A Large Majority of People polled want Tax Reform to make Tax Code Simpler and Fairer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2014

Week in Review

People fear the IRS.  (Oh, by the way, happy tax day.)  The IRS targeting of conservative groups to silence the opposition has been chilling to say the least.  But the tax code is so convoluted that it takes an army of accountants and tax lawyers to comply.  Easy for the big corporations.  But a nightmare for small business.  For complying is costly.  And tax audits are about as enjoyable as a colonoscopy the hard way.  Without anesthetic.  Creating a great disincentive for people to become small business owners.  Which hurts us all.  For small businesses are the number one job creator in the country.

So a simpler and friendlier tax code would go a long way to create economic growth.  And an IRS less like the Gestapo or KGB would make a lot of small business owners sleep easier at night.  And encourage more people to take the plunge and start a small business.  A majority of people polled in a NAM poll agree.  And believe the time for serious tax reform is now (see New NAM Poll Says Voters Want Candidates Who Support a Simpler Tax Code posted 4/14/2014 on National Association of Manufacturers).

•Over 76 percent of voters will be more likely to favor a candidate who supports comprehensive tax reform.

•Nearly 73 percent of respondents support comprehensive reform to make the tax code simpler and fairer, even if their personal tax burden remains the same.

•An overwhelming majority, 85 percent, believe it is important that Congress and the President put aside partisanship to enact comprehensive tax reform.

We know why the Democrats don’t want to reform the tax code.  For having that power did wonders to silence the opposition during the 2012 presidential campaign.  Allowing President Obama to win reelection with 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.  And having the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  So when their only campaign strategy is to attack and intimidate the opposition because their policies have failed it comes in handy to have a political force at your disposal to put the fear of God into your opponents.  Especially when you can place that political force above the law.  Which it apparently is based on no one being punished for said targeting of conservative groups.

But the people may be tiring of the same failed Democrat policies.  It’s been over 5 years and the economy is still horrible.  Some 10 million people have left the labor force since President Obama took office.  If you add these people to those the BLS counts as unemployed the unemployment rate (at the end of February) would be 13.7%.  Not 6.7% as officially reported.  So there is a lot of dissatisfaction out there.  At least among those who want a job.  And those who do and are paying ever more taxes with nothing to show for it.  So they may vote for the candidate promising tax reform this fall.  Even if it means voting Republican.  As the oppressive IRS is now forever tied to the Democrat Party thanks to their targeting of conservative groups.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Preventing Future IRS Scandals is as Easy as Changing the Tax Code

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 30th, 2013

Politics 101

The Tea Party was the Driving Force in returning the House of Representatives to the Republicans

The IRS is very powerful.  It can seize your property.  It can throw you in jail.  It can ruin your life.  There is no other arm of the government honest people fear more.  Because it is so powerful.  America did away with debtor’s prison.  Because it was inhuman to jail a person over a debt.  Unless you owe it to the federal government.  Then all of that compassion goes out of the window.

The recent scandal of the IRS targeting conservative groups is especially chilling.  For the Tea Party was the driving force in returning the House of Representatives to the Republicans.  Infuriating the Democrats.  As well as the Obama administration.  When President Obama ran for reelection in 2012 he had little to run on.  The economy was horrible.  No one was talking about Obamacare because the majority of Americans don’t want it.  It was so bad that the Democrat president had to highlight his single national security achievement—killing Osama bin Laden—while ignoring his domestic policy achievement.  Obamacare.

Then Benghazi threatened to ruin everything.  An attack on an American mission that killed four Americans.  Including a serving ambassador.  Making matters worse was that it was an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group that was responsible for it.  This did not play well with the campaign message.  ‘Osama bin Laden is dead.  And General Motors is alive.’  President Obama had already won the War on Terror.  So he couldn’t have a terrorist attack during his reelection campaign.  So they hit the Sunday morning talk shows and said there was an anti-Muslim video on YouTube that created a spontaneous uprising.  Where average Libyans on the street then pulled out rocket propelled grenades and mortar launchers from their back pockets.  And launched a military assault on the American mission.

The IRS silenced the Tea Party during the 2012 Election by Harassing them and their Donors

You don’t hear much about the YouTube video anymore.  During the 2012 reelection campaign, though, both the president and the secretary of state pushed it hot and heavy.  Even apologized for it in a video to play in Pakistan.  And arresting the obscure filmmaker on some other charge.  And it worked.  Benghazi faded into the background.  Despite the Obama administration denying the American ambassador additional security.  And issuing a stand-down order for forces that could have gone to help the Americans under attack.  This order coming about 7 hours BEFORE the last two Americans died.  To this day we don’t know who gave that stand-down order.  And we don’t know where the president was when all of this was unfolding in Libya.

But it worked.  The misinformation spun from the White House won the president a second term.  And people started talking about what the Republicans had to do to start appealing to women and Hispanics.  For the early postmortem said that was why the Republicans lost.  They turned off women and Hispanics.  But something was wrong with that conclusion.  Because the conservative base didn’t turn out on Election Day.  That’s why the Republicans lost.  To explain that some said the problem was that Mitt Romney wasn’t a true conservative.  And he turned off true conservatives.  But that doesn’t make sense, either.  Because Romney may not have been the most conservative Republican to run for president but next to President Obama the man was practically Ronald Reagan.  There had to be some other reason why conservatives didn’t turn out like they did in the 2010 midterm elections that returned the House to the Republicans.

That was the million dollar question.  What happened to the Tea Party?  Who were so instrumental in turning out conservatives to vote in the 2010 midterm elections.  It’s as if they sat out the 2012 election.  For we didn’t hear their voice like we heard it in 2010.  And now we have a plausible explanation for that.  The IRS.  They delayed and made it so difficult to get their 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status that some just gave up trying.  Finding themselves and their donors getting IRS audits both for their businesses and their personal returns.  As well as other arms of the federal government auditing them from the Department of Labor to the EPA.

Everyone wins with a more Simplified Tax Code except those in Power who use it to Attack their Political Enemies

Did the White House coordinate this?  We don’t know.  Yet.  The IRS commissioner visited the White House 151 times.  While his predecessor visited the Bush White House about 1 time.  So that looks suspicious.  And silencing the Tea Party did help the president win reelection.  For silencing the Tea Party sure didn’t help Mitt Romney.  So it looks probable that the Obama administration used the nonpartisan IRS to attack their political enemies.  As they were determined not to suffer another Tea Party uprising like that which lost them the House of Representatives in 2010.  Right now the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning.

This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  That was the point of limited government.  So it didn’t have this kind of power over people it perceived as political enemies.  And the source of this power is the complex and convoluted tax code.  That serves those in power better than the people they serve.  Allowing them to reward friends and punish their enemies.  One would almost have to believe the reason why the current administration ran the deficit up to record highs is to further empower the IRS.  By creating the need for ever more tax revenue.  And the need for more strenuous collection efforts.  Not to mention using the tax code to facilitate a permanent state of class warfare.  For the government needs this complex and convoluted tax code to make sure the rich pay their fair share.  As well as using it to reward their friends.  And punish their enemies.

