to solicit business must collect sales taxes for the state.

Amazon’s suit challenges the constitutionality of this interpretation and seeks a declaratory judgment that it is invalid.
...
The online retailer further claimed that the new rules violate the equal protection clause of the constitution because it specifically targeted Amazon. “It was carefully crafted to increase state tax revenues by forcing Amazon to collect sales and use taxes,” the complaint says, noting that “state officials have described the statute as the ‘Amazon Tax.’ “

So there you have it. A new law, a new lawsuit. I’m sure Amazon can claim “proactive standing” as they will obviously be “injured” by this one. But that’s a side issue. Is New York overstepping it’s bounds? Does this law attempt to regulate intersate commerce through taxation? Why write such a law against Amazon - and it is against Amazon and other Big Business, because the law doesn’t apply to small companies that have less than $7400 per year worth of referral fees - when this kind of action would probably be more effective if written against the credit card companies and PayPal.

Personally I think it’s bullshit and I hope NY gets a swift boot in the ass in court. I understand it takes money to make government run, and that money has to come from taxes. But I think all Use Taxes are wrong, period. It’s my money. The state I live in already taxed me when I earned it, and they tax me again on what I spend within the state. That’s more than enought. What I spend out of the state is none of their goddammed business. They do not own my money and I can spend it how and where I please. Fuck off.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/02/2008 at 10:27 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Greed • Taxes •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - April 30, 2008

Sisters cannot inherit ,European Court rules

I can’t help but feel sorry for these old ladies.  True, if ya look at the house they apparently have some money. Upkeep on that place can’t be small.
But so what?  I can see their viewpoint.  I can also understand where it can lead as explained in this article.

Sisters cannot inherit house they have lived in since birth, European Court rules
By Richard Savill

Last Updated: 8:48PM BST 29/04/2008
Two elderly sisters who have lived together since birth today lost a last-ditch legal appeal to obtain the same inheritance tax rights as married and gay couples.

In a 15-2 vote, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Joyce Burden, 90, and her sister, Sybil, 82, do not face unfair discrimination under British inheritance tax rules.

The pair argued that they should be spared inheritance tax in the same way as married couples, or homosexuals who form a civil partnership.

The sister who lives longest faces having to sell the family home in Marlborough, Wilts, when the other dies in order to meet the cost, estimated at more than £200,000.

The sisters claimed British inheritance tax laws breached their human rights by exempting married and gay couples, while targeting cohabiting siblings.

But the Grand Chamber of the human rights court upheld an earlier ruling that national governments were entitled to some discretion when deciding taxation arrangements.

The decision means that when one sister dies the other will have to sell their four-bedroom property to pay the 40 per cent inheritance tax on its value above £300,000.

The house is worth about £875,000.

If they had won their case, British inheritance tax law would have had to change, to place cohabiting couples on an equal footing with married couples and “civil partnerships” in being exempt from inheritance tax.

I’m not a lawyer. I don’t understand why the law would have to change. I don’t understand why in the case of very old ppl like these two, something like extenuating circumstances would not apply. Especially where their entire lives have played out in this one home. But then, hey. I do understand the need of the govnmt. for cash to pay for political perks and salaries and immigration and welfare and .... how long a list do ya want ?

The sisters, who have been asking the Government to look at their case for 30 years, decided to write to the European courts after Labour introduced the Civil Partnership Act in 2004.

The Act granted the same right to gay and lesbian couples to avoid inheritance tax as married couples, but not to cohabiting family members.

The sisters’ letter, written without legal advice, read: “In desperation we write to you, for, as second-class citizens, we seek justice against the unfair laws we live with in the British Isles.”

The Burdens later hired a lawyer and claimed the Act violated Human Rights Convention articles outlawing discrimination and guaranteeing the “protection of property”.

In 2006 they lost the case by a 4-3 majority of the panel of seven human rights judges, although three members of the court described their inheritance tax plight as “awful” and “particularly striking”.

But the appeal hearing, before a larger 17-member panel of human rights judges, produced a more decisive 15-2 majority against the sisters today.

The sisters cannot take their case further. They could not immediately be contacted today.

However after losing the first case in 2006, Joyce Burden commented: “If we were lesbians we would have all the rights in the world. But we are sisters, and it seems we have no rights at all.”

(She sure does have a valid point there)

http://tinyurl.com/3ebbho

Posted by peiper     on 04/30/2008 at 02:00 PM   
Filed Under: • Taxes •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - April 25, 2008

It’s only because he’s black you know

“The sentencing court sends the right message to the American taxpayer—you’ve got to pay your taxes,” U.S. Attorney Robert O’Neill told reporters outside the usually quiet central Florida courthouse. “Rich, poor, it doesn’t matter. We all pay our taxes.”

