Historically, REVENUE has been an average of 18.5% of GDP, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TAX!!! So, why keep raising taxes when it is the economy that really controls the amount of revenue government collects. We have long ago passed the equilibrium.
What REALLY determines how much revenue taxes bring in is the economy. There is no reason to raise income tax rates on ANYONE. Taxes are a percentage, NOT a fixed number. Milton Friedman spoke of this as taking a smaller percentage of a bigger pie.
When you raise taxes, then you are taking more money directly out of the economy. No matter who you are taxing, everyone's money is in the economy until the government takes it. So, taxing puts a drag on the economy. It makes recovery slower. The belief that taking money out of the economy is the key to fixing it is just legendary stupid.
When you cut taxes, you are not giving people a gift, you are allowing them to KEEP the money they have made in the economy.
Our market system has room for as many millionaires as there are people. Punishing people for being successful only means less will make it.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "
-Sir Winston Churchill
Income taxes are supposed to be for the purpose of funding government, but it has changed to a means of hindering people from becoming wealthy. If you already are successful and headed upward then they will take more and more of the money that YOU have earned and give it to those that have not.
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH....... Socialism......... This has become the purpose of taxes.
The people that are being called the rich are not the mega rich that people are imagining. These are investors and business operators that are the ones that can drive the growth of the economy.
The really rich are living off the interest of their amassed fortunes and won't be terribly hurt by the taxes. We've recently seen some of the Mega Rich come out and say tax them more because they can take it. Yet, all they really need do is fill in the little box on their income tax form that says they would like to pay more and how much they want to contribute. What do they do in reality?? THEY PUT THEIR MONEY AWAY IN AS MANY PLACES AS THEY CAN FIND THAT WON'T BE TAXED.
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Cut spending, cut taxes and the economy will grow and thereby increasing the revenue.
Yoga BURN! for Women
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Punishing Success
Labels:
capitalism,
liberty,
redistribution,
revenue,
rich,
socialism,
Tax Cuts,
wealth
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Democrat Tax Evaders
It would seem that the same party that believes in raising taxes and finding new ways to spend money is full of leaders that try to avoid paying taxes.
Here's the short list:
Bill Richardson, New Mexico Democratic Governor, nominated for Commerce Department Secretary. He withdrew on January 4 after it emerged that he was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation for influence peddling, due to his awarding of a $1.5 million state contract to political contributors.
Tom Daschle, Former South Dakota Democratic Senator, nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. He withdrew on February 3, admitting that he had failed to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate.
Nancy Killefer, former Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, nominated for Deputy Director at the Office of Management and Budget and Chief Performance Officer. Killefer withdrew on February 3 because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help.
Hilda Solis, nominated for Labor Secretary, was confirmed on February 11 even though her husband had liens against his business going back 16 years. He paid $6,400 owed a day before her confirmation hearing.
Timothy Geithner, nominated and confirmed on February 24 for Treasury Secretary(in charge of IRS). Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he worked at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. Yet he was still confirmed because Democrats said his position was too important to be left unfilled any longer.
Former Obama campaign worker Susan Tierney, the leading candidate for Deputy Secretary of Energy, dropped out on March 3 without citing a reason. Is she afraid to cite back taxes?
Jane Garvey, reportedly Obama's top choice for Deputy Secretary of Transportation, also dropped out on March 3, reportedly for financial reasons.
Former Washington Democratic Governor Gary Locke. Nominated on March 5, for Secretary of Commerce after Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg withdrew. So far he appears to be sailing through to confirmation, but Frontpage Mag points out he was involved in Chinagate with former Clinton Commerce employee John Huang. Huang wrote a $1,000 check to Locke and co-sponsored fund-raising.
Annette Nazareth, who was to be nominated for Treasury Deputy Secretary, abruptly announced on March 5 she was stepping aside for "personal reasons."
Caroline Atkinson, nominated for Undersecretary of International Affairs, abruptly withdrew on March 5 as well.
Because of the long list of nominees who withdrew for tax problems, their withdrawals are forever tainted with a cloud of suspicion.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Obama's first pick for Surgeon General, withdrew on March 5 without citing a reason. Sources close to the Dr. hinted that he did not want his name associated with a failing administration that is increasingly perceived as corrupt.
Former Dallas Democratic Mayor Ron Kirk, nominated for Trade Representative, failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years. He faced Senate questioning on March 9 over it, but is expected to win confirmation. He has agreed to pay $9,975 in back taxes from 2005-2007.