So perhaps it’s time to revamp the tax code.  Some are talking about it.  As they always do.  But there is so much resistance because of the power the tax code gives those in power.  And those in power quickly shoot down any talk about a flat tax or a national sales tax as being unfair.  Regressive.  Hitting low-income earners harder than the rich.  But perhaps this is exactly what we need.  So everyone feels the pinch of the taxman.  So people won’t be so quick to give the taxman more powers.  Because a lot of low-income people don’t stay low-income.  And one of the quickest ways of raising low-income earners out of poverty is with a better and stronger economy.  And there is one thing that does that better than anything else in the world.  Low tax rates.  So let’s take a look at different tax plans for a married couple filing jointly.

Federal Taxes Current Brackets Flat Tax National Sales Tax

(For the national sales tax we assumed everything above a certain savings rate is spent somewhere in the economy.  Those who earn more can save more.  In our example the saving rates are 1%, 8%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30 %.)

Those earning only $15,000 will pay more under a flat tax or a national sales tax.  But the IRS becomes far less intrusive and far less powerful.  Because it will be so much simpler.  Giving honest people less to fear about.  And giving those in power less power to attack their political enemies.  Making it harder for them to cheat during elections.

Also, lower tax rates will bring money sheltered outside of the country back home. Which those rich people will invest here.  To get even richer.  And probably end up paying more taxes than they were before.  Because they won’t have any need to shelter it.  While all the new jobs they create will increase tax revenue further.  Because there will be more people working and paying taxes.  So everyone will win with a more simplified tax code.  Except, of course, those in power who use the tax code to attack their political enemies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Marriage, Babies and Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2013

Politics 101

The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies

It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work.  To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in.  In a nice neighborhood with good schools.  After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child.  And the other children they have.  While the husband continues to work.

The women’s movement changed that.  It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead.  Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible.  To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers.  But it doesn’t always work that way.  Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child.  Deciding not to return to work.  Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children.  And not dump them into daycare.

This, of course, causes problems for employers.  Making it more risky to hire women.  Especially in this litigious world.  They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves.  And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities.  Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.).  For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees.  And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government.  If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee.  And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities.  Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.

In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support

This can be a reason why men earn more than women.  Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent.  It happens.  But not as often as it happens with women.  Because women have a biological clock ticking.  Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans.  For a woman has to leave work to have a child.  And to recover from the birth.  Men don’t.  Their lives can go on with little change.  And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child.  Which is a powerful force.  Mothers are very protective of their babies.  And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.

Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget.  For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home.  Forcing the new family to get by on less.  Government understands this.  And they design the tax code to help families raise children.  Because the government needs people to have babies.  And they need them to have more than two.  For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow.  These children will only replace their parents.  Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population.  But having more than two children is very expensive.  Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code.  To help offset the high cost of having children.  So they will have more children.

And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families.  Such as the baby’s last name.  A woman may hyphenate her name when married.  But you can’t do that with children.  For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check.  Put on a nametag.  Tradition has the father being the financial provider.  As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy.  He can keep working.  And providing.  So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life.  And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child.  Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children.  Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important.  Raise their children.  But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.

If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone

The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children.  Having children came first.  People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools.  Then civilization advanced.  The economy grew more complex.  This advanced civilization was costly.  Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children.  Governments and business help families have and raise children.  For we need families to have and raise children.  Businesses need an expanding population.  For a business needs more people to grow.  To buy the goods and services of their expanding business.  Just as government needs an expanding population.  To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government.  An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy.  And a growing and more generous government.  Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.

Men and women have married without raising a family.  Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children.  Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit.  Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  And it’s the same for government.  A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage.  The woman doesn’t leave the workforce.  She builds her career and earns more income.  Providing more tax revenue.  But there is no long-term benefit.  For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them.  So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.

Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least.  For marriage is not about civil rights.  It’s about lowering the cost of raising children.  Which both business and government needs.  For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand.  And it will age.  Making it more costly for government.  While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses.  A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive.  And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman.  From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy.  They will not lower the future cost of government.  And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name.  As they can’t procreate.

If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage.  During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love.  And these people lived together flaunting convention.  And tradition.  Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements.  These marriage-less committed relationships.  Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left.  If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world.  And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples.  If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone.  Then they could have everything they want.  The free love of the sexual revolution.  Low taxes.  And no reason to get married.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 3rd, 2013

Politics 101

Over 99.5% of all Rich People ARE paying Federal Income Taxes

President Obama won reelection by denigrating Mitt Romney.  He didn’t win by running on a successful record.  He did not win by running on a plan to pull the economy out of one of the worst recoveries in history.  No.  He won it by getting people to hate Mitt Romney.  And by getting people to hate Republicans.  Who they painted as evil rich people who want nothing more than tax cuts for the rich.  And to take away birth control and abortion so only rich people can have access to them.  As well as taking welfare benefits from the poor.  It’s called class warfare.  And it can be very effective.  For it won President Obama a second term despite a horrible first term by almost any metric you measure it.  At least based on the majority of the electorate that just believed the rich aren’t paying their fair share.  So let’s just see who is paying what (see Table 3.  Number of Individual Income Tax Returns, Income, Exemptions and Deductions, Tax, and Average Tax, by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Years 2001-2010).

The above chart shows who are NOT paying any federal income tax.  Approximately 40% of all taxpayers.  Are these the evil rich people like Mitt Romney?  And those rich Republicans?  No.  Contrary to the Left, it’s not the rich.  They’re paying their taxes.  It’s the poor and the middle class not paying their fair share.  Those earning $5,000 and less pay virtually no federal income taxes.  Over 80% of those earning from $5,000 to $13,000 pay no federal income taxes.  You have to get up to those earning $25,000 or more before more than half of that income group pays any federal income taxes.

We don’t see who actually pays the majority of federal income taxes until we get into the middle class.  Where those who DON’T pay any federal income taxes rapidly drop away.  Those at the low end of the middle class taking advantage of the tax code to maximize their tax credits and deductions (mortgage interest, energy tax credit, medical and dental Expenses, child and dependent care credit, etc.) to reduce their tax bill.  While those at the higher end of the middle class are likely small business owners suffering a business loss.  Or a personal or business bankruptcy.  Approximately 0.8% of those earning $100,000 – $200,000 pay no federal income taxes.  While less than half of one percent of those earning $200,000 or more pay no federal income taxes.  Perhaps this tiny sliver of income earners are not paying their fair share.  But one thing for certain is that over 99.5% of all rich people ARE paying federal income taxes.

Those earning $1,000,000 and more account for less than 1% of Tax Exemptions and Deductions

So are the rich taking advantage of the tax code to reduce their taxable income and federal tax bill?  We hear a lot about tax loopholes.  Those perfectly legal tax credits and deductions written into law by the United States Congress.  That both those on the Left and those on the Right take advantage of.  Yet those on the Left have convinced enough of the electorate that these legal credits and deductions are tax evasion.  And that only the rich on the Right are using these to evade paying their fair share.  So who is taking the biggest advantage of the tax code to reduce their tax bill?  In 2010 this totaled about $3 trillion.  Is this why those earning $100,000 or more paid no income tax?  For those few not paying any federal income tax?  Not exactly.  (The dollar amounts in the following charts are in thousands of dollars.)

