The rich just got poorer

President Obama has proposed the imposition of a higher tax on the wealthy as a means of paying for the expenditures that he wants to make. This new tax would supposedly be imposed only on those making more than $1 million a year and is being called the "Buffett Tax."

This nickname is from billionaire Warren Buffett's recent complaint that he paid too little in taxes and that taxes therefore should be increased. Of course, Buffett ignores the tax accounting tricks that he plays in order to ensure that he pays less in taxes. For example, he takes from his company very little in salary which is taxed at a higher rate and takes most of his income in dividends or other income tricks which are taxed at a lower rate. Additionally, it is likely that he is able to take many deductions that most people are unable to take, thus lowering his taxable income.

Nevertheless, Buffett believes that the wealthy should pay more taxes. And Obama believes that everyone should pay more taxes. So, it is not surprising that they would find some common ground regarding tax increases.

What is surprising is that Obama's tax increase proposal relates to those making more than $1 million a year. Previously, the president has insisted that tax increases should be imposed on anyone making $200,000 or more or on families making $250,000 or more. He has justified these repetitive calls for higher taxes by speaking of the corporate jets and other perks held by such rich people.

Of course, if anyone knows how much a corporate jet costs or even a prop plane, let alone the maintenance costs, they would realize that families in the $250,000 income bracket or even a $500,000 income bracket are unlikely to have jets or yachts or other high-priced toys. Certainly they will have higher priced toys than the average American worker who makes significantly less. But these toys are likely to be more along the lines of larger and more expensive televisions, greater costing clothes, more expensive restaurants, larger homes, etc. than jets, yachts, or whatever toys the super-wealthy such as Mr. Buffett choose to have.

It is the president's and Democrats in general who love to play the class game. Previously, the division of classes has been at the $200,000 income level. At least now it is at a more understandable $1 million level.

Who knows, at a $1 million level, the president's plan for higher taxes might even gain some traction. If you are going to wage class warfare, you need as many people on your side as possible. And given the nature of things (in other words, tax the other guy and not me), the tax increase might gain favor among those in the $200,000 to $1 million income range. At least those who have no aspirations or anticipation of reaching a $1 million income.

So, at first glance, this appears to be a good thing. Not the tax necessarily, as that is for the economists and politicians to decide. Previous tax increase proposals have seemed to indicate relatively little in increased revenues for the government so they seemed primarily purposed to create class division or to punish the successful. Additionally, if increased tax revenue is just flushed down the toilet of unsustainable industries like the recent half billion loan to a green energy company or if increased tax revenue merely serves as an excuse for more government spending, then is there really any purpose at all?

No, what is a good thing is that it appears that the president is finally gaining some sense that the middle class, even if it is the upper middle class, is not the super-wealthy.

However, this remains to be seen. President Obama is also going to be proposing additional tax revenue measures. It will be interesting to see if those measures are also drawn at the $1 million income line or if he will revert back to his $200,000 line.

There appears some hope that he is getting it, but the proof will be in the pudding as they say.

Regards to President Dunsell.

AH

Thanks a lot, Michelle!

My daughter says, "Thanks a lot, Michelle!"

For those who may be unaware, childhood nutrition has been a major platform of first lady Michelle Obama. This platform has resulted in pictures of her planting a garden at the White House and dancing (moving it) with kids and Senator Harry Reid. It has also resulted in a running joke about the president indulging in hamburgers, fries, shakes, and other foods that he supposedly cannot get through the White House kitchen.

Every first lady has a platform of some sort. I recall that Barbara Bush's was literacy, and Laura Bush's was childhood education and women's health, and Hillary Clinton's was health care or perhaps intrusion into private lives, something like that.

Frankly, I have not given much consideration to the platforms of the various first ladies in the past, considering them something to be admired from afar but really not impacting me personally.

However, times have changed. And this time it is personal.

As part of Mrs. Obama's platform, she railroaded the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 through a Congress then completely under control of the Democratic Party. Such act was designed in part to increase the nutritional value of meals served to public school children. Clearly, this is a praiseworthy goal; and any legislation with such a goal was not likely to elicit much in the way of complaint or controversy. Passage of the act was relatively easy.

There was some slight concern at the time of its passage because it was funded by a cut in the food-stamp program. In other words, the government will use the money to pay for school kids meals by taking money away from families in need. Given the state of the economy, there reportedly are more families on food stamps that ever before. But at least some of their kids can get some of their meals at school.

My family does not get food stamps, so that aspect of the act has no personal impact on me. But the act did call for changes in the nutritional content of food served at school, including chocolate milk. Again, this seemingly would not personally impact me, as I do not attend school and my only child still in secondary school does not drink milk at school.

However, that child does drink milk at home, or did until recently. For about 15 years, in order to get her to drink milk, which by most accounts is a healthy drink with necessary vitamins and minerals (it builds strong bones, used to be the saying), we have bought chocolate milk. Not just any chocolate milk, but a specific brand manufactured by Dean Foods, a national food business.

Originally in our area, it was known as Schepps, then became Oak Farms. In other parts of the country, it was sold under other brand names since Dean Foods is a national company that over the years has bought up a bunch of regional dairy brands. It was one-percent milk so the reduced fat content was a plus. But the primary selling point was the taste, which my daughter liked. We tried other chocolate milks (also one percent), but none of them had the same taste and all were rejected. It was Schepps/Oak Farms or nothing, even if it meant going to an extra food store to purchase it if it was not sold where we were shopping.

Now Dean Foods has re-branded the milk once again, under the national Trumoo name. But more significantly, they have also reformulated it. While it still remains one percent milk, it has been changed to meet the new nutritional guidelines championed by the first lady and imposed by the legislation.

That reformulation, as one would expert, also changed the taste. So now, instead of a smooth chocolate flavor, what you have is essentially a milk that tastes like Nestle Quik. It took only a single sip for my daughter to complain about the taste and say there is no need to buy it anymore.

Checking on the internet to see if others might have similar complaints, all I found was uniform praise for the product. Of course, on further checking, I discovered that all these words of praise came with disclaimers indicating that the reviewers had been provided with the product for free, had parties funded by Dean Foods, or were compensated by Dean Foods. In other words, no unbiased reviews.

Dean Foods has indicated that it had no choice but to change its formula for chocolate milk. Selling to school programs to a major source of its business. Under the new nutritional guidelines supported by the first lady and enacted by Congress, the company was threatened with the loss of that business. So, its only choice to retain that business was the reformulation.

And certainly, it would be far less expensive for the company to manufacture a single formula of the milk for sale in both schools and stores, rather than have two formulas, one to be forced upon school kids and another that could be chosen by parents and actually consumed by kids at home.

Studies have indicated that as much as 30 percent of milk consumed by children is chocolate milk. With this new taste being forced on kids at school, that percentage may not change much, especially if the only other choices are bland plain milk and water.

But I know of at least one child that will be drinking less milk now.

Thanks a lot, Michelle!

Regards to President Dunsell.

- AH