New York’s High Tax Rates makes it Difficult for People to Willingly Work in New York

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 12th, 2014

Week in Review

We have antidiscrimination laws in place to prevent employers from hiring based on skin color instead of ability.  We drug test in sports to keep poorer athletes from using drugs to become better athletes.  As that isn’t fair to athletes who play by the rules.  People rail about unequal pay for women doing the same job as men.  Saying if they are doing the same job as a man they should get the same paycheck as a man.

We do these things to keep things fair.  So the best job applicant gets the job.  The best athlete wins the competition.  And everyone is paid according to their ability.  Without a lower pay scale for women.  Of course, all these ideas of fairness go out the window when it comes to the military (see Sexual harassment in the military: what female cadets have to say by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor, posted 1/10/2014 on Yahoo! News).

A congressionally mandated Pentagon report, released Friday, gauges sexual harassment and assault at America’s service academies and catalogs comments made by students during focus groups….

The focus-group comments of the cadets offer some insights into why the cadets themselves think the problem is pervasive, and how to best handle it.

When sexual harassment and assaults are prosecuted on campus, they think it might be a good idea to publicize them a bit more, even while protecting the anonymity of victims.

“When these things happen, my concern is, Are they being at all like hushed up?” one West Point cadet told Pentagon interviewers. “I think if we wanted to raise awareness and like say that this is a problem, why isn’t it being publicized when it does happen, even anonymously..?”

A clear theme that comes through in the survey, too, is that cadets of both genders feel that because the physical standards for female cadets are not as strenuous as those for male cadets, the men may have less respect for the women…

Another female cadet noted that because the physical standards are different for men and women at the academies, it is possible for women to get higher scores than men – even though they might not have to do as many push-ups or run a mile as quickly. “That eats him alive,” said one female cadet of a male cadet friend of hers.

Sexual harassment and assault are unacceptable everywhere.  There are no excuses or justification for bad/criminal behavior.  Even if you create a hostile environment by placing men and women together in a competitive environment that makes the men work harder than the women to get a passing grade.

The bigger issue is that the military is now trying to integrate women into combat roles.  Like infantry units that actually use physical strength to survive in a life and death situation.  And the stronger you are the better your chances are of surviving.  Which means anyone getting through military training by meeting lower standards has a lower chance of surviving in combat whenever physical strength determines the outcome of a fight.  Putting these women at risk.  And reducing the fighting strength of the unit.  Which will lose fighting strength once the weaker members (those meeting lower standards during training) are killed off.  Which doesn’t seem fair to the women.  Or the unit.


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

FT149: “Poor people don’t hate rich people; they envy them and buy lotto tickets to become one of them.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 21st, 2012

Fundamental Truth

People don’t hate the Lifestyles of the Rich they just hate the Rich because they’re Living it Instead of Them

Overweight and less beautiful women hate beautiful women with toned, firm bodies.  Overweight and less handsome men hate more handsome and muscular men who get all the beautiful women with toned, firm bodies.  They may hate those who are more physically attractive than they are.  Until they start dieting and going to the gym to become one of them.  Once they are one of the beautiful people they no longer hate the people they once did.  In fact, they now enjoy being part of their world.  A world where their physical appearance gets them the attention they didn’t know when they were less attractive.  But for some dieting and working out is hard work.  Especially if they have to work harder than others who can eat and drink anything they want without putting on a pound.  So if they falter from their new healthy lifestyle and put that weight back on those old feelings of hatred will return.

People fear cancer.  They hate cancer.  And may adopt a healthier life style to avoid cancer.  By eating healthier.  And exercising.  They may quit smoking and cut buck on drinking.  And they may add certain foods to their diet they understand will help prevent cancer.  Even if some of these foods aren’t delicious.  After adopting a healthier lifestyle they don’t change their position on cancer.  They still hate it.  But staying on a healthy diet and making time to exercise is hard.  Because the delicious, less healthy foods are hard to give up.  And going to the movies is a lot more enjoyable than going to the gym.  Once their healthier lifestyle lapses their position on cancer does not change.  They still hate it.  As they always hated it.

There is a difference between hate and envy.  You may hate people you envy.  Because they are, or have, everything you want.  And you covet what they have.  But what you hate is that they are living the good life instead of you.  They don’t hate the good life.  Whereas you don’t envy what you truly hate.  No one has ever complained that someone else got cancer instead of them.  No one has ever complained about the unfairness of cancer that way.  Usually the complaint is more along the lines of ‘why me and not someone else’.  For the hate of cancer is a pure hate.  It is not relative.  It is absolute.  Whereas someone’s hate of the rich is relative.  It will disappear the moment a person comes into money.

People in the Public Sector exploit the Taxpayers to pay for their very Generous Pay and Benefit Packages

Kids may go on to college and take courses in the social sciences.  Where they learn about the unfairness of capitalism.  The evil of corporations.  How businesses exploit their employees.  How they put profits before people.  By the time they leave college the word ‘profit’ is a four-letter word to them.  And they believe we should shun anyone pursuing profits like those exploitive business owners.  Raising taxes on them is a good thing.  For by doing so we can help redistribute the wealth from those hoarding it to those who don’t have enough.  To produce a fair and egalitarian society.

They also learned how socialism is better.  That the Soviet Union only failed because of the Americans undermining a superior economic system.  They believe so strongly that they vote Democrat to try and do something about making America a fairer place to live.  They go on to get jobs in the public sector to do their part in making America fairer.  By redistributing wealth.  To help those who have little.  And they exploit the taxpayers.  Forcing them to pay for their very generous pay and benefit packages.  While those same taxpayers never live a life as fair or as equal as the public sector workers they support.

These public sector workers envy the life of the rich.  They don’t hate that life.  They just hate the people who are smarter and more talented than they are who were able to achieve that life.  It’s not fair that these people had talent.  And worked hard for success.  So it’s only fair to take their money away from them to make society fair.  And so they can enjoy a lifestyle that neither their talent nor their ability could ever provide.

