Not a day goes by that I don’t receive in the mail a magnificent offer from one of our nation’s many public spirited enterprises. Today it was a “Citi® Diamond Preferred® Rewards Pre-Approved Application Form” from Citibank, offering their MasterCard at 0% APR on balance transfers together with a $100 gift card after my first purchase. Stuffed in with my congratulatory letter were several other sheets containing information for which I required a magnifying glass. Rather than discard this packet into the circular file as usual, I decided to review it.

After briefly scrutinizing a couple thousand words of unintelligible mumbo jumbo, known in the legalese trade as “boilerplate,” I got to the informative part: What happens if the Pre-Approved customer misses a step along the way? That section was understandable: “All your APRs may increase if you default under any Card Agreement that you have with us because you fail to make a payment to us when due, you exceed your credit line, or you make a payment to us that is not honored. In these circumstances, we may automatically increase your APRs on all balances to the Default APR…currently in effect is 31.74%.”

Let me now shift to the bottom line, as there is nothing else of importance to relate. The only wrinkle of consequence is the magic number assigned as the default rate. You might note that some months ago the magic number was below 30%, the increase no doubt reflecting the recent Federal Reserve rate boosts. If, however, you imagine that rising bank credit card rates somehow translate to a more generous return for depositors, you’d better think again. For those of you unlucky enough to maintain a Bank of America passbook savings account, your return is ½% per annum. Even the money market account I maintain at a comparatively competitive institution is only 3.84%. The days are long gone when banking operated under the rule of three: 3% paid to the depositor; 6% charge on loans for a 3% markup; and at the golf course by 3:00 o’clock. Today the spread is determined by whatever the traffic will bear.

A concluding thought:
It’s an unhappy reality that a substantial portion of our citizens live on plastic and periodically skate too closely to the edge. The entire financial community has become a predatory industry that counts upon human failing to reap unconscionable profits. Try to conduct your life in such a way that you are not a victim.

The headline certainly attracted my attention: “Smokers aren’t getting help to kick the habit.” That conclusion constituted the gist of a recent report to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), by a select panel of health experts. Their recommendations, urging “that effective interventions reach the people who need them most,” advocated such programs as telephone and in-person counseling, nicotine replacement therapies, tax increases, and anti-smoking laws. The panel concluded that more should be done to help smokers quit.

Unmentioned in the report was a crucial element of reality: that a vibrant industry depends upon an inability of tens of millions of American smokers to rid themselves of the habit. Except for smokers themselves and the persons around them, no one loses when an addict fails to end addiction. There are only winners: tobacco growers, cigarette manufacturers and vendors, advertisers, tax collectors, and those engaged in assisting the victims to kick the habit—which includes officials of NIH as well as members of panels selected to conduct such studies.

Although I claim no credentials as a health expert, I have more than a passing familiarity with the problem. As a former 2-pack-a-day smoker, the habit reinforcements are still vivid in my memory. Most of us who became hooked on the weed started our use at an early age, thanks in part to the effective targeting by the tobacco industry of children in the eleven to fourteen age group. And make no mistake–it was effective. The combination of romantic images, reinforced with seductive Kool billboards, delusions of grandeur perpetuated with visions of an unfiltered John Wayne, and the constant reminder of personal inadequacy assuaged only by a sense of oneness with the Marlboro Man, was what enabled the tobacco companies to declare healthy quarterly stock dividends.

It is hard to say what is required for a smoker to set tobacco aside, as different people respond to different stimuli. The threat of imminent death by cancer is sufficient for some, while others continue to puff through a plastic tube inserted in their trachea after the malignant larynx has been surgically removed. It’s a very personal matter, and as with all addictions–yes, all addictions–until the individual decides to quit, it will not happen. Only when the basic psyche finds itself at cross-purposes with a habit, will the practice end. It is for this reason that treatment efforts for all sorts of substance-abuse are normally ineffective. Whether it be alcohol recovery encouraged and paid for by family members, or court-ordered drug rehabilitation, without the resolve by the addict, it will come to nothing. It has long been my suspicion that the practitioners who operate such facilities are keenly aware of this, and count on repeated failures as the basis for continuing profitability. The last thing that Ms. Helga Hammerlock, owner and operator of the Poughkeepsie Bunghole Alcohol Treatment Center, really wants is that any of her $6,500 per month collection of recyclable sots actually give up the bottle.

A concluding thought:
This gets us to the bottom line. Irrespective of programs created to encourage nicotine addicts to go through the motions, there will be no meaningful action to help American smokers kick the habit. The reason for this is fundamental: It is in no one’s interest to do so.

Is it possible that the idea of a flat rate income tax is really a good idea? Some persons claim that everyone paying at the same tax rate, with no deductions or exemptions, is far fairer than the present system where the wealthy can presumably avoid their obligations with clever accounting tricks. Over the years the idea has been promoted by such public figures as presidential aspirant Steve Forbes and one-time California Governor Jerry Brown.

Arguments against the flat tax come from representatives of all classes. Those who claim to speak for the poor maintain that the anticipated flat tax rate, generally estimated to be no more than 15-20%, will put money in the pockets of the rich by lowering the top brackets in which they currently reside. Members of the upper end of the income scale vehemently denounce the flat tax, contending that the loss of legitimate deductions and credits will penalize them, resulting in their bearing an even greater share of the nation’s tax load. And of course many in the great middle class are equally hostile to the idea, fearing that the loss of such benefits as family exemptions and mortgage interest deductions will work to their ultimate disadvantage. For every enthusiastic supporter of the flat tax you can find an equally vocal opponent.

It cannot be denied that the world of taxation is hostile, and the government’s appetite for the citizens’ dollars is insatiable. It’s likely that whatever flat tax compromise might ever be reached, the bureaucrats’ take will be at least what it currently is—and quite possibly larger. This is because there’s no way to tell what laws will eventually come to pass after the political infighting ends. The lobbying activities will be intense while the charges and countercharges hurled will exceed anything in recent memory. Without a doubt, one thing can be counted upon: Fairness will not be a major consideration in whatever legislation is finally enacted.Perhaps a final comment is in order. Most taxpayers resent having their money taken, so the politicians must regularly genuflect to the concept of tax relief, and an endless variety of proposals are periodically floated to convince the citizens that their best interests are uppermost in the minds of their leaders. The flat tax is but one such contrivance.

A concluding thought:
Although I entertain some preconceived biases on this matter, I recognize that there are valid arguments both pro and con. For those of you with strong opinions on this subject, I’d be pleased if you’d share them with us.