-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Equality or Independence?
All joking aside, America faces a serious choice this November.
Major news organizations are busy this week high-fiving each other over what they’ve convinced themselves is the death of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Watching MSNBC these days is like watching the autopsy of a murder victim, conducted by the murderers themselves. Their unseemly jubilation is inspired by a “secret” four-month-old video of Romney discussing the 47 percent of Americans — myself among them — who do not pay federal income tax. If I hit the Powerball, I’ll try to make good with the Treasury Department, but the fact that I don’t make $5 million a year like Chris Matthews is certainly not Mitt Romney’s fault. Nor do I blame Matthews, who has real talent of the kind that usually involves wearing a fright wig, a red nose and big floppy shoes.
Despite my lack of resentment, I’m told I should be offended by Romney’s remarks about myself and my fellow 47-percenters. Bill Kristol called the Republican candidate’s comments “arrogant and stupid.” Kristol once worked for Dan Quayle. Insert punch line here.
All joking aside, however, and without regard for the media’s self-congratulatory celebration of Romney’s troubles, there is a serious question involved: Are the economically less fortunate entitled to constant flattery, lest our self-esteem be damaged? Should we think of ourselves as victims, deserving not only tax exemptions, but also benefits which others are taxed to provide for us? Or is it possible that with a new attitude — and a different set of policies in Washington — some of us in the 47 percent might by our own efforts escape the embarrassment of penury and achieve some measure of economic success?
Is it crazy to believe that? Then I might qualify for disability, although Conservative Derangement Syndrome is not among the disorders listed in the DSM-IV. But all joking aside…
My poverty is entirely my own fault. Before I got into the journalism racket, I had a perfectly good job as a forklift driver, and if I’d stuck with that, who knows? I might have been warehouse manager by now. Yet I convinced myself that a suit-and-tie job was more prestigious and more lucrative, which it might actually have been. But then Al Gore invented the Internet, the bottom fell out of the newspaper business, and nowadays all journalists are compelled to scrape for nickels and dimes in the blogosphere, even Harvard graduates like Bill Kristol (magna cum laude, 1973) and Matthew Yglesias (magna cum laude, 2003). The latter is a liberal who no doubt heartily shares Kristol’s disdain for their fellow Harvardian, the “arrogant and stupid” Romney (J.D., MBA, 1975). In the 21st century, it sometimes seems, political discourse is conducted entirely among Ivy League alumni, usually on Twitter. Yglesias this week honored his Twitter devotees with a philosophical treatise: “The concept of ‘redistribution’ falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership.”
Maybe you have to be magna cum laude to understand that, or to be impressed by it. My own academic career more resembled that of the Animal House character Bluto who, when informed that he and his Delta frat brothers had been kicked out of college, memorably lamented, “Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f—ing Peace Corps.” I managed to graduate in less than seven years, and could have become a warehouse manager if I’d stuck with that forklift job, instead of getting into the newspaper business. Despite President Obama’s eagerness to absolve me of responsibility for my mistake, I contemplate my profession with a weird mixture of shame and pride as I declare, “No, sir, I did build that.” This crappy journalism career is all mine.
In 1776, contrary to what children are taught in school nowadays, our nation’s Founding Fathers did not sign the “Declaration of Equality.” No, the document to which John Hancock and the others signed their names in Philadelphia — the vow to which they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor — was the Declaration of Independence. There is a world of difference between the two concepts. While I do not claim to be the equal of such eminent Harvard alumni as Kristol, Yglesias, and Obama (J.D., magna cum laude, 1991), I stubbornly refuse to surrender my independence. And I’m damned well sick and tired of hearing all these smart people on TV proclaiming that folks like me are too stupid to understand what Mitt Romney was saying in that “secret” video.
By God, Romney was right and if anyone is insulted by the plain truth, they deserve to be insulted. Ross Kaminsky is also right: The “secret” video could be just what the Romney campaign needed to spark a serious conversation about Obama’s economic failure. Our national debt is now $16 trillion, the annual budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion for each of the past four years, and 47 percent of us aren’t contributing a nickel to fix that problem. A big part of the problem — and maybe you’ve noticed this — is that the economy sucks. Even if you didn’t make the mistake of pursuing a journalism career, it’s kind of hard to work your way up when the unemployment rate is over 8 percent, a statistic that actually understates the problem. As James Pethokoukis has explained, the broader unemployment rate, including part-time workers who want full-time jobs, is 14.6 percent, and the rate would be even higher if not for a declining rate of “workforce participation.” Among the factors in this decline is the extension of unemployment payments to 99 weeks, as well as a troubling rise in the number of working-age adults claiming disability. An additional 1.7 million are now receiving Social Security disability payments, a 23 percent increase since 2007. More and more people are being paid not to work, which reduces the number of taxpayers, and the government is borrowing more money to make more payments to more people, including the increasing number (47 million) on food stamps.
This is no laughing matter, and Obama’s consistent “answer” to the problem — to increase taxes on the rich — can’t possibly solve it. The growth in the percentage of Americans dependent upon government assistance is not a “Change We Can Believe In,” to borrow the president’s 2008 campaign slogan. To go “Forward” in the same direction, as the president’s 2012 slogan urges, is to hurtle into an abyss. So why, faced with a crisis so clearly caused by the incumbent’s disastrous policies, are the nation’s news organizations doing their worst to cripple the campaign of the Republican challenger? Why is Chris Matthews laughing with his MSNBC buddies while the American Dream is on the verge of extinction?
If that’s “journalism,” all joking aside, I’d rather go back to driving a forklift.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (141) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/20/equality-or-independence
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 9.20.12 @ 6:46AM
RSM: Instead of a career as a warehouse manager/forklift driver/journalist you should have considered a career as a federal government employee where you would now be paying, or maybe not, income taxes.
In any event, you and others are correct when you state that no amount of increased taxation will balance the budget nor pay down the national debt. Obama does not have a solution.
However, in the event Obama is not reelected, it looks like he will enjoy a lavish lifestyle in Hawaii. Talk about a golden parachute to a CEO when fired for failure, this guy takes the cake. Obama, with nothing but a couple of books and an annual salary, will retire to a life of leisure and pleasure while you, and I, and most of the American people will continue to struggle with how to pay down the debt and improve the nation's finances.
Obama has been a disaster.