Poor People voted overwhelmingly for President Obama to Punish the Rich for Winning Life’s Lottery

President Obama won reelection with a campaign of class war.  Getting the people to believe that the rich weren’t paying their fair share in federal income taxes.  Despite the top 10% of income earners paying 70% of all federal income taxes.  Early on Occupy Wall Street agitated the people against the 1%.  Which grew into a bitter character assassination of Mitt Romney.  Because he was rich.  People hated him for that.  Not for having money per se.  For the people wanted everything he had.  They just hated him because he had the talent to earn what they couldn’t.  For they lacked the talent to achieve the success of Mitt Romney.

President Obama enjoyed the support of rich Hollywood stars and musicians.  And the president enjoyed hobnobbing with them.  Even the suffering masses enjoyed seeing the president hobnob with their idols.  Even though they had wealth just like Mitt Romney.  But for some reason their inequality was okay.  And these superstars, incidentally, all went into their chosen field to become rich.  To live in mansions.  And to have more money than they could ever spend.  While the people castigated Mitt Romney for having money the people looked on in awe and reverence at the lifestyle of the rich and famous they so admired.  And all the rich and famous had to do to get this pass on having obscene wealth is to attack other people with wealth.  And publically support Democrats.  You do that and they will leave you alone.  No matter how much money you shelter in the Cayman Islands.

No one hates rich people.  They just envy their lifestyles.  And covet what they have.  They hate the fact that they weren’t born with the passion, drive, ability or talent to become rich.  And hate these people for being able to do what they cannot.  Become rich.  Though it doesn’t stop them from trying.  Especially poor people.  Who voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.  To punish the rich for winning life’s lottery.  While they themselves spend every last dollar they can buying lotto tickets.  For they may have voted for President Obama to punish the rich.   But that’s only because they envy the rich.  And want to become one of them.  Should they win the lotto their position on hating the rich will quickly change.  Perhaps going so far as to start voting Republican.  To save as much of their winnings from the taxman as possible.


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

FT137: “There is no affirmative action or liberal policies of fairness in the NFL.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

To avoid Bad Press or Legal Action Businesses hire not Based on Qualifications but Based on Diversity

Universities use affirmative action whenever they can during the admissions process.  Giving more weight to an applicant’s race than his or her GPA or test scores.  Guaranteeing that some more educationally qualified applicants are denied admission.  Because these universities believe that diversity is more important than merit.  And that diversity over merit is fairer.

If businesses hire purely on merit without consideration to race they will get bad press.  Possibly even some legal action against them.  Because those on the Left say it is our differences that make us better.  Not our merit.  So to avoid bad press or legal action businesses hire not based on qualifications but based on diversity.  They hire an excellent labor force.  But not the best labor force.  For the best candidate may just be the wrong race.

Some cities even lowered their standards to hire more minorities.  Because sometimes the wrong races edge out minorities on test scores.  Such as firefighters.  Who grew up in more affluent cities with better schools but went to the big city to be a firefighter.  They didn’t live in the city.  But they wanted to work in the city.  And they competed against those who grew up in those cities whose schools may have not been as good.  Adding a lot of competition for a few openings.  So these cities try to make the testing process fairer to those who went through a less quality school system.

Activist Governments pass a lot of Restrictive Laws to make things Fair

Large cities place restrictive requirements in their contracts for construction projects.  Contractors need to meet diversity requirements.  Even residency requirements.  So they have to hire a certain percentage of their workers from the local population.  Even if they are not the best skilled workers for the project.  They often require larger companies to contract work to smaller, minority contractors.  Who can’t really complete a large project because they lack the resources, equipment and experience.  But they make the larger company mentor the smaller company.

Unions like to make things fair for workers.  They do away with merit.  So better qualified and harder working people don’t get paid more.  For in a union they pay everyone equally.  Based on seniority.  And they make it very difficult to fire a worker.  So being in a union is where you don’t have to worry about people who are better than you.  And no one gets ahead by working harder than your coworkers.  Especially those younger workers who are overachievers.  In time they, too, learn.  From senior workers.  Not to be an overachiever.

Activist governments pass a lot of laws to make things fair.  Often requiring companies to hire people and contract companies that aren’t the best.  To give the less qualified a fair shake.  So that it’s just not the overachievers who achieve success.  Which is a nice thing to do for those who need a little help.  But there is cost.  It makes it harder for these companies to do business.  Raising their costs.  As well as their prices.  Perhaps even sacrificing a little quality.  But it is all in the name of fairness.  And that’s important to government.  So they force this on everyone.  No matter the costs.  Because it’s the right thing to do.  To be fair.

Pity Businesses can’t run their Businesses like the NFL runs Theirs

Fair may be good for some people.  But you know where there is no fairness?  In the NFL.  It’s a pure meritocracy in the NFL.  Only the best play.  Even if it means not having diversity on the field.  (The percentage of black players far exceeds the percentage of blacks in the general population.)  Or that others not as good don’t get a chance to play.  Like they make businesses do.  For it’s okay for business.  But not in the NFL.  No matter how unfair that is.  Why, it’s even silly to think about diversifying the teams.  Adding more white players.  More Asians.  Changing the process from making the team from being the best to being the right racial statistic.

But what about all those who need a hand-up?  All those kids who grew up wanting to play in the NFL but were never good enough?  Those in the chess club?  Those who were good in math and science?  The geeks and the nerds?  Shouldn’t we give these guys a shot?  And have the better players mentor them?  We actually had a chance to see what that might be like.  Seeing what it would be like not having the best in the game.  Only it wasn’t the players but the referees.  Because of a contract dispute the NFL recently locked out the referees.  And replaced them with referees who had only a few months to memorize the rulebook.  And the people hated them.

The replacement referees showed us what it would be like in the NFL if there was a policy of diversity on the field.  Instead of it being a true meritocracy.  The games just wouldn’t be that good.  And people wouldn’t want to pay to see them.  And advertisers wouldn’t buy time during a game that no one wanted to watch.  People want to watch great games.  And you get great games by having the absolute best players in the game.  Not by giving someone a fair shake.  No matter how fair it would be.  Pity businesses can’t run their businesses like the NFL runs theirs.