Here's the short list:
Bill Richardson, New Mexico Democratic Governor, nominated for Commerce Department Secretary. He withdrew on January 4 after it emerged that he was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation for influence peddling, due to his awarding of a $1.5 million state contract to political contributors.
Tom Daschle, Former South Dakota Democratic Senator, nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. He withdrew on February 3, admitting that he had failed to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate.
Nancy Killefer, former Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, nominated for Deputy Director at the Office of Management and Budget and Chief Performance Officer. Killefer withdrew on February 3 because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help.
Hilda Solis, nominated for Labor Secretary, was confirmed on February 11 even though her husband had liens against his business going back 16 years. He paid $6,400 owed a day before her confirmation hearing.
Timothy Geithner, nominated and confirmed on February 24 for Treasury Secretary(in charge of IRS). Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he worked at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. Yet he was still confirmed because Democrats said his position was too important to be left unfilled any longer.
Former Obama campaign worker Susan Tierney, the leading candidate for Deputy Secretary of Energy, dropped out on March 3 without citing a reason. Is she afraid to cite back taxes?
Jane Garvey, reportedly Obama's top choice for Deputy Secretary of Transportation, also dropped out on March 3, reportedly for financial reasons.
Former Washington Democratic Governor Gary Locke. Nominated on March 5, for Secretary of Commerce after Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg withdrew. So far he appears to be sailing through to confirmation, but Frontpage Mag points out he was involved in Chinagate with former Clinton Commerce employee John Huang. Huang wrote a $1,000 check to Locke and co-sponsored fund-raising.
Annette Nazareth, who was to be nominated for Treasury Deputy Secretary, abruptly announced on March 5 she was stepping aside for "personal reasons."
Caroline Atkinson, nominated for Undersecretary of International Affairs, abruptly withdrew on March 5 as well.
Because of the long list of nominees who withdrew for tax problems, their withdrawals are forever tainted with a cloud of suspicion.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Obama's first pick for Surgeon General, withdrew on March 5 without citing a reason. Sources close to the Dr. hinted that he did not want his name associated with a failing administration that is increasingly perceived as corrupt.
Former Dallas Democratic Mayor Ron Kirk, nominated for Trade Representative, failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years. He faced Senate questioning on March 9 over it, but is expected to win confirmation. He has agreed to pay $9,975 in back taxes from 2005-2007.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Intellectualism falls to Wisdom
I've read it all, plus 2
The more I read, the more I knew
The more I knew, the less I learned
Wisdom does not come unearned
through life's lessons and history sessions
when logic is yearned
into our mind, Wisdom is burned.
The more I read, the more I knew
The more I knew, the less I learned
Wisdom does not come unearned
through life's lessons and history sessions
when logic is yearned
into our mind, Wisdom is burned.
Labels:
humbleness,
humility,
inellectualism,
poetry,
wisdom
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Nothin Up My Sleeve…… Just Glad I Still Have a Shirt!
This time they've gone too far. Our elected officials are not even given time to read the bills before they are expected to vote. HOWEVER, “We the People” have started to pay more attention. We have even started reading the bills, rather then taking their word for it.
Now they'd like to make you think it's just Republicans that oppose these bills, namely the Health Care bill and the Stimulus Packages. Not true. There are fiscal conservatives in both parties.
JOE LIEBERMAN: I don't agree. Premiums will go up. When people hear "public option" I think they think it's for free. It's not for free. Somebody's going to have to pay for it, and you can bet it's going to be the taxpayers and the people who pay health insurance premiums now.
It's up to us to take what they promise and compare it with what is in the bill that they write. If it doesn't match up (and it won't), then we need to call them on it.
So, if Democrats (the leadership) aren't trying to fix things, then WHAT???
Here's what they do. They create programs that they control. They get as many people addicted to the programs. This is there real voter base. Once you are hooked, you are not going to vote for the person that wants to end your program.
Obama is taking it one step further by creating the circumstances to hasten your move to dependence. Slavery won't come again as a revolution, it will sneak up on you.
No, there's nothing up my sleeve…. or in my pocket…… or my wallet. Progressive seems to means Negative Progress.
====================================================Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Things to Consider About Health Care
Before deciding that socialized medicine is the way to go you should watch this story by John Stossel of ABC
Sick in America, part 1
Socialism does not take into account the Human behavior factor. Our medical system does have problems, True. However, there ARE better solutions.
Health System expert Nina Owcharenko dissects "five major faults with the health care bills" being pushed in the House and Senate.
1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.
2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.
3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care program and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.