Though Snipes was convicted of three counts of willfully failing to file returns, his trial was held by some as proof of victory for the tax protest movement. Snipes was acquitted of five other charges, including felony tax fraud and conspiracy, that would’ve exposed him to 13 more years in prison.
...
Snipes’ attorneys argued the sentence was too stiff for a first-time offender convicted of three misdemeanors, and recommended he be given home detention and ordered to make public service announcements.

But U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges said Snipes exhibited a “history of contempt over a period of time” for U.S. tax laws.

“In my mind these are serious crimes, albeit misdemeanors,” Hodges said.

Naturally poor Wesley is a victim -

Snipes read aloud from a prepared apology, calling his actions “costly mistakes” but never mentioning the word “taxes.” He said he was the victim of crooked advisers, a liability of wealth and celebrity that attract “wolves and jackals like flies are attracted to meat.”

“I am an idealistic, naive, passionate, truth-seeking, spiritually motivated artist, unschooled in the science of law and finance,” Snipes said.

Snipes efforts to avoid jail time even included writing the IRS a check for $5,000,000 right there in the court room, but to no avail. The judge is using the actor’s high profile as a message to other scofflaws.

“One of the main purposes which drives selective prosecution in tax cases is deterrence,” the judge said, while denying it had anything to do with his sentence. “In some instances, that means those of celebrity stand greater risk of prosecution. But there’s nothing unusual about it, nor is there anything unlawful about it. It’s the way the system works.”

Sorry Wes. None of us like the Income Tax, but until we can all get together to throw it out and come up with something else, we’ve all got to pay. You don’t get a pass just because you believe in some shyster who says he has a loophole. And rich folks like you have to pay lots. It’s for your own good.

Posted by Drew458     on 04/25/2008 at 07:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Taxes •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - April 12, 2008

Tax Time

This is Hell Weekend for a lot of Americans. It’s time to finally face the inevitable and do your taxes. April 15th is Tuesday, and the check has to be in the mail by then.

Some of you have been smart, and have been spending a little time doing them for a month or so now. Others, the few and lucky, who will be getting back a tiny bit of what they’ve paid in, got to work back in January and may have even received their refund checks by now. But tens of millions of us were at Walmart early this morning looking for a copy of TurboTax, or lining up outside H&R Block with a suitcase full of papers and receipts.

My taxes weren’t hard. I’m living close to the poverty line right now, but I’m not on any kind of public assistance whatsoever. And even with my pathetic income, I still had to pay a little bit more to the state and the feds than what had been withheld.

So for those millions who are tying themselves in knots this glorious spring weekend, trying to figure out the cost basis for some damn partial share that was automatically sold because some company they owned a few shares of stock in was bought out by some other company they might have owned a few shares of, my hat’s off to you. I feel your pain, because I’ve been through this myself in the past. Heh, I remember one year when I was in college I had to send in something like twenty forms. I’d worked more than a dozen jobs that year in several states, and the paperwork was amazing.

Many people will have a wake up call today and realize that the Fair Tax would solve so much of this pain. So would some kind of Flat Tax. Other folks just feel a real sense of resentment right now when they realize just how much of their tax money goes to support the lazy and shiftless - and that means people on the dole and the infinite morass of the ever expanding jobs program that is government. If you’re one of them, and find yourself snapping pencils in anger, take heart: Rachel Lucas wrote a great Tax Rant you can read and adopt as your own. I’d give you some excerpts, except that Rachel is in full swing, and it’s hard to find two lines that don’t contain swearing. Go Read. 

Posted by Drew458     on 04/12/2008 at 03:43 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Greed • Taxes •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - November 16, 2007

LOST (money that is)

You are looking at nearly half a billion dollars of your tax money going to waste. 18,000 trailers and mobile homes. These are most - but not all - of the emergency housing trailers that FEMA purchased to help the people down on the Gulf Coast that were devastated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Two years ago. They sit idle, unused, undistributed, slowly rotting away, around the airport in Hope Arkansas. FEMA bought them all then decided they couldn’t be distributed locally to the flooding victims because they live on a flood plain! Then there was that business about how they all could be opened with the same key. Next we hear that -oh, the horrors! - 11,000 of the trailers may have been made with insulation containing formaldehyde!

Let’s not forget that the government is STILL paying the rent and living expenses of thousands of those poor displaced victims. I have no idea if the NOLA cops are still living on a cruise ship, but that wouldn’t surprise me either.

