How to Stop a Tax Plan Rigged for the Rich


Wikimedia Commons

The Earth doesn’t quite shake when lawmakers in Washington, D.C. take one of their periodic votes on tax “reform.” But sometimes history does turn, and this coming week’s expected vote on the Senate version of the GOP tax plan could be one of those rare times that history actually turns for the better.

Indeed, this year’s situation bears a remarkable resemblance to the epic tax battle of 1932, a largely forgotten struggle that set the stage for an entire generation of increasing equality. Could this history repeat? It certainly is already echoing.

Back in 1932, just as today, conservatives had a lockgrip on the White House and both houses of Congress. Then as now, America’s wealthy lusted for fundamental tax changes that would significantly reduce their already reduced tax burden. Then as now, those wealthy — and the pols they subsidized — framed tax breaks for the rich as our only road to prosperity.

That prosperity seemed incredibly distant in early 1932. The nation had sunk into the Great Depression, and the federal government was collecting far too little revenue from a Depression-ravaged economy to function. The government, nearly everyone understood, simply had to raise more revenue. But the new revenue the government so desperately needed, top Republicans and Democrats in Washington agreed, must not come from the rich.

In November 1931, Democratic Senate floor leader Joseph Robinson from Arkansas had driven that consensus home with comments the Washington Post called “so conservative as to sound like a statement from Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon,” the mega-millionaire who spent the 1920s orchestrating tax cuts that sheared the top tax rate on America’s highest incomes from 77 to 25 percent. Robinson warned the American people against any move that might subject the nation’s wealthy to significant new taxation. Serious people all agreed, the Senate’s top Democrat would explain, that the government could only tax the rich so high “without discouraging investment and production.”

Democrat John Nance Garner from Texas, the House speaker, would pound home the same theme the next month. He delivered what the Los Angeles Times Washington correspondent would dub a “mild spanking” to his Democratic Party colleagues who had had the nerve to suggest boosting tax rates on high incomes back near World War I levels.

A few weeks later, another leading Democrat, acting House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Crisp of Georgia, would continue the spanking. The nation could never meet its fiscal emergency by “soaking the rich,” Crisp informed his colleagues. Average Americans will have to “gird” themselves for “tremendous sacrifices.” A national sales tax, or some other tax that demanded “stamina” and “backbone” from all Americans, was going to have to be levied.

The Herbert Hoover White House agreed, in part. Administration officials would ask Congress to enact higher federal excise taxes on many everyday purchases, everything from tobacco to telephone calls. But the Republican Hoover administration would not go along with a national sales tax. Undersecretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills, soon to become treasury secretary after Andrew Mellon resigned to become America’s ambassador to Great Britain, asked Congress instead to up the nation’s top income bracket tax rate from 25 to 40 percent.

What explains this White House willingness to contemplate slightly higher tax levies on America’s comfortable? Hoover may have considered a little political discretion here the better part of valor. Better a modest tax increase on the wealthy than risk the unpredictable popular wrath a national sales tax might unleash.

Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress had no such fears. The heat they felt came from newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, the powerful media magnate who had emerged as the national sales tax notion’s most fervent advocate.

Hearst had no particular philosophical affection for taxing sales. Neither did any of his fellow wealthy Americans. They simply wanted Congress to put in place an alternative to taxing income. Their income. Americans, Hearst wrote in a nationally circulated March 1932 editorial, must “carry on a sustained crusade Morning, Evening, and Sunday against the present Bolshevist system of income taxation.”

The Democratic Party majority on the House Ways and Means Committee would obediently oblige. Lawmakers on the panel repudiated the Hoover administration and nixed any income tax hike. They passed instead an almost all-encompassing national sales tax, a 2.25 percent manufacturer’s excise levy on everything but food.

What happened next would floor top Democrats and their calculated bid to position the party as a reliable partner for America’s rich and powerful. Powerful Democrats — like the Wall Street financier Jacob Raskob — had simply gone too far. Americans would push back. They would mount the first national political surge against plutocracy since the Great Depression began.