Jack in Wi| 9.20.12 @ 7:13AM
Give me a break. Romney is sinking his own campaign. It is full of old hacks from the Bush and McCain campaigns. At least Bush put up a front as a pro-life conservative and won 2 close elections. Romney insults the people he needs every day. A lot of people don't want Obama back. They just don't see Romney as a decent alternative. McCain has just come out for ending the Afganistan war now. Is this a hint that Romney is heading in new direction? It is time that Romney dumped all the Neocon hacks he has stinking up his campaingn and put out a new foreign policy. Kristol, is dumping him he should return the complement. How about these ideas?
Romney will promise to end the war in Afganistan now. He will also promise to try to avoid war at all costs and if it is necessary to war he will go to Congress for a declaration of war. It would give his campaign a huge boost among the people who's vote he needs libertarians, independents, and the young.
Jack in Wi| 9.20.12 @ 7:23AM
Now on to domestic policy. Romney has stated that he is for auditing the Federal Reserve and that he wants to fire Ben Bernanke. These are 2 very popular positions. He should emphasize them. 80% by polling of people in this country are against the extreme positions of Obama and the Democrats on abortion. It is time to hit him hard on his support for partial birth abortion. Gay marriage is another issue that turns off a lot of people. It has never won a popular election yet. Then he should attack the government unions and federal spending. There is plenty to hit Obama on. After all what does the Democrat party stand for but abortion, homosexualiy, war, massive wastefull programs, bloated and corrupt government unions, and sky high taxes. Romney has the issues. He just isn't using them right.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 8:03AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: Jack Ass.
He hates the Jews, but he love Kristol, almost as much as he does Kristallnacht.
Billy the Jew is out there trashing everything that Romney says, and does.
After selling this guy for Months, as the "Only Way To Go" now he runs around putting Sh*t in Mitt's Bagel, where the Cream Cheese goes.
And, now we have Holocaust Jack, right here everyday, telling us how much Bojangles has to be defeated, and the best way to do that is to have the only other guy in the Race, Quit.
They just Closed another Coal Mine.
American Airlines just sent out Layoff Warnings to 11,000 Employees.
Our Ambassador to CHINA had his Car ATTACKED yesterday.
Our Embassies, everywhere else, are being Sacked by your Pedophile Buddies.
Afghanistan is totally Rudderless. The Magic Negro is Clueless. All of our Allies HATE OUR GUTS. None of our Adversaries have any Fear of us. NONE. And, the world is teetering on a New Dark Ages, should we Fall, like The Romans and the British, before us.
Yeah.
Romney should quit.
Fckng Moron.
Jack in Wi| 9.20.12 @ 8:34AM
Typical extreme Zionist hack. Maybe you are the reason most Jews are backing Obama. The majority of Jews don't back your extremist lunacy and want a peaceful solution if the Middle East. I just read a Gallop poll that shows Obama has the same percentage of the Jewish vote that he had last time. Most American Jews and even most Jews in Israel are not buying what Bibbi is selling. Unconditional support for Israel is a huge loser for the Republican party.
Joellen| 9.20.12 @ 9:51AM
Jack, "AMERICAN JEWS" are LIBERAL to the core and that is why they are voting Obama. However, if you ask the conservative sect of Judism, they like the Christians who follow the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST, are NOT voting for the most pro-death (in every way) President ever.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:24PM
They're called: Backsliders, and they Lost Their Way, a long time ago.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.20.12 @ 8:40AM
TLP,
again, thank you...you sve my authritic fingers a lot of typing.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:26PM
And, you Spell about as good as I do.
Tomorrow is The Contest.
Be there, or Be Jack.
Joellen| 9.20.12 @ 5:19PM
TLP, I'am missing something, what contest?
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 5:59PM
It's a Movie Trivia Contest, of sorts.
Look for it.
I will tell you where it is, tomorrow.
There are Prizes for the Winners, and the Losers, alike.
You won't be sorry.
Tim.
pogybait| 9.20.12 @ 10:15AM
If Romney is in trouble, then how does one explain why the AP/GFK poll and the CBS/New York Times poll that over sampled Democrats by 13%, one would certainly think that real stats would be a worry ....or how about the stability in the middle east in which the belief that altruism alone will make the world safe, while crying "Allahu, allahu akbar" all the way to perdition, then agin there is the well thought out Alice in Wonderland energy policies of the last few years, a growing monetary disorder that is sending us over the cliff and the substituting of duly passed laws by executive order in which we are now ruled by decree. In just these terms alone I don't think that anyone with a sound mind would want to continue down this path....
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:00PM
It's all BULLSHIT.
Ignore the Liberal Polls.
Vote.
C. Vernon Crisler | 9.20.12 @ 10:29AM
"avoid war at all costs"
That is the problem with you pacifist Paulistas. You would give up liberty as well as America's national interest to avoid war -at ALL costs. If you guys had been in charge we would now be singing by the light of a National Socialist moon.
Jack in Wi| 9.20.12 @ 12:18PM
I would give up no liberty for Americans. I would quit supporting criminal regimes in Afganistan, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Yeman, Bahrain, Iraq, etc. That money is stolen from the American taxpayer every year for no sane reason. Our rights in this country are being destroyed right here, while we support those criminal regimes.
C. Vernon Crisler | 9.20.12 @ 12:37PM
Of course, you put Israel as morally equivalent to these "criminal regimes" as if there's no difference. Shameful.
Jack in Wi| 9.20.12 @ 3:38PM
A few days ago I googled Israeli Hate crimes and got 39,000,000 responses. Then I googled Israeli hate of Christians and got 70,800,000 hits. Israeli violations of internatioanl law got 7,555,000. Israeli violations of human rights got 11,600,000. Israeli torture got 16 million hits. Israeli war crimes got 8,860,000, Israeli terrorists got me 17,400, 000. There are a lot more like Israeli false flag operations. Don't tell me Israel isn't a major criminal regime. Israel and the whole Middle East isn't worth one drop of American blood or one American dollar.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:02PM
Google ARAB YERRORIST ATTACKS.
Then get back to us, Douchebag.
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 1:40PM
"I would give up no liberty for Americans"
Why am I not shocked by this statement. Explains your disdain for the military as well. You know, those guys who temporarily give up some of their liberties to support the right for you to insult them.
Jack, you'r a piece of self-centered, egotistical, condescending, anti-semitic trash.