Heather Crawford from KATV has a nice roundup on the story with a decent video (which only wants to run in IE on my PC):

FEMA is storing thousands of mobile homes in Hope, and what may surprise you is practically all of them are brand new. They have never been lived in and have just sat here unoccupied for more than two years.

(Congressman Mike Ross, (D) 4th District) “After they bought them, they decided they wouldn’t locate them in a flood plain. And guess what? Everybody who lost their home and needed housing lived in a flood plain.”

So instead of being put to use, they sit empty.

(Senator Mark Pryor, (D) Arkansas) “It’s a story of incompetence. It’s a story of very very bad government policy and just the inability for FEMA to function the way it should.”

In addition to the mobile homes, FEMA is also storing about 11,000 travel-trailers in Hope that have been used. They were being auctioned off, but due to the presence of potentially dangerous levels of formaldehyde they are now no longer being sold.

(Eric Smith, FEMA Head of Logistics) “We’re working with Centers for Disease Control and Health and Human Services to complete an assessment on the feasibility of standards that are acceptable for formaldehyde, and based on that assessment--when we receive that assessment--a decision will be made as to whether we will continue the sales of the travel-trailers or dispose of them by some other means.”

Hope isn’t the only location in the country where FEMA is storing its emergency housing units, but it is by far the largest. FEMA originally signed a two-year lease with the city of Hope to use the land, and the mayor says the agency is now in the process of extending it for at least another year.

The cost is $300,000 annually--money that can only be used for the Hope Municipal Airport.

(Dennis Ramsey, Hope Mayor) “We’ve been in discussion for the last year that this may be what’s called a semi-permanent facility. We’ve heard talk of 8-10 years, but at a reduced inventory out here than what’s here now.”

The cost to the lease the land is just a small fraction of what the mobile homes cost. FEMA says the price tag for each one in 2005 was about $33,000. Today about 7,000 are sitting in Hope unused--that’s $231 million worth.

Plus, FEMA spent $4.5 million to put down gravel on 140 acres so the mobile homes and trailers wouldn’t sink.

(Ross) “I mean this stuff is so crazy you couldn’t make it up. Again, it’s a symbol of what’s wrong with FEMA.”

Tack on the cost of the 11,000 used travel-trailers that aren’t being sold because of formaldehyde, and that’s an additional $187 million (travel-trailers cost $17,000 each).

And then there are 45 employees who are paid to work at the site, and operational costs, which FEMA says totals more than a half-million annually. That’s a total of more than $424 million out of taxpayers pockets.

My calculator adds up these numbers at 434.1 million, including 2 years rent and running expenses. So it isn’t quite a full half billion sitting in Hope, but I don’t have the costs at the other storage areas so it probably does add up to that much.

Now, as for that formaldehyde situation: The eeevviill government raced out and bought whatever trailers they could find. Most of them are second hand. They were NOT built to FEMA spec; they’re the same trailers you or I could purchase if we wanted to. FEMA then did an expensive study to find ways of combatting this awful outgassing (/sarcasm) and concluded that the best high tech solution would be to open the damn windows. I kid you not!

Naturally, because FEMA (and anyone else who has a trailer) knew about the outgassing problem ahead of time, they are being sued. You know, because FEMA is the government, and the government is Bush, and of course because

UPDATE: These units seem to have been built by the Gulf Stream Coach company, who admits to “having” to use cheaper building materials because of the pressure to build as many as they could in such a short time period.

Terry Sloan was a floor supervisor at a Gulf Stream Coach factory in Etna Green, Ind. Gulf Stream Coach built more than 50,000 stripped-down travel trailers.  Sloane says his crew worked at a breakneck pace for months, which, he says, forced the company to use cheaper wood products. “Quality suffered dramatically because of the drive and pressure to put these trailers out,” Sloan said.

So if FEMA contracted Gulf Stream to build the things, and Gulf Stream cut corners and used low grade materials (don’t ask me why low grade parts make production any faster than regular parts) then isn’t it Gulf Stream who ought to be the party named in the lawsuit? And if the formaldehyde situation is really all that bad, then why are these kinds of materials even on the market? Which would imply that it’s the building materials companies that really ought to be the target of any lawsuits? It’s a big can of worms fer shure!

UPDATE: KATV has run part two of the story, with more video. Not much new info, but more video. Some of the units are falling apart already. Duh. They also get a look inside the mobile homes, and we see that they are pre-furnished with brand new furniture and appliances. Never used. Go here for the story.



It looks to me like FEMA has managed to pack more moonbattery into this situation than was previously possible.