The surge broke out almost as a matter of spontaneous political combustion. From across the nation, average Americans began bombarding congressional offices with angry complaints about the pending new national sales tax. In the face of this surprise bombardment, rank-and-file Democrats in Congress would suddenly rediscover their inner displeasure at America’s staggering concentration of income and wealth. They would join with Representative Fiorello LaGuardia from New York and other progressive House Republicans to kill the national sales tax by a stunning 223-153 margin.

Amid shouts of “soak the rich!” on the House floor, this unexpected majority would go on to raise the top tax rate from 25 percent on income over $ 100,000 to 63 percent on income over $ 1 million. The new higher tax rates, notes tax historian Elliot Brownlee, would double the effective tax burden on America’s richest 1 percent.

House Democratic majority leader Henry Rainey would not be happy about any of this.

“We have made a longer step in the direction of communism,” he told his House colleagues, “than any country in the world ever made except Russia.”

But Rainey remained above all else a savvy politician. He saw clearly that Americans overwhelmingly supported higher taxes on the nation’s wealthy, and now he would make the best of a bad situation. The evening after the crushing defeat of the sales tax proposition, he would go live on national radio and position the new taxes on the rich as a fiscally prudent step toward balancing the federal budget. He would also do his best to convince Americans that the rich had now sacrificed quite enough.

Lawmakers in the House, Rainey told the nation, have raised income taxes on the wealthy “to the very breaking point.” Even “the most violent advocate of ‘soaking the rich’ ought to be satisfied,” the Democratic majority leader would pronounce.

“We have ‘soaked the rich,’ I assure you,” Rainey would repeat for emphasis at the close of his radio address.

In fact, the soaking had been more a quick rinse. Taxes on the nation’s wealthy would remain, even after the increases, substantially lower than top rates in effect during World War I. The bulk of the tax dollars the new revenue legislation would raise would come from new and increased excise taxes, some on luxury items like furs but most on everyday items like chewing gum and lubricating oil.

Even so, the 1932 tax fight did mark a turning point. The rich and their political enablers had reached for the brass ring, a national sales tax. The American people had slapped them down.

In Albany, the state capital of New York, an ambitious governor took notice. Just two weeks after the tax brouhaha in Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, a leading candidate for the 1932 Democratic Party nomination, would begin a remarkable series of addresses that aligned his candidacy four-square with America’s grassroots push against plutocracy.

The first of these addresses, broadcast April 7 in NBC’s Lucky Strike Hour, would champion the “forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid” and blast away at political leaders who “can think in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure.”

The next month, at a commencement address at Georgia’s Oglethorpe University, Roosevelt would deliver a stirring call for “bold, persistent experimentation” to aid the “millions who are in want.”

“Do what we may have to do to inject life into our ailing economic order,” the Presidential hopeful would explain, “we cannot make it endure for long unless we can bring about a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.”

The New Deal had begun.

Could a defeat of the GOP tax plans of 2017 signal a similar new egalitarian upsurge? Maybe. But first we have to deliver that defeat.

The post How to Stop a Tax Plan Rigged for the Rich appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.


Republicans Admit Their Tax Plan Is All About Rich Donors


Rob Hyrons/Shutterstock

Sometimes I have to remind myself that people in “real America” with “real jobs” don’t while away their mortal hours reading about politics. But God help me, if you’ve suffered through any coverage of the Republican tax plan, you’ve probably heard three things.

First, it’ll dramatically slash taxes on corporations and billionaires, raise them for nearly a third of us in the middle class, and blow a $ 1.5 trillion hole in the deficit.

Second, it’s unpopular. Less than a third of Americans support it, Reuters reports. That’s worse than Trump’s own approval rating, which remains mired in the 30s.

And third, the Republicans who control Congress believe it simply must pass.

In fact, this third point sets the tenor for the entire debate. “Republicans are desperate to rack up a legislative win after a series of embarrassing failures,” TIME observes. “If tax reform doesn’t pass, many in the party fear an all-out revolt in 2018.”

“All of us realize that if we fail on taxes, that’s the end of the Republican Party’s governing majority in 2018,” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham told Fox News recently. In fact, “that’s probably the end of the Republican Party as we know it.”

If the tax giveaway doesn’t pass, adds Utah Republican Mike Lee, “We might as well pack up our tent and go home.”

The thing is, that doesn’t make any sense. Gallup polls have shown over and over that most Americans think rich people and corporations should pay more, not less. Even a majority of Republican voters worry about what this wealth grab will do to the deficit.

