Obama wants a Millionaire Tax to Pay for his Political Stimulus Bill and Shrink his Deficit

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 17th, 2011

Going Green is Just Another Excuse to Raise Taxes, Grow Government and Transfer more Wealth from the Private to the Public Sector

Big government has big ideas.  And big taxes to pay for them (see Crippling energy bills are YOUR fault, says Huhne as he claims families could treat themselves to a mini-break if they shopped around by Glen Owen and Jonathan Petre posted 9/17/2011 on the Daily Mail).

Utility price rises have pushed the average household energy bill to almost £1,300 a year, partly driven – as critics pointed out yesterday – by ‘green’ taxes imposed by Mr Huhne’s [Energy Secretary] department.

The stealth levies, introduced to fund Britain’s investment in wind and solar power, are costing families an average of £200 a year…

This represents an increase of between 15 and 20 per cent on the average domestic power bill. The money is being used to help fund the building of 10,000 wind turbines and the proposed installation of £7 billion worth of smart meters in homes.

To make your tomorrow better we will make your today worse.  You’re welcome.

Green energy may be good for the planet.  To combat ‘global warming’.  But it’s not good for your wallet.  Or purse.  And the kicker is this.  What kind of science is global warming based on?  Fraudulent science.  And if this doesn’t tell you why governments are pushing for green energy nothing will.

It’s about the money.  It always is.  And always was.  It’s another excuse to raise taxes.  To grow government.  And transfer more wealth from the private to the public sector.  So politicians can play god.  Which is something narcissists are wont to do.

Higher Tax Rates Discourage Growth, Deter Investment, Kill Jobs and Prolong Recessions

That was in the UK.  Over in the USA their government is going green, too.  Because there’s big money in going green.  They recently invested a half billion dollars in Solyndra.  President Obama visited the plant.  Vice President Joe Biden made a video clip praising those 1,000 new jobs.  That were permanent jobs.  And they were.  Right up to that mass layoff.  As the company went belly up this month.

But it was good while it lasted.  Throwing around such massive amounts of money.  Having the power to pick winners and losers.  It really strokes a narcissist’s ego.  Even if their winners turn out to be losers.  I mean, it’s not like they have to repay that half billion dollars.  They’ll just turn to the taxpayers for more taxes.  And blame the rich for not paying their fair share (see Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires by Jackie Calmes posted 9/17/2011 on The New York Times).

President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials…

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

We should note, though, that it’s not the size of the rate that matters.  But the pile of money that it taxes.  Someone earning $60,000 a year with a top marginal tax rate of 25% may pay a puny $11,000 in taxes.  But someone with a 15% tax rate on an investment return of $40 million will pay an obscene $6 million in taxes.

Now, in case you’re not good with math.  Or you are a liberal Democrat.  Let me help.  $6 million is more than $11 thousand.  A lot more.  About 54,000% more.  The rich person may pay a lower tax rate.  But he or she pays more tax dollars.  Way more.

The rich pay more.  The less-rich pay less.  The rich pay for benefits.  The less-rich consume benefits.  We take money from the rich.  And give to the less-rich.  Sounds like redistribution of wealth, doesn’t it?  So you can see this is less about paying your fair share of taxes then it is about redistributing wealth.  To garner more votes come election time.

The Obama proposal has little chance of becoming law unless Republican lawmakers bend. But by focusing on the wealthiest Americans, the president is sharpening the contrast between Republicans and Democrats with a theme he can carry into his bid for re-election in 2012…

Mr. Obama’s proposed Buffett Rule puts a new spin on that pitch, as he tries to put Republicans in Congress and in the presidential race on the defensive for their rigid stand against higher taxes.

Using class warfare for the 2012 election.  Why?  Because he sure can’t run on his record.  For his record sucks.  His economic policies have been a disaster.  And are on track to put us back into recession.

So he will employ this ploy.  To make the Republicans look like heartless bastards.  Protecting their rich patrons.  While the rest of the nation suffers the ravishes of the Obama recession.  A recession Obama blames, of course, on George W. Bush.  That rich Texan oilman.  Despite that Recovery Summer in 2010.  When he, Barack Obama, ended the Bush recession.

Mr. Obama has been citing Mr. Buffett as he promotes his $447 billion job-creation plan. He proposes to offset the cost of that plan and reduce future budget deficits through higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations after 2013, when the economy will presumably be healthier.

Ah, yes, his political stimulus bill.  That thing he calls the American Jobs Act.  Which no Congress person has yet to introduce into the House of Representatives.  Including no Democrat.  Which is telling.  Next year is an election year.  And the way this bill reeks of politics they want nothing to do with it.

Rich people invest their wealth.  They may buy corporate bonds.  Which will allow a business to grow.  Create jobs.  And you know nothing helps that process more than higher taxes.  You know, if you’re living in insanity land.

Higher tax rates don’t make economies healthier.  They make them sicker.  They discourage growth.  They deter investment.  They kill jobs.  And prolong recessions.  The economy will not be healthier in 2013.  Not with higher tax rates on the very people that can make it healthier.

Even Mr. Buffett probably paid a higher effective rate than he claimed, Mr. Mankiw [an economics professor at Harvard] added, because much of his income came from corporate income that had been taxed before it was paid out to individuals.

That’s right.  The money Mr. Buffet earns on his investment?  Uncle Sam already taxed it.  At the corporate income tax rate.  His tax is the second tax paid on those earnings.  Which begs the question how much is enough?  How much of our money is enough for the government?  And the answer is no matter what we pay it will never be enough.