Jack in Wi| 9.20.12 @ 3:43PM
I want the military here at home defending these borders and shores. Who cares what happens to Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yeman, Bahrein, etc? Let them figure it out for themselves. All we have done is expend many trillions, a mountain of blood, and got us hated in most of the world.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:27PM
We don't need WAR.
We just need CRUISE MISSILES.
aquanomics| 9.21.12 @ 2:00AM
Wish I had a "Like" button for this....
Von Mises Jr| 9.20.12 @ 7:41AM
Pecos Pete, you make a salient point. Federal workers, teachers and cops can retire at 55 years of age with typically about $50K pension and a Cadillac health plan. They are not only a major burden on the finances of the country, but they don't even count as unemployed. Two married government employees enjoy six-figure incomes plus medical for perhaps thirty years of NOT working.
Like RSM, I made a career enhancement move (right before 911), and afterward built up an independent contractor business before Sub-prime destroyed my business. So like RSM, I find ways to get by at a small fraction of my potential.
So let me second what RSM is saying. We are older, established guys who could be doing better and it is unfortunate that we are not. But if you are just graduating college, have student loans and no job, and you realize that if you do get a decent job, you will be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Social Security, Medicare and State and Local taxes for all these programs to be broke in twenty-five years, you must have your head up your posterior to vote for four more years of this.
FBX1999| 9.20.12 @ 3:25PM
Mr. Von Mises Jr. A bit of disagreement here. I am a Federal worker - for the Army. I make a decent paycheck for the work I do, as do my co-workers. But the pensions earned are not all that generous, compared to cops and teachers. A friend recently retired after more than 20 years of civil service and his monthly pension check is about $1200. That's not much to live on, and is a lot less than if he had been active duty military with the same annual salary upon retirement. Another co-worker, under the old CSRS is about to retire after 30 years, and he will take home about $3100 a month, and will not draw social security.
In the blue collar trades in civil service, we typically make less than our private sector counterparts. My CSRS plan co-worker would have been making about $10 an hour more in the private sector doing the same thing.
As for health plans, the cost varies greatly depending on which plan you retire under, and whether you claim single or family. A co-worker who retired under CSRS retired about four years ago and with the "high option" family plan, pays $700 per month for health insurance.
The lower wages most non management federal civil service employees take home is offset by relatively greater job security and a defined benefit retirement.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:28PM
Contest, Tomorrow.
Purp| 9.20.12 @ 5:53PM
You need more taxes and less spending.
Romney is a lost cause.
Nick| 9.20.12 @ 6:54PM
During the past week, Burp has REPEATEDLY blamed the late Ambassador Stevens for his own death, the death of 3 other Americans, and the attack on the Libyan consulate. He STUPIDLY believes that an ambassador has more power than the president.
Burp will say ANYTHING to help the Foodstamp President cover-up his incompetence.
__________________
Purp| 9.19.12 @ 8:06PM
"Who is in charge of the Embassy in a country? Who decides what is or isn't done in the Embassy?
"It is the Ambassador. He loved Libya, he miscalculated and tragically is dead.
"But, why would a President bother appointing an Ambassador if you're not going to listen to his advice. [...]
"Sadly, we can't ask the Ambassador himself - but that was his job."
__________________
Purp| 9.19.12 @ 10:49PM
"Say it all you want ... Ambassador is the boss. If he wanted more security, he'd have had it. It sure isn't the President's fault. [...] Twist all you want. He was the boss, and he is now dead."
__________________
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death.
You are a disgusting scumbag, Burp.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.20.12 @ 7:59PM
"If I hit the Powerball, I'll try to make good with the Treasury Department, but the fact that I don't make $5 million a year like Chris Matthews is certainly not Mitt Romney's fault."
You have much to be humble about, Rob.
spike59| 9.20.12 @ 6:47AM
the choice is simple: if you're content with an America where the successful are robbed to enable the 'victim class' to endlessly suckle at the government, if you're convinced that you cannot possibly succeed without the Federal Government carrying you on its back, if you're convinced that the Federal Government is the font of all wisdom and power and that we should all submit meekly to the dictates of bureaucrats, if you believe that 'you didn't (and can't) build that, then vote to re-elect...otherwise, vote Romney
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 7:38AM
"Ross Kaminsky is also right."
You just lost me.
The Avenger| 9.20.12 @ 6:51AM
"Give me liberty, or give me death." Patrick Henry
"There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty." Margaret Thatcher
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." Ronald Reagan
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." Abraham Lincoln
chuck| 9.20.12 @ 7:27AM
"I believe in redistribution." Barack Obama
"Stand up, Chuck." Joe "BiteMe" Biden, talking to a man in a wheel chair.
I believe the choice in November is clear.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:29PM
Contest, Tomorrow.
Purp| 9.20.12 @ 6:15PM
Yes, and America agrees with you ... 70:30, President Obama beats Mittens.
CJW| 9.20.12 @ 6:55PM
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death.
You are a disgusting scumbag, Burp.
Purp| 9.20.12 @ 7:53PM
70:30, President Obama beats Mittens. Mitt the Twit will NOT be appointing any Ambassadors.
Nick| 9.20.12 @ 11:24PM
You KEEP blaming Ambassador Stevens for his own death, Burp.
You are a disgusting scumbag.
Martin kzovich| 9.20.12 @ 7:26AM
The ideological divide that this election represents-actually a vote on Obama's Presidency is getting at the truth of the matter. Establishment Republicans were tiptoeing around avoiding the fundamental issue we face. This so called video--oh yes it is a video--I understand has been tampered with but I digress. The real point is that the debate between a Communist or Capitalist system is now on the table and Romney is clearly supporting Capitalism. This debate is open and on. Romney however in my view is switching from a Establishment Candidate morphing instead into Ronald Regan II. Thus the Washington Beltway Republicans including our brilliant pundits are having a kinipshin fit. To them I say :whose side
are you really on ? These are the people that care about their own asses not about the nation.
Mike G| 9.20.12 @ 7:42AM
I still don't understand what those fools on TV think Romney said that was inappropriate. To me, "I actually believe in redistribution" is a huge mistake for Obama, but the LSM appear to think that's not news. Most journalists (and I use that term very, very loosely) have no ideaq what journalism entails.
Purp| 9.20.12 @ 9:26PM
It's not news, because we talked about that in 2008 when President Obama talked to "Joe the Plumber" about redistribution. So what's the story now? He won and that made no difference. Why would it now?