If they were looking for a win, then, Republicans would be running against their own plan. So what gives?

Well, New York Republican Chris Collins recently offered a clue: “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’” Ah!

Many voters in Collins’ high-tax district will likely pay more, since the GOP wants to end federal deductions for state and local taxes. But it doesn’t have a lick to do with voters. It has everything to do with the affluent donors who bankroll GOP campaigns.

A similar dynamic played out in the health care debate. GOP leaders trotted out plan after plan that would eliminate coverage for anywhere from 20 to 24 million Americans — plans that never topped the low 20s in public support.

But those plans would have reduced taxes on the wealthy. So they had to pass.

“Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who has been deeply involved in health policy for years, told reporters back home that he could count 10 reasons the new health proposal should not reach the floor,” the New York Times reported back in September, “but that Republicans needed to press ahead regardless.”

When those bills met their righteous demise, elite GOP fundraising took a huge dive. Senate Republicans lost $ 2 million in planned contributions alone, The Hill noted this summer. Fundraising in those months fell some $ 5 million below where it had been in the spring.

So there it is, team: Follow the money. It’s no wonder Princeton researchers found a few years ago that rich people matter to Congress, but ordinary folks generally don’t. That’s probably why many of us prefer to tune it out entirely.

It’s also exactly why we do have to pay attention. Especially in those rare moments when members admit exactly what’s going on.

The post Republicans Admit Their Tax Plan Is All About Rich Donors appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.


We Get Sick, They Get Rich


Tax Cuts for the Rich Help the Rich, Not You

(Photo: Canadian Pacific / Flickr)

Soon you’re going to hear about taxes.

You’ll see images of families flashing across your TV screen while a soothing narrator assures you that the tax plan being debated in Washington really is good for you. The newspapers you read, the social media apps you scroll through, the websites you frequent, and the snippets of radio you catch will all feature ads talking about it.

That’s what a marketing blitz looks like, and there’s one coming for the Trump tax plan. It will be well-produced, well-orchestrated, and completely devoid of facts.

President Trump started his sales pitch for his tax cutting agenda in Missouri in August, where the assembled audience was treated to a fact-free sermon on the virtues of his plan. Gone were any specifics of what’s in it, or who gets what.

Looking at Trump’s tax plan from the campaign, as well as what the Republican majority in the House of Representatives have proposed, we can see the basic outlines of what’s coming.

Corporations will see their nominal tax rates drop from 35 percent to 20 or even 15 percent. Individual rates will go down — possibly for everyone, but definitely and most strikingly for the very wealthy. Overall tax revenue will tank, potentially by as much as $ 10 trillion over ten years.

What does all this look like in the real world?

On the corporate side, we know for sure that lower corporate taxes do not create jobs.

In the ads to come, maybe you’ll see a guy in a hard hat claim that corporate tax cuts will put him back to work. He’s lying.

A recent Institute for Policy Studies report looks at 92 profitable companies that already pay an effective 20 percent tax rate, thanks to loopholes. On average they’ve cut jobs, even as the rest of the private sector saw a 6 percent jobs increase.

On the individual side, half of the proposed cuts will go to millionaires, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Less than 5 percent go to families with household incomes below $ 45,000.

This is probably the biggest wealth grab in American history by the wealthy, for the wealthy. Selling it as a middle-class tax cut, regardless of the images in the ads you see, is just old-fashioned lying.

And finally there’s the revenue. Trump claims his tax cuts will pay for themselves with increased economic growth. That theory’s been debunked many times over and yet remains stubbornly in play.

So what happens when trillions of dollars of tax revenue get slashed?

Congress currently bans itself from passing bills that increase the deficit in one of their better acronyms — Pay As You Go (PAYGO). That means the tax cuts Trump proposes will have to come out of public programs.

No matter how much hype you hear, you’d better believe those cuts are gonna hurt. From food assistance like the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program to Head Start, and from clean water protections to unemployment insurance — it’s all on the line.

It’s hard to keep an eye on the truth when savvy marketing campaigns are hell-bent on deflecting your attention away from it. Don’t buy it. The Trump tax cut plan is disastrous for working families and for anyone who cares about a fair and just economy.


