Democrat Greed increases the Gap between Rich and Poor in the America’s Greediest Areas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

The Democrats are about redistributing income.  From those according to ability to those according to need.  To reduce the gap between the rich and poor.  Making the world a better place.  Which is why we have high taxes today.  And if you live in a predominantly Democrat area the taxes are even higher.  To reduce poverty and give those greedy fat cats what they deserve for being lucky enough to win life’s lotto (see Repent now. Geographers map 7 deadly sins by Mike Krumboltz posted 12/17/2013 on Yahoo! News).

The seven deadly sins (for those who don’t concern themselves with such things and/or have never seen that creepy Brad Pitt movie) are, in no particular order: wrath, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust and pride.

Seeking to discover where in America those sins are most prevalent, a group of geographers from Kansas State University did some research using data on things such as number of fast food restaurants per capita (gluttony), number of thefts and robberies (envy), and average incomes compared with the number of inhabitants living beneath the poverty line (greed).

Those areas with the most greed are those areas with the greatest income gap between rich and poor.  So you would expect those predominantly Democrat areas would be the least greedy of all places in the United States.  Funny thing, though, they’re not.

If you follow the link you will see a map showing the greediest areas in red.  And where are these red areas?  The greater Seattle area.  The West Coast from San Francisco down to San Diego.  The Las Vegas area.  The greater Phoenix and Tucson areas.  The greater Denver area.  The greater Dallas and Houston areas.  A large swathe of the Mid West from the Greater Chicago area to Gary Indiana to the greater Detroit area/southeast Michigan and Cleveland.  Central and south Florida.  And the East Coast from the greater Washington D.C. area to Philadelphia, New Jersey, the greater New York City area to the greater Boston area.  Now what is the common characteristic that these the greediest areas of the United States share?  That’s right, they are predominantly Democrat.

It appears the Marxist saying “from those according to ability to those according to need” needs to be modified slightly.  “From those outside the Democrat elite to those inside the Democrat elite.  And call Republicans greedy to get working people to vote Democrat.  Allowing the Democrat elite to remain in power.  So they can live the good life while those they purportedly champion pay for it.”  Or perhaps something simpler.  “Screw the poor.”  Because that’s what the Democrats are doing.  Which is why their areas are the greediest areas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

California offers Tax Breaks to help sell $70,000 Tesla Model S

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

Electric cars aren’t selling anywhere near enough to make them a profitable business.  Because they just won’t do for you what gasoline will do for you.  Let you carry lots of stuff over great distances.  Because the electric car is so less of a car as a gasoline-powered car governments bribe manufacturers to build them.  And people to buy them.  Just so rich people can have these toys (see California Is Giving Tesla Another Huge Tax Break. Good Move. by Will Oremus posted 12/19/2013 on Slate).

This is going to drive the Tesla-haters crazy. The luxury electric-car maker is getting a huge new tax break from California, SFGate reports. The state will let it off the hook for sales and use taxes on some $415 million in new equipment it’s purchasing in order to expand production of the Model S at its Bay Area factory. That amounts to a $34.7 million tax break to produce more of a vehicle whose sticker price starts above $70,000…

So, in fact, it isn’t Tesla per se that’s getting special treatment from the state. It’s the clean-tech industry in general, which California is very keen to promote…

More broadly, whatever sense a tax on the purchase of manufacturing equipment might once have made for California, it’s patently counterproductive in the context of clean-tech startups in the 21st century. Add to that some of the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, and it’s no wonder California is worried about companies like Tesla picking up stakes and heading elsewhere. Businessweek notes that new manufacturing jobs in the state have risen less than 1 percent since 2010, compared with nearly 5 percent nationally. Gov. Jerry Brown has been chipping away at the tax already, and Tesla is just the latest example.

Nor is the deal likely to burden the state’s taxpayers. Tesla’s Model S is in huge demand, and the company has been scrambling since its launch to ramp up production.

No.  The Model S is not in huge demand.  Demand may be up for the car.  But if the demand was ‘huge’ like every other popular car that sold well you wouldn’t need subsidies or tax breaks to build and sell them.  For cars in high demand are often the cars with the greatest profit in their selling price.  Because people want them so much that they are willing to pay these higher prices.  SUVs and pickup trucks were these kinds of vehicles.  And before gas prices spiked they were the lifeblood of manufacturers.  Because people paid more for these than they would for the sedans at the time.  Which is when the imports took over that segment.

People like SUVs and pickup trucks because they are big.  They carry a lot of people.  And a lot of stuff.  Even pull campers and boats.  The ideal vehicle for the family vacation.  Something the electric car just sucks at.  For any extra weight just sucks away charge time.  Limiting your range.  Which takes all the fun out of going on vacation.  And makes it a little scary.  For there is nothing worse than having a car that doesn’t move anymore in a strange place far from home.

