Week in Review
The problem with Republicans is that they are so greedy that they put money before people. That’s why they oppose taxes. Because they don’t want to give up any of their money. At least, this is what Democrats say about Republicans. Along with the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ mantra. In fact, they castigated Mitt Romney for only paying an effective tax rate of 14% in 2011. Even Warren Buffet decried the unfairness of the tax code where rich guys like him pay an effective tax rate of 17.4% while the poorer classes working beneath him paid on average 35%. Even his secretary paid a higher tax rate. And that just wasn’t fair. Of course Buffet’s 17.4% in actual dollar amounts dwarfed the tax dollars of everyone working for him combined. But that’s not the point. No, the point is that Republicans are all a bunch of greedy, vicious, heartless bastards.
New York’s new mayor is a Democrat. And he isn’t a greedy, vicious, heartless bastard. In fact, he promised to raise taxes on those rich fat cats who pay as little as a 14% effective tax rate. Something he would never do himself. Because he’s not a greedy, vicious, heartless bastard. He’s a Democrat (see New York Mayor Bill De Blasio Pays A Lower Tax Rate Than Mitt Romney by Hunter Walker posted 4/16/2014 on Business Insider).
Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio became a prominent proponent of progressive tax policy when he made raising taxes on city residents who make over $500,000 a year a cornerstone of his platform during his underdog campaign last year.
That’s why it raised eyebrows and drew some initial national coverage when The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that de Blasio had paid an “effective tax rate” of 8.3%.
That would put de Blasio’s tax rate substantially lower than the approximately 14% tax rate multimillionaire former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was attacked by Democrats for paying in 2011.
Well, somehow it works out that a Republican paying a 14% effective tax rate is a greedy, vicious, heartless bastard but a Democrat paying 8.3% is not. Go figure.
Tags: Bill de Blasio, Democrat, effective tax rate, greedy, Mitt Romney, New York, Republican, tax rate, Warren Buffett
Week in Review
If you ever wondered why the communists built the Berlin Wall this is why (see Man Takes Selfies for Proof to the IRS by Brian Koerber posted 3/18/2014 on 3/18/2014 on Mashable).
Anne Jarvis’ father, Andrew, is an architect that splits his time between his firm’s branches in New York City and Philadelphia. The commute became so overwhelming that he began to rent an apartment in NYC to improve his quality of life.
Upon further inspection of tax laws, Andrew learned that in order to avoid being taxed by New York, he would only be allowed to live in the city 182 days or less out of the year. In preparation for disputes against his living situation, he began taking selfies, as a way to prove to the taxman that he spends more time in Philadelphia, than he does in New York.
When a taxing authority taxes too much the natural inclination of free people is to move. And that’s what was happening in East Berlin. The best and brightest that drove the economy were walking across the street into the West. Leaving behind only the less-educated and the less-skilled. So to stop this brain-drain the communists built the Berlin Wall. To keep the best and brightest from going to where life was better.
Those on the left will read this story and call this architect greedy. For he enjoys the privilege of working and living in New York City part of the year. And should pay for that privilege. In particular so they can have more free stuff paid for by the best and brightest. But if New York starts taxing his income that doesn’t mean Pennsylvania will stop taxing his income. No. They both will tax his income. As if he’s two different people. That is, he will pay the taxes of two people. Is that fair? Would even those on the left call that fair? Of course if you suggest they should pay two cellular bills (theirs and somebody else’s) they would say, “Wait a minute. That is NOT fair.” But the architect? They’d probably say something like, “He’s rich. He can afford to pay the income taxes of two people. And should.”
Being rich is a relative term. It basically means anyone making more than you these days. So even people who win the lotto don’t consider themselves rich when it comes to paying income taxes. They’ll say that having to give almost half of their winnings to the taxman is unfair. But having two states tax this architect is fair. Because he can afford it. For he earns that every year. While they only won one lotto.
The way New York City is going they will have to build a wall around Manhattan if they expect to keep the best and brightest from fleeing their oppressive tax rates. Or they’ll have to get the federal government to tax all states oppressively high so people have no better place to go. Which explains why big-government liberals are all for expanding the power of the federal government. For their oppressive liberal policies won’t work if the people can move to another state to escape them.