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

FT130: “Tax dollars pay the bills. Not tax rates.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 10th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Even though we have a Progressive Tax System we don’t have a Progressive Movie Ticket Price System

The average price for a movie ticket is about $8.  A flat price.  In dollars.  Whatever you earn.  If you earn $50 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  If you earn $100 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  If you earn $200 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  Is that fair?  Based on the amount people could pay, no.  Because $8 is a different percentage of each earner’s daily gross pay.  It’s only 4% for those who earn $200 daily.  It’s 8% for those who earn $100 daily.  And a whopping 16% for those who only earn $50 daily.  Is that fair?  Well, if we measure fairness by the way we pay income taxes, no.  This is not fair.

Look, we live in a fair country.  We have a progressive tax system.  So we should have a progressive movie ticket price system.  And someone who only earns $50 a day shouldn’t be paying 16% of their earnings for a movie ticket.  Not when someone who can more easily afford to pay more only pays 4% for a ticket.  These numbers are upside down.  The lower income people should only pay 4%.  The middle income people should pay 8% because they can more easily afford it.  And the high income earner should pay 16% because if they don’t they’re not paying their fair share.  So let’s say the government makes it so.

Once we make going to the movies fair this is what we can expect at the box office.  Those with daily earnings of $50 pay only $2 for a ticket.  Those with daily gross earnings of $100 pay $8.  And those with gross daily earnings of $200 pay $32 for their movie ticket.  The low-income earners will be very happy with this new fairness.  Those middle-income earners will have mixed feelings but won’t complain because they don’t have to pay any more.  The high-income earners, though, will not be happy with the new ticket pricing policy.  Because sitting in a theater is not worth $32 a ticket.  Especially if they’re taking their spouse and 3 kids.  Making a night at the movies cost $160.  Or 80% of their daily gross earnings.  And that doesn’t include any concession snacks.

The Problem with Fairness is that you can have the Best Intentions and end up with the Worst Results

You know who would love this?  Theater owners.  (As well as movie studios and the actors who share in box office sales.)  They would all be for fairness.  Because they would see greater earnings.  The typical theater seats about 225.  At $8 a ticket that comes to $1,800 in revenue per show.  When they implement the fairness policy, though, they could do better.  Say 40% of theater goers are low-income, 40% are middle-income and 20% are high-income.  Based on the fair ticket price policy the theater owner will increase earnings to $2,340.  That’s a revenue increase of $540.  Or an increase of 30%.  So, sure, the theater owners would all be for fairness when it comes to ticket prices.  (As well as the movie studies and actors.)

Until, that is, when the high-income people stop going to the theater.  If their seats remain empty the theater will not collect their $1, 440 in revenue per show.  Their seats will remain empty.  And half the people watching the movie will be paying only $2 for their ticket.  This will reduce revenue by $900.  Or a decrease of 50%.  Which will change the way theater owners think about fairness.  As they struggle to stay in business.  And if they can’t change the government fair pricing system their costs will exceed their revenue.  They will have to make cuts everywhere they can to get their costs under their revenue.  Lowering the quality of the movie going experience.  To the point people just stay home and watch something they download online while eating microwave popcorn.  Eventually shuttering the theater.  And putting more people out of a job.  (Not to mention making it impossible for a movie studio to make a profit on all but the biggest blockbusters and the cheapest to films to make.  And the big movie stars would all see a hug pay cut.  Which would ripple through the movie industry putting an even greater number of people out of a job.)

This is the problem with fairness.  You can have the best intentions.  And end up with the worst results.  That’s because the ‘fairness people’ think everything in the economy is static.  That a change ‘here’ won’t effect change ‘there’.  But the economy isn’t static.  It’s dynamic.  And a change ‘here’ does effect change ‘there’.  Because people are thinking, rational beings.  While state planners think they know what’s fair the people living their policies often think otherwise.  And change their behavior.  To minimize their costs under their fairness policies.  Because that is human nature.  Just like it is for people every day who shop around to find the lowest price and best value before spending their hard-earned money.

The Rich are more Generous in their Tax Dollar Contributions than the Poor and the Middle Class

The Left wants to raise the tax rates on the high-income earners.  To make them pay their ‘fair’ share.  Foolishly thinking that doing this will bring in more tax revenue.  It won’t.  Because people are thinking, rational beings.  These ‘rich’ people can either invest their money into businesses and create jobs.  Or they can put their money into treasury bonds and create no jobs.  One is high risk (creating jobs).  One is low risk (not creating jobs).  And when you increase the taxes on the high-risk investment you reduce the return on that investment.  And reduce the incentive to create jobs.  So instead of investing in jobs they park their money safely in bonds.  Reducing the income (business owner and employees) the government can tax.  As well as reducing a host of other taxes (sales tax, property tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, etc.).  All in the name of fairness.

So why do they do it?  Why are they always imposing fairness on us?  Because when it comes to class warfare tax rates are much more useful in defining fairness.  For they misdirect the people into thinking rich people don’t pay enough in taxes.  Let’s look at a married couple filing jointly who earn a combined income of $125,000.  Based on the 2012 federal income tax rates they will pay approximately $19,470 in federal taxes with a top marginal tax rate of 25%.  Now compare that to a rich person not paying their ‘fair share’ in taxes.  Someone who earns a million dollars in capital gains on investments.  One of those the ‘fairness people’ really dislike.  At a capital gains tax rate of 15% he or she pays $150,000 in taxes.  Now 15% is less than 25%.  And those on the Left will scream, “Unfair!”  Even though that capital gains tax rate will generate $130,530 more in tax dollars.  Or 670% more than the married couple paying a top marginal tax rate of 25%.