In 2010 taxpayers claimed in total about $3 trillion in exemptions and deductions.  The deficit in 2010 was about $1.3 trillion dollars.  So perhaps this is the reason why we had a deficit in 2010.  This is what the Left would have us believe.  It’s those tax loopholes that the evil rich take advantage of to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.  The only problem with this is that it’s not the rich taking advantage of these tax loopholes.  It’s the poor and middle class.

Those earning $1,000 and less account for less than 1% of these exemptions and deductions.  Those earning $1,000,000 and more also account for less than 1% of these exemptions and deductions.  It’s those earning from $1,000 to $1,000,000 that are taking advantage of these tax loopholes.  Especially those earning from $50,000 to $200,000.  The only income groups claiming 10% or more of the nearly $3 trillion in exemptions and deductions claimed.  So not only are the evil rich paying federal income taxes whatever they claim as exemptions and deductions doesn’t even come close to what the poor and middle class are claiming.

Prosperous Economic Times brought about by Tax Cuts INCREASED Tax Revenues

These numbers don’t exactly support the claim that the rich aren’t paying their fair share.  They’re paying federal income taxes.  And what tax loopholes they exploit hardly makes a dent in the amount of tax revenue the IRS collects.  Which can only mean one of two things.  Either the poor and middle class need to pay more federal income taxes.  Or the federal government is just spending too much.  Well, as we just witnessed in the fiscal cliff debate, President Obama and the Left want to raise taxes.  Blaming the record Obama deficits on the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.  Their deal includes higher income tax rates on households earning $450,000 or more.  But NO spending cuts.  Which will be a problem.

In 2010 the total adjusted gross income totaled just over $8 trillion.  Most of which came from 4 income groups.  About a trillion each from those earning from $50,000 to $75,000, from $75,000 to $100,000 and from $200,000 to $500,000.  Those earning from $100,000 to $200,000 earned in total almost $2 trillion.  Which means the new higher tax rates aren’t going to bring in much new tax revenue.  Because they aren’t taxing the people with the money.  The middle class.  And with some additional spending instead of spending cuts the deficit will only grow larger.  So this whole fiscal cliff debate was nothing but theatre.  For it wasn’t about deficit reduction.  It was about politics.

The Left wants to destroy the Republican Party.  And to do that they need to turn prosperous economic times brought about by the tax cuts of the JFK, Reagan and Bush administrations into the source of all our problems.  Yes the economy boomed, goes the argument, but at what cost?  Massive deficits.  Deficits not brought about by tax cuts.  But by spending.  For those prosperous economic times brought about by tax cuts INCREASED tax revenues.  The deficits resulted from spending increases greater than the revenue increases.  But with a successful campaign of class warfare they have revised history.  Those deficits are now the result of the rich not paying their fair share.   Which helped them increase tax rates on the rich today.  Because the Left got everyone to hate the rich.  And the Republican Party.  Even though the rich are the only ones paying their fair share.  In fact, they’re paying more than their fair share.  But the majority of the electorate doesn’t know this.  Because of that successful campaign of class warfare.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

New Zealand, Denmark, Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada are the top 5 Countries for Business

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2012

Week in Review

Once upon a time the United States was the place to be if you wanted to go into business.  It was once so business-friendly in the United States that they overtook one of the world’s greatest empires.  The British Empire.  And caused great concern and consternation in Europe with their growing economic prowess.  As American became the world’s greatest economic power.

But those days are gone now.  When George W. Bush was president the US was still the best place in the world to run a business.  But in President Obama’s first year in office we slipped to the number two spot.  In 2010 we fell to number 10.  And in 2012 we slid even further to number 12.  And with President Obama winning a second term things aren’t likely to improve.  For President Obama is clearly not as good as George W. Bush.  Who kept America the number one place to do business in the world (see New Zealand Tops Our List Of The Best Countries For Business by Kurt Badenhausen posted 11/14/2012 on Forbes).

The U.S. continues to lose ground against other nations in Forbes’ annual look at the Best Countries for Business. The U.S. placed second in 2009, but it has been in a steady decline since. This year it ranks 12th, down from No. 10 last year. The U.S. trails fellow G-8 countries Canada (No. 5), United Kingdom (No. 10) and Australia (No. 11).

Corporate taxes continue to put a damper on American businesses…

It is not just the rate that hinders the U.S., but also the complexity of the tax code. The typical small or medium-size business requires 175 hours a year to comply with U.S. tax laws, according to the World Bank. Overall the U.S. ranks 55th out of the 141 countries we examined in terms of its tax regime. The world’s biggest economy at $15.1 trillion, it also scores poorly when it comes to trade freedom and monetary freedom.

New Zealand ranks first on our list of the Best Countries for Business, up from No. 2 last year, thanks to a transparent and stable business climate that encourages entrepreneurship. New Zealand is the smallest economy in our top 10 at $162 billion, but it ranks first in four of the 11 metrics we examined, including personal freedom and investor protection, as well as a lack of red tape and corruption…

We determined the Best Countries for Business by grading 141 nations on 11 different factors: property rights, innovation, taxes, technology, corruption, freedom (personal, trade and monetary), red tape, investor protection and stock market performance…

Ranking second on our list is Denmark, on the strength of its technology, trade freedom and property rights…

Hong Kong ranks third. Its economy, highly dependent on international trade and finance, remains one of the most vibrant in the world. Credit one of the world’s lowest tax burdens and a high level of monetary freedom…

Singapore comes in at No. 4, ranking in the top 20 in all but one of the 11 metrics we measured…

Canada slid from the top of the rankings in 2011 to No. 5 this year, losing ground on innovation and technology… However Canada remains among the best countries in the world when it comes to trade freedom, investor protection and the ease of starting a new business.

Congratulations New Zealand, Denmark, Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada.  You are the 5 best in the world.  Perhaps one day the US can emulate the great things you are doing.  For we have lost our way.  Let’s hope that you don’t, too.

If there was any further proof that we need to reform our tax code this is it.  Tax compliance costs are sucking capital out of our businesses.  And hindering economic growth.  As evidenced by one of the worst economic recoveries of all time.  There’s a reason for this.  It’s the tax code.  And costly regulatory compliance costs.  Which does not encourage entrepreneurship.  But kills it.  For with today’s red tape you need an army of tax accountants and tax lawyers to start up a business.  Which doesn’t exactly encourage someone with a great idea to spend their life’s savings to go into business.