4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "play-or-pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.
5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."
Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy.
SO, WHAT DO WE DO?
The conservative alternative to socialized medicine is to enact serious reforms in current tax and insurance law that would expand personal ownership and control of health insurance and transfer the control of health care dollars to individuals and families. Reforms that would move our bureaucracy-driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system to a patient-centered system where the consumer chooses and real free-market competition is brought into play.
Competition is a REAL factor in lowering health care cost. One big way to do this would be to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Even liberal reporter Wolf Blitzer has brought up this point.
All I'm saying is let's not jump in without weighing the options and considering the possible problems. Once programs are enacted, it is near to impossible to go back.
Think first, then act.
Sick in America, part 1
Socialism does not take into account the Human behavior factor. Our medical system does have problems, True. However, there ARE better solutions.
Health System expert Nina Owcharenko dissects "five major faults with the health care bills" being pushed in the House and Senate.
1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.
2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.
3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care program and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.
4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "play-or-pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.
5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."
Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy.
SO, WHAT DO WE DO?
The conservative alternative to socialized medicine is to enact serious reforms in current tax and insurance law that would expand personal ownership and control of health insurance and transfer the control of health care dollars to individuals and families. Reforms that would move our bureaucracy-driven, heavily regulated third-party payment system to a patient-centered system where the consumer chooses and real free-market competition is brought into play.
Competition is a REAL factor in lowering health care cost. One big way to do this would be to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Even liberal reporter Wolf Blitzer has brought up this point.
All I'm saying is let's not jump in without weighing the options and considering the possible problems. Once programs are enacted, it is near to impossible to go back.
Think first, then act.
Monday, May 11, 2009
On Liberty and the Exercise there of
On Liberty and the Exercise there of
lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈli-bər-tē\ Function: noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free
Date: 14th century
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice
2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
A funny thing happened to me while in debate with several Liberals, separately. Two of them had invoked one of my favorite quotes from Benjamin Franklin,
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." [a popular variation].
Now, this was ironic on a number of levels. #1 They were using this with the Patriot Act in mind. I happen to think that the Patriot Act was arrived at with too much haste and DID indeed sacrifice too much Liberty. #2 Just the fact that the Leaders THEY have elected have been incrementally turning our government into the "Nanny State" that was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville.
They always seem to have some brilliant logic to support why they need to take more liberty from you: For the good of the children, To make up for past wrongs, To save the environment. These are all subjects that tug at the heart and provoke an emotional response. Their solution is not always as noble.
The main problem being, Liberalism makes emotional responses, where Conservatism seeks LOGIC. Of course, there are those that have CALLED themselves Republicans, but have made decisions more in line with the Liberal. The Republican Party may have been founded by Conservatives, but few are nowadays. Overall a true Conservative will seek a solution that works over one that SOUNDS good.
“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism” --- Barry Goldwater
So, Where does the average person fall into this and what policies can be used as example.
Liberalism protected slavery, it justified the actions by making excuses: "They're less than human," just based on skin color and what they considered civilized, therefore treating the slaves in this manner followed along those lines.
In contrast Conservatism lead to the founding of the Republican Party in order to combat the abomination.
Going further back, it was Conservatism that sought to be free from the England, create a government that would be fair, and take the risk of losing their lives in order to promote these ideals. Liberalism didn't want to bother and were happy without the liberty in trade for protection from a strong dictator.
Moving to the modern era, FDR began attacking the structure of the Constitution. He couldn't get the changes he wanted, so he appointed Supreme Court Justices that would rule in his favor on whether something was Constitutional. He was able to circumvent the Checks and Balances that were established by the founders.
He increased the power of the Executive Branch, creating a Central Government that overruled the rights of the states. He also started the major move of creating the dependence of people on the government. Wards of the state. The New Deal created a modern day caste system that is very difficult for people to escape. It sounds compassionate!!!
This strategy has continued to this day. We have programs that once created are impossible to dismantle, even when proven to be detrimental.
We, as a society, are giving up our Liberty for the promise that we'll be taken care of.
A recent poll has shown that 40% of Americans consider themselves to be Conservative, the largest group followed by moderates. I believe that number to be larger if you were to look at the individuals and see how they go about their lives. Most people live in a very conservative manner.
We are shown people that are in need and some of us are swayed by Liberal politicians that promise to take care of everyone. It may be cliché, but the old adage, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will never starve" is the comparison of Liberal and Conservative methodology.