Jack London| 9.20.12 @ 7:45AM
How much of your income do you think you should/would like to pay in income tax, Robert? What credits would you eliminate?
CJW| 9.20.12 @ 7:55AM
A flat income tax of about 15% with an exemption for the first $15,000. No tax on interest and dividends. No credits,not deductions.
Jack London| 9.20.12 @ 9:15AM
So you'd eliminate all taxes on Romney and increase tax for poor Robert?
JP| 9.20.12 @ 9:33AM
Mitt earned $50 million in 2007. That comes to $7.5 million. No deductions, no exemptions. If he earns $100 million that's $15 million. Not sure where you're getting your idea that he would pay no taxes.
Jack London| 9.20.12 @ 9:47AM
CJW says 'no tax on interest and dividends'. That's how Romney and a lot of the 1% earn their money. Do you know that thousands (about 4000) of millionaires pay little or no income tax now anyway? Do you think Romney counts them in his 47%?
CJW| 9.20.12 @ 9:56AM
Comrade Jack
You need to deal with your envy of those who make more money than you.
Jack London| 9.20.12 @ 11:13AM
I don't mind them making money - but seriously - would you not tax them at all?
JP| 9.20.12 @ 1:39PM
Jack,
The people who want the flattax reforms (I'm not one of them, however) make no distinctions between capital gains, dividends, and earned income. It's all income and subject to the flat tax rate.
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 1:45PM
You asked about income tax and they told you. The you try to equate taxes on intererest into somehow meaning he paid no taxes on money he made in investing. If I am not mistaked that is a paid in a Capital gains tax. Your comparing apples to oranges. Not that I am surprised.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:04PM
Contest, Tomorrow.
Be There.
Joellen| 9.20.12 @ 9:54AM
Actually JL, Romney pays his taxes. However, I am sure we know who DOESNT and I'll do a TLP, can everyone name at least one Dem/Lib who is a known tax cheat. I'll start - Charlie Rangle.
pogybait| 9.20.12 @ 10:29AM
Well, it is always interesting to see those people who always seem to advocate the paying of higher taxes hire tax accountants in order to pay as little as they can. Once would certainly think and expect that these people would seek out advice on how to re-distribute their wealth or give more of it away to the IRS and do away with the practice of tax accountants. After all it's all in the name of "fairness"....
The Avenger| 9.20.12 @ 1:44PM
Tim "the tax cheat" Gietner.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:33PM
I wanna play.
GE.
GM.
All of the Unions.
mike 3/505| 9.20.12 @ 5:04PM
Wesley Snipes
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:05PM
You Win Again!
See you, Tomorrow.
Do you feel lucky, Punk?
Joellen| 9.20.12 @ 5:22PM
I think we can put in the cheat category Jon Corzine - who got alway with "losing how many billions of $"?
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:07PM
$1.6 Billion, actually.
Now, he works in Obama's White House, Bundling Money.
Are you surprised, Joellen?
Contest, Tomorrow.
Joellen| 9.20.12 @ 6:43PM
I am ready - I may be late (long day at work tomorrow ) - but I am ready!
CJW| 9.20.12 @ 9:54AM
If you have interest and dividends that means you have savings and stocks. You already paid income tax on your earnings that allowed you to save and buy stocks, unless of course you inherited the money, like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, and other Dems. But even old man Kennedy paid taxes and then saved.
If I were designing the tax code, I might tax capital gains, again with an exemption.
But you already knew this, right, unless you want to create a special tax for Republicans you do not like? The rich, like Oprah, Buffet, Pelosi, Heinz, Algore, Clinton, did pay the tax when they earned the money. I do not have an envy problem not taxing the interest, dividends, and some of the capital gains on their investments made with the money the feds did not take.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:08PM
Exactly.
Contest, Tomorrow.
Jack of Spades| 9.20.12 @ 9:58AM
The question is, what right do the rest of us have to tax Romney at a high rate so that RSM, and we too, don't have to pay one thin dime? Simply because we can outvote him? I don't blame Romney or any other rich person for wanting to keep our hands off their money.
It has been said that the fatal flaw of democracy is that it allows the public to vote itself money out of the treasury. The real problem is that some people think they have the right to confiscate someone else's money if they can get the votes.
CJW| 9.20.12 @ 10:31AM
The only right is the right of Ruling Class to pander to those who elected them by taking more money from those who earn more and redistribute to those who make less and vote for the Ruling Class. They do it because they can, it is all about power.
Jack of Spades| 9.20.12 @ 10:47AM
So why do we have types like London cheering them on? Are they hoping for their cut of the redistributed income? Do they think that they won't have to pay more, or any, taxes to be redistributed? Or do they just groove on the thought of "the rich" being taken to the cleaners?
Jack London| 9.20.12 @ 11:40AM
If you eliminate credits for the poor you'll remove incentives to work - unless you also eliminate welfare. As your hero Ronnie said:
“The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”
As the Economist no less says:
'But the genius of the "they-don't-pay-income-taxes" complaint is that it takes the tax cuts that were implemented in order to get poor people off of welfare and encourage them to work, and uses them to accuse poor people of being shiftless and dependent on government. This creates a sort of permanent resentment machine, a renewable fuel source for class warfare of the rich against the poor.'
George S| 9.20.12 @ 12:42PM
If you remove welfare, you will give a kick in the ass to the incentive to work.
JP| 9.20.12 @ 1:42PM
The EIC tax credit is paid for by high income earners. Whatever good it does, the EIC is nothing more than income redistribution.
JD| 9.20.12 @ 3:52PM
Despicable, Jack. Truly despicable. The EITC is essentially one giant "liberals are wrong" billboard.
It was established out of recognizing that liberal tax policies hurt the poor by disincentivizing work. However, liberals had the last laugh because they managed to get redistribution out of what was meant to be a tax cut.
The EITC is the grandaddy of redistribution through the tax code, and has spawned many evils that followed. It can be credited with "working" if one focuses on the tax cut nature and ignores its impact as precedent or deficit increase. The Left, which has never been able to relate cause and effect, has no problem doing this.
CJW| 9.20.12 @ 4:12PM
Comrade Jack
You, as most lefty totalitarians, have a low opinion of the "poor workers" that you supposedly care about. They do not need federal bribes or tax credits to work. Most people work because they have pride, need to work, and improve their skills so they earn more money. They do not want to stay poor all their lives.