With another 4 years of pushing America down the list expect one of the worst economic recoveries of all time become even worse.  For this is not a climate to create jobs.  Expect continued high levels of unemployment.  And a worsening of the economy.  For we ain’t seen anything yet.  As President Obama told Russian president Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”  Which means he’ll be able to do what he really wants to do in the next four yours.  Which means the first four years were as good as it’s going to get.  And it probably won’t get that good again.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

If Taxing the Rich won’t Reduce the Deficit then it’s not Tax Reform, it’s Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 25th, 2011

The Rich are Paying Far More in Taxes than People like Warren Buffet’s Secretary

It’s tax reform.  It’s not tax reform.  They may not have their story straight.  But this much we know.  Obama’s Warren Buffett tax will do nothing for deficit reduction.  But it sure will fan the flames of class warfare (see WH self-contradicts, admits tax hikes arent reform by Joel Gehrke posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

President Obama and White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe have adopted contradictory rhetoric regarding  President Obama’s proposed tax increases, which the president has touted as “tax reform…”

Plouffe responded that “the president would like to do tax reform . . . But absent tax reform,  the president believes the right way to get our fiscal house in order is to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.”

So according to Plouffe, raising taxes isn’t tax reform.  It’s to punish the rich.  That’s what making them ‘pay their fair share’ means.  Even though, right now, they’re paying more than their fair share.  Far more.  (More on that later.)  Obama, though, sees it differently.  And the way he sees it punishing the rich is reforming the tax code.

When two people can’t get their story street it typically means one thing.  They’re lying.  And can’t keep their stories straight.

Now, the Republicans say they’re in favor of tax reform.  Let’s go.  Let’s reform this tax code.  And let’s reform it based on a very simple principle:  Warren Buffett’s secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. It’s a simple principle.

Why not?  Warren Buffett is still paying more tax dollars.  The rich are paying far more in taxes than people like Warren Buffet’s secretary.  So why keep saying this?  Can be for only one reason.  To punish the rich.  And to show the people that you want to vote for you that you’re punishing the rich.

Wallace pointed out to Plouffe that “the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 46 percent of households pay no federal income tax at all.” Plouffe countered that “you can manipulate the statistics in any way you want,” and also said that “they are making a ton of money” while “we have inequities,” presumably in the tax code. And then Plouffe offered what would qualify as an argument for tax reform, except that Plouffe is admittedly not pushing for tax reform:

The American people are screaming out saying it’s unfair that the wealthiest, the largest corporations who can afford the best attorneys, the best accountants, take advantage of these special tax treatments that the lobbyist have, along with lawmakers, have cooked in the books here. So, the question is: how are we going to move forward as a country?

Wallace interjected, “Because 70% isn’t enough?”

For tax revenue?  Yes.  That 70% should be enough.  Perhaps too much.  But for class warfare?  No.  Because there’s a lot more money they can take from the rich.  And the more they take the more votes they gain from that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

It’s not that the President is Losing White Independents.  It’s just that Blacks Refuse to Give Up on Obama.

So why the class warfare?  Because it’s election time.  And when you don’t have a good record you don’t win reelections running on that record.  So you don’t.  Instead, you go class warfare.  Pit one group against the other.  Find narrow slices of the population that you can turn against your political opposition.  And, if you get enough of these slivers, you may just have a chance at reelection.  Despite your horrible record while in office (see Obama 2012 campaign’s Operation Vote focuses on ethnic minorities, core liberals by Peter Wallsten posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Post).

President Obama’s campaign is developing an aggressive new program to expand support from ethnic minority groups and other traditional Democratic voters as his team studies an increasingly narrow path to victory in next year’s reelection effort.

The program, called “Operation Vote,” underscores how the tide has turned for Obama, whose 2008 brand was built on calls to unite “red and blue America.” Then, he presented himself as a politician who could transcend traditional partisan divisions, and many white centrists were drawn to the coalition that helped elect the country’s first black president.

The problem is that Obama is about as partisan as they come.  That’s why the tide has turned against him.  A lot of people hated George W. Bush.  And thought Obama was going to bring in the love.  Make the country as a whole link arms and sing Kumbaya.  But that hasn’t happened.

He spent more than George W. Bush.  Giving us record deficits.  And he keeps blaming his spending on the rich not paying their fair share of taxes.  The people see what’s going on, though.  They’re not blind.  It’s his spending.  Not a lack of taxes.  And all that spending hasn’t done a thing to help the economy.  The economy was, after all, far better under George W. Bush.  So they’re seeing the same old tax and spend liberal.  Not the candidate that was going to get us all to link arms and sing Kumbaya.

But not everyone is turning against this president.  The blacks haven’t turn on him.  They would have but for one reason.  He’s black.  The black community is furious with him.  But they still can’t abandon him.  As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Maxine Waters, said in Detroit.  “If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us. When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us and you’re ready to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation,” Waters said.

Today, the political realities of a sputtering economy, a more polarized Washington and fast-sinking presidential job approval ratings, particularly among white independents, are forcing the Obama campaign to adjust its tactics.

Operation Vote will function as a large, centralized department in the Chicago campaign office for reaching ethnic, religious and other voter groups. It will coordinate recruitment of an ethnic volunteer base and push out targeted messages online and through the media to groups such as blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, seniors, young people, gays and Asian Americans.

It’s not that the president is losing white independents.  It’s just that blacks refuse to give up on Obama and join the exodus from him.

When you’ve been a poor president.  When your policies have made things worse.  There’s only one thing you can do.  You do everything to divide the American people.  Drive wedges.  Find reasons.  Why blacks should hate Republicans.  Why Hispanics should hate Republicans.  Why women should hate Republicans.  Why seniors should hate Republicans.  Why young people should hate Republicans.  Why gays should hate Republicans.  Why Asians should hate Republicans.

When you have failed you become what you said you weren’t.  Or stop pretending to be something you never were.  And you incite hatred.  Fan the fires of class warfare.  You pursue policies that further divide the American people.  Even if those policies hinder the economic recovery.

The campaign officials say they have not given up on wooing independents, and the 2012 presidential election will certainly involve a fierce fight for the college-educated whites and suburbanites who were more likely to back Obama in 2008 than the working-class whites who have always been more skeptical.

By ‘college-educated’ they mean ‘favorably-educated’.  Universities lean left.  Continuing the work of the public school teachers.  Both of who depend on government funding.  And growing tax rates.  So they need government to grow.  And will always vote for the party that will grow government.  And will ‘teach’ their young students to do the same.

Working-class people, on the other hand, have spent more time in the real world.  They’ve had a chance to get deprogrammed from their public school indoctrination.  That’s why it’s harder to fool the working-class.

When you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered’ the Economy you can’t Run on your Record

It’s election season.  Little more than a year to go before the 2012 election.  So candidate Obama is back.  Running like he wasn’t the president for the last 3 years or so.  Somehow trying to explain to his most loyal base that he’s made things better than his predecessor.  George W. Bush.

But he hasn’t.  However you measure it.  GDP.  Unemployment rate.  Consumer confidence.  Whatever.  And the kicker is that the cause for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that started under Bush wasn’t caused by Bush.  Putting people into houses they couldn’t afford was a liberal Democrat policy.  So housing wasn’t exclusive to only those who could afford a house.  Policies the Obama administration favors.  And policies that they want to implement again.  Despite having just suffered the Subprime Mortgage Crisis because of those policies.  Why?  Because it gets you more votes at election time.