So is the ‘rich’ investor paying his or her fair share in taxes?  Well, he or she is sure paying a whole lot more in taxes than that married couple filing jointly.  Even if it’s at a lower tax rate.  Is that fair?  Is that enough?  It depends on how you measure fair.  If you measure by tax rates the rich are tax cheapskates.  If you measure by tax dollars then the rich are very generous in their tax contributions.  More generous than the poor and the middle class.  And that’s what really counts.  Tax dollars.  Because tax dollars pay the bills.  Not tax rates.


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

Marx, Engels, Communist Manifesto, Capitalists, Bourgeoisie, Proletariat, Private Property, Soviet Union, Iron Curtain and East Berlin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 1st, 2012

History 101

Nationalism, Socialism and Communism forced a more Fair, Just and Equitable Society onto the People

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848.  Launching a war against capitalism.  And private property.  Intellectuals and those in academia loved this stuff.  And labor leaders.  Because it was a path to power.  Especially for those who could not create wealth.  Unlike the great wealth producers.  Like the industrialists.  The entrepreneurs.  Small business owners.  The productive middle class.  That is, the capitalists.  Who work hard and achieve success.  By using their talent and ability to create wealth.  Moving up the economic ladder.  Creating income inequality.  The ultimate sin of capitalism.  According to Marx and Engels.  Intellectuals.  Academia.  And labor leaders.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels single out the accumulation of private property as the source of all our problems.  The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have an insatiable appetite for private property.  They just can’t get enough of it.  And therefore oppress their workers, the proletariat, to maximize their property.  By paying them less and less to maximize their profits.  So they can use those profits to buy more and more property.  Which keeps the proletariat in perpetual and abject poverty.  And concentrates all the wealth into the few hands of the bourgeoisie.  And the only way to correct this great inequity was through a worker’s revolution.  Where the proletariat rises up and takes the private property of the bourgeoisie and gives it to the state.  So it belongs to everyone.  Especially to those who did not create it.  A very popular idea among those mired in perpetual and abject poverty.  Who are easily swayed to support this more fair, just and equitable distribution of other people’s wealth.

These progressive views enthralled Europe.  Especially after the Industrial Revolution created some appalling conditions for workers.  And they took this opportunity to put them into practice.  It was the 19th century that gave us the ‘fair’ political systems of nationalism, socialism and communism.  That began the process of transferring wealth from the capitalists to the anti-capitalists.  Precipitating the economic decline of Europe.  Making America the new economic superpower.  Which still maintained the principles of free market capitalism throughout the 19th century.  Until the anti-capitalistic teachings of Marx and Engels took hold in the progressive government of Woodward Wilson.  Bringing back the federal income tax Abraham Lincoln used to pay for the Civil War.  But unlike Lincoln Wilson had no intention of repealing it.  The federal income tax was here to stay.  As progressives began building that more fair, just and equitable society.

The Soviet Union Depended on the West for Food because their Forced Collectivized Farms couldn’t Feed their People

But the equitable movement in America was not as intense as it was in Europe.  Or Russia.  Which was taking the teachings of Marx and Engels to their logical end.  They had a worker’s revolution.  They became communist.  And forced that more fair, just and equitable society on their people.  Whether they wanted it or not.  And those who objected they systematically killed.  Or exiled to a Siberian gulag.  For Joseph Stalin’s rise to power was brutal.  As was the Soviet Union.  Even making a deal with Adolf Hitler to split Poland after the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland that launched World War II.  Then Hitler double-crossed their Soviet ally and attacked the Soviet Union.  And the Nazis nearly overran them.  The Nazis were in Leningrad (present day St. Petersburg).  At the gates of Moscow.  And in Stalin’s city.  Stalingrad.  The Soviets were unable to resist the Nazi onslaught.  The only thing that saved them was material aid from the capitalist West.  The Soviet T-34 tank (the best in the war).  And, of course, the millions of Soviet people the Soviet generals could throw into the Nazi killing machine to wear the Nazis down.

No one suffered like the Soviet people did during World War II.  The US and the UK each lost about a half million people.  A terrible loss.  The Soviets, though, lost about 25 million people.  A number that just numbs the mind.  This was the second Russian invasion that had brought an enemy to the gates of Moscow.  The first were the French a century earlier under Napoleon.  There wasn’t going to be a third.  Wherever their armies were at the end of World War II they pretty much stayed.  Turning Eastern Europe into a communist bloc.  And to make the Soviet Union a mightier nation they embarked on a rapid industrialization program.  To make it a modern power like those great nations in the West.  But unlike them they were going to do it the ‘smart’ way.  With their command economy.  Where their brilliant state planners would marshal their resources and do what the free market economies did in the west.  Only instead of taking about a century their Industrial Revolution would take only 5 years.

With no industrialists, entrepreneurs, small business owners or a middle class it fell upon the state planners to industrialize the Soviet Union.  As well as feed the Soviet people.  Well, they industrialized the Soviet Union.  But never brought it up to par with the industrialized West.  Worse, they couldn’t feed their people.  Despite having some of the most fertile farmland in all of Europe in the Ukraine.  The Soviet Union depended on the West for food.  Because their forced collectivized farms didn’t work like Marx and Engels said they would.  And they didn’t work in China, either.  Where another brutal communist dictator, Mao Zedong, killed tens of millions of his people by starving them to death.  By forcing a more fair, just and equitable society onto the Chinese.

Time Froze behind the Iron Curtain and People Lived pretty much Forever in the 1940s

At the end of World War II, like at the end of World War I, no one wanted to think about war anymore.  Winston Churchill, though, did.  For he saw what the Soviet Union was doing.  And saw the spread of their communism as a threat to Western Civilization.  He gave a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, in 1946.  And said, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.”  There was now an Eastern Europe.  An East Germany.  And an East Berlin.  All behind the Iron Curtain.  All in the Soviet sphere.  All communist.  Where they all suffered under a more fair, just and equitable society.  Whether they wanted it or not.  And they clearly did not.  For the Soviets had to build a wall in Berlin to prevent those in East Berlin from escaping to West Berlin.

The intellectuals, academia and labor leaders loved Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union.  They thought communism was the enlightened future.  Probably because they didn’t have to live in it.  But what is surprising is that a lot of college students have this affection with communism.  To this day they still wear t-shirts emblazed with the beret-wearing Che Guevara.   Who helped Fidel Castro bring that more fair, just and equitable society to the Cubans.  Who have been trying to escape it ever since by practically swimming to Florida and free market capitalism.  But the college students and their professors still yearn for a Soviet-style economy in the United States.  And condemn capitalism as they sit in coffee bars sipping their lattes.  Enjoying social media on their smartphones.  Wearing the latest fashions.  Enjoying the latest movies.  The newest music.  And dream of that more just society.  Where they redistribute wealth fairly and equitably.  And the rich pay their fair share.  Just like in East Berlin.  Where life was fair.  But it was nowhere as enjoyable as in the unfair West.

Time froze behind the Iron Curtain.  When West Berlin enjoyed the best Western Civilization had to offer in music, fashion, food, entertainment, etc., East Berlin didn’t.  For they were frozen in the 1940s.  Western music was decadent.  So instead of rock and pop music you listened to classical music.  Instead of the latest Hollywood movies you went to the ballet.  You didn’t watch Western television.  Read Western books.  Or newspapers.  No.  You only saw things approved by state censors.  And that were patriotic.  Why?  To prevent their people from seeing how much better life was on the other side of the Iron Curtain.  Where they enjoyed the latest and the best of everything.  Whereas inside the Iron Curtain you went to the black market for any real luxuries.  Like a pair of blue jeans.  Which they didn’t sell in East Berlin.  Because they were decadent.  Why, they wouldn’t even sell a t-shirt with a communist icon on it.  Because you just didn’t wear something like that in the 1940s.  But college kids will attack capitalism.  And support the fairness of socialism and communism.  Even though the things they enjoy come from free market capitalism.  And are simply not available in the communist command economy.  Because the accumulation of private property is the greatest sin of capitalism.  And not allowed under communism.


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

Even Democrats are Complaining about the High Cost of Government Workers Bankrupting their Cities and States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 29th, 2012

Week in Review

So who isn’t paying their fair share?  I know who you’re probably thinking.  And if you are you’re wrong.  For here it is direct from a Democrat mayor’s mouth (see Steven Malanga: How Retirement Benefits May Sink the States by STEVEN MALANGA posted 4/27/2012 on The Wall Street Journal).

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently offered a stark assessment of the threat to his state’s future that is posed by mounting pension and retiree health-care bills for government workers. Unless Illinois enacts reform quickly, he said, the costs of these programs will force taxes so high that, “You won’t recruit a business, you won’t recruit a family to live here.”

We’re likely to hear more such worries in coming years. That’s because state and local governments across the country have accumulated several trillion dollars in unfunded retirement promises to public-sector workers, the costs of which will increasingly force taxes higher and crowd out other spending. Already businesses and residents are slowly starting to sit up and notice…

Government retiree costs are likely to play an increasing role in the competition among states for business and people, because these liabilities are not evenly distributed. Some states have enormous retiree obligations that they will somehow have to pay; others have enacted significant reforms, or never made lofty promises to their workers in the first place.

Indiana’s debt for unfunded retiree health-care benefits, for example, amounts to just $81 per person. Neighboring Illinois’s accumulated obligations for the same benefit average $3,399 per person…

Back in Illinois, Dana Levenson, Chicago’s former chief financial officer, has projected that the average city homeowner paying $3,000 in annual property taxes could see his tax bill rise within five years as much as $1,400. The reason: A 2010 Illinois law requires municipalities to raise the funding levels in their pension systems using property tax revenues but no additional contributions from government employees. The legislation prompted former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in December to warn residents that the increases might be so high, “you won’t be able to sell your house.”

What was that about the 1%?  Just who is it living off of the generosity of the 99%?  Who isn’t paying their fair share?  And is asking others to pay far more than their fair share?  Who is it that has pension and retiree health care plans worth several trillions of dollars?  All funded by tax dollars from the 99%?  As well as the 1%?  Our government workers.  That’s who.  Those people who have made themselves more equal than the 99%.  Even though they claim to be a part of the 99%.  While living more like the 1%.  But one thing you can say about the 1%.  They’re not bankrupting their cities and states like these government workers are.  Or destroying our lives to pay for their lives.

You want to talk class warfare?  Let’s talk class warfare.  The richest 1% pay approximately 30% of all federal income taxes.  The richest 10% pay approximately 70% of all federal income taxes.  And we don’t pay any of these rich people with our taxes.  They get it however they get it.  But they don’t get it from us.  The taxpayers.  So they providing a huge net good for us.  Paying the lion’s share of taxes.  And not taking our money from us.  And yet these are the people that we vilify.  While those who are harming us the most get a free pass.  Now that’s some clever class warfare.  Making it sound like it’s the rich who are oppressing the middle class.  While it is the wealthy government class oppressing the middle class.  And they do it very well.  You’ll hear people everywhere say that the government should stick it to the rich.  But they never say a word about these government workers who live a better life than they do.  Even though they are paying for that better life.  Through ever higher taxes.

So when your property taxes go up think about your retirement plans.  And though you may not have much be comforted in the fact that your government workers do.  Thanks to you.  So even though you may not be able to travel the world in your retirement you’ll know that somewhere a retired government worker is.  Because that’s only fair.  And being fair is important.  Fair share sacrifice.  That’s all they want.  As long as, of course, your share of sacrifice is greater than theirs.  The wealthy government class.