But if you’re still convinced that tax breaks to big manufacturers are unfair and wrong, you might want to train your ire on a state a little further north, which just offered an all-time record $8.7 billion in tax breaks to a company that manufactures perhaps the least-green transportation technology of all. The worst part: Boeing might just move out anyway.

There is a bit of a difference between Tesla and Boeing.  Boeing employs a great many more people than Tesla.  And they’re all union workers ‘further north’.  Hence part of the reason for the tax breaks.  To help them compete with their high labor costs against the heavily subsidized Airbus.  Also, Boeing leads U.S. exports.  And is about the biggest component in U.S. GDP figures.  So while tax breaks and subsidies are abhorrent at least Boeing gives us something for theirs.  Unlike clean-tech industries.  That receive huge government subsidies and tax breaks.  Only to go bankrupt (Solyndra, Fisker, etc.) a short time later.  Tesla is the exception to the rule.  Because its founder, Elon Musk, is a billionaire who spends his own money.  A lot of it.  Unlike the other failed clean-tech start-ups.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Diesel Car is a better value than an Electric Car

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

People aren’t buying electric cars.  Because they are too expensive.  And because of their limited range.  Governments (federal and states) are trying to encourage people to buy cars they don’t want by offering subsidies to both manufacturers and buyers.  Which is getting some people to buy these cars.  But not many.  For even with those subsidies they’re still expensive.  And still have limited range.  Unlike these alternative cars (see These Diesels From Audi, BMW and Mercedes Cost Less To Own Than Your Gas-Powered Luxury Car by Hannah Elliott posted 12/19/2013 on Forbes).

Automakers have long lamented the American public’s reticence to embrace diesel technology as wholeheartedly as have Europeans…

But those who have adopted diesel love it. Audi head Scott Keogh routinely tells me his company sells out of each TDI model they make; Detlev von Platen at Porsche  told me at the LA auto showst month that diesel technology will continue to play an “increasingly significant” role for its fleet, especially the best-selling Panamera.

The truth is that while there is a price premium (roughly $5,300 on average) associated with the initial purchase cost of diesel vehicles, they typically get 30% better gas mileage and flaunt superior torque numbers and reliability ratings. The automotive analysis firm Vincentric estimates that driving a diesel car will save $2,117 in fuel costs over one year assuming annual rate of 15,000 miles.

Note the one thing conspicuous by its absence.  The word ‘subsidies’.  For people will pay a premium for a diesel.  Because there is value in a diesel.  They have superior torque.  Giving them greater pulling force than comparable sized gasoline-powered cars.  Better reliability.  And best of all they get a 30% better fuel mileage.  Which gives them greater range than a gasoline-powered care with a comparable sized fuel tank.  Giving them a greater range between fuel-ups than with a gasoline car.  And a far, far, far, far, far greater range than an electric car.  Giving the diesel an excellent value for the money.  Something you don’t have to bribe people to buy with subsidies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Nanny States emasculate the People and Screw and Frighten Retirees

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

This world isn’t what it used to be.  Everywhere people are looking for others to pay their way.  Or are so emasculated that living frightens them so that they run to government to parent them.  Forever.  What happened to those rugged men that entered the wilderness and built civilizations?  Who asked not for help.  All they wanted was to be left the hell alone.  Because they were men.  Rugged and fiercely independent.  Who filled their speech with obscenities whenever they talked about any form of government or nobility.  Because the government and noble classes were nothing but freeloaders looking for the good life they could force others to give them.

Today people have been so brainwashed by their government that they are incapable of doing anything without government helping them.  It’s a wonder that they can wipe their bottoms after a poop these days.  The growth of the nanny state has brought advanced economies to their knees around the world as the costs of their nanny states push them to the brink of bankruptcy.  And still the privileged/frightened people ask for more (see Business groups oppose ‘made in Ontario’ pension plan by Dana Flavelle Economy and Madhavi Acharya-Tom Yew posted 12/17/2013 on The Star).

Ontario’s plans to introduce its own mandatory pension plan could put the province at a competitive disadvantage, business groups warn

“It will add a huge competitive disadvantage to the businesses in the provinces that opt to go down that road,” said Dan Kelly, president of Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

But labour groups and retirees are applauding the province’s move to fill the void left by Ottawa’s decision not to enhance the Canada Pension Plan at this time…

Federal finance minister Jim Flaherty and junior minister of state for finance Kevin Sorenson rejected growing calls to expand CPP [Canada Pension Plan]contributions and benefits, saying now is not the right time to hit employers with higher payroll taxes…

Business groups said they welcomed Ottawa’s decision, noting CPP contributions are one of the two biggest payroll taxes they pay. The other is employment insurance premiums…

Few dispute that Canada’s pension system is no longer adequate to meet the needs of an aging population. People are living longer and saving less, while fewer private-sector employers offer pension coverage at work, a trend that plagues many industrialized nations.