So when you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered‘ the economy you can’t run on your record.  The best you can hope for is to paint your political opponent as being everything the slivers of your most loyal base hate.  Attack the rich.  And promise more free stuff to that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

A Debt Default and ‘no Social Security Checks’ only Scare Tactics in the Budget Debate to Raise the Debt Limit

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 25th, 2011

A Summary of the Budget Debate to Raise the Debt Limit

One day making tracks in the prairie of Prax came a tax-raising Zax.  A tax-raising Zax.  And a spending-cuts Zax.  A tax-raising Zax.  And a spending-cuts Zax.  And it happened that both of them came to a place where they… *boom*  There they stood foot to foot.  Face to face.

“Look here, now,” the tax-raising Zax said.  “I say, you are blocking my path.  You are right in my way.  I’m a tax-raising Zax and I always raise taxes.  Get out of my way, now, and let me raise taxes.”

“Who’s in whose way?” snapped the spending-cuts Zax.  “I always cut spending making spending-cuts tracks.  So you’re in my way and I ask you to move and let me cut spending in my spending-cuts groove.”

Then the tax-raising Zax said with tax-raising pride, “I never have taken a step to one side.  And I’ll prove to you that I won’t change my ways if I have to keep standing here 59 days.”

“And I’ll prove to you,” yelled the spending-cuts Zax.  “That I can stand here in the prairie of Prax for 59 years.  For I live by a rule that I learned as a boy back in spending-cuts school.  Never budge that’s my rule, never budge in the least.  Not an inch to the west, not an inch to the east.  I’ll stay here not budging, I can and I will.  If it makes you and me and the whole world stand still.”

(The Zax, from The Sneetches and Other Stories by Dr. Seuss, slightly modified)

Spending worries most Americans

If neither Zax is moving, at least there’s no spending.  And it appears that it is the spending that worries most Americans.  Based on the polling.  Which shows the spending-cuts Zax gaining support (see GOP has 10-point edge on Democrats in public trust on economic issues in latest Rasmussen Reports national survey by Mark Tapscott posted 7/24/2011 The Washington Examiner).

Republicans have gained a 10 point lead over Democrats in Rasmussen Reports latest national survey on who the public most trusts to deal effectively with economic issues.

The 10 point lead is the widest margin held by either party in months and has opened up in recent weeks as President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have become the central players in the debate over how to deal with the approaching debt-ceiling crisis.

It seems pretty clear.  The people want the tax-raising Zax to take a step to the spending-cuts side.

You can’t Fool the Bond Market

And while one Zax stands foot to foot with the other Zax, not budging, the bond market is not all that worried.  Which is kind of odd being that they hold the debt that Obama, Geithner, Pelosi, Reid, etc., warn they may default on (see U.S. bond market: Watching and waiting by Ben Rooney posted 7/25/2011 on CNN Money).

As policymakers in Washington continue to butt heads over the debt ceiling, the response in the bond market Monday was relatively subdued…

…many bond market watchers suggested that stocks are more vulnerable to the ongoing debt ceiling drama. By contrast, some say Treasuries could actually benefit from a flight to safety if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

This seems counterintuitive.  Especially with all of the dire predictions coming out of Washington.  But it turns out that you can’t fool the bond market.

Another reason why Treasuries have held their ground is that a default would not necessarily result in huge losses for holders of U.S. debt. Treasury would probably have to furlough workers and make other adjustments if the debt ceiling is not raised, but analysts do not expect it to immediately miss interest payments on the federal debt.

The money is there.  Some money.  Tax revenue is still making it to Washington.  Almost $200 billion each month.  The bond market knows this.  They’ll get their interest payment.  Still, there could be some fallout from a downgrading of U.S. debt. 

…many institutional investors, including money market funds and pensions, are required to hold only AAA-rated securities. If the U.S. government is downgraded, those funds may be forced to dump billions worth of U.S. paper.

This could wreak a little havoc.  But probably no more than a downgrade due to the lack of resolve to restrain out of control spending which is the root cause of all these budget problems.  One way or another, we have to cut spending to ultimately calm the bond rating agencies.

Businesses are more Worried about the Tax Code

And they aren’t that worried in corporate America either (see Analysis: CEOs count on cash to cushion default risk by Scott Malone posted 7/25/2011 on Reuters).

Bankruptcy attorney Martin Bienenstock, of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, said it seemed like most business people were dismissing the likelihood of a default

“People still don’t think there is going to be an actual default,” Bienenstock said. “There doesn’t seem to be any domino effect brewing yet with the concept of ‘rates will rise and companies on the brink will fail and things like that.'”

If the U.S. runs out of money it is more likely that there will be a partial government shutdown.  Not a default.  And, to be frank, there isn’t a lot these businesses need from government.  Other than a simplified tax code.

While businesses would balk at paying higher taxes, CEOs have said that what they want right now is to have the tax debate settled so they know what they will be paying in taxes.

A government unable to pay its bills won’t affect them.  But not knowing what their taxes will be will.  Because the government shakes them down for a lot of money.  And they have to plan accordingly.  Like having a forklift and other heavy-lifting equipment available to lift those vast sums of cash.

Social Security Checks will go out Regardless

It would appear that most aren’t falling for the scare tactics of Obama and the Democrats.  But what about the seniors?  Will they get their Social Security checks?  Team Obama has been playing this card every chance someone places a microphone in front of them.  So what about Social Security?  Should seniors worry about not getting their checks?  As it turns out, no (see Contrary to the President, Social Security Checks Are Not At Risk by Michael McConnell posted 7/23/2011 on Advancing a Free Society).

The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit. Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling…, this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else…

President Obama is therefore wrong when he says that failure to raise the debt ceiling might result in not sending out Social Security checks. Many bad things might happen, but not that.

Interesting.  So Social Security checks will go out.  Automatically.  Even if the current account is in deficit.  Because of that glorious trust fund stuffed with treasury securities.  In fact, the only way checks won’t go out is if Obama prevents this automatic mechanism to score some political points by falsely blaming Republicans.  Which will be risky.  Because people will eventually learn the truth.  If they don’t know it already.

The Tax-Raising Zax needs to Step to the Spending-Cuts Side

The tax-raising Zax had better learn to swallow his tax-raising pride and however reluctantly he should now take that first step to the spending-cuts side. 

For the people and the bond market and businesses agree.  The problem is spending.  Much too much spending as you must by now plainly see.

And leave our seniors alone and frighten them not with horrors of checks that won’t come their way.  For the trust fund is brimming with securities aplenty that can be cashed to pay all promises made without delay.