Don’t Spend Your Money on Already Rich Schools

Don’t go to Bowdoin College. Don’t give a huge check to Stanford. Don’t give Wilt Chamberlain a hard time for shooting free throws underhanded. And don’t underestimate how much inequality rots our society from all sorts of different angles.

You’ll take away these insights and plenty more like them from Malcolm Gladwell’s fascinating new Revisionist History podcast. His new series, currently ranked number one on iTunes, rummages the past for events and ideas that we as a society have badly misread and really need to rethink.

Gladwell asks, for instance, whether the American Dream is still alive, and that question leads to a novel review of America’s deeply unequal college scene.

In one episode, titled Food Wars, Gladwell compares both the proportion of low-income students attending elite universities and the schools’ dining halls. The premise is that spending significant sums on food takes away from spending on scholarships for needy students. Two schools are highlighted on either end of the “food vs scholarships” spectrum: Bowdoin College in Maine and Vassar College in New York.

Bowdoin has the best dining hall in the country with fresh local organic meals that could just as easily be found at a Michelin rated restaurant. And that is the problem with American higher education today, according to Gladwell.

Don’t go to Bowdoin, he advises, don’t let your friends or children go to Bowdoin. The money wasted on fancy food that doesn’t go to scholarships for needy kids is what’s driving the gap in education. (As you can imagine, Bowdoin took issue with this.)

Vassar, on the other hand, has a mediocre dining hall, but has double the low-income students Bowdoin has. Overly simplistic? Yes. But it’s not really about food, it’s about priorities and Gladwell wants to see those priorities shift.

Mostly left out of the conversation is the role of public colleges and the steady disinvestment in higher education by state legislatures. All but three states spend less on higher education today than they did ten years ago. This speaks to Mr. Gladwell’s bias, whose focus is generally on the elite and the gifted, not on the average poor student with average or even below average intellect.

How do we educate those less gifted and ensure that they too can rise above their social class? How do we treat education as public good, one deserving of public investment? This might be the one major blind spot throughout the series, but it’s a small critique of an otherwise brilliant analysis.

In the next episode, “My Little Hundred Million,” Gladwell touches on this topic with a look at Rowan University in New Jersey. Rowan is a rather unremarkable school, a small public university with mostly local, low-income students. But about 20 years ago, Rowan got a huge boost—a hundred million dollar donation from philanthropist Hank Rowan (for whom the school was subsequently re-named). At the time, this size gift was unheard of and it had a huge impact on the school and the students who would later attend. Gladwell praises Rowan for selecting a school like Rowan to give his money to, a school that could put it to good use.

Unlike, say Stanford.

Stanford, like many of the Ivy League schools and similar institutions, has a massive endowment. At over $ 20 billion, it’s bigger than the gross domestic product of most island nations. Yet, it was the recent recipient of a $ 400 million gift earlier this year from Nike founder Phil Knight. And there too is the problem in higher ed, according to Gladwell.

Almost all of the big donations going to higher education go to wealthy universities that already have plenty of money. While Stanford catches the ire in this episode, it could just as easily have been Harvard. Last year, Gladwell jokingly tweeted in response to headlines that billionaire John Paulson was giving the school $ 400 million, “If billionaires don’t step up, Harvard will soon be down to its last $ 30 billion.”

The message is clear: if you’ve got big money to give and want to fix education, don’t give it to schools that already have a ton of money.

Like his best-selling books, Gladwell’s podcast is engaging and moves seamlessly back and forth between nuanced academic studies and interesting character profiles. His critiques are a welcome shake-up to beliefs about education and the American Dream.

The post Don’t Spend Your Money on Already Rich Schools appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Josh Hoxie directs the Project on Opportunity and Taxation at the Institute for Policy Studies. 


This Tax Law Professor is Taking on the Super Rich

Capitol Hill

(Image: Shutterstock)

Tax law professors don’t normally have much of a public profile. Victor Fleischer does. In fact, one business journalist has just tagged this ace analyst from the University of San Diego “the closest thing the tax world has to a rock star.”

Most rock stars have big break-out hits. Fleischer’s big break-out came about a decade ago when his scholarship exposed an incredibly lucrative tax giveaway to the rich that hardly anyone knew existed. The “carried interest” loophole, Fleischer detailed, was helping private equity and hedge fund billionaires chop their tax bills by nearly half.