Posted by Drew458     on 11/16/2007 at 12:31 PM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather • Miscellaneous • Taxes •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - October 05, 2007

Death and Taxes

You may have seen the story floating around the past few months about a couple in PLainfied, New Hampshire who were holed up on their 103 acre property for tax evasion.  Word is they were ”successfully brought in” yesterday without incident, even though they vowed to have a violent conflict if they were to be taken by force.

Their commercial interests had already been seized by the authorities and now they face jail time and the probable loss of all they own.

This brings up a topic near and dear to my heart: Property Rights.

What?  You may ask.

I maintain that when the government can take your property at the point of a gun, then you don’t actually have any rights to it at all.  You are simply renting it at the pleasure of the government.  You her a lot about the “crackpots” who don’t believe in taxes, and most of them are just that: crackpots.  But I have done some reading in the past from some people who have very compelling arguments for why are current tax law is completely FUBAR. 

If you could prove that there was no legal way to fill out your 1040 tax form, would it be legal to refuse to do so?  What if, by simply signing the form you could be accused of breaking another law?

What if it could be reasonably shown that the current tax law is unconstitutional?

I maintain that it is entirely reasonable to assume both of these cases could well exist.  The penalty for breaking the tax law is confiscation and prison.  They take more money (fines and penalties) and put you in prison (if you don’t pay what they say you owe) and will finally take all you own to pay off this “debt”.  Can you fight it?  Do you have the resources to fight a set of laws so complex that even those who work for the IRS and are responsible to interpreting the rules can’t agree.  Ask them a question on a subtle point five times and chances are good you will get at least three variations of an answer.

Have you followed all of the tax laws?  To the letter?  To everyone’s interpretation?

The problem is, no one in power is motivated to change it.  The current law is set up in such a way that it enables them to use it for their own power gains.

The Fair Tax IS the answer.  Plain and simple, it fixes the problem.  No, it is not the panecea and John Linder is not omnicient, but it is the only thing that will restore power back to the people as well as finance the government.  Those who have studied it and understand it (which isn’t hard...you can do it in an hour) all agree that it is fair, simple and revolutionary.

Which is why career politicians are against it.  It is why they can’t argue the points of the plan, but resort instead to ad-hominem and strawman attacks instead.  If you are serious about personal property rights.  If you are serious about an out-of-control power structure in the IRS.  If you care about how the tax burdon is crippling this country, you need to do your homework and study this plan until you understand it.  When you do, you will be an ardent supporter.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/05/2007 at 11:19 AM   
Filed Under: • Taxes •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Sunday - September 16, 2007

Death And Taxes Poster, Where your Taxes go..

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/poster/
Link goes to the poster where you can zoom in on different parts..
Time to get away from the convoluted system and move to a system like the fairtax…

Posted by Infinity     on 09/16/2007 at 05:49 PM   
Filed Under: • Taxes •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - August 14, 2007

The Role of Government

I am in an online discussion in our local paper’s forum about a story they did the other day.

State funds include $115,500 for American Shakespeare Center

The Artisans Center of Virginia will have a little help paying its rent in the coming months, courtesy of the Virginia Commission for the Arts. As part of more than $6.6 million in grant money given to arts organizations and local governments across Virginia, the center will receive $23,500 for general operating support. Those funds will go toward general upkeep costs such as utility bills, rent and paper supplies.

“That kind of money is the most difficult money for nonprofits to raise,” said Michael Dowell, executive director of the center. “It’s much easier to raise money for programs, like the ones we do in the schools and present to the community. But when you just want to pay your bills, it’s hard to raise that kind of money.”

The center is just one of the many local organizations receiving grant money from the commission. The American Shakespeare Center is Staunton is scheduled to receive $115,500.

State Del. R. Steven Landes, R-Weyers Cave, said funding for this area of the Shenandoah Valley has been consistent throughout the past few years. And he sees the grant money as a great help in fostering the local arts community. “It’s one way the state can reward them for what they do,” he said.

My question to open the discussion was very simple: 

Everyone and their mother is chiming in about how “the arts” are good and they need to be supported, which I wholeheartedly agree, but with PRIVATE funds and not PUBLIC funds.

No one seems to get it.  One commenter figured out that each person’s contribution to this fund was something like $.60 and opined that if this amount “breaks you”, you’ve got bigger problems.  No one seems to understand its not the amount, it’s the principle of the matter.

Where does the state (and the feds) get the authority to take my money and do all kinds of things that they are not chartered to do?

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 08/14/2007 at 12:47 PM   
Filed Under: • Politics • Taxes •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner