posted August 26, 2011 08:50 AM            

President Obama's attacks on the rich go over well with megawealthy supporters like Mr. Buffet, who feel virtuous for nodding their heads, and with his entitled base, who still believe in Santa Claus. Neither Warren Buffet nor President Obama is being serious.

Warren Buffet isn't serious when he says, please, tax me more. He was asked by CNBC reporter Rebecca Quick in 2007 why he shelters his fortune in tax-exempt foundations instead of giving it to the government, as he exhorts others to do. Buffet replied, "I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government." In other words, he thinks he has better ideas for how to spend his dollars than the government, and would do a better job of it, too.

Mr. Buffet, we all feel that way.

Liberals like to spend their own money. They want to spend yours as well -- it buys them moral superiority. Without actually giving the government an extra dime of his billions, Mr. Buffet can bask in the glow of his own liberality and fair-mindedness, merely by attacking his wealthy peers.

The other problem with Mr. Buffet's well-publicized support for Obama's tax increases is that President Obama is not serious about taxing the wealthy, either. He has made no proposals -- only speeches. Obama harps on raising taxes on the rich. He defines "rich" as all families earning above $200,000 a year, not Mr. Buffet's million-dollar-a-year taxable incomes. Obama would raise taxes on our doctors, lawyers, small business owners -- successful upper-middle-class people of all stripes. It sounds good in speeches to his base, but it is a political minefield.

The speeches themselves harm our economy by creating an anti-business climate. If enacted, Obama's suggestions would contribute only a laughable amount to fixing our debt and deficit. Attacking oil companies, corporate jets, and the rich works for President Obama politically, and he enjoys it personally, whereas trying to actually raise taxes would divide and embarrass his own party. Let us recall that the Democrats had two years of a veto-proof majority and proposed no new taxes beyond ObamaCare.

Mr. Buffet agrees when President Obama badmouths successful Americans as selfish and unfair. Warren, wake up! Obama has one purpose: to distract attention away from Obama's own colossal failure and dwindling political support. He has nothing constructive to say. He has not one good idea for how to correct the economic mess he has plunged us into with his irresponsible spending. Attacking the rich for being rich is pure, old-fashioned demagoguery. Demagoguery is a serious evil, but not a single Democrat seems to have noticed that -- certainly not Mr. Buffet.

Demagoguery is the last resort for an Obama in panic. His followers are in a rage over the slowdown in federal spending increases (euphemistically called "cuts" in Washington-speak) and the unemployment rate, above 30% in some black communities. Obama is desperate to deflect blame away from himself. Hence the class warfare.

Mr. Buffet has nothing serious to say about fixing our economy either. He used the New York Times to hector America's wealthiest about paying more taxes, but he didn't crunch any numbers to show how doing so would solve our nation's problems. Like Obama, he did not make a specific proposal on how much the rich should pay, or compare the supposed revenue increase to our national debt. No numbers from an investor? He isn't serious.

The Times tried to help him out with a parallel article filling in some figures. They suggest a 50% tax rate on incomes over $1 million, which would bring in $50 billion over a decade, and eliminating "carried interest" for hedge funds, $20 billion more. Seventy billion is a small number compared to our $4-trillion budget and $14.6-trillion debt, so the Times then added in the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, to bring in $340 billion in a decade. The Times didn't note that now they've left the realm of millionaires and moved on to anyone in America who owns stocks -- small businesses, pension funds, and middle-class investors. This sleight-of-hand was necessary, because targeting just the super-wealthy doesn't get us close to closing the budget gap. The Times added up their figures and declared that the revenue would obviate a third of the federal spending cuts promised by 2021.

The Times' calculations weren't serious either. The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal debt will rise to 101% of GDP in ten years. That's Greece territory. Using the CBO figures, in order to merely stabilize our crisis at the current atrocious level, spending needs to be cut -- or revenue raised -- by $7.6 trillion over the next ten years. The New York Times scenario would amount to a 6% contribution to that modest goal, which barely covers the interest on our debt.

Remember President Obama's debt ceiling speech with its odd focus on the terrible problem of a tax break for corporate jet owners. (Obama forget to mention that the tax break was part of his own stimulus plan, passed in October 2010.) Charles Krauthammer crunched the numbers for Obama on fixing the corporate jet problem. Here's the math:

If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years -- that is not a typo -- it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since -- first in shekels, then in dollars -- we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Senator Marco Rubio crunched the numbers on Obama taxing millionaires and billionaires.

Here's the fact: the fact is it doesn't solve the problem. First of all, if you taxed these people at 100 percent, basically next year you said, "Look, every penny you make next year the government's going to take it from you," it still doesn't solve the debt. Not only does that not solve the debt problem, but I looked at a host of other ... tax increases being proposed by our colleagues in the Democratic Party and the president to solve the debt problem. ... -- the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all of the other things they talk about -- you put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with nine days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending. Nine days and 23 hours of deficit spending. That's how much it solves. So all this talk about going after people that make all this money, it buys you nine days and 23 hours. Let's round it off. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction.

The Wall St. Journal crunched the numbers. How much do we need to raise taxes to cover our spending? You can't use Mr. Buffet's idea of people earning over a million a year paying a higher marginal rate. There isn't enough income there. If we're going to be real, we have to go to the bulge in the bell curve of American incomes, because that's the only place to find enough money to satisfy the government's spending appetite. We are genuinely a middle-class country. How much would we need to raise taxes? Congress is spending $4 trillion a year. How about a 100% tax -- every penny you earn? How far down into the income bulge would we have to go with 100% taxes to cover our politicians' $4 trillion of expenses?

If you took all the income of people (earning) over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion... So who else is there to tax? Well, in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners.

The Journal concludes:

... Mr. Obama's speech ... contained nothing remotely commensurate to the scale of the problem. If the President had come out for a large tax on the middle class, like a VAT, then at least the country could have debated the choice of paying for the government we have or modernizing it a la Mr. Ryan so it is affordable. Instead the President will continue targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state on autopilot, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.

Obama is serious about the joys and benefits of class warfare to promote his own reelection. Mr. Buffet enjoys promoting false solutions that bolster his sense of moral superiority. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are sleepless tonight, worrying about how they will pay their rent, their mortgage, their car payments. Where will they find a job?

Senator Marco Rubio got to the heart of the matter: how does a single one of the Democratic tax increases help us create jobs and grow our economy?

posted August 31, 2011 10:22 AM            

August 31, 2011
Warren Buffett's IRS problems
Ethel C. Fenig

The past few weeks have been very busy, very productive for super-rich multi, multi billionaire Warren Buffett. He wrote a widely publicized, widely mocked (or praised depending on your viewpoint) op-ed in the New York Times titled "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," advocating higher taxes for people like himself--super-rich. He spoke to President Barack Obama (D). He spoke to the president of troubled Bank of America, the largest bank in the country. The next day he invested $5 billion in BofA, generating a 6 o/o interest rate for him; compared to slightly over 2 o/o available from US Treasuries this is very good. And yesterday he celebrated his 81st birthday.

Commenting on Buffett's op-ed and actions, I joked that Buffett would certainly practice what he preached, voluntarily sending a generous check to the US Treasury Department and instruct his accountants to ignore legal, tax reducing deductions, knowing full well he wouldn't. Oh, how right I was.

On the basis of Americans for a Better Government research, Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters reports that Bufett's company, Berkshire Hathaway

"has been in an almost decade-long dispute with the IRS over how much taxes it owes, these same press members couldn't care less:

According to Berkshire Hathaway's own annual report -- see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 -- the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.

According to the report, "We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years."

Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, "The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett's company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he'd happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years."

Hypocrisy to the max--fighting the IRS over taxes after publicly stating he should pay more taxes! Come on Warren--pay up and stop arguing.

Does President Obama know about this? Hmmm.

Does Obama still want Buffett to host a fund raiser for him? Probably.

Will Buffett and Obama continue their class/wealth war against their super rich opponents, such as oh, Donald Trump, Charles Koch or maybe even George Soros, the Kennedys and John Kerry demanding sacrifices from them? No doubt--except or the latter three of course.

Full disclosure: as an extremely, extremely minor stockholder in Berkshire Hathaway but one willing to participate in shared sacrifice, I not only highly recommend that BH settle with the IRS immediately, I also strongly suggest that Buffett practice what he preaches by voluntarily disbanding his tax sheltered foundation which allows Buffett to direct his money where he wants, rather than the government. Proving he walks the walk of his talk, Buffett can also voluntarily donate to the US government; it is so easy that his many accountants engaged in fighting the IRS over BH's tax obligations will certainly be happy to engage in more productive, more positive work.

And I'm sure Warren Buffett will too.

posted August 31, 2011 03:17 PM            

On Monday, The Blaze reported that Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, owes back taxes dating to 2002. The news is significant because in a recent op-ed column for the New York Times, Buffett, one of President Obama’s staunchest supporters, stated that, to now, the “super wealthy” have been coddled and deserve to be taxed at an even higher rate than they currently are.

When Buffett made his revelation earlier in the month, most assumed his company was up-to-date on its taxes. That assumption has turned out to be incorrect, however — and to a substantial degree perhaps.

According to Berkshire’s 2010 annual report, the company has been in a near decade-long struggle with the IRS over its own taxes. Using public documents, a certified public accountant detailed Berkshire’s tax problems to Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, revealing the damage could be close to $1 billion. Netright Daily adds:

According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”

$1 billion is not an insignificant chunk of change, even for Buffett, representing about 0.2 percent of the company’s $372 billion in total assets.

The annual report goes on to state: “We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.”

Meanwhile, McCarty believes Berkshire‘s current issues may be consistent with the company’s long-time history regarding taxes, noting, “this is not the first time that Berkshire Hathaway has tangled with the IRS.”

“They fought a 14-year battle over the dividends received deduction. That case was just resolved in 2005,” McCarty said.

Before knowing just how much Buffett’s company owed, the press were quick to blast the mogul for his apparent hypocrisy.

On Monday the New York Post reported:

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama — who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song — than about kicking in more himself..........

posted September 02, 2011 08:52 AM            

quote:

---

Republicans have proven time and again that they really love tax cuts for the wealthy, but completely eliminating the capital gains tax is nothing but a pure handout to the ultra-rich.
*
At least five Republican presidential candidates support eliminating taxes on capital gains, proposing even deeper cuts than former President George W. Bush endorsed and standing in contrast to advocates of higher investment tax rates such as Warren Buffett.

According to published reports or their websites, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former pizza executive Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have said they back getting rid of the capital gains tax, which now has a top rate of 15 percent for most assets held for more than a year.

---

But the tax still brings in a substantial amount of revenue. Complete repeal, using data from the Congressional Budget Office, would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years.

As billionaire investor Warren Buffett wrote in an op-ed, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.” Indeed, the conservative claim that lower capital gains rates leads to increased investment and job creations doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps that’s why conservative icon Ronald Reagan actually equalized the capital gains rate with the regular income rate, a fact that conservatives tend to forget.

And look at all the JOBs that were created because of the lower taxes on the uber wealthy!? It hasn't worked the past 6 years--- let's cut it entirely. Maybe NOW it will work.

quote:

---

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act that ended the tax preference for capital gains and taxed all types of income at the same rates. Conservatives have long complained about this Reagan tax reform, and have even incorrectly claimed that capital gains tax revenue actually fell as a result of it…Today, conservative critics of President Reagan have been joined by a group of House Democrats who also seem to feel that Reagan was not sufficiently devoted to tax preferences for the wealthy investor class.

---

posted October 14, 2011 09:02 AM            

Of course, leftists of all stripes think a 100% income tax on citizens would raise the most revenue to the feds.

They even put into practice a catchy little phrase that makes clear exactly who they think all the money really belongs to.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

But, what happens in the real world...not MarxistLand...when tax rates are raised on the so called "Millionaires and Billionaires", those who make over $200,000 per year?

Tax revenues to the federal government actually GO DOWN! What happens next is instructive for those O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers...the class envy crowd, the soak the rich crowd, the class warfare crowd. I said what happens next is "instructive" but those people are incapable of learning much of anything.

The tax the "Millionaires and Billionaires" schemes fail to produce the anticipated federal revenues. Then, a broad based tax increase in instituted against the middle class because Marxists, Socialists, Progressives and other Collectivists have an insatiatable appetite for spending other people's money.

Now, if you understood this, give yourself a gold star on your forehead. You're not a member of the insane Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Collectivist set who keep doing the same thing over and over; each time expecting a different result.

Tax the Rich? It's Been Done, With Depressing Results
by Burton Folsom, Jr. and Anita Folsom
10/13/2011

posted October 14, 2011 12:56 PM            

how would YOU pay for that war which you obviously approved of?

what do you think paid for the infrastructure (now crumbling) that was built under those tax rates? why do you think it is crumbling now?

posted October 14, 2011 05:06 PM            

a small business owner takes on a second business. she brings in a manager and two admin assistants. these people, unlike all the other workers, are on W2s. the manager costs 20K/year + employer's share of taxes. the assistants, say, 10K each + taxes. so 40K + her contribution to taxes is the cost of these W2 workers. (the previous owner ran the business herself so had none of these costs).

for five years the business ticks over nicely, expanding in the process. the owner is taking home PROFIT of 1000 per month. OVER AND ABOVE all expenses(including taxes - that being the definition of profit).

this owner decides she is spending too much on management/admin, and revamps the organization so the NON W2 workers do all the admin work as part of their compensation, which is a percentage of all sales made.

unfortunately this means the admin is in the hands of a) amateurs and b)too many cooks, and after a few months business falls off due to the disorganized character of the business and the constant rotation of personnel on site.

now the owner's only "profit" is in the write off of taxes due to losses (which saves her first business money).

that 40K+ was only bringing a profit of 12K after all! (in other words the 40K+ was paid for by revenues and left 12K on top for the owner's profit).

now she has a continual spiral downward in income until even the write offs don't make up for her losses, and the business folds.

was it a burden to pay those people and their taxes? too much outlay for too little return?

posted October 15, 2011 11:59 AM            

Perhaps you never heard of the Marshall Plan which had American taxpayers spending about 13 Billion Dollars on Europe...when a Billion was really a Billion OR the already spent 12 Billion spent on Europe to stabilize European nations after the 2nd World War.

Perhaps you also never heard of the Billions American taxpayers spent to get Japan up and running again after the 2nd World War.

Taxes were high but affordable THEN. Additionally, America was the economic engine...and the only economic engine in the world at that time. Everyone was working and the US standard of living was going UP.

posted October 16, 2011 12:09 PM            

Fair Share Alert: Obama’s Top Solyndra Crony Claimed Zero Income
And no, you can’t see Warren Buffett's tax returns.
by John Hayward
10/14/2011

There’s a lot of talk about making the Evil Rich pay their “fair share” these days. President Obama wants us to be very angry at the spectacle of billionaires escaping from confiscatory tax rates. For some reason, he never uses the very pertinent example of his good friend, top contributor, and Solyndra crony George Kaiser – who, judging by the amount of money we were all compelled to give him, is unquestionably The Most Important Man In America.

It’s too bad Obama never rails against Kaiser, because the well-connected Oklahoma billionaire reported zero taxable income during five years of his rise to the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. In another year, he claimed on $11,699 in taxable income, which works out to $5.62 per hour.

Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation reports that Kaiser has not exactly been bursting with enthusiasm to pay his “fair share” over the years:

In addition to Solyndra, the George Kaiser Family Foundation has investments worth hundreds of millions in energy firms, most of them in the oil and gas industry. The Washington Post reported that, in 2005, Senate investigators focused on the tax implications of the foundation, whose assets at the end of 2009 had grown to nearly $4 billion. GKFF has averaged more than $194 million a year in income from those assets over the last five years and issued grants that averaged about $53 million a year--or just 1.7 percent of its net assets.

That wasn't the first time Kaiser caught the attention of government tax officials. In 1997, the Internal Revenue Service sent Kaiser and his companies tax bills for more than $72 million in back taxes, interest and penalties, covering individual and corporate returns filed from 1986 to 1992. Kaiser filed returns showing his personal income averaging negative $860,000 between 1986 and 1991; his holding company, GBK Corp., and its subsidiaries reported an aggregate loss from 1989 to 1992 of $507,000--some years it made money and paid taxes, others it claimed losses and paid none.

As Allison stresses, none of this was illegal. Kaiser was just doing precisely what Obama’s entire re-election campaign is premised on portraying as a moral horror: taking advantage of perfectly legal deductions and loopholes to shelter his immense fortune from taxation.

The IRS challenged some of these techniques, and hit Kaiser with a bill for $24 million in back taxes. He fought them tooth and nail. The government eventually settled for $3.7 million, or 15 cents on the dollar. Does that sound consistent with Democrat Party rhetoric?

That rhetoric isn’t just coming from the President who received so much campaign support from Kaiser, and rewarded him by pouring $535 million of taxpayer money into Kaiser’s absurd Solyndra boondoggle. Kaiser himself claims to be on board with the whole “Buffett Rule” concept, as quoted in Forbes:

I agree wholeheartedly that our tax system is insufficiently progressive. I also agree that the estate tax at levels above $10 million should be retained. Higher tax rates for higher levels of income [up to at least 50%, maybe higher] not only are socially responsible but also would encourage more charitable giving.

Kaiser must have experienced a massive change of heart since the days he was claiming zero taxable income while amassing his billion-dollar fortune. That’s part of the fraud behind these “raise-my-taxes billionaires”: they’ve already got theirs. They don’t mind throwing their weight behind schemes to soak the income of others, because they’re sitting on treasure vaults filled with assets.

Speaking of Buffett, he talks a lot about raising the taxes of others, but fights like a demon to avoid paying his own, and seems curiously unwilling to voluntarily donate his vast fortune to the wise politicians he claims to admire.***Note, for instance, Buffett still owes Uncle Sam about a Billion Dollars going bact to 2002!*** After hearing the sad story of how billionaires are paying lower taxes than Buffett’s secretary once too often, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) wrote an open letter to the Sage of Omaha, inviting him to put his tax returns where his mouth is:

The "Buffett Rule" – as it is called – uses your anecdote to shape an entire nation's tax policy. Given the use of your name and your story as the guiding force for the President's policy prescription, it is my hope that the evidence to justify such a change in policy will soon be available for public review.

Not only is your story contrary to publicly-available data about tax rates, but it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges. If you are paying a lower tax rate than your secretary, it is only logical to assume that the bulk of your income is from capital gains and other investments rather than ordinary income. Regardless of the rate you pay for these sources of income, you are certainly paying a great deal more in taxes than nearly all Americans as a result of this income. Perhaps the assertion about paying a lower rate in taxes than your secretary is true, but it is certainly misleading.

The simplest way to substantiate your claim is to publicly disclose your tax returns as soon as possible so that policymakers, and the American people who elect them, can properly determine their veracity. If you were to come before any Congressional Committee and testify, any Member of Congress would ask for the evidence to back up your claim – under oath.

(Emphases mine.) Huelskamp later sweetened the deal by offering to release his own personal tax returns at the same time. Buffett did not rise to meet this challenge. While he was eventually willing to disclose his adjusted gross income of $62,855,038 and taxable income of $39,814,784 in a letter to Huelskamp, he won't release his full returns. He said he doesn’t think there’s much to learn from Rep. Huelskamp’s tax returns, but he’d think about making his public domain if media mogul Rupert Murdoch​ does, too.

“What would be useful would be to get more of the rich to publish their returns,” Buffett wrote to Huelskamp. “After the Wall Street Journal suggested I publish my return, I stated that I would be happy to do so the next morning if their boss – Rupert Murdoch, one of my ultra-rich colleagues – would similarly make his return available. If you could get other ultra-rich Americans to publish their returns along with mine, that would be very useful to the tax dialogue and intelligent reform.”

Of course, Rupert Murdoch isn’t the one calling for other people’s taxes to be raised – or, more to the point, cheerfully lending his name to a desperate liberal politician’s scheme to tax the hell out of small businessmen who only make $250,000 per year.

Warren Buffett’s personal idea of the “Buffett Rule,” as he has quietly explained to the rare interviewer who directly quizzes him about it, would be an alternative minimum tax applying to people who make tens of millions of dollars. He has said he only thinks about fifty thousand people in the entire country would fit into this group, and he explicitly stated that millionaire athletes and TV stars don’t make enough money to qualify.

That’s a far cry from Barack Obama’s hunger to raise taxes on people who earn low six-figure incomes, but Buffett doesn’t mind lending his name to Obama’s tax grab. He has said Obama’s people didn’t even discuss their agenda with him before appropriating his name, but he didn’t seem very upset about it.

Huelskamp said he was “disappointed” by Buffet’s refusal to come clean about his tax avoidance strategies. “By sheltering millions of dollars of income from taxation, probably through charitable giving, Mr. Buffett demonstrates that he doesn’t trust Washington with his own money either,” the Congressman pointed out.

Bingo. The Democrat agenda is based on the notion that refusing to pay high taxes is immoral, because the government is better able to spend money than the people who earned it, and the public good has a greater moral claim on every dollar than individual ambition. Leaving the Buffett Rule aside, even the existing Alternative Minimum Tax is premised on the idea that using too many legal deductions to shelter too much income – in full compliance with our incredibly complex body of tax law – is unethical.

According to that reasoning, George Kaiser, Warren Buffett, and other billionaire Democrat Party stalwarts are to be condemned for refusing to hand over their incomes voluntarily. Kaiser monopolized an awful lot of government resources in the process of beating the IRS down to accepting fifteen cents on the dollar for his back taxes. If these people just handed over their millions, as they expect others to meekly hand over their thousands, the government would be able to dedicate more of its attention to vital tasks, such as cranking out “green” jobs at five million bucks a pop.