Thanks largely to Fleischer, this preferential tax treatment of “carried interest” has now become the single most notorious loophole in the federal tax code. But the carried interest tax break — a giveaway that’s saving America’s financial industry heavyweights an estimated $ 18 billion a year — has survived this notoriety. Congress has still never come close to repealing it.

That may be about to change. At least some lawmakers are showing signs they’re really ready to take on Big Finance. The clearest sign of all: Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who’ll chair the Senate Finance Committee if Republicans lose their Senate majority this November, has just hired Victor Fleischer as his co-chief tax counsel.

Understandably, most of the commentary around this surprise hire has so far revolved around the future of the carried interest loophole. But Fleischer, we need to keep in mind, has never been a one-trick pony. He has his eyes on tax loopholes friendly to the rich that go way beyond carried interest.

One of these loopholes just happens to be more obscure than carried interest used to be, and much more lucrative for America’s super rich. Meet the federal tax code’s preferential tax treatment of “founders’ stock.”

Most of America’s super rich owe their exceedingly good fortune in life to the companies they founded. And most of these founders owe the immensity of their good fortune to the wink-wink the tax code extends them at tax time.

Overall, Fleischer calculates, this winking drains more out of the federal treasury than the carried interest loophole. Yet the founders’ stock loophole continues to operate almost totally under the radar.

Why the indifference? Founders’ stock, for starters, involves all sorts of impenetrably complicated tax concepts, everything from “the time value of money” and “remittance obligations” to the lock-in effect of the “realization doctrine.”

The carried interest story, by contrast, remains easy to tell: Private equity kingpins raise funds from investors to buy and sell companies. They typically pocket 20 percent of the profits from all their wheeling and dealing.

This 20 percent clearly represents payment for services rendered and ought to be taxed no differently than a commission an auto salesperson makes. But the carried interest loophole lets private equity movers and shakers claim this income as a capital gain, a label that saves them about $ 160,000 in taxes on every $ 1 million they rack up.

The unfairness and outrageousness of this special treatment could hardly be easier to understand.

Strip away the conceptual underbrush around taxing founders’ stock and the same dynamic emerges: Extremely rich people get to avoid paying standard tax rates on the vast bulk of their income.

Consider two software hotshots with an idea for the next super-hot high-tech thing. They take their know-how to a venture capital company. The venture capitalists (VC’s) like the idea and pump operating cash into it. In return for the cash, the VCs get stock in the fledgling new company.

The software hotshots, also known as the “founders,” get stock too, as payment for their expertise and labor. This stock could eventually have extraordinary value. But the current tax code essentially lets the founders sidestep paying any meaningful tax on it.

“The tax treatment of founders’ stock,” notes Fleischer, “represents a critical design flaw in a progressive income tax system” that “contributes to the broader trend of increasing inequality, particularly at the very top of the scale.”

Fleischer sees the current tax preference for founders’ stock as part of an even bigger political and cultural problem: America’s over-the-top genuflecting before entrepreneurial “genius.”

This genuflecting has translated into a wide variety of special tax breaks for entrepreneurs, with the preferential treatment of founders’ stock only one among them. The justification for all these tax breaks? Tax breaks for entrepreneurs, we’re assured, “create jobs and fuel economic growth.”

But researchers have found next to no evidence that tax breaks for entrepreneurs advance either of these goals, as Fleischer points out in an insightful and entertaining paper that appeared this past spring in the Fordham Law Review.

“Tax breaks mostly reward entrepreneurs for activity they would have engaged in anyway,” he points out.

What about the argument that we as a society have to be willing to reward entrepreneurs for the risks they take? Lots of Americans, observes Fleischer, take risks and get no tax breaks for their risk-taking.

“It is not self-evident,” he writes, “why risk taking by rich executives and venture capitalists is more valuable than risk taking by, say, a Korean-American grocer, a Mexican-American restaurateur, a farmer in California, or an Uber driver in Miami.”

“The current tax code,” Fleischer sums up, “has become an echo chamber for the economic forces driving the increase in income and wealth inequality, the blurring of economic and political influence, and the degradation of paid work.”