Unless Social Security has been a big Ponzi scheme all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #75: “Lower income tax rates generate more tax revenue by making more rich people who pay more income taxes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 19th, 2011

The top 1% of Earners pay close to 40% of all Federal Income Taxes

Poor people pay little income taxes.  Rich people pay a lot of income taxes.  Everyone else pays somewhere in between.  The tool to make this happen is the progressive tax system.  Government designed it so that people with more income pay more taxes.   Via progressive tax brackets.  And the current (2010-2011) brackets (for head of household) are:

  • 10% on first $12,150
  • 15% on income from $12,150 – $46,250
  • 25% on income from $46,250 – $119,400
  • 28% on income from $119,400 – $193,350
  • 33% on income from $193,350 – $379,150
  • 35% on income over $379,150

If you earn $8,000 you owe $800.  Simple.  If you earn $83,600 you owe $15,668.  If you earn $450,000 you owe $131,435.  If you earn $2,500,000 you owe $848,935.  See the pattern?  Earn more.  Pay more.  Almost as if you’re penalized for being successful.

Of course, low-income people often don’t pay any federal income taxes.  In fact, a lot of people don’t.  About half.  Thanks to tax credits, deductions and exemptions.  But when you’re a rich CEO earning a multimillion dollar salary there aren’t enough tax credits, deductions and exemptions to avoid your taxes.  That’s why the top 1% of earners pay close to 40% of all federal income taxes.  Something we should thank them for.  Instead of demonizing them.

The higher the Top Marginal Tax Rate is the more the Rich avoid paying Income Taxes

There are no Mom and Pop hardware stores anymore.  The big box home improvement stores like The Home Depot, Lowe’s and, for those of you old enough to remember, Builder’s Square put them out of business.  Because of greedy consumers like you.  And me.  Who want to get the best value while shopping.  And if we can buy something of equal quality at a lower price we do.  We work hard for our money.  We spend it carefully.  Wisely.  And we don’t pay more for something when we can get the same for less elsewhere.

It’s the same for rich people.  When they shop.  And when they invest their wealth.  Or their ability.  They look at their options.  Create a new business?  Work at an established business?  If you’re highly skilled you can earn a lot of income.  Which rich people take into consideration.  But there are costs.  Payroll taxes.  Employee compensation and benefits.  Compliance and regulation costs.  And, of course, the progressive tax system.

The higher the top marginal tax rate the less incentive they have to start or run a business.  The less incentive they have to create jobs.  And the more likely they won’t start or run a business.  Instead they’ll invest their money and pay the simpler and (so far) lower capital gains tax.  And this is what happens.  The higher the top marginal tax rate is the more the rich avoid paying income taxes, leaving the middle class to pick them up.  Just like you avoided that Mom and Pop hardware store on your way to The Home Dept.  And with an abundance of government debt available, the rich can invest and live on interest.  Sitting on the sidelines.  Watching the rest of us struggle to find a job.

You don’t need Employees to live on Interest Income

So, the progressive tax system is a way to make rich people pay more.  To transfer the tax burden to them.  And it does.  To a point.  But if you try to tax them too much they’ll just drop out of the economy.  And take their jobs with them.  Which is a double whammy.  We lose some of that generous 40% of income taxes they pay.  And we lose who knows how many thousands of jobs.  And taxpayers.  Thus transferring the burden the other way.  Away from the rich.  To those less able to afford it.

The progressive tax system is supposed to make paying taxes easier on the poor.  The less you earn the less you pay, leaving you with more money for the necessities of life.  Whereas the rich can afford to pay more so they do.  But a flat tax is a progressive tax, too.  The more you earn the more you pay.  For example, going to a 15% flat tax, our sample earners above would change their taxes owed as follows:

  • $8000:  $800  →  $1,200
  • $83,600:  $15,668  →  $12,540
  • $450,000:  $131,435  →  $67,500
  • $2,500,000:  $848,935  →  $375,000

It’s still progressive.  And, yes, the rich will pay less individually.  But there will be more of them.  For this lower income tax rate changes the dynamic.  It will be more profitable to get off of the sidelines and get back into the economy.  Because a flat 15% income tax rate will beat or equal the capital gains tax.  And the profit from creating or running a business will blow away the earnings on a portfolio of treasury bonds.

Better still are the jobs.  You don’t need employees to live on interest income.  But you need them to run a business.  More jobs mean more taxpayers.  So more rich people are back in the economy earning income and paying income taxes.  And more employees are working.  That’s more payroll taxes.  And more personal income taxes.  In the end, the numbers win.  More jobs.  More GDP.  And more federal tax receipts.

Keeping People Poorer and more Dependent on Government

If the goal of government tax policy is to raise tax revenue, the logical thing to do would be to design a tax code that creates more rich people.  A lower top marginal tax rate does this.  So does a flat tax.  Such a tax policy will create incentives to earn income instead of living on capital gains from investments.  Each rich person will pay less income tax individually but there will be far more of them paying income taxes overall.  And they will create jobs.  The more jobs there are the more payroll taxes and personal income taxes there are.

History has shown that cutting tax rates has done just that.  The Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s.  The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s.  The Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s.  The Bush tax cuts of the 2000s.  So if the record shows that lower tax rates produce more tax revenue, why are we always trying to raise the top marginal tax rates?  Simple.  Politics.

Being in politics is the closest you can get to being part of an aristocracy in the United States.  Unless you’re born a Kennedy.  Whether its ego or the graft, people aspire to be in the privileged few.  Life is better there.  If you have no talent or ability.  Other than being able to tell a pretty good lie.  So you use class warfare to get the masses to support you.  And the progressive tax system.  Which keeps people poorer and more dependent on government.  Like it used to be in the old days when there was an aristocracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama Explains Autocratic Action in Libya was Necessary to Keep UN Legitimate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2011

Obama Explains the Libyan War

President Obama finally took to the television to explain what we’re doing in Libya.  He takes a dig at George W. Bush over the Iraq War.  Says this isn’t anything like the Iraq War.  And that the U.S. role will be short and sweet (see Obama: Libya Isn’t Iraq by Carol E. Lee posted 3/28/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

During the 2008 presidential campaign,  Barack Obama became a hero of the left for his opposition to the Iraq war. Tonight, he used the eight-year-old conflict to explain how the U.N.-backed mission to protect rebels in Libya, not overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, won’t result in a prolonged U.S. engagement.

“If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter,” President Obama said. “We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.”

He added: “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.”

“[R]egime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars,” Mr. Obama said. “That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Yes, we’ve been down the ‘regime-change’ road before.  And we’ve also been down the ‘no-fly-zone’ road before.  In Iraq, for example.  After the Gulf War.  Some twelve years before the Iraq War.  You see, after we threw Iraq out of Kuwait we entered into a ceasefire.  But Saddam Hussein did not behave.  Or honor many of the terms of the armistice that ended the Gulf War.  Worse, he was violently oppressing Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south that were rising up against his Sunni government.  We were hoping for regime change.  We didn’t get it.  And we didn’t try to help the Kurds or the Shiites.  For the same reasons Obama cites in the Libyan War.  Of course, the Left brutally criticized George H.W. Bush for ending the war too soon.  For not toppling the Hussein regime.  And there we were.  Watching Hussein putting down those uprisings with extreme prejudice (i.e., deadly force).  Oh, it was bad.  Like in Libya. Only worse.