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

FT114: “One of the most effective ways to get privilege is to force fairness on others.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Voters are so Greedy and Selfish with their Hard-Earned Money that they’re not going to Vote to be Subjugated

History is strewn with people oppressing others to gain privilege for themselves.  Kings, emperors and nobles were always a small minority of civilizations.  But they had the power.  And the wealth.  While the masses suffered abject poverty and went hungry.  Or suffered through famines.    And died.  With early civilizations this was just the way of life.  Because there was no middle class.  No free market capitalism.  And no rule of law.  Life was for the most part subsistence farming.  Where most ate only what they grew.  While the kings, emperors and nobles enjoyed lots of food and drink.  Even enjoyed having a little fun.  Unlike the impoverished masses.  Having privilege made life better.  Which is why the privileged worked hard to keep it.  By forcing others to work hard to provide that better life for them.

But times change.  Privileged ruling classes fall.  And middle classes rise.  Creating vibrant economies.  And representative government.  Then one day the privileged find that they are no longer privileged.  That wealth isn’t automatically theirs.  Instead it belongs to the people who earn that wealth.  And if the once-privileged want wealth then they, too, have to work to get it.  So they, too, can have nice things.  And that they can only have these things if they earned enough to afford them.  Which is a great problem if you don’t want to work.  Don’t have any ability to earn a high income.  Or if you have a feeling of entitlement.  Like in days of yore.  Where you didn’t need anything but a good last name to live the good life.  On the backs of those who didn’t live the good life.

Feelings of entitlement don’t die, though.  They don’t go away once the middle class starts sharing the wealth.  Well, not so much sharing it but earning it.  And keeping it.  Instead of giving it to a privileged ruling class.  Which poses a problem for those who aspire to join a ruling class.  Especially now that we have those pesky elections.  Because voters are so greedy and selfish with their hard-earned money that they’re not going to vote to be subjugated.  They’re not going to vote in a privileged ruling class so they can live like royalty.  While those who pay for that royal lifestyle don’t.  ‘Vote for me so I can live better than you’ is just not a winning political platform.  So that’s why politicians lie.

The Privileged Elite uses Class Warfare to take other People’s Wealth

What do you need to live a privileged life?  Lots of money.  No secret here.  But the secret is how to get that money.  In particular, how do those who don’t want to work or have no talent or have no ability create wealth?  Here’s the secret.  They don’t create wealth.  They take wealth.  By going into government.

Only government has the power to tax.  Which can be a great source of wealth.  Other people’s wealth.  Which is any privileged class’ second favorite kind of wealth.  Second only to the wealth they already took from others.  Because that’s what they want.  Other people’s wealth.  And they’ve found a clever way of taking it.  By making the world a fairer place.  And who’s against fairness?  They’re going to make sure that the poor and children have access to food and affordable housing.  And who’s against the poor?  The children?  You’d have to be a pretty vicious, heartless bastard to be against the children.  And the poor.  They’re going to make sure that women have access to reproductive health care.  For who hates women?  I’ll tell you who.  Anyone that opposes raising taxes.  They hate women.  Children.  The poor.  For the world is full of haters.  And just who are these haters?  Aanyone that earns a lot of money and doesn’t want to pay higher taxes.  These people hate anyone not as wealthy as they are.  Because they hate fairness.  And paying their fair share.  Because they’re greedy.  And hate women and children.  And puppies, too.

This is the way the privileged take other people’s wealth.  Class warfare.  And it’s very effective.  By being the party of the poor, disadvantaged, children, women and puppies, they’re kind and benevolent.  With other people’s money, of course.  But those people are evil so it’s okay.  People hate them.  But they like their kind government benefactors.  Who are looking out for their best interests.  Not rich people.  Or corporate profits.  No, our kind government benefactors make sure those greedy rich people and corporations pay their fair share.  Because that’s all that they want.  It’s all anyone wants.  To be fair.

North Korea is pretty much at the End of the Fairness Road

Later incarnations of the privileged ruling class used the fairness approach to give themselves a better life.  While oppressing their people.  Even killing them.  Through famine.  Or deliberate acts of violence.  All in the name of fairness.  And nothing better epitomizes this than communism.  Where everyone was equal.  Brothers.  Comrades.  There were no profits.  No capitalism.  No competitiveness.  No.  Everyone was equal.  They paid everyone the same.  They dressed everyone the same.  They housed everyone the same.  They fed everyone the same.  Very little.  For one thing you never saw in a communist country was obesity.  Instead you probably heard the rumbling of tummies as most people were hungry all of the time.  There was no income inequality.  No gender inequality.  No.  In communism they had nothing but equality.  Life was fair.  Because no one had anything more than anyone else.  As they perfectly distributed the misery and poverty equally among the impoverished masses.

That was for the masses.  It was quite a different thing for the privileged ruling elite.  Those in the party apparatchik.  And the inner party members themselves.  Who were more equal than others.  These people dressed better.  They had better housing.  Even cars.  They ate better.  Some so well that they grew obese.  North Korea suffers from recurring famines to this day but Kim Jong IL had a bit of a weight problem.  As his son does.  Kim Jong-un.  No, life is very good for the privileged ruling elite.  And hell for those living under them.  Who the ruling elite let die of hunger.  And send to concentration camps if they dare speak of their displeasure.  For only under communism is life fair.  And they just can’t risk the unhappy masses to spoil it for the privileged few.

North Korea is pretty much at the end of the fairness road.  The country is so poor and impoverished and hungry that people will risk their lives to try and escape this land of fairness.  To get somewhere that isn’t so fair.  Like South Korea.  Where they have capitalism.  And inequality.  Where someone can come with nothing, work hard and earn a better life.  Allowing them to pay for housing.  And put food in their rumbling bellies.  For a fair and oppressive government surely cannot.  All they can do is create great inequality between the people and the ruling class.  Far greater than that between the rich and poor in any capitalist country.  For the poor in countries like the UK, Canada and the United States are living far better than anyone outside the ruling elite in North Korea.  This is where the fairness road ends.  But it starts with class warfare.  Where a privileged few live the good life through high taxes.  Taxes they use to force fairness on others.  While those at the top manage that fairness.  Skimming a lot off the top of those taxes for themselves.  And what’s left they spend on the poor, disadvantaged, children, women and puppies.  Just enough to make sure the people love their very rich and wealthy government benefactors.  So they can win the next election.  At least while they still have to deal with those pesky elections.