The Danger of Raising Taxes on the Rich is that it doesn’t Address the Problem of Excessive Spending

We pay enough in taxes.  In fact, we pay too much.  The government is just spending too much.

The problem is baseline budgeting.  And tax and spend liberalism.  Not only are they spending a lot today but they will be spending even more tomorrow.  More programs.  More benefits.  Guaranteed.  At least they’re guaranteed as long as we continue to use baseline budgeting.  Where this year’s budget is last year’s budget plus more.  Automatically.

And this is the danger of raising taxes on the rich.  It doesn’t address the problem.  This excessive spending.  In fact it facilitates it.  Like an addiction.  Which means they will make this argument forever.  As they have forever.  The problem is this.  There will never be enough taxes.  Not to sustain continuous increases in spending.  Which we will always have.  As long as we continue to use baseline budgeting.  And continue to elect liberal Democrats.

If the current system favors the rich then here’s a novel idea.  Tax the less-rich at the rich tax rates.  Then everyone pays their ‘fair’ share.  But what about government you may ask.  How will they get by on less?  Well, that’s easy.  They can ask any one of us.  Because we’ve been doing it for years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Electric Cars and Wind-Generated Power – A Giant leap backward for Mankind

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 31st, 2011

Electric Cars don’t Like the Cold and Snow

There have been some big snow storms hammering the U.S. and the U.K.  Huge snow falls have snarled traffic this past Wednesday in the Washington area.  Not exactly Nome Alaska or Fargo North Dakota.  But it still turned rush hour traffic commutes into parking lots.  Cold parking lots.  Unless you had an internal combustion engine, that is.  And most people did as it turns out.  Lucky for them.  For if they had electric cars, they would have been waiting outside for a tow home.  Or walking home.  Because batteries don’t work well in the cold weather (see Cold truths about electric cars’ cold-weather shortcomings by Charles Lane posted 1/28/2011 on The Washington Post).

It is a basic fact of physical science that batteries run down more quickly in cold weather than they do in warm weather, and the batteries employed by vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf or the Chevy Volt are no exception.

The exact loss of power these cars would suffer is a matter of debate, partly because no one has much real-world experience to draw on. But there would be some loss. Running the heater to stay warm, or the car radio to stay informed, would drain the battery further.

If you want to understand some of the science, here’s some of that science:

“All batteries deliver their power via a chemical reaction inside the battery that releases electrons. When the temperature drops the chemical reactions happen more slowly and the battery cannot produce the same current that it can at room temperature. A change of ten degrees can sap 50% of a battery’s output. In some situations the chemical reactions will happen so slowly and give so little power that the battery will appear to be dead when in fact if it is warmed up it will go right back to normal output.

So think of this the next time your wife is about to start her commute home during the next snow storm.  And then imagine this.  She gets home okay.  Barely.  But you’ve lost your electrical power.  So you can’t plug in your car to recharge.

And many electric-car drivers who did manage to limp home Wednesday would have been out of options the next day: You can’t recharge if you don’t have electricity, and hundreds of thousands of customers were blacked out Thursday from the snow. The Post reports that this will be the case for many of them for days.

An internal combustion engine, though, could start up the next morning.  Because cold weather doesn’t affect them as much as they do batteries.  So if you had to go out for groceries or medicines, your internal combustion engine could get you where you had to go.  Even to a gas station if you needed to fill your tank to give you the range to drive somewhere that had electrical power and open stores.

Wind can be Fickle when it comes to Generating Power

Yeah, but, come on, what are the odds of this happening?  For the most part, batteries are reliable.  Electrical power is reliable.  The chance of losing power after ‘going green’ is so rare that it is statistically insignificant.

All right, let’s forget about driving a car in rush hour traffic in a snowstorm with the heater and your lights on.  Because that rarely ever happens.  Let’s look at wind-generated electrical power.  Like in the U.K.  They’ve added quite a few wind farms.  And they’re providing a rising percentage of their total electrical generation.  And, in a recent cold snap, the wind stopped blowing.  And the windmills stopped turning (see Customers face huge bill for wind farms that don’t work in the cold by Tom McGhie posted 1/9/2011 on the Daily Mail).

In the last quarter ending December 23, wind turbines produced on average 8.6 per cent of our electricity, but the moment the latest bad weather arrived with snow and freezing temperatures, this figure fell to as low as 1.8 per cent.

The slack was immediately taken up by efficient, but dirty, coal-fired power stations and oil-fired plants.

That dirty, filthy, nasty coal and oil no doubt meant the difference between life and death for some.  Why?  Because they’re reliable.  The wind doesn’t have to blow and the sun doesn’t have to shine.  They will always be there.  And this is why they serve as backup to wind generated power.  Because coal and oil are more reliable than wind.

So little energy was generated then that the National Grid, which is responsible for balancing supply and demand of energy in the UK, was forced to ask its biggest users – industry – to ration supplies.

So you may not be able to turn on your lights when you get home.  Cook.  Or run your heat.  But you’ll be saving the planet.  Sure, you may kill yourself in the process, but at least you’ll feel good.  For saving the planet.  By being so green.  As you turn blue.

Only Fossil Fuels can Walk it like they Talk It

There will be some sacrifice going green.  Some could even die (if their electric car battery dies during a blizzard before they get home from Grandma’s).  Or you may have found Grandma shivering in the cold because the wind wasn’t blowing that day.  Muttering to herself about the good old days when we burned coal.  And stayed warm.

When it comes down to it, fossil fuels are life.  Renewable energy sources might give us a brief respite from fossil fuels.  But when anything happens with those renewable energy sources, guess who we go running back to?  That’s right.  Fossil fuels.  And it’s time we stop demonizing the great life-giver of civilization.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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