The atrocities got so bad that the international community finally did something.  They established no-fly zones in the north and the south.  And maintained them for some eleven years.  Did we end them after we’ve achieved success?  No.  They ended after the Iraq War toppled Hussein from power making them moot.  You see, here’s the ugly truth.  Unless you topple the bad guy from power, those no-fly zones can never go away.  Even Bill Clinton launched an attack against Hussein while president.  Because he kept attacking the Kurds.  Even with the no-fly zone in place.

What Obama says in effect is that we’re going into Libya half-assed.  We’re not going to do anything that will have a permanent affect.  Just like after 1991 in Iraq.  And we’re leaving ourselves with an open-ended commitment that won’t end until Qaddafi dies by natural causes.  Because he ain’t going anywhere.  He’s a marked man.  And even if he finds safe sanctuary, whoever takes him in may become another Jimmy Carter and see their embassy staff taken hostage (when Carter reluctantly allowed the deposed Shah of Iran into America for medical care).

So the question remains.  Why Libya?  There’s suffering all around the world.  But we help only Libya.  Some have suggested that it was to help the Europeans protect their Libyan oil as they fear another ‘Hugo Chavez‘ nationalization of their oil assets.  Being that they made those agreements with the Qaddafi regime, I’m not sure why they would want to help the rebels trying to topple him from power.  If the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda fills the power vacuum in a post-Qaddafi Libya, you can bet that their terms on the ‘revised’ contracts won’t be as favorable to any Western economy.  So I don’t know.  It’s a stretch.  But one thing for sure Obama isn’t telling us the whole story.  There has to be a reason why Libya.  Better than the weak arguments he’s making now.

We Attacked Libya so the UN can Save Face

In making his case President Obama inadvertently attacks the role of the UN.  And tries to ease our concerns about a third war with the nation mired in recession.  And buried under a rapidly growing debt (see Obama on Libya: ‘We have a responsibility to act’ by Ben Feller posted 3/28/2011 on The Associated Press).

Citing a failure to act in Libya, he said: “The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.”

 Well, isn’t that a fact?  That that “writ of the UN Security Council” is pretty worthless unless backed by the wealth and military might of the United States?  The UN has no military.  Article 43 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter tried to build a UN military but no nation contributed any forces.  So the UN has no teeth.  Oh, sure, you can say NATO can fill that role.  But the bulk of NATO’s assets are whose?  That’s right.  Ours.  However you want to slice it doesn’t change this fundamental truth.  Any UN or NATO operation is only as strong and as effective as the size of the U.S. role in that operation.

Domestic politics got a nod, too, in a nation saddled in debt and embroiled over how to cut spending.

“The risk and cost of this operation – to our military and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly” Obama said.

The president said transferring the mission to NATO would leave the United States in a supporting role, providing intelligence, logistical support and search and rescue assistance. He said the U.S. would also use its capabilities to jam Gadhafi’s means of communication.

The U.S. in a supporting role?  Whenever has the U.S. played that part before?  We’re the John Wayne of international peace-keeping and humanitarian efforts.  We don’t get supporting roles.  Even if that’s all we want.  And the sop to the taxpayers?  This from the guy that is running trillion dollar deficits?  That’s ‘trillion’ with a ‘t’.  Not the ‘billion’ dollar deficits of Ronald Reagan that were irresponsible and bankrupting the country.  He has shown little regard to the American taxpayer.  Why should we believe him now?  He likes to spend tax dollars.  And he likes to tax. 

Fighting Illegal Wars and Cozying up to Big Corporations just isn’t for Republicans Anymore

And tax he does.  He and his progressive Democrats.  They go after rich people.  And big corporations.  Well, some of the big corporations (see 15 Tax Escape Artists by The Daily Beast posted 3/28/2011 on The Daily Beast).

As reported Friday, General Electric concluded 2010 with $14.2 billion in profits, for which the Internal Revenue Service is paying them a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, thanks to a shrewd use of U.S. tax loopholes, aggressive lobbying and favorable international tax provisions. They’re far from alone.

“Companies are becoming much more sophisticated in the way they arbitrage the U.S. tax system,” says Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at The Urban Institute, which analyzes economic issues in the U.S. “GE is not the only one, there are many other companies doing the same thing.”

Did you catch that?  GE earned $14.2 billion in profits and did not pay any taxes.  In fact, the IRS paid them a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.    How does that make you feel about a ‘green’ corporation in tight with the Obama administration?  GE is a heavy Democrat donor.  And crony.  A big proponent of green energy.  Because they want to sell compact fluorescent lamps and windmills.  They’re so committed to Obama in going green that Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, leads Obama’s economic advisory board.  And yet it’s always the Republicans that are criticized for being in the pocket of the big corporations.  But when it’s Democrats, we don’t call it crony capitalism.  Go figure.

Is GE getting favorable treatment?  Perhaps. 

Critics argue that the avoidance of corporate income tax hurts the economy and hampers domestic investment and job creation, but defenders of the practices argue it’s the only way their companies can stay competitive on a global scale as the American corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one the highest in the world…

“GE is a symptom of a much bigger problem and GE management uses the tax code for their benefit,” says Gleckman. “I’m not offended by GE, I’m offended by a tax system that allows this to go on. They have an obligation to their shareholders and their workers to maximize after-tax profits.”

Of course, the irony is that GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt is the same person Barack Obama appointed to head the panel of external economic advisers created in 2009 to help steer the U.S. out of the economic crisis. Says Willens, “when [Immelt] was appointed to that position, people who had familiarity with GE’s tax practices had a good laugh, which are rare for tax professionals.”

Obama says our role in Libya will be limited to help the American taxpayer.  Does having the highest corporate tax rates in the world that stifle economic growth and sends jobs overseas help, too?  These tax rates are so high that it forces poor corporations to manipulate the tax code to stay competitive.  Which is okay as long as you are pouring money into Democrat coffers apparently.  Even if you outsource jobs to countries with lower tax rates.

And having the fox guard the chicken house?  In the world of Obama, there’s no conflict there.  Of course, if George W. Bush selected an oilman to lead such a board I suspect there would have been some protestation.  But Obama can do no wrong.  Although the Libyan War is now straining some of his strongest supporters.  Which should make for an interesting 2012 election.  If we have one, that is.

Going Rogue or Just in over his Head?

Special tax deals and policy influence for cronies?  Wars launched without Congressional authority or any clear idea of what exactly our national security interests are?  High taxation?  Huge deficits?  You know, there is a name for this kind of leader.  Autocrat.  Someone who does whatever he wants.  This reminds me of another leader.  You might have heard of him in the news lately.  He’s Libyan.  Goes by the name of Qaddafi.