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

FT93: “Those who don’t want to pay more taxes are greedy yet those who want more free benefits are not.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Income Gaps are a Bad Thing when our Own Income is at the Low End of the Gap

Greed is a tricky word.  A lot of people say it’s bad to be greedy.  And a lot of people believe that it is.  There is a level of wealth out there.  If you’re below it and you want more it’s okay.  You’re not greedy.  If you’re above it and you want more then shame on you.  Because you’re greedy.  But can you name that line of wealth?  Probably not.  Why?  Because it isn’t a fixed amount.  It moves.  And it’s relative.

You see, we judge wealth by comparing another’s wealth to our own.  Anyone wealthier than we are already has enough and should not object to paying more income taxes.  So these taxes can buy more free government benefits for those not as wealthy.  Namely ourselves.  So we can have more without having to work any harder to get it.  For we believe income gaps are a bad thing.  At least when our own income is at the low end of the gap.  And we believe the government should level the playing field.  Make things fairer.  By redistributing the income of those who already have enough.  To those of us who don’t.

At least that’s the mentality.  Because few people in the world would ever believe that they already have too much.  Even rock stars and professional athletes who have more wealth than most could ever imagine believe this.  Because neither continues to play for free after earning ‘enough’ wealth.  And neither would ever consider themselves greedy.

Wanting a Free College Education somehow isn’t Greedy

No one illustrates this better than the college student.  Fresh out of our public school system.  Where they’ve learned the evils of capitalism.  The fairness of socialism.  And the benevolence of Big Government.  These kids are all about equality.  Egalitarianism.  And sticking it to Big Business and corporate America.  All while enjoying their products.  Cell phones.  Cars.  Clothes.  iPods.  Air conditioning.  Heat.  The Internet.  Reality television.  To name but a few.

But life isn’t fair.  And favors the rich unfairly.  So they become politically active.  Vote the anti-capitalistic ticket.  And participate in the occasional protest.  Making it ever harder for Mom and Dad to foot the bill for their carefree life of self-discovery.  By voting for the party that raises their taxes.  But these kids don’t care.  Mostly because they don’t have a clue about the things they’re protesting.  But protesting is fun.  So they protest.  And, of course, because greed is bad.

But greed is relative.  And somehow their greed isn’t greed.  First of all, they’re going to college.  Why?  To make a lot of money.  Because they’re greedy and want the latest cell phone, car, style, iPod, etc.  They want all the best toys.  And party at all the best clubs.  But having that kind of money often requires a college education.  Which isn’t cheap.  And requires some sizeable student loans.  That they don’t want to repay.  Because it isn’t fair to burden new college graduates with the cost of their education.  And yet somehow this greed (wanting a free college education) isn’t greedy.

It’s Easy to Think of the Righteousness of Egalitarianism when you’re not Paying the Bills

College kids may think their parents are greedy for not wanting to pay more taxes.  For not believing in the righteousness of egalitarianism.  Like they do.  Then again, it’s easy to think that way when you’re not paying the bills.  It’s a whole different story when your bills don’t go to Mom and Dad anymore.

And if you got a high-paying job with that college degree you may lose even more of your brotherly love.  When you start paying your own bills.  You discover you can’t have everything you ever wanted simply by having a college degree.  And you make an even more startling discovery.  The more you earn the more the government takes in taxes.  And that just isn’t fair.  Now that you’re on the other side of that income gap.


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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #62: “The government’s great dilemma is that the middle class has both the money and the votes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2011

Figures don’t Lie but Liars Figure

Mark Twain said figures don’t lie but liars figure.  And there’s been a lot of that going around.  Lying.  Especially about taxes.  Where the rich just can’t catch a break.  They pay far more tax dollars than the poor/middle class.  Yet you wouldn’t know that based on the political rhetoric coming from the Left.  And the incessant drive to raise the top marginal tax rates.  To make the rich pay their ‘fair’ share.  Or punish them.  For being rich.  So we can lower the tax burden on the little guy.  The working class people struggling to put food on the table for their families.

Of course, anyone taking the time to crunch the numbers, or read a history book, will see something completely different.  And that the Left can only advance their agenda by lying.  Because people with a job want to keep their job.  And they see the Left’s agenda as anti-business.  And job killing.  Anytime you hear government talk about being ‘fair’ look out.  Chances are you are about to be screwed.  For their idea of fairness and equality is truly Orwellian.  The Left’s idea of equality is when they are more equal than everyone else.

So they champion the poor/middle class.  Say they are looking out for their interests.  But they’re not.  They just want their money.  And their votes.  So they’ll say whatever they think they want to hear.  Anything to maintain their positions in government.  The ruling elite.  And one of their most effective tools is class warfare.  At the heart of which is tax policy.

Taxing the Rich Transfers Tax Burden to the Middle Class

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about tax policy in America.  Everywhere, really.  You see, they’ve beaten it into our heads that the way to get the rich to pay their fair share is to increase their tax rates.  You do that and you transfer the tax burden from the poor/middle class to the rich.  The funny thing is, though, when you raise the tax rates on the rich the exact opposite happens.  You transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor/middle class.  How can this be, you ask?  Well, let me explain.

Consider two income examples.  Someone who makes $50,000 per year.  And someone who makes $1,000,000 per year.  Based on the 2008 tax tables (with a top marginal rate of 35%), the federal income tax each pays is approximately $16,980 and $454,000, respectfully.  Now, what do you notice about these numbers?  That’s right.  The $454,000 is a lot bigger than the $16,980.  It’s over 26 times the amount of taxes the person earning $50,000 pays.  Now think about that.  If only one more person becomes a millionaire (let’s say an entrepreneur quits his day job and creates the next great invention), the government will collect the same amount in taxes it would take from 26 new $50,000/year jobs added to the economy.  Let’s say 2 venture capitalists strike it rich and both become millionaires.  They would add the same tax revenue it would take 52 new $50,000/jobs to generate.  Three new millionaires = 78 new $50,000 jobs worth of taxes.  See a pattern?  The more millionaires there are paying taxes the less the poor/middle class have to pay in taxes.  Or, conversely, the fewer millionaires are paying taxes the more the poor/middle class have to pay.  So the more millionaires there are paying taxes, the more the tax burden transfers from the poor/middle class to the rich.