Welcome to Capitol Hill, Victor Fleischer. We need you there.

The post This Tax Law Professor is Taking on the Super Rich appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Sam Pizzigati is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits 


Climate Justice: A Fight between Rich and Poor

The ten richest per cent of the population produce almost half of all global greenhouse gas emissions whereas the poorest half is responsible for only ten per cent. Unless we can tackle inequality and climate change together, you won’t solve either of them, says Tim Gore of Oxfam. The carbon footprint of the richest 10 per cent of the population must shrink dramatically, says the renowned climate scientist Kevin Anderson. According to the World Health Association, droughts, floods, hurricanes and diseases related to climate change are already killing at least 150.000 people each year. With proceeding global warming there are risks to overstep certain tipping points in the climate system, for instance the permafrost which could melt and set free the greenhouse gas methane. To have a chance to stay below 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise developed nations have to reduce their emissions by 80 per cent until 2030. The EU has pledged only 40 per cent, the U.S. even less.

Watch the broadcast on Kontext’s website.

The post Climate Justice: A Fight between Rich and Poor appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Janet Redman directs the Climate Policy program at the Institute for Policy Studies.


7 Things You Didn’t Know About The Ultra Rich

(Photo: Flickr / Keith Cooper)

(Photo: Flickr / Keith Cooper)

Each year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes data on the collective income of the 400 taxpayers who report the most income on their tax returns.

At the end of December, the IRS released cumulative data for the top 400 for the tax year 2013. The delay in reporting is because tax returns can be audited and amended for three years past the filing deadline.

Mainstream media widely reported that the top 400 paid an effective tax rate of 22.89 percent in 2013, up from 16.72 percent the previous year. This sharp increase in tax rate was the result of this group of elite tax payers booking all of the capital gains and dividends they could push forward into 2012, ahead of a 2013 increase in preferential tax rates from 15 percent in 2012 to 23.9 percent in 2013. As a result, capital gains as a share of income in 2012 was unusually high and capital gains as a share of total income in 2013 were artificially low, resulting in more income being taxed at higher rates.

Here are seven additional facts reported by the IRS in its report:

  1. It took $ 100.1 million to make the cut as one of the nation’s 400 highest income taxpayers in 2013.
  2. The 400 highest income taxpayers had a collective adjusted gross income of $ 106 billion, an average of $ 265 million per Top 400 taxpayer.
  3. The top 400 taxpayers filed 0.0003 of the nation’s 147.4 million tax returns but reported 1.17 percent of the nation’s total income.
  4. More than two-thirds (68.2 percent) of the income of the top 400 taxpayers comes from investment income taxed at about half the rate as income earned from work: capital gains accounted for 51.7 percent of top 400 taxpayers’ income; dividends 10.8 percent and interest, 5.8 percent.
  5. Top 400 taxpayers reported $ 57.4 billion of investment income that was subject to lower preferential rates, nearly 10 percent of the total reported on all 147 million tax returns. If this investment income would have been taxed at the same rates as income from work, these taxpayers would have paid an estimated $ 10.9 billion in additional income taxes.
  6. Top 400 taxpayers deducted $ 12.9 billion in charitable gifts on their 2013 tax returns, 6.6 percent of the total charitable deductions claimed on 2013 tax returns.This amount is 1.2 percent of the top 400’s adjusted gross income.
  7. The top 400 taxpayers collectively paid $ 24.3 billion in federal income taxes in 2013, 1.96 percent of the total income taxes paid. This represents the third highest share of taxes paid by the top 400 taxpayers since 1992.

The post 7 Things You Didn’t Know About The Ultra Rich appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Scott Klinger is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.


The Rich History of Hungarian Wine – Eater

The Rich History of Hungarian Wine
According to legend, close to harvest time one year, Hungarian farmers were forced to leave their fields in order to battle the Turks. Upon their return, the … Firstly, American railway links between the midwest and eastern seaboard made it possible


The Rich History of Hungarian Wine – Eater

The Rich History of Hungarian Wine
According to legend, close to harvest time one year, Hungarian farmers were forced to leave their fields in order to battle the Turks. Upon their return, the … Firstly, American railway links between the midwest and eastern seaboard made it possible