Nicholas Cage is better than Method Man - so the IRS apparently thinks

I think that someone in the IRS must really be a fan of Ghost Rider. Or perhaps this head honcho just loved Con Air. It has to be something like that, since I just found out about Nicholas Cage.

Nicholas Cage owes the IRS $6 million since 2007. Which does not include a lien against him for $350,000 back in 2003 - 2005. Of course the IRS is not looking to arrest Nicholas Cage. Which sets him apart from other celebrities.

As I mentioned last week, Method Man was arrested because he owes $33,000 to the IRS. Of course part of that arrest may lie in the excuse Method Man has for not paying the taxes

"Method Man has publicly said that he suffers from memory loss due to his penchant for smoke Marijuana, and that is the prime reason he has missed his tax payments."

Even if true it's a dumb reason. And illegal. But that aside, isn't it interesting?

Method Man is facing 5 years in prison. Wesley Snipe was sentenced to 3 years in prison, after beating the IRS on charges of evading takes on $14 million and facing 16 years in prison. The 3 year sentence was for 3 misdemeanours - and is universally seen as overly harsh. On the other side of things, besides the non-action on Cage, there was Willie Nelson who owed $33 million dollars and got probation.

Perhaps it's me, but this looks like a systemic problem. There seems to be a massive issue here, and I doubt that anyone in the major media will raise it.

Why is it that Nelson got off scot-free? Why is Cage seemingly untouched? Yet there was no end of media coverage negatively implying his guilt. And Method Man seems hardly in the same category, though the IRS took and sold his car and now has arrested him.

I realize that often celebrities and entertainers are slapped on the wrist for most criminal actions. Rappers, and other entertainers, are routinely absolved of possession of drugs, sex with minors, even acts of violence. But when it comes to taxes, well things appear to be very different. Are we to infer that the IRS loves country music and occasionally bad acting so much that it will give a free pass to those entertainers, but if the music and actor is outside that realm the whole weigh of the Government is thrown at them?

Personally, I think that all the entertainers and celebrities (not to mention a host of politicians) should be treated harsher than the average person when they break the law. The perks their careers provide should be the best reason not to commit a crime - of any nature. They need to be examples as much as they are role models in the society - even if they don't wish to acknowledge that they are that.

But when I say harsh penalties, I mean harsh with a level playing field. it is the highest hypocrisy to have one entertainer face jail for $33,000 and another entertainer walking free as a bird without a care while owing $6,350,000. If nothing else it implies a favouritism and prejudice. Neither should exist and must be removed from the Government and law.

The IRS is not a movie mogul, nor an Oscar judge. It is not a Grammy official, or in record sales. It has one purpose (which no one loves, given) and that purpose sees only 1 color - green. If the IRS cannot get that right, well then why do we have it?

I wish Nicholas Cage no ill, but if I could I'd make sure he was in the same boat as Wesley Snipes. At least that would make sense.

Bill O'Reilly interview with Senator Obama - part 2 analysis

Well the questions between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama on the economy was interesting. And aggressive.



First are the facts. The economy grew during President Bush. The average wage increased for Americans $400 to $500 dollars, that’s on top of the $2000 it grew under President Clinton. And the Federal Government increased revenues by 20% under President Bush. Spending by President Bush has been outrageous though, and wasteful.

Now if you want to see what I think of the increases on the corporate tax structure just check out my previous post [Democratic tax plans: a look from reality]

A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.

Senator Obama clearly states that he will be increasing taxes on investments to at least 25%, which is massive. It means that to make a decent return on an investment – say the historical 11% that most mutual funds have made per year – you in fact have to make a 36% profit to get the return, which most stocks never make unless you are in the middle of the internet bubble. That is a fact I can attest to from my experience as a successful stock broker.

So to make attactive profits for inestors, companies will be forced to make changes. As I have stated in the abovementioned post, that means that since virtually all costs are fixed except employees they will absorb the hit as will consumers.

Also note that Senator Obama restates a previously stated comment. He states that 95% of Americans will benefit from his tax plan. That is a lie. He has clearly and repeatedly stated that 95% of American that RECEIVE A PAYCHECK will benefit from his tax plan. Business owners are not included in his savings, no matter the size of their business.

Bill O’Reilly also failed to mention that Senator Obama, along with his Vice President, already voted to effectively increase the taxes of all Americans making $31,850 or more this year. That’s a 3% tax increase on roughly 95% of Americans.

Now in a quick statement Senator Obama mentioned China

“…[the debt has] gone up $4 trillion dollars, that a credit card we’re taking out on our kids from the bank of China, that they’re goning to have to pay back…”

While I too have no love of foreign investment levels that currently exist I have a problem with what is being implied. Does Senator Obama plan to limit who can invest in American companies and banks? Because in a free economy you can’t stop anyone from investing.

In addition, I am unaware of English, French, or German companies, individuals, or nations stepping up and offering to make the investments in America that the Chinese and Saudi Arabians has offered. So if we are to have these investments and no friendly countries are offering anything, what are we to do?

The counter position – which is never being mentioned – means that we refuse the investments of these nations, or limit them. That also means that several of our banks, this year, would have been short on average $5 billion each at least. That means that at least 2 major money center banks would have failed this year. Without that foreign money the economy would have crashed as the dollar got crushed and inflation flew thru the roof because banks would have caused a domino effect that would easily have plunged the nation into a depression.

I have yet to hear an answer that addresses the problems the counter position creates. Perhaps it’s because there is no answer, or they realize that most Americans are unfamiliar with stock market intricacies to ask this question. But I do.

So does this mean that Senator Obama would rather have CitiGroup, and Lehman, and other banks/brokerages fail than accept the billions of dollars foreign investors offer – even is only certain countries are willing to give us the money and none of them are close friends? Is Senator Obama saying that he is willing to plunge America into a Depression that will obviously not help retirees, workers, the economy, and ultimately the world?

Tonight is part 3. Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and other questions on character that are sure to be the high point of the interview.

Repost - Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates

This is a repost that can be found at Vass

Not long ago I created a list of Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates. To be fair and to see the differences I have complied a Pros and Con list for the leading major Republican candidates.

I do not presume that this list is all-encompassing. I recognize that while I have tried to be neutral, just as I was with the Democrats, I’m sure there are areas where my personal views entered. I do not claim my list is complete or how everyone feels. But I believe it is accurate.

Some issues may fall on both sides, because depending on personal views it is a positive or negative. Most are far more easily categorized. If you disagree, please make a comment and give your reasons why. You may be right, so why not share your thoughts?

You can see some of my source information at On The Issues and 2008 Election ProCon.

Now for the breakdowns (in alphabetical order):

Rudy Giuliani

Pros –


• 9/11
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• No Nuke Iran
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Mayor of largest U.S. City
  
• Lower taxes
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Mixed on Gun Control
  
• No International experience
  
• Flipped on gay marriage
  
• Mayor was highest level of public service experience
  
• Relies heavily on 9/11
  
• Flipped on Immigration policies
  
• Horrendous Civil Liberties (Amidou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, ect)
  
• Sold out 42nd Street to corporations
  

Continued in Part 2...