Tags: Berlin Wall, best and brightest, fair, income, income taxes, New York, New York City, Pennsylvania, rich, tax, tax rates, Taxman
Week in Review
According to the left rich people in corporations are bad. They’re evil incarnate. That’s why they hated 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney so much. He was a rich guy in the corporate world. Who screw the people to enrich themselves. Making rich people richer. And poor people poorer. Which is the new theme President Obama is using these days. Income inequality. Which just isn’t right. Rich people having so much more than poor people. Especially those billionaires in corporations. They’re the worst. Money-grubbing parasites. These billionaires threaten human progress (see 85 people have as much money as half the world by Li Anne Wong, CNBC, posted 1/20/2014 on MSN Money).
The combined wealth of the world’s richest 85 people is now equivalent to that owned by half of the world’s population — or 3.5 billion of the poorest people — according to a new report from Oxfam.
In a report titled “Working for the Few” released Monday, the global aid and development organization detailed the extent of global economic inequality created by the rapidly increasing wealth of the richest, warning of the major risks it poses to “human progress.”
According to the report, 210 people have become billionaires in the past year, joining a select group of 1,426 individuals with a combined net worth of $5.4 trillion.
It added that the wealth of the richest one percent of people in the world now amounts to $110 trillion, or 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
Imagine that. There are 1,426 of these money-grubbing parasites. Who can only make the world a worse place. According to the left. For any one person having that much money is just wrong. Unless, that is, she’s a woman (see Facebook’s Sandberg is now a billionaire by Chris Isidore posted 1/22/2014 on CNN Money).
A record high close for Facebook shares has made Sheryl Sandberg one of the youngest female billionaires ever, according to a ranking from Bloomberg.
Sandberg, who is the company’s chief operating officer, owns 12.3 million shares. That makes her stake worth about $720 million.
In addition, she owns 4.7 million options, which would net her $220.6 million at her exercise price.
She has also received stock awards which have not yet vested, the estimated value of which takes her over the $1 billion mark.
Female billionaires are still relatively rare. Bloomberg’s list of the 200 richest people worldwide shows only 17 who are women.
Forbes reported last year that there were 138 female billionaires worldwide, but that’s out of a total 1,426 billionaires worldwide.
And only 24 of the women billionaires on the Forbes list earned their wealth themselves; most inherited a significant portion of their fortune.
Not a bad word in this article about this billionaire. For when a woman becomes a billionaire it is reason to celebrate. For shattering yet another glass ceiling. Not to lament that there is another good for nothing money-grubbing billionaire in the world today. Who will only make that income inequality worse. Funny how that works.
Tags: billionaire, corporations, female billionaires, income inequality, parasites, poor, poor people, rich, rich people
Week in Review
President Obama is launching a war against income disparity. Because under his 5 years or so as president the rich got richer while the median family income fell. This income gap is the source of all our woes. Or so he says. And it can lead to other bad things. Like violence between the classes. Which is why he’ll say we need to raise the taxes on the rich. To help everyone else who has suffered under the Obama economic policies. So everyone has everything they could ever need or want. And be happy. Where people will live together in peace and bliss. Like in socialists countries. Where they put people before profits (see Former Miss Venezuela Monica Spear slain resisting robbery by Jorge Rueda, The Associated Press, posted 1/7/2014 on The Star).
Assailants shot and killed a popular soap-opera actress and former Miss Venezuela and her Irish ex-husband in the presence of their 5-year-old daughter when they resisted a robbery, authorities said Tuesday.
Monica Spear, 29, and Henry Thomas Berry, 39, were slain late Monday night on a roadside near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela’s main port, after their car broke down, the prosecutor’s office said in a statement…
Venezuela has one of the world’s highest murder rates and violent crime is so rampant that Venezuelans tend to stay home after dark…
According to the non-profit Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, the oil-rich South American country’s murder rate was 79 per 100,000 inhabitants last year.
Hugo Chávez was an extreme anti-capitalist. And he turned Venezuela into a socialist paradise. Putting people before profits. But like all other planned economies it just led to shortages of everything. And because the state couldn’t provide like a free market could a profitable black market developed. Where what limited goods there were ended up selling at higher prices. Leading to great income disparity. As people with money could buy what they needed from the black markets while the poorer people could not. And went without.
Deprivation and corruption led to ever greater income disparity. As criminals and those in government lived well. While the people suffered abject poverty. Leading to a society that became so lawless that the people hid in their homes after dark. This is what you get with socialism. Well, that. And an oppressive police state. To keep those suffering abject poverty from rising up against the government. So those in government can continue to live the good life. While they continue to ‘fight for the people’. Who never seem to escape from their abject poverty.
Tags: abject poverty, black market, income disparity, income gap, median family income, Miss Venezuela, murder rates, people before profits, socialism, Venezuela, violent crime
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.
Tags: Democrat elite, Democrats, from those according to ability, gap between the rich and poor, greed, poverty, taxes, to those according to need
Week in Review
The unemployment rate fell from 7.3 to 7.0 in November (see Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age). With the government reporting 203,000 jobs created. The economy must be turning around. Things are getting better. Especially for rich people (see Not fully inflated posted 12/7/2013 on The Economist).
TALK of bubbles is in the air again. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has hit an all-time high. A loss-making technology firm (Twitter) has floated its shares on a flood of investor demand. Private-equity groups are buying companies using amounts of debt not seen since 2008. A record price (more than $50m) has just been set for a penthouse in Manhattan. A triptych by Francis Bacon became the most expensive piece of art sold at an auction when Christie’s flogged it for $142.4m last month. Robert Shiller of Yale University, who correctly identified bubbles in tech stocks in the late 1990s and in property in the 2000s, has expressed unease about giddy American share valuations.
All this suggests that wealthy investors have become increasingly confident.
The rich sure are getting richer under President Obama. But that’s Wall Street. Where if you have friends in Washington you do well. And Wall Street has a lot of friends in the Obama administration. But what about Main Street? How are the rest of us doing? Who don’t have friends in Washington looking out for us? Well, when President Obama took office there were 80,507,000 that were NOT in the labor force. Under the economic policies of President Obama this number rose to 91,273,000. Meaning that President Obama has destroyed 10,766,000 jobs since he became president. It will take another 53 months at this pace to replace the jobs President Obama’s policies destroyed. Or 4.42 years.
This is how Main Street is doing. Not good. Unlike the rich. Who are doing very well buying and selling assets by borrowing cheap money. Courtesy of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing. Basically printing money. Making more of it available to borrow. And because there is so much available to borrow interest rates are near zero. Allowing the rich to borrow all the money they need to buy and sell assets with. And as the Fed devalues the dollar it takes more of them to buy those assets. Allowing the rich to reap huge profits when they sell. Following the simple strategy of ‘buy low’ and ‘sell high’. But that inflation also raises the prices of our groceries. Which consume a larger portion of our paychecks. Which makes us, those on Main Street, poorer.
President Obama. Good for Wall Street. Bad for Main Street.
Tags: friends in Washington, interest rates, investors, jobs, Main Street, money, President Obama, rich, Wall Street, wealthy
Week in Review
It’s open season on rich people. The favorite target of the Left. And governments everywhere that are spending far more money than they have. To buy votes. So to make up that shortfall they continuously attack the rich. For how can the rich complain with all that money? So they attack them. To get them to pay their ‘fair’ share of taxes. Despite the huge tax bills they pay (see Report: Zuckerberg facing $1billion tax bill by Brett Molina posted 3/29/2013 on USA Today).
So how much will Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg have to pay in taxes for taking his social network public..?
Citing three certified public accountants based in California, CNN says Zuckerberg’s final tally, after deducting charitable donations, sits at $1 billion.
The median U.S. income is $52,762. Based on the 2012 tax rates a single person earning the median income will pay approximately $17,442 in federal income taxes. Which means one rich person, Mark Zuckerberg, will pay the same amount of taxes 57,333 Americans will pay. And if a rich guy is paying what 57,333 Americans are paying it’s pretty hard to say they aren’t paying their fair share.
Zuckerberg paid these taxes while the economy was limping along in one of the worst recoveries in history. So it would seem we should be encouraging people to get filthy rich. For they will be able to pay huge sums in income taxes. No matter how low the tax rate is they pay. Even in one of the worst economic recoveries in history.
Tags: fair share, income taxes, Mark Zuckerberg, rich people, tax rate, taxes, Zuckerberg
Week in Review
The Democrats have attacked health insurers with a vengeance for the high prices of health care. They blame them for these soaring prices. As well as greedy doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. The Left is always ready to attack some greedy business for their ‘excessive’ profits driving up their prices. And all businesses are guilty of being greedy profit whores. With a couple of exceptions (see No Happy New Year for UK as Gloom Worsens by Holly Ellyatt posted 12/21/2012 on CNBC).
With gloomy economic forecasts, falling consumer confidence and poor retail figures adding to concerns over talk of the U.K. leaving the European Union, 2013 is set to be a tough year for the country, analysts say…
“There’s been a lot of discounting in the high streets because the shops are trying to shift stock and it’s not working,” Jane Foley, senior currency strategist at Rabobank, told CNBC…
Foley told CNBC that growth had been disappointing mainly due to inflation and low wage growth.
“[Inflation] took money out of our pockets and made our real wages negative. Many economists were anticipating that by now we would have positive wage growth but no, again we have sticky inflation and inflation at high levels because of university fees and utility bills going up.”
Funny how universities and the utilities are never labeled as greedy profit whores. No, they never get attacked like those in business do. Instead they attack greedy taxpayers who don’t volunteer to pay more in taxes to help subsidize the high cost of education and utilities. They’re the greedy profit whores. Who oppose those in education and the utilities from living a better life than they do. How selfish.
University professors brainwash their students into being good liberal voters. The utilities are unionized. Both do a lot to elect liberals to office. And keep them in office. Therefore those who attack health insurers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies never attack those in education and the utilities. Even though they are gouging consumers far more than health insurers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.
For all the talk about leveling the playing field and looking out for the little guy the Left sure likes taking care of their own. In a country where there is no nobility there is an aristocracy. Government workers. And those who help the government gain and maintain power. These people live the good life. While the rest are attacked for being greedy. Pay high tuition costs. And pay high utility bills. The aristocracy has to pay these things, too. But with the generous pay and benefits package they give themselves they can easily afford these things. Thanks to the power they have to make us pay high tuition costs and high utility bills. As well as high taxes.
Tags: aristocracy, doctors, greedy, greedy profit whores, greedy taxpayers, Health Care, health insurers, high prices, hospitals, inflation, pharmaceutical companies, profit, taxpayers, UK, universities, utilities, wage growth
Week in Review
The American Left likes China. The way government partners with business. And has dominion over business. In China business can only do what government allows them to do. For government picks winners and losers. What the Left yearns for in America. Not unfettered free market capitalism. They like their capitalism under the yoke of government. Where they can have high positions in government. Or be outside advisers to government. And have their hand on that yoke. But it’s just not business that is under the government’s yoke in China (see Plight of teen prompts education debate, protest in China by John Ruwitch posted 12/22/2012 on Reuters).
As the end of middle school approached this year, Zhan Haite, 15, faced two choices: attend vocational school in Shanghai in the fall or move to her ancestral home in distant Jiangxi province to take the high school entrance exam and study there.
Taking the test and going to senior high school in cosmopolitan Shanghai, where she had lived since she was four, was not an option.
Zhan is one of millions of children whose parents belong to China’s vast migrant workforce and are barred from taking senior high school or college entrance exams where they live by half-century-old policies on household registration, or hukou.
The hukou system has split China’s population in two for decades, affording different privileges and opportunities to urban and rural residents. It is a major challenge for China’s new economic policymakers under Premier-in-waiting Li Keqiang as they try to push urbanization as an engine of growth…
China’s 230 million migrant workers have been the oarsmen of the world’s second-biggest economy but have long been treated as second-class citizens with unequal access to education, health and other services tied to official residence status.
The education issue has been particularly divisive…
Zhan’s father, Zhan Quanxi, was detained for several days this month after publicly protesting for education rights in central Shanghai, but criminal charges were dropped.
Still, his online posts have been met with sharp criticism from Shanghai hukou holders, some of whom have claimed to be part of a “Shanghai Defence Alliance”.
The verbal mud slinging reflects a battle over turf in big cities where high school seats can help students get into top universities, said Ralph Litzinger, an anthropology professor at Duke University who studies Chinese migrant issues.
First of all if you ever wonder why the Chinese (and others) are outscoring American students on tests this is why. They study hard to get into the good high schools for a chance of getting into the good universities. Where they will take the hard degree programs to get the good jobs. They’re not floating through life partying and fighting for the decriminalization of marijuana. And they’re not taking worthless degrees in the humanities so they can keep partying in college. No. The Chinese take their education seriously. Which is why they are some of the most sought after recruits of leading high-tech companies. Including those in the United States.