I won't conclude here which policies that are being proposed today are Liberal, but YOU must take a look beyond what sounds good and decide what will actually work. Promises of Security in exchange for your Liberty.
lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈli-bər-tē\ Function: noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free
Date: 14th century
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice
2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
A funny thing happened to me while in debate with several Liberals, separately. Two of them had invoked one of my favorite quotes from Benjamin Franklin,
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." [a popular variation].
Now, this was ironic on a number of levels. #1 They were using this with the Patriot Act in mind. I happen to think that the Patriot Act was arrived at with too much haste and DID indeed sacrifice too much Liberty. #2 Just the fact that the Leaders THEY have elected have been incrementally turning our government into the "Nanny State" that was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville.
They always seem to have some brilliant logic to support why they need to take more liberty from you: For the good of the children, To make up for past wrongs, To save the environment. These are all subjects that tug at the heart and provoke an emotional response. Their solution is not always as noble.
The main problem being, Liberalism makes emotional responses, where Conservatism seeks LOGIC. Of course, there are those that have CALLED themselves Republicans, but have made decisions more in line with the Liberal. The Republican Party may have been founded by Conservatives, but few are nowadays. Overall a true Conservative will seek a solution that works over one that SOUNDS good.
“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism” --- Barry Goldwater
So, Where does the average person fall into this and what policies can be used as example.
Liberalism protected slavery, it justified the actions by making excuses: "They're less than human," just based on skin color and what they considered civilized, therefore treating the slaves in this manner followed along those lines.
In contrast Conservatism lead to the founding of the Republican Party in order to combat the abomination.
Going further back, it was Conservatism that sought to be free from the England, create a government that would be fair, and take the risk of losing their lives in order to promote these ideals. Liberalism didn't want to bother and were happy without the liberty in trade for protection from a strong dictator.
Moving to the modern era, FDR began attacking the structure of the Constitution. He couldn't get the changes he wanted, so he appointed Supreme Court Justices that would rule in his favor on whether something was Constitutional. He was able to circumvent the Checks and Balances that were established by the founders.
He increased the power of the Executive Branch, creating a Central Government that overruled the rights of the states. He also started the major move of creating the dependence of people on the government. Wards of the state. The New Deal created a modern day caste system that is very difficult for people to escape. It sounds compassionate!!!
This strategy has continued to this day. We have programs that once created are impossible to dismantle, even when proven to be detrimental.
We, as a society, are giving up our Liberty for the promise that we'll be taken care of.
A recent poll has shown that 40% of Americans consider themselves to be Conservative, the largest group followed by moderates. I believe that number to be larger if you were to look at the individuals and see how they go about their lives. Most people live in a very conservative manner.
We are shown people that are in need and some of us are swayed by Liberal politicians that promise to take care of everyone. It may be cliché, but the old adage, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will never starve" is the comparison of Liberal and Conservative methodology.
I won't conclude here which policies that are being proposed today are Liberal, but YOU must take a look beyond what sounds good and decide what will actually work. Promises of Security in exchange for your Liberty.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Brief Statement on the Bailout.
-- For the conservative, Bush was wrong in bailing out Companies as urged by Obama. Obama is expanding the bad policy. GM was/is mostly in trouble due to the overwhelming amount of retired employees that they must continue to support. This is compounded by the rise in oil prices and then even further by the banking crisis that started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
----When government controls the means of production and the administration there of, then we call this Socialism. Is this a loan or an investment? Usually the guidelines of a loan are put there to insure that the company or individual will have the means to pay it back. Which leads to my next point.
--- GM had 20 units that were making a profit. Of those, 11 were Trucks/SUVs. The "suggestions" from Obama's had none of these units in mind. The suggestions being made would put them further in debt. They already had hybrids and econocars available. You can't force people to buy them.
--- The money is not OURS, it’s being borrowed from the next generation, our children. Fix the problem themselves or file for bankruptcy should have been the only choices
---If they spend the money like Democrats, then they will fail.
----When government controls the means of production and the administration there of, then we call this Socialism. Is this a loan or an investment? Usually the guidelines of a loan are put there to insure that the company or individual will have the means to pay it back. Which leads to my next point.
--- GM had 20 units that were making a profit. Of those, 11 were Trucks/SUVs. The "suggestions" from Obama's had none of these units in mind. The suggestions being made would put them further in debt. They already had hybrids and econocars available. You can't force people to buy them.
--- The money is not OURS, it’s being borrowed from the next generation, our children. Fix the problem themselves or file for bankruptcy should have been the only choices
---If they spend the money like Democrats, then they will fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)