Well, based on that, the best thing we can do for the poor and middle class is to make as many millionaires as possible.  And how do you do that?  It’s pretty easy.  Sort of like a dog having puppies.  They already know how to do it.  They don’t need any special help.  All they need is for us to get out of their way.  And give them a business-friendly environment.  Where a small business owner will risk his or her life savings on that business to get rich.  Or a venture capitalist will risk his or her money on an untried entrepreneur with a really good idea to get rich.  And how do you get people to take risks and invest large sums of money?  By giving them a chance to get rich in the process.  And you don’t do that with high tax rates.  Because high tax rates increase the ‘cost’ of these investments.  And when the cost gets too high, they look for other things to do with their money.  If the return on investment is taxed to the point that they can make the same return without any risk, they won’t take any risk.  And just leave their money in the bank.

The more Millionaires we have the Less Taxes the Middle Class Pays

Of course this all makes good sense.  But bad politics.  Especially on the Left.  For they are all about fairness and redistribution of wealth on the Left.  And you can’t be fair and redistribute wealth unless you demonize the rich.  Because you have to take wealth from someone before you can redistribute it.  And who has wealth?  Why, the wealthy, of course.  Who are greedy.  Who don’t pay their fair share of taxes.  And profit by exploiting the poor/middle class.  Or so goes the liberal mantra.  So to show how much they care for the poor/middle class, they try to raise taxes on the rich.  By constantly trying to raise the top marginal rates.  Of course, as noted above, doing this actually hurts the poor/middle class.  By making them pay a much larger share of the total tax burden than the rich pays.  Let’s look at some numbers.

We keep hearing about this evil 1% who has the majority of the wealth in this country.  So let’s look at this by the numbers.  One percent is one in one hundred.  So let’s assume we have 100 taxpayers.  One millionaire who earns $1,000,000 per year.  Twenty ‘poor’ people earning $15,000 per year.  And 79 ‘middle class’ people earning $50,000 per year.  Based on the 2008 tax tables, the annual income tax each owes (going from poor to rich) is approximately $4,500, $17,000 and $454,000.  Their total tax contributions (in the same order) are approximately $91,000, $1,342,000 and $454,000.  Or, as a percent of the total, 4.8%, 71% and 24%.  Please note that it’s the middle class that pays the bulk of the tax burden (71%).  Even though they each pay only a fraction of what the millionaire pays.  Because one millionaire can pay only so much.  But the ‘fraction’ 79 middle class people pay adds up.  The sum total of their taxes equals approximately three times what that millionaire pays.  Which proves the point that the fewer millionaires there are the more the poor/middle class has to pay in taxes.

Now let’s say nine people prospered very well and moved from the middle class to the rich.  There are still 20 ‘poor’ people.  But with the 10 people that now earn $1,000,000 per year, there are now only 70 middle class people earning $50,000 per year.  This changes the total tax contributions (going from poor to rich) to approximately $91,000, $1,187,000 and $4,538,000.  Or, as a percent of the total, 1.6%, 20.4% and 78%.  Now the rich are paying the vast majority of all taxes (78%).  Which proves the point that the more millionaires there are the less the poor/middle class have to pay in taxes.

Figures don’t Lie but Liberals will Figure

Well, sure, you can use all your facts and figures to show things that make sense.  But making sense doesn’t necessarily apply in politics.  Because tax policy is a lot more than just funding the government.  It’s about winning elections.  And the one great dilemma in all of politics is this.  The people with the most money to tax are in the middle class.  Because of their numbers.  They may pay less per person than the rich but their numbers add up.  And they are the largest voting bloc.  Because of their numbers.  Which presents quite the problem.  Politicians want their money.  But if they take too much of it they may lose their votes.  So what to do?  You take their money.  While making it look like you’re punishing the rich.

The more government spends the greater this problem gets.  Deficits grow larger.  Which adds to the national debt.  Interest payments on that debt take up an ever larger part of the federal budget.  Add that to out of control growth of entitlement spending and what do you get?  A big problem.  And greater deficits.  Which are getting harder and harder to finance.  Soon you’re borrowing money to pay your borrowing costs.  You need cash.  Or you need to cut spending.  And you know you’re not going to do that.  Because cutting spending doesn’t help win elections.  So you look for more cash.  And you can’t go the easy route and just create more millionaires.  Not after demonizing them so much.  Doing that would be tantamount to saying you were wrong and/or lying all these years.  Besides, the anti-business environment currently in place doesn’t encourage any risk taking by the rich.  So they’re sitting on their money.  Which leaves the middle class.  So we start hearing code words.  Fair share sacrifice.  Tax the rich.  It’s not fair to give millionaires and billionaires tax breaks paid by the poor and middle class.  This means the poor/middle class is about to get screwed.  Either by higher taxes (or reduced tax breaks and credits).  Or they’re going to raise the top marginal tax rates which will transfer more of the tax burden from the rich to the poor/middle class.

Of course, screwing the poor/middle class is what it’s all about.  The Left uses them.  All of the time.  Through lies and deceit.  For our lives would be better if we had a lot more millionaires.  And less progressive tax rates.  That encouraged more economic activity.  And created more jobs.  But the liberal left could care less about that.  Based on the evidence.  And history.  When they run for office they run as moderates.  Because they know they can’t win elections running as liberals.  Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the Senate.  Yet when he ran some were comparing him to Ronald Reagan.  And you only lie like that for one reason.  To hide who you really are.  Tax and spend liberals.  Who have made the middle class the bank for their tax and spend policies.

So while figures don’t lie, liberals will figure.


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