In addition to that state-capitalism utopia the Left sees in China there is also crushing disparity. Where those migrant workers are good enough to feed their factories with cheap labor to sustain that export economy. But they’re not good enough to sit at the same table with the big-city upper-classes. Something the left is ostensibly against. Both the cheap labor and class-based society. Yet they yearn for the state-capitalism they have in China. Because of the power the ruling elite has. Which is what the Left wants. Unfettered power. And they would take what China has any day of the week. As long as they are in the upper class. And once they have the power they don’t need to worry about cheap labor. Or care about it. As they won’t need organized labor to keep them in power.
Tags: American Left, capitalism, cheap labor, China, disparity, entrance exam, exam, factories, hukou, migrant, migrant workforce, rural, second-class, urban
Week in Review
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has won two landslide presidential elections. One could say she is more popular in Argentina than President Obama is in the United States. Well, she was more popular than the American president. That may be changing (see Argentina protests: up to 1.5 million rally against Fernández de Kirchner by Uki Goni and Jonathan Watts posted 11/9/2012 on the guardian).
The broad avenues of Buenos Aires were crowded on Thursday night by Argentina’s biggest and noisiest anti-government demonstration in a decade, as hundreds of thousands of protesters marched or banged pots to express frustration at President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
After a smaller rally in September, the noisy but peaceful protest – estimated at between 250,000 to 500,000 people – marks an escalation of opposition to the Argentinian leader, particularly among a middle class that is upset at inflation, corruption, media controls and suggestions Fernández may want to amend the constitution so she can serve a third term…
There was no single cause of discontent. Many in the middle class are angry at the highest inflation in a decade, estimated at a yearly 25% by private economists, currency controls that have created a black market in dollars, and one of the slowest economic growth rates in Latin America.
Banners and chants also took aim at recent corruption cases and Fernández’s efforts to limit the power of big newspaper and TV conglomerates…
… it marks a political low in Fernández’s decade in the presidential palace. Since succeeding her husband, Néstor Kirchner, in 2007, she has won two landslide election victories and pursued a policy marked by wealth redistribution, greater investment in education, confrontation with Britain over the Falklands and the nationalisation of the Argentinian assets owned by the Spanish oil group YPF.
With the economy faltering, Fernández’s approval rating has fallen below 40%, according to a poll this week, and many of those who joined Thursday’s protest have lost faith in her.
“I voted for Cristina but now I feel let down,” said one middle-aged marcher. “We need more security, more jobs; the government needs to stop lying to us.”
High inflation and slow economic growth. Kind of sounds like the Carter presidency. Where we called his high inflation and slow economic growth stagflation. And measured it by the misery index. Of course President Carter didn’t suffer any of these humiliating protests in his second term. For he suffered a humiliating defeat in 1980 that made him a one-term president.
People have often wondered what a second Carter term would have been like. Some say we saw in President Obama’s first term. But perhaps it will be his second term that will be more like President Carter’s first term. Or, perhaps, more like President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s second term. For apart from confronting the British over the Falklands and nationalizing a Spanish oil group (though President Obama would like to nationalize health care) his policies are eerily similar to hers. The middle class has suffered in the US under President Obama just as they have suffered in Argentina. And someone in the Obama administration is lying to the American people about Fast and Furious. And Benghazi. They both also have low approval ratings despite their ability to win elections. Of course if that was the other way around in the United States (Republicans winning reelection despite low approval ratings) there would be massive legal actions contesting those election results.
So if you want to see what the future of President Obama’s second term will be like you can look at what’s happening in Argentina. Which the president is making us look more like with his record spending that have given us record deficits in each of his four years in office. And a record amount of debt. Perhaps this is the president’s own way to reform immigration. Make the economy so bad that there are no jobs here to encourage people to come to this country. In fact, some of the flow of immigration has reversed as Mexicans are heading back home for better jobs. As the president has destroyed the US job market with his economic policies.
So if you hear a loud banging sound in Washington DC don’t worry. It’s just the Argentine-style protest against our anti-capitalist president.
Tags: anti-government demonstration, Argentina, Buenos Aires, Cristina Fernández, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, high inflation, inflation, investment in education, President Carter, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President Obama, second Carter term, slow economic growth, wealth redistribution
« Previous Entries