Why are people saving less?  Two reasons.  First, the more the government taxes away the less they can save.  Second, with the government making promises they can’t keep (we will take care of you in your retirement so instead of saving your money spend it) why should anyone save anything for their own retirement?

Of course labor groups (the privileged) and retirees (the frightened) applaud this.  Labor wants to give their members a better life than those outside their union.  And retirees are living so long into retirement they’re living beyond their contributions into the CPP.  And are all for a little generational theft to make up the shortfall.

The defined-benefit pension is a relic of another era.  It doesn’t work anymore.  If we would have kept having babies like we once did the Ponzi scheme may have kept working.  But we didn’t.  So the Ponzi scheme is collapsing.  As they all eventually do.  The rest of the private sector has gone to 401(k)s and other such retirement vehicles.  Where we put OUR money away for OUR retirement.  Where the government can’t get their dirty little fingers on it.  This is the future of retirement savings.  Because unlike defined-benefit pensions they are sustainable.

All government pension plans need to make such a change.  Because once they do the age of the population will not matter.  Because you are saving YOUR money for YOUR retirement.  Those retired and those within a decade or so of retirement need to be protected from the folly of government in their retirement.  But younger generations coming up need to provide for their own retirement.  Because we can’t keep raising taxes.  For all that does is send jobs from the First World to the Third World.  Good for the Third World.  But bad for the First World.  And retirees.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Frederick’s of Hollywood going Private because Women think about things other than Sex?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

One of the biggest things in fashion is the Victoria Secret’s Fashion Show.  Where they have their long-legged models take to the catwalk dressed only in their underwear.  With their naughty bits barely covered by the sexy underwear they’re modeling.  The show is so popular they broadcast it on network television.  As people want to see beautiful women in their underwear.  And buy what they see.  For they want to feel as beautiful and sexy as those long-legged models.  Making Victoria Secret’s a very successful and profitable company.  Unlike another company selling sexy underwear (see Frederick’s of Hollywood goes private for 27 cents a share by Tiffany Hsu posted 12/19/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

Frederick’s of Hollywood Group Inc. is going private after years of financial struggle…

Frederick’s consists of 112 retail stores, a catalog business and an online site. Earlier this month, Lynch said the company’s earnings for the first quarter ended Oct. 26 “reflect certain marketing and inventory challenges” that have been “associated with the financial limitations of the business over the past several years.”

For the quarter, Frederick posted a loss of $7.3-million, or 20 cents a share, compared with a loss of $5.2 million, or 13 cents, for the same quarter a year earlier.

Revenue slid 12.1% to $19.7 million while same-store sales fell 11.7%.

Why is Victoria Secret’s successful and Frederick’s of Hollywood going private?  Well, if you browse both of their websites you will notice one company tends to have sexier underwear than the other.  Frederick’s of Hollywood.  Which sells things like peek-a-boo bras and crotch-less panties.  As well as other sexy accessories for the bedroom.  Things most women would never wear under their clothes when going to work.  While picking up her kids from school.  Or grocery shopping.  As they are just a bit too sexy for any activity outside of the bedroom.  And definitely things that are not appropriate for broadcast television.  Which is why the networks don’t carry a Frederick’s of Hollywood Fashion Show.  Even though it would have stellar ratings.

Contrary to public perception based on the Democrat war on women, women aren’t having sex all of the time.  Other things are important to them.  They may want to feel sexy and may wear a sexy but practical lingerie set under her clothes at work.  Things she can wear every day.  But there are only so many times that she can wear peek-a-boo bras and crotch-less panties.  Definitely not at the office.  While picking up her kids from school.  Or grocery shopping.

Frederick’s of Hollywood carries some naughtier things.  As women get busier in their lives with their careers and families there’s less time for the naughty kind of fun that Frederick’s of Hollywood caters to more so than Victoria Secret’s.  So part of their business is a niche market.  A niche women don’t want to spend that much time in.  So they probably prefer shopping at a Victoria’s Secrets with their boyfriend or husband so she doesn’t have to listen to him urging her to get the more naughtier items.  As he may enjoy the Democrat war on women more than her.  And is thinking about sex all of the time.  And wished she did.  As the Democrats would have you believe by making birth control and abortion the only issues women should care about during an election.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,