The Manchurian Candidate
And it is not McCain. Even though McCain spent the requisite time in the captivity of Communists who enjoyed torture, he is not the Red Under the Bed. That would be Obama.
Today: taxation.
Obama is a socialist, through and through. "Joe the Plumber" (who it turns out is neither a plumber, nor named 'Joe'), helped Barack let that cat out of the bag, even though only its whiskers could have been said to still reside in that bag -- the left wing press still refuses to recognize it and claims the bag contains laundry. I digress ... Barack told the nation last night that he intended to "spread the wealth around" -- his version of "trickle up economics."
He said, "my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." That, my friends and neighbors, is socialism ... it is taking from the rich to give to the poor for the sole reason that he thinks that income redistribution is a good idea. It also flies in the face of the immutable fact of human existence: if you take away incentive, you take away growth. In the end, you take away hope. You cannot name a single successful socialist nation: they have all been bankrupted or have turned away from the Marxist-Leninist ideals of that social structure.
And we are nearly bankrupted ourselves, largely due to the political goal of universal home ownership, irrespective of the affordabililty of the goal. Make no mistake, income redistribution has been the intention all along: give the poor houses and insure this through the taxpayer. It becomes income redistribution when you consider the following: since the poor pay almost no taxes (see chart below), it is the "rich" that pay almost all the taxes ... and hence wind up being the guarantors of Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's socialist fantasies.
Note that the source of this data is unimpeachable ... the very organization that is charged with raping the producers of goods and services in the U.S. Even so, this graph is fraught with spin: notice how it shows the bottom 50% earns 13% of the available income and pays only 3% of taxes? That (is meant to) highlight that 50% of the population is soooo poor that they only make 13% of the income. What it also means is that the top 50% pay virtually ALL federal taxes.
As part of the bottom 50% you may not earn much ... but you bascially don't pay anything. However, add in all the governmental support, welfare, housing allowances, food stamps, entitlements, plus things like Mass Health transportation vouchers etc., a lot of which is sppported by federal money channeled through the States ... and the bottom 50% may have effective incomes far higher than presented. But since it is not "earned", but rather merely received, federal taxation does not apply. Say you "received" your house from your employer (or you company bought it for you) ... don't you think that the IRS might want to classify that as "income?"
It seems wrong that someone sitting in a state supplied apartment, receiving unemployment insurance or welfare, food stamps, free education for kids, etc. should suddenly be entitled to a larger piece of the pie that they did absolutely nothing to help create. And to pay for it, the government under Obama will take more from those making the pie by virtue of the fact they wanted to and worked hard to "make pie" in the first place. Where is social equality when you take from one person to give to the other who is too lazy to try to earn for themselves?
And who the hell is Obama going to take the money from? He tells us he wants to hit only the top 5% ... to give middle class people tax cuts. He figures that nobody cares about the top 5% who are rich, they had all the breaks anyway -- irrrespective of what effort may have been expended to achieve that status. And who or what is the "middle class?" Is that the middle 50%, including 25% who do not pay taxes and the next 25% (part of the top 50%) that pays 21% of all taxes?
Who knows? But what is clear is that income redistribution will smack the poop out of those 5% who already pay almost 60% of our federal budget. It is a naked grab: the tyranny of the ballot box where a majority of a population in a society can simply vote to redistribute wealth to themselves, irrespective of their contributions to that society. Surely the mark of a decadent society, a society dedicated to emotive response and support of the indolent. Joe 5% is right to be scared. And so should every other person in the top 50% ... there is a slippery slope: today $250k in [profit/revenue/whatever] is "rich." Tomorrow it may be $100k.
Obama was (intentionally) less than clear in describing what will constitute the $250k threshold ... is that gross revenue, gross profits, profits after depreciation, amortization and recapitalization, or net profits before living expenses/wage distribution etc.? Regardless, Obama threw a marker down stating that he intend to tax those who are successful so that those behind the successful person can share in it too and develop their own success. That sounds wonderful, except that it is utter and complete bullshit. In the United States you can be that success through hard work and taking a few risks ... those behind that success are often content to drink a few more beers down at the bar and spend less time trying to succeed. And with a bit of extension, if this tax regime comes to pass, maybe more of the producers will simply ask themselves, "what is the point." And go to the bar to have a few beers and watch the game. That means less employment for those "behind."
Tomorrow: allegations of racism.
Today: taxation.
Obama is a socialist, through and through. "Joe the Plumber" (who it turns out is neither a plumber, nor named 'Joe'), helped Barack let that cat out of the bag, even though only its whiskers could have been said to still reside in that bag -- the left wing press still refuses to recognize it and claims the bag contains laundry. I digress ... Barack told the nation last night that he intended to "spread the wealth around" -- his version of "trickle up economics."
He said, "my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." That, my friends and neighbors, is socialism ... it is taking from the rich to give to the poor for the sole reason that he thinks that income redistribution is a good idea. It also flies in the face of the immutable fact of human existence: if you take away incentive, you take away growth. In the end, you take away hope. You cannot name a single successful socialist nation: they have all been bankrupted or have turned away from the Marxist-Leninist ideals of that social structure.
And we are nearly bankrupted ourselves, largely due to the political goal of universal home ownership, irrespective of the affordabililty of the goal. Make no mistake, income redistribution has been the intention all along: give the poor houses and insure this through the taxpayer. It becomes income redistribution when you consider the following: since the poor pay almost no taxes (see chart below), it is the "rich" that pay almost all the taxes ... and hence wind up being the guarantors of Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's socialist fantasies.
Note that the source of this data is unimpeachable ... the very organization that is charged with raping the producers of goods and services in the U.S. Even so, this graph is fraught with spin: notice how it shows the bottom 50% earns 13% of the available income and pays only 3% of taxes? That (is meant to) highlight that 50% of the population is soooo poor that they only make 13% of the income. What it also means is that the top 50% pay virtually ALL federal taxes.
As part of the bottom 50% you may not earn much ... but you bascially don't pay anything. However, add in all the governmental support, welfare, housing allowances, food stamps, entitlements, plus things like Mass Health transportation vouchers etc., a lot of which is sppported by federal money channeled through the States ... and the bottom 50% may have effective incomes far higher than presented. But since it is not "earned", but rather merely received, federal taxation does not apply. Say you "received" your house from your employer (or you company bought it for you) ... don't you think that the IRS might want to classify that as "income?"
It seems wrong that someone sitting in a state supplied apartment, receiving unemployment insurance or welfare, food stamps, free education for kids, etc. should suddenly be entitled to a larger piece of the pie that they did absolutely nothing to help create. And to pay for it, the government under Obama will take more from those making the pie by virtue of the fact they wanted to and worked hard to "make pie" in the first place. Where is social equality when you take from one person to give to the other who is too lazy to try to earn for themselves?
And who the hell is Obama going to take the money from? He tells us he wants to hit only the top 5% ... to give middle class people tax cuts. He figures that nobody cares about the top 5% who are rich, they had all the breaks anyway -- irrrespective of what effort may have been expended to achieve that status. And who or what is the "middle class?" Is that the middle 50%, including 25% who do not pay taxes and the next 25% (part of the top 50%) that pays 21% of all taxes?
Who knows? But what is clear is that income redistribution will smack the poop out of those 5% who already pay almost 60% of our federal budget. It is a naked grab: the tyranny of the ballot box where a majority of a population in a society can simply vote to redistribute wealth to themselves, irrespective of their contributions to that society. Surely the mark of a decadent society, a society dedicated to emotive response and support of the indolent. Joe 5% is right to be scared. And so should every other person in the top 50% ... there is a slippery slope: today $250k in [profit/revenue/whatever] is "rich." Tomorrow it may be $100k.
Obama was (intentionally) less than clear in describing what will constitute the $250k threshold ... is that gross revenue, gross profits, profits after depreciation, amortization and recapitalization, or net profits before living expenses/wage distribution etc.? Regardless, Obama threw a marker down stating that he intend to tax those who are successful so that those behind the successful person can share in it too and develop their own success. That sounds wonderful, except that it is utter and complete bullshit. In the United States you can be that success through hard work and taking a few risks ... those behind that success are often content to drink a few more beers down at the bar and spend less time trying to succeed. And with a bit of extension, if this tax regime comes to pass, maybe more of the producers will simply ask themselves, "what is the point." And go to the bar to have a few beers and watch the game. That means less employment for those "behind."
Tomorrow: allegations of racism.
posted by Zaphod at Thursday, October 16, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home