But you have created a culture where it is more beneficial for some to stay home and collect federal subsidies. For example, there is a cutoff figure, depending on family size, of about $17,000 income where you lose Section 8 subsidy, food stamps, free legal services, and health insurance. What you have done is create incentives to not work, and unfortunately some will do exactly that.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:11PM
Evidently, you have forgotten the PRIDE FACTOR, involved with Earning an Honest Day's Pay, for an Honest Day's Work.
Why am I not surprised?
FBX1999| 9.20.12 @ 3:29PM
How about no federal income tax at all, but a 10% National Sales Tax (not a VAT). This way, EVERYONE pays something. The minimum wage guy buying a used bass boat pays tax on his purchase, but a whole lot less than Algore on 150' houseboat.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 8:10AM
10% @sshole.
How much does a Genius, like You, believe that we should give of the Sweat of Our Brows, to the most Corrupt 535 People on the Planet?
How much of Our Blood, Sweat, and Tears do the Men and Women who STOLE our Social Security Money, do you want them to have?
Let's hear it, Dum@ss.
You're on the air.
Stkman| 9.20.12 @ 1:25PM
10%, No deductions of anykind except medical cost. No exceptions. It's all God ask for, our government should ask for no more.
Make it illegal to have a bank account in any foreign bank and all corporate profits should be taxed, including those profits made overseas on goods manufactuered in the U.S..
mike 3/505| 9.20.12 @ 2:38PM
No exceptions...even for medical costs. Taxing corporations is dumb. Tax the individual stockholders.owners when they actually realize the profits. Revenue will go up, prices for goods and services will go down...and EVERYBODY will save the cost of compliance/enfocement of the current tax code...BILLIONS.
DW-S Pinup!
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:35PM
Contest Tomorrow, Mr. Winner.
mike 3/505| 9.20.12 @ 3:39PM
I'll be there! What's the prize?
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 3:58PM
A Nancy Pelosi bikini pinup to go with your DWS pinup.
mike 3/505| 9.20.12 @ 4:04PM
Cool! Them critters in the basement are getting outta control!
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 5:18PM
One more contest and you can complete the set with the Barbara Boxer Lingerie shoot.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:13PM
Just between you and me?
It's a Collection of Paperboy Bicycle Seats, that were discovered in an old Storage Unit owned by Purp.
George S| 9.20.12 @ 12:23PM
Jack:
What do you think is an appropriate tax rate? Give us a number. For too long we've been hearing that certain people "are not paying their fair share".
Please... what is a fair share?
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 1:49PM
Sorry George, Posted under Jack then this quirky system put it under yours. Seems we were on the same thought though. Let's have Jack answer some of the questions he loves to play gotcha with.
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 1:48PM
So Jack, what percentage do YOU think people should be taxed?
Anthony| 9.20.12 @ 7:49AM
It's a sad fact indeed that Chris Matthews has indeed managed to convince all 25 viewers of his of Romney's demise. Maybe an additional 10 from Andrea Mitchill, NBC's answer to Helen Thomas.
Meanwhile back in the real world where the MSM dare not tread, Obozo is flailing like a beached whale, or, Ted Kennedy doing his best Mark Spitz imitation.
Yes indeed this election has consequences. If Obozo wins, we the makers need to go on strike and let those, the takers ask, "The One" who's gonna pay now?
Don't tell me we're not on the verge of civil unrest. Of course, Homeland Security has already figured that out, hence 50 milion rounds of ammo stocked away for that eventual rainy day.
Pecos Pete| 9.20.12 @ 8:13AM
Where is John Galt? Not paying taxes because he is bartering his way through this recession/depression. The black market is alive and well.
And, DHS is buying 1.4 BILLION rounds of ammunition. For target practice they say. Umm, what/who are the targets?
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 9:51AM
That's OK; when we seize the armories, there'll be plenty of ammo there. Taking the Homeland Security warehouses should be a breeze.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 9:53AM
That was a joke.
Stkman| 9.20.12 @ 1:26PM
But its true.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:36PM
Contest, Tomorrow.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.20.12 @ 8:48AM
Pete,
you remind us of a monumental point. If the election truly is tight, does the DHS (recount the votes behind loaded guns?)
Will the MSM "declare a winner" before all the rural counties chime in like they did before?
JP| 9.20.12 @ 9:22AM
"All joking aside, however, and without regard for the media's self-congratulatory celebration of Romney's troubles, there is a serious question involved: Are the economically less fortunate entitled to constant flattery, lest our self-esteem be damaged?"
Let's put it this way: Does one win elections by insulting half of the electorate? There are quite a few voters who are conservative who are on foodstamps and underemployed.
Mitt should know that when running for the Presidency the mics are always on. Obama learnt this the hard way with his famous "Bitter Clinger" quip. The mics and iphones are always on. Good grief! He's been running for this damn office long enough!
What Mitt should have been doing since June is to focus his campaign on those voters who WANT TO GET OFF THE DOLE! These voters don't want dry stats, drier power points and vapid abstractions ( speeches on owneship society, Laffer Curves, and asset depreciation schedules). They don't need or want business seminars and Dukakis stlyed technocrat speeches on competency. But, what they do want to is how Mitt will help them get their lives back. Reagan did this repeatedly in 1980.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:44PM
He IS concentrating on those who wanna go back to work.
People aren't as Stupid, as you seem to think they are.
Everybody knows who he was referring to.
The Slugs that have no problem sleeping til noon, and getting money from Bojangles for Drugs, Liquor, and the occasional $20 Lewinski.
Senior Citizens know he's not talking about them.
Like I said.
Unlike You, Real Americans aren't that Stupid.
Capiche?
JP| 9.20.12 @ 4:28PM
"Everybody knows who he was referring to."
So, you agree with Mitt? In your own words you believe that 47% of Americans are "Slugs that have no problem sleeping til noon, and getting money from Bojangles for Drugs, Liquor, and the occasional $20 Lewinski."
And no, not everyone knows what he was referring to. He said that 47% of Americans won't vote for him because they pay no taxes and receive gubmint money.
And you may be surprised when Obama wins Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, thus winning the election. And Mitt will have no one to blame but himself. I mean it's not like he hasn't been running for office for a decade. Versteht?
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:17PM
And, you may be surprised, when he DOESN'T, Dumb@ss.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 9:49AM
A society that focuses on equality over liberty will lose both. The French Revolution is the perfect example, though there are more recent other examples.
When we turn the argument over taxes into an argument over people paying their "fair share," we create the obvious risk of having government decide how much in taxes they will be getting, and who will pay how much. Seems both classist and authoritarian to me. Well, it's true we have tax laws that our leaders passed that tell us that, but so far those laws apply more or less equally to all. Now we will have the apparatchiks telling us what's "fair." I found out how the government approaches that issue every time I deal with the Social Security Administration and the IRS.
However, if we INSIST on having a "fair" taxing system (which, if truly "fair," will probably result in the rich paying less in taxes), then we ought to be taking a look at EVERYONE's tax rate, including that 47% that doesn't pay income taxes. Maybe there's some "fairness" that the government can wring out of them, too.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:45PM
Venezuela comes to mind.
Contest, Tomorrow.
Prizes.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 9:55AM
How many of the unemployed are nearing the end of the 99-month period of unemployment benefit eligibility?
I suspect we'll be seeing a move fairly soon for yet another extension of unemployment benefits.
Drunken Sailor| 9.20.12 @ 1:50PM
I disagre Bill. I think the admin will let them drop off. How else are they going to get the unemployment rate down.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 2:24PM
Hadn't thought of that, good point!
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:45PM
Very Good Point.
JD| 9.20.12 @ 3:45PM
Transfer them to disability, so they don't count as unemployed.
JP| 9.20.12 @ 4:30PM
They apply for disability compensation.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:18PM
As do you, obviously.
Who Knows?| 9.20.12 @ 10:04AM
“Do what'nsoever you want to do with me, Brer Fox, but please, please, please! Don't throw me in that briar patch!”
With only 47 days to go, the 47% brouhaha could be the briar patch Brer Fox = Romney subconsciously wanted. Btw, 47 days ago, it was August 4th. Why, that seems like just yesterday.
Time is VERY short!
Who is it that needs some fire in the belly? Who is it that never gets mad, or has never had a fight with his wife?
You know.
There is the fight or flight syndrome. The body, AUTOMATICALLY, when threatened by death, maximizes all its defenses and shuts down as much as possible irrelevant systems.
In certain situations, anger is perfectly appropriate!
Somebody, or something, needs to punch Romney on the nose, HARD, to get his attention—Obama is killing this country. I find it HARD to imagine this happening, though.
The wimpy McCain campaign, as well as GWB’S failure to veto anything, indicates that the next “good fella”, Romney, is locked in his head, mentally overdeveloped, but underdeveloped viscerally.
Get with the program, Mitt!
It’s not about you, anyway. Aware Americans do have a fire in their belly, and Heart---learn from them!
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 6:20PM
In this Economy? With all of the Shit In The World Hitting the Fan at the same time?
Does he really have to CONVINCE anybody that The Muslim has to go?
Seriously.
Alice Moore| 9.20.12 @ 10:09AM
I don't think the American people have taken much offense from Romney's remark. I know someone who did go to the London Olympics. Gov. Romney's comments likening the Games to their ancient king Ethelred were said to be spot on.
The MSM's celebrations are premature. Many in the 47% don't want to be there and know they will probably stay there with the present regime.
C. Vernon Crisler | 9.20.12 @ 10:54AM
It's important to be careful in attacking the socialist view of equality. Equality under socialism is not the same concept as found in classical liberalism.
The Declaration of Independence is predicated on the concept of equality (of rights, not of results). We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created EQUAL.
This equality is why all, rather than some, men are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.
Mike Daly | 9.20.12 @ 11:35AM
What Romney did was state something that's true (it was shown by the rampages of the "Occupy Wall Street" slackerama) and he also stabbed a Democrat talking point in the heart by showing that "tax cuts for the wealthy" is not just wrong, it's dishonest - the real beneficiaries of tax policy are NEVER the wealthy.
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 11:39AM
FIRST OF 4 COMMENTS-I had to divide because of space
Of course your fork-lift job could have been exported to Mexico. One thing that nobody seems to want to address is the impact of Global Free Trade (GFT) on the world’s economy. When George Bush (remember him?) introduced his tax cuts, it was supposed to enable Rich Capitalist Investors (Job Creators, or JC’s) to invest their money in American industries, thereby putting millions of Americans to work, so that those new workers could have money to invest, etc., etc. After all, it worked for Ronald Reagan, didn’t it? And, last time I checked, Obama had NOT eliminated those cuts (despite threats). Cue the GFT-I direct your attention to the following article, published in 2004, extolling the benefits of GFT:
http://www.iie.com/publication.....cfm?id=101
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 11:40AM
SECOND OF 3 COMMENTS (I did some editing)
Note that this article doesn’t mention benefits to North American industrial workers whose jobs would be exported. For every “Push” (500 million Third World people getting out of poverty) there is a “Pull”. True to form, the JC’s have availed themselves of GFT and have put millions of people to work-in China, India, Brazil and Mexico. For example, if you have computer problems and call the tech support hotline, you can bet on 2 things: 1. His name is really not “Bob”, and 2. “Bob” is half a world away. “Bob’s” job was once done in Northern California-by somebody named Bob. If the computer company can operate their hotline out of India, what will they do next? Don’t blame the JCs-blame Economics 101-money follows “Bang for the Buck” and if a North American worker making $1,000 a week is doing exactly the same job as a worker making $1,000 a year…you can do the math.
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 11:41AM
Third of 3
With the rapid advances and changes of the “Digital Economy”, people are graduating from universities with skills that are already obsolete.
When I was going to school, my girlfriend’s father owned a small hardware store-it no longer exists and the building remains empty. We have seen small business fail because they can’t match the economies of scale that are enjoyed by the “Big Stores” (the “BS”)-who themselves are gobbled up or merged with “Bigger Stores” (the “BBS”).
Folks, the unemployment situation in North America will not improve BECAUSE IT IS STRUCTURALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Taking these lessons of Economics 101, I see a future for the North American economy (and thank God I’ll be long-dead) that involves:
1. Drilling
2. Mining
3. Farming
4. Hunting
5. Fishing
6. PERIOD
As the saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for because you might get it” and it doesn’t matter who wins the election or who controls Congress, the die, as they say, has been cast.
Pecos Pete| 9.20.12 @ 12:01PM
The EPA won't allow any of the above except for PERIOD. And what the EPA might miss the DHS or HHS or IRS or some other alphabet agency will manage to kill. The only industry remaining in the USA will be government. Finally, nirvana will have arrived. Everyone on the government payroll, government owning everything ... and be sure to check in weekly with your local government host at the block TSA office.
Stkman| 9.20.12 @ 1:34PM
Another side affect of the jobs going overseas is this. For every American that loses his job because a corporation shipped that job overseas, the Social Security fund loses the money that not just the employee wuld have paid in, but also what the employer/corporation would have paid in.
All of us need to really take a close look at the things we really need, not to be happy, but to survive. Do we really need to buy all this Chinese crap these American companies keep importing? Maybe we should all tall our families that this year our Christmas gifts to each other should only be things made here in America, even if it's only a pair of socks.
Americans are getting screwed by FREE trade when it should be FAIR trade.
No more Chinese CRAP!
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 2:08PM
Stkman, your sentiment is admirable, and as a Canadian I'll consider driving to Buffalo for gifts (and Wings). My friend, the entire continent is in the same big boat-it's called Titanic II.
John McCain would have been a good President-except for the fact that even God wouldn't have been able to get elected on a Republican ticket in 2008.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 2:32PM
After you eat the Buffalo wings, have a beef and weck.
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 2:35PM
I'd try to catch a Sabres game too---but that's a whole differet issue, isn't it!
JD| 9.20.12 @ 3:44PM
God may have gotten even fewer votes than McCain, the way the country's going...
John II| 9.20.12 @ 1:34PM
It's strange to have run through all these comments. Together they suggest to me a divide in the nation that runs a lot deeper and is immeasurably more serious and consequential than the usual formula of "statism" vs. "individualism."
That formula doesn't very precisely define the divide. The Professor, for example, is undeniably a statist in his juvenile economics and politics--but he is also a radical individualist in his narcissistic self-regard and his, again, juvenile advocacy of--just a few examples--abortion, "gay marriage," and the enforced privatizing of religious sensibilities. More below, if anyone's reading . . .
John II| 9.20.12 @ 1:35PM
It's been said frequently now that the coming presidential election will be as decisive as the election of 1860. I don't entirely agree because I don't think we have any precedent in our history for the decisiveness of November 6, 2012. And I'm getting very tired thinking and worrying about it, so I'll let the Catholic biographer and columnist George Weigel speak for me:
"America will choose in 2012 between two paths into the future. Along one path, there is, finally, room for only the individual and the state. Along the other path, the flourishing institutions of civil society empower individuals and contribute to real problem-solving. In the former, the state defines responsibilities and awards benefits (and penalties). In the latter, individuals and free, voluntary associations assume responsibility and thereby thus make their contribution to the common good. Hobbes vs. Burke. It’s an old argument. It’s also the argument we shall have between now and Nov. 6."
If the Professor wins in November, that event will be a sign that the electorate is too far gone and that the American experiment is over.
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 2:20PM
Something we should all be concerned about is the amount of vitreol that this campaign is going to generate (although the candidates appear to have mutual respect). It's the hatred that is going to manifest itself in the form of PAC-Funded ads on both sides. Frankly, the debate between Jon Stewart & Billl O'Reilly may be the best debate of all.
Jimbobogie| 9.20.12 @ 2:34PM
The period between Election Day and Inauguration Day is going to be "interesting"...and I don't mean "interesting" in the "interesting" sense of the word...
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 2:30PM
If we're going to do what's fair in the field of income taxation, the first thing to do is to repeal that Constitutional amendment that legalizes the progressive income tax.
If that isn't accomplished, then I guess it's look at EVERYBODY's income taxes to see to it that EVERYONE is taxed "fairly."
My true belief is that it's a damn good thing that 47% of us don't pay income taxes; the more who don't give the goddam government any money, the better. But I don't want that to be the case because we're soaking the rich. I honestly think that if we applied the tax laws fairly, the rich would pay less in income tax than they are paying now.
John II| 9.20.12 @ 3:05PM
"If we're going to do what's fair in the field of income taxation . . ."
Actually, if we're going to do what's right, we need to repeal income tax altogether. The grotesque complexity of the income tax code is itself emblematic of the intrinsic injustice of taxing income at all.
Consumption and property are among the more obviously just objects of taxation, but income is not and has never been.
Income tax was foisted on the nation in 1913 by corrupt politicians who lied in their debating points. The history of its origin and rapacious development is an object-lesson in cultural ethics as well as in bad public policy.
There's a kind of Gresham's Law at work here, whereby a bad policy eventually drives moral clarity about the policy out of circulation. We are creatures of habit, and when we get used to something that's wrong, we become stupid about it and discuss it stupidly.
Think for a second, Billy, about what you're really doing when you talk about making income taxation "fair." The notion of "fairness" relates to justice; an intrinsic injustice cannot be made fair. At root, it's a contradiction.
And now back to "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957), a parable about the kind of human folly that advances an injustice by tending exclusively to the fine-tuning of the injustice.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 3:24PM
Actually, my first call was for the repeal of the amendment to the Constitution that made the income tax legal. It was originally expressly prohibited in the Constitution as originally drafted, signed, and ratified.
Bill8472| 9.20.12 @ 3:25PM
Johnny.
John II| 9.20.12 @ 4:12PM
Yeah, I noticed, and the point seemed implied as well in your 9:49 remark, Billy. But the rest of your 2:30 post seemed to shrug at the key point of principle--and that's what set me off. Sorry.
I'm almost in my 8th decade of residence on this planet, and for some reason it has only lately started to get to me, this business of making a passing nod to principle before sailing off into presumptively more sophisticated expositions on practical arrangements and adjustments.
In both his Politics and his Rhetoric, Aristotle begins by suggesting that his topic is better suited to older students who've had some experience of the world. He's right, of course, but he might just as well have started his Ethics by saying that his topic is best suited to the very young and the very old, which he doesn't do.
Perhaps he didn't live long enough.
JD| 9.20.12 @ 3:31PM
A person's taxes should pay for the exact amount of benefit he receives from government. No more and no less.
Liberals fallaciously argue that income is at least proportional to benefit from government. Most go further and say that higher incomes are more derived from government than lower income, thus we need "progressive" taxation. Some are so two-faced as to abandon the principle of paying for what you get entirely in justifying redistribution (though they hastily return to the principle when justifying taxes on the rich exclusively).
Key to the Left's fallacy is their mob-favor treatment of all Americans, whereby they want government to be involved in enough aspects of life so that no one can argue that he receives zero benefit at all from government. Then, by completely ignoring the person's contributions to government (taxes) while focusing on what government gave him in return (however paltry), the liberal suggests that the person owes everything he is, was, and ever will be to government's benevolence ("you didn't build that!").
JD| 9.20.12 @ 3:34PM
In truth, the flow of wealth between a person and the government can and must be measured to ensure government's integrity. Technology makes this ever more possible, so liberals race against the clock, expanding government complexity in order to out-pace efforts to measure government's true impact on people's lives and expose its injustice. A natural side-effect of liberal complexity is disproportionate benefit to individuals correlating with two characteristics:
1. Capability - The most capable can navigate complexity; the rest are snowed under and fall behind.
2. Dishonesty - The system has ever-more rules to comply with. Those who break the rules exceed the limits the rules would place on them. Those who follow the rules pay for it.
We see these impacts in our world every day.
In addition to the lie that the rich owe more to government than the poor, at a rate of exponential growth, is the dishonesty of using income (particularly pre-tax income) to measure well-being. This has many flaws, which liberals deliberately exploit.
JD| 9.20.12 @ 3:35PM
Income can have little correlation with net worth or quality of life. A retired person might have high wealth and quality of life, but no current income. A business owner might have negative income some years and very high income in other years (especially after the sale of a business), but neither of these may reflect his wealth. Most of all, the social welfare state impacts quality of life tremendously without altering pre-tax income. A rich person's entire income can be given to a person with no income, yet if pre-tax income remains the measure of well-being, then the "rich" person still appears to have lots of money, and the poor person still has nothing. More redistribution will appear to be necessary, even as the person with the high income is begging on the street corner and the "poor" person is ignoring him while driving by in a Cadillac. Records show that this is coming closer and closer to being reality.
In short, "income" measures the amount a person contributes to the collective pool from which liberals believe everyone should receive an equal share out. The correlation between income and what a person actually receives out has never been lower. Liberals celebrate this as a success while continuing to allege that conservatives get their way too much, causing whatever problems we have. This even as it is increasingly true that those getting more out than the average person espouse the opposite of conservative ideals, up to and including being strong liberals.
Pecos Pete| 9.20.12 @ 4:48PM
Very interesting thread started by Bill8472 at 2:30 PM. Thanks to JD and John II for contributing intelligent comments.
As an x-CPA I don't believe that measuring income is possible. There are simply too many bookkeeping possibilities. And, then throw the IRS Code into the mix and you have an impossible situation.
In my opinion, the best possible method of taxation is with a sales tax (not VAT). Property tax is not a viable revenue source as property valuations are subject to cost manipulation and assessment valuation assumptions. Eliminate bookkeeping and all assumptions with a sales tax. Money spent is taxed at the time of a transaction based on the amount of money spent. Simple.
As for income taxes on a business, there shouldn't be any. All taxes paid by a business increase the cost of operation and thus force an increase in the price of the product or service sold. Income taxes paid by businesses, when not paid at the same rate by competing businesses in the world arena, make the higher rate businesses non competitive. Thus, the USA with a very high rate of corporate taxation, can not compete with Sweden (etc.) where lower taxation rates prevail. The USA's high taxation rate effectively precludes competitive transactions in the world marketplace and forces transfer of production and jobs to lower taxation countries.
JD| 9.20.12 @ 5:07PM
Yours is the most pragmatic proposal out there, though it faces two hurdles.
First, those who bribe voters through the tax code will fight efforts to eliminate the ability to offer "tax incentives".
Second, liberal demand-siders will claim that taxing sales encourages "hoarding", which they wrongly see as the greatest threat to an economy. In truth, hoarding can only restrict access to things of fixed supply, such as a natural resource (and such hoarding is perfectly possible under the present system). Produced goods, or value in the abstract, cannot be harmfully hoarded because more can be produced. Sitting on money is a self-destructive behavior in a free economy, not a threat to others.
Of course sales tax can still be illegally not paid, but that's true of any tax.
John II| 9.20.12 @ 6:01PM
And third, some 20,000 employees of the IRS, untold thousands of tax preparation accountants, and something like 250,000 tax attorneys will all be required to cut off their career paths and look for honest and productive work. And hell hath no fury like a special interest scorned.
But we should do it anyhow.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.20.12 @ 8:44PM
Perhaps the border patrol could use their services.
JD| 9.20.12 @ 5:12PM
For my ultimate tax proposal, I look to the Bible, and ironically a common liberal misuse of the Bible. They like to quote "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", but ignore that the context of this quote was a discussion of a tax in which every person had to pay exactly the same coin. That's right, a true flat tax - one in which everyone paid the same amount, not the same percentage of a corruptible measure of wealth. This was a popular system in many early societies.
Liberals would be furious with such a thing, claiming that it assumes everyone gets the same benefit from government. They are correct in saying that this is not true of today's government (but very incorrect in who they think benefits most). But that's the beauty of my proposal - I'd change government spending, too! I'd return government to its historical purpose - defense, law, and order. These should benefit everyone equally, thus we will all pay the same cost for them. Government would be no different than any other utility we hire for a fair, flat fee.
Of course, my idea is far less likely to be implemented than yours.
Kingofthenet| 9.20.12 @ 3:03PM
Well at least Mittens has over 5% chance of winning on Nate Silvers NowCast....5.6% actually.
TLP| 9.20.12 @ 3:48PM
Nate Silver?
Is that all you've got?
Idiot.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.12 @ 10:20AM
Every DIME the "rich" pay in taxes...is mrely a :"donation": to their coutry. They could move every DIME offshore with a stroke of a pen.
Thank them warmly.
Martin kzovich| 9.23.12 @ 7:12AM
If you like polls here is one that is telling. 60% of the American people do not trust the media. That 60% could well be against Obama because the MEDIA is OBAMA.
RedinDenver| 9.23.12 @ 2:30PM
FULL VIDEO of the DOCUMENTARY movie everyone's talking about!!! It is still currently playing in theaters, doing a box-office business, and now leads ALL of Michael Moore's documentary movies in sales. WATCH IT FREE via this link!
2016: OBAMA'S AMERICA
http://constitutionclub.org/20.....ull-video/
HURRY AND VIEW IT BEFORE YOUTUBE TAKES IT DOWN!!