Of course, Obama is no Qaddafi.  He’s much more conservative in dress.  And he doesn’t murder his own people.  But apart from these two things, you have to admit there are some similarities.  Both are cults of personality (before you object remember that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to do anything as president).  Friends of both get special treatment (the stimulus bill didn’t hire anyone – it went to the public sector unions and other supporters).  Both feel they’re above the law (take Obamacare, for example.  Ruled unconstitutional yet the Obama administration is still proceeding in defiance of the court’s ruling).  And they both attack their enemies (the Obama machinery bussed protesters to Wisconsin to try to prevent the elected Wisconsin Assembly from voting on the bill to restrict collective bargaining rights to public sector workers).  Oh, and even though he defied one judge (in the Obamacare ruling) he used another judge in Wisconsin to stop a law he didn’t personally like (restricting collective bargaining rights of public sector unions).

So this leaves all scratching our collective head.  Why Libya?  When you get right down to it, he must like a lot about Qaddafi.  He’s doing a lot of the same.  Only without the blood and fancy dress.  And while we’re asking questions, here’s another.  Will there be an election in 2012?  That may depend on how far his poll numbers drop.  Because there’s a limit to the number of dead people that can vote without drawing suspicion.  I’m joking, of course.  There will be an election.  Obama hasn’t gone rogue.  He’s just young, inexperienced and in over his head.  At least based on his incomprehensible actions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #36: “Politicians oppose across the board tax cuts because they are not politically expedient.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2010

No King Ever Ruled Without the Consent of Money

There were kings.  And there were wealthy landowners.  Kings may have been sovereign.  But the wealth lies with, as you may guess, the wealthy landowners.  Kings needed money.  Because doing king ‘things’ got expensive.  War, armies, navies, festivals, feasts, castles, palaces, churches, etc., were very expensive.  So kings taxed their subjects to raise the money they needed to be king.  And when it came to money, the vast majority (i.e., the peasants) had little.  It was the peasants’ landlords who had the money.  And it was they who paid the bulk of the taxes.

But it was a two-way street.  Because it was their money, they, the wealthy landowners, had a say in how the king spent that money.  This was a restraint on the king’s power.  There were laws to protect the property rights of these landlords.  Now.  And in the future.  Property owners could pass their property on to their heirs.  As well as their political standing with the king.  Thus the rich and landed aristocracy passed on both their property and their nobility through inheritance.  Thus kings and Nobility lived by the consent of the other.  And they each lived by the consent of money.

The Roman emperors spent so much money near the end of the Roman Empire that they brought their advanced civilization to an end.  The landed aristocracy survived, though.  They just served a different sovereign.  The masses (i.e., the poor peasants) still worked the land.  The landlords still held the wealth.  Kings would come and go but this way of life (feudalism) remained.  Kings ruled as long as the landed aristocracy didn’t object too much.  Which they did in England in 1215.  The landed aristocracy met King John on the field of Runnymede.  Seeing his power was not absolute, the king reluctantly set his seal to the Magna Charter.  Constitutional monarchy would reign in England.  And England would reign supreme in the Old World.  And in the New World.

No Taxation Without Representation

The constitutional monarchy that developed consisted of the Crown and a bicameral Parliament.  The two houses of Parliament represented the needs of the few (the House of Lords) and the many (the House of Commons).  Thus the needs of the one (the sovereign), the few (the rich) and the many (the not rich) were balanced against each other.  It was a pretty good system.  The best in its time.  An English citizen had a better and more comfortable life with greater liberty than citizens of most other countries.

This liberalism unleashed a flurry of economic activity.  It created an empire.  International trade exploded.  England became a leader in farming and agriculture.  This knowhow spread throughout her empire.  As did her representative government.  Which they established in their North American colonies.  Perhaps a bit too firmly.  With the costs of world war came the need for higher taxes.  The British had just defeated the French and took possession of all their possessions in North America.  Her English subjects there were now free from French aggression.  And Parliament wanted these subjects to pick up a large part of that war tab.

Well, this didn’t go over well in the colonies.  For they had no representation in Parliament.  They had their own representative governing bodies in the colonies.  But they were subject to royal governors appointed by Parliament.  Without a vote in Parliament, they had no say in matters of taxation.  This was very un-English.  For the English nobility consented to taxation in exchange for having a say in how the king would spend those taxes.  As the landed aristocracy protested in 1215, the Americans protested this taxation without representation.  Eight war years later and America left the mother country.  Another few years later they ratified the Constitution and created the United States of America.  Which came to be because a governing body violated the sacred covenant between a king and his subjects.  A king may only rule as those who pay the kingdom’s taxes approve.

Universal Suffrage Increases Our Suffering

Because the new American government taxed property owners, property ownership was a requirement to vote.  In other words, those with the most to lose (those paying the taxes) had a say in how the government spent their taxes.  It kept the government honest.   By limiting the vote to those who had ‘skin in the game’ it made it hard for government to build palaces for themselves.  Because there was a direct connection between the source of funding and what that funding was used for.  The government may persuade the tax-paying voter for the need for a national postal system.  But a palatial palace was a much harder sell to the one footing the bill.  Especially when that person would never enjoy its benefit.

Such a system led to responsible government.  It minimized political corruption.  And if there is anything a politician doesn’t like it’s this.  They like corruption.  They thrive on it.  It’s their raison d’être.  And this responsibility thing just didn’t cut it.  They need people to vote who have no skin in the game.  People they can buy.  So they can live the good life.  Like in days of old.  Enter universal suffrage.  Where a politician can promise people other people’s money.

Wait a minute, you mean I can have a say in how other people spend their money?  Sweet.  Gimme gimme gimme.  I me mine.  Tax the rich.  Health care is an entitlement.  I mean, as long as someone else is paying, I’m for sale.  Promise me whatever I want and I will vote for you.  And forget what Benjamin Franklin warned us about: 

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Money Talks; Egalitarianism Walks

It probably started with Martin Van Buren.  Creator of the Democrat Party.  He created the party machine.  Patronage.  Payoffs.  And buying votes.  Dirty, filthy politics began with him.  And the Democrat Party.  Beginning with the campaign for Andrew Jackson, politics have gotten worse ever since.

It’s about the money now more than ever.  With the power to tax, government has a near unlimited source of money.  And with it they can get power.  By promising money to people that don’t have money.  Lots of it.  Thanks to universal suffrage, they can bus as many poor, indigent and government-depended people to the polls as possible.  And the more of them the better.  For they will vote for whoever promises to give them the most free stuff.  And why not?  They have no skin in the game.

And by voting themselves a permanent entitlement, they will make themselves a permanent underclass.  Where they will remain poor, indigent and government-depended.  As government spending continues to grow unchecked, it will push people down the economic ladder until the middle class disappears.  There will be only the rich (the government and the government-connected).  And the poor.  Just like in days of old.  Which is the goal of our tax policy.  You see, across the board tax cuts do not enhance the dependency-power relationship.  But targeted tax cuts do.  That’s why Big Government favors a complicated tax code.  It enhances the dependency-power relationship.  That empowers Big Government.  Throws egalitarianism out the window.  And makes life good for the ruling elite.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries