I just finished navigating the maze that is our nation's tax code. As usual, we paid more than we were supposed to. However, when filing estimated taxes for self-employment (you know, the voluntary part) it is difficult to accurately predict how the arcana will affect you without a Ouija Board or expensive accountant/lawyer.
The bad news is I lent Leviathan a metric crap-load of money, interest-free. The good news is that Leviathan still has some greenbacks left over from the last printing press run.
It is too bad they don't do refunds in Double Eagles...
As for the State, I owe them less than $100 bucks-"net" after withholding. All things considered, I'll take that outcome.
Now, if we could just repeal the 16th Amendment and go to a consumption-based tax, life would be good. And, don't even try and tell me that sales taxes are regressive and affect the "poor" disproportionately. That's crap and everybody knows it. A flat-rate sales or consumption tax on ALL new items is the most fair way to fund the necessary functions of government. It also means that those who spend more pay more in taxes, while those who spend less would pay less. Oh, and if you spend someone else's money (using debt like credit cards and personal loans), you would pay more in taxes than your earnings would otherwise dictate.
Perhaps that would incentivize people to actually save for things instead of feeding the beast with debt. It is too bad that common sense, isn't, nowadays. With a National Sales tax, fairly applied (meaning EVERYBODY pays), the consumer's choices become paramount in minimizing their taxable exposure. If someone has less money to spend, then buying used (which would incur no sales tax) lowers the burden. Someone who desires to have the latest and greatest new thing would pay for that choice with the attendant cost of government included.
Speaking of the cost of government, if every purchase exposed the cost to the consumer, don't you think it would make said consumer a wee bit more active in the machinations of governance? Plus, if the incentives for indolence are removed (meaning NO welfare), it removes a perversely powerful special interest from the pressure groups influencing Congress.
And, YES, I said NO welfare. The care and feeding of the elderly, sick, and unexpectedly pregnant used to fall to family and friends, including faith-based charities and churches. It worked well for a couple of hundred years. It is time to return to that system.
Please note that I do NOT include disabled veterans in the above category. Any veteran who was injured in the line of duty battling for our Liberty, and who needs support, should get it. These men and women are willing to pay the ultimate price to secure our liberty. This is NOT welfare. This is a debt of honor that is owed.
Anyway, enough ramblings. I hope your weekend went well.
Pax,
Newbius
Showing posts with label Taxes and Wages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes and Wages. Show all posts
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
The power to tax
Basic economics lesson for the youngsters:
The power to tax is the power to control. Never forget that fact. Anybody who tells you that they are raising taxes to raise revenue is lying to you. They are raising taxes to control behavior and force changes in the way you run your life.
Whenever a politician tells you that he is raising taxes to pay for something, instead look at the depressive effect that those taxes will have on whatever is being taxed. Any government that wanted to raise REVENUE, lowered taxes. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush increased (actually, Congress increased) revenue by lowering taxes. This stimulates investment and frees up capital for the people to spend, and the effects trickle down through all strata of society.
Don't be fooled by the deficit numbers. These only track the delta between revenue and spending. Even if revenue skyrocketed, if the spending out-paces it, then the deficit will increase (and will give the spenders some fodder to make the claim that lowering taxes increases the deficits). Watch who complains when tax rates are lowered. It will ALWAYS be the people who want to exert more control over your life. These people are the enemies of freedom and Liberty.
Pax,
Newbius
The power to tax is the power to control. Never forget that fact. Anybody who tells you that they are raising taxes to raise revenue is lying to you. They are raising taxes to control behavior and force changes in the way you run your life.
Whenever a politician tells you that he is raising taxes to pay for something, instead look at the depressive effect that those taxes will have on whatever is being taxed. Any government that wanted to raise REVENUE, lowered taxes. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush increased (actually, Congress increased) revenue by lowering taxes. This stimulates investment and frees up capital for the people to spend, and the effects trickle down through all strata of society.
Don't be fooled by the deficit numbers. These only track the delta between revenue and spending. Even if revenue skyrocketed, if the spending out-paces it, then the deficit will increase (and will give the spenders some fodder to make the claim that lowering taxes increases the deficits). Watch who complains when tax rates are lowered. It will ALWAYS be the people who want to exert more control over your life. These people are the enemies of freedom and Liberty.
Pax,
Newbius
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Tax Simplification Plan
Here's a thought: Let's simplify the Tax Code.
If taxation is really all about revenue generation for Government, let's make it as simple as possible. First, kill all of the deductions, exemptions, set-asides, and credits. Next, define that the tax is only on new income or new profits, and eliminate taxation on capital gains, inheritance, and interest generated with after-tax dollars. Set the rate at 10% Flat for all income earners regardless of income level (because equality of treatment before the law is the only true equality).
The revised 1040 would look like this:
A) How much did you make? $________.__
B) Multiply by 0.10 (10%) $________.__
C) Send in amount on line B
Of course, the Democrats tax form for would look exactly the same, except you would send in the amount on line A...
All humor aside, the tax code is NOT about income generation to support government function. It is instead a spoils system whereby the government can favor some groups over others, punish success, reward indigency, and pry into the affairs of all the citizens. If the tax code was about revenue, then it should be as simple as possible to comply with, and would allocate the tax burden fairly.
A flat tax does this to some degree. A consumption tax (like the FAIR TAX) does this in a much more equitable manner still.
Since neither of these proposals allows forthe Master Government to screw with the Slaves manipulate the code to favor some constituents over others, they will not happen unless the Slaves citizens revolt and make it so.
Feeling revolutionary today? Call your congress-critter.
Pax,
Newbius
If taxation is really all about revenue generation for Government, let's make it as simple as possible. First, kill all of the deductions, exemptions, set-asides, and credits. Next, define that the tax is only on new income or new profits, and eliminate taxation on capital gains, inheritance, and interest generated with after-tax dollars. Set the rate at 10% Flat for all income earners regardless of income level (because equality of treatment before the law is the only true equality).
The revised 1040 would look like this:
A) How much did you make? $________.__
B) Multiply by 0.10 (10%) $________.__
C) Send in amount on line B
Of course, the Democrats tax form for would look exactly the same, except you would send in the amount on line A...
All humor aside, the tax code is NOT about income generation to support government function. It is instead a spoils system whereby the government can favor some groups over others, punish success, reward indigency, and pry into the affairs of all the citizens. If the tax code was about revenue, then it should be as simple as possible to comply with, and would allocate the tax burden fairly.
A flat tax does this to some degree. A consumption tax (like the FAIR TAX) does this in a much more equitable manner still.
Since neither of these proposals allows for
Feeling revolutionary today? Call your congress-critter.
Pax,
Newbius
Friday, April 3, 2009
Taxes
Ugh. Taxes.
I hate the word.
I just had to write a check to Uncle Sugar for quarterly taxes. The act of writing that check caused me to wonder again whether the idiots in DC understand or care that it is OUR money that they are spending.
If only we could eliminate withholding by the employer and make the citizens write that check to the Government, every month or every quarter, like the self-employed do. What an awakening that would cause in the electorate! We might even reduce the size of the bloated bureaucracy.
I sent my tea bag WRAPPER in to the White House. Written in bold Sharpie were the words "It is not your money!" No actual tea was sent, as it would probably flag me as a domestic terrorist. Come to think of it, just espousing traditional values nowadays brands one as a domestic terrorist.
Go figure.
Anyway, I wish the President long life and happiness in whatever he does after his term as the pretender-in-chief expires. Hopefully, that will be sooner rather than later. Short of Articles of Impeachment (not likely even in the most politically advantageous times), that day will be 1/20/2013.
I can hardly wait.
I plan on attending the National Tax Day Tea Party in DC on 4/15. If my shirt and flag arrive from Gadsden and Culpeper, then I will wearing one and flying the other...
See you on the Mall on 4/15.
Pax,
Newbius
I hate the word.
I just had to write a check to Uncle Sugar for quarterly taxes. The act of writing that check caused me to wonder again whether the idiots in DC understand or care that it is OUR money that they are spending.
If only we could eliminate withholding by the employer and make the citizens write that check to the Government, every month or every quarter, like the self-employed do. What an awakening that would cause in the electorate! We might even reduce the size of the bloated bureaucracy.
I sent my tea bag WRAPPER in to the White House. Written in bold Sharpie were the words "It is not your money!" No actual tea was sent, as it would probably flag me as a domestic terrorist. Come to think of it, just espousing traditional values nowadays brands one as a domestic terrorist.
Go figure.
Anyway, I wish the President long life and happiness in whatever he does after his term as the pretender-in-chief expires. Hopefully, that will be sooner rather than later. Short of Articles of Impeachment (not likely even in the most politically advantageous times), that day will be 1/20/2013.
I can hardly wait.
I plan on attending the National Tax Day Tea Party in DC on 4/15. If my shirt and flag arrive from Gadsden and Culpeper, then I will wearing one and flying the other...
See you on the Mall on 4/15.
Pax,
Newbius
Thursday, February 26, 2009
It is a FUNDAMENTAL difference in position
...between the Liberal-Socialist-Statist position regarding YOUR income, and your OWN position on it.
Nancy Pelosi was just quoted on CNN as stating that the "reason for all of our deficits was because Bush gave the wealthiest wage earners a tax cut that they weren't entitled to".
I kid you not.
As I stated last September, the numbers are incontrovertible. My sources are Government Statistics! The reason for the deficits was that Government SPENT MORE THAN THEY TOOK FROM YOU. And, what they took from you was MORE than they expected due to the (many-times-proven) positive effect on revenue by lowering the tax rates.
I was yelling at the TV again and scared my cats!
I wish that JUST ONCE, an HONEST journalist (are there any left?) would ask these politician HACKS to prove their statement with something approaching factual data, instead of blithely nodding their heads in agreement and letting these bald-faced lies stand as if they had merit.
Am I alone out here?
If you think I am just another raving lunatic out here in the Blog-o-sphere, let me quote the IRS for you regarding the amount of your wages that you get to keep (exemptions, deductions, credits, and other monies otherwise collected from you). The IRS calls this amount a "Tax Expenditure"
In the view of the Pelosi's of the world, all of the money you earn is rightfully the Government's. Therefore, any amount that you get to keep is an entitlement. Looked at through this lens, it begins to make sense when she and others of her ilk state that you were allowed too much, or taxed too little. Since they own you already (you slave, you), they get to dispose of your work product (life) in any way that pleases them.
I guess one of the things that surprises me about all of this, is that nobody in the Press seems to care that the numbers don't add up. Nobody in the Press is alarmed. Nobody in the Press (except Glenn Beck and the Wall Street Journal - both completely discredited by the rest of the media as foaming, rabid, right-wingers) has bothered to analyze anything.
Prediction: When the numbers really come in (in 2011), everybody earning over $30,000 will get a tax hike. Or, hyper-inflation will have destroyed our civilization as we know it. Anybody up for an "Obamar Republic"? Remember that the failed policies of Tax-and-Spend and Liberal Socialism destroyed the fragile German economy and paved the way for a National Socialist leader. (Yeah, I know these are Wiki references...shut up and deal, ok?)
Like all good Statist systems, the pattern goes like this:
Get Elected
Disarm the people (crime crisis, or uprising of the unwashed as an excuse)
Abolish elections (emergency measure only!)
Muzzle the Press (control the message)
Rule for 2-5 decades
Step one is complete...
Pax,
Newbius
Nancy Pelosi was just quoted on CNN as stating that the "reason for all of our deficits was because Bush gave the wealthiest wage earners a tax cut that they weren't entitled to".
I kid you not.
As I stated last September, the numbers are incontrovertible. My sources are Government Statistics! The reason for the deficits was that Government SPENT MORE THAN THEY TOOK FROM YOU. And, what they took from you was MORE than they expected due to the (many-times-proven) positive effect on revenue by lowering the tax rates.
I was yelling at the TV again and scared my cats!
I wish that JUST ONCE, an HONEST journalist (are there any left?) would ask these politician HACKS to prove their statement with something approaching factual data, instead of blithely nodding their heads in agreement and letting these bald-faced lies stand as if they had merit.
Am I alone out here?
If you think I am just another raving lunatic out here in the Blog-o-sphere, let me quote the IRS for you regarding the amount of your wages that you get to keep (exemptions, deductions, credits, and other monies otherwise collected from you). The IRS calls this amount a "Tax Expenditure"
In the view of the Pelosi's of the world, all of the money you earn is rightfully the Government's. Therefore, any amount that you get to keep is an entitlement. Looked at through this lens, it begins to make sense when she and others of her ilk state that you were allowed too much, or taxed too little. Since they own you already (you slave, you), they get to dispose of your work product (life) in any way that pleases them.
I guess one of the things that surprises me about all of this, is that nobody in the Press seems to care that the numbers don't add up. Nobody in the Press is alarmed. Nobody in the Press (except Glenn Beck and the Wall Street Journal - both completely discredited by the rest of the media as foaming, rabid, right-wingers) has bothered to analyze anything.
Prediction: When the numbers really come in (in 2011), everybody earning over $30,000 will get a tax hike. Or, hyper-inflation will have destroyed our civilization as we know it. Anybody up for an "Obamar Republic"? Remember that the failed policies of Tax-and-Spend and Liberal Socialism destroyed the fragile German economy and paved the way for a National Socialist leader. (Yeah, I know these are Wiki references...shut up and deal, ok?)
Like all good Statist systems, the pattern goes like this:
Get Elected
Disarm the people (crime crisis, or uprising of the unwashed as an excuse)
Abolish elections (emergency measure only!)
Muzzle the Press (control the message)
Rule for 2-5 decades
Step one is complete...
Pax,
Newbius
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Double-Speak and Lies
Part 1 – Steal from the Rich and Give to the Poor
(WARNING: Political “Rants” ahead!)
DOUBLE-SPEAK
Language used to deceive, usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
LIE
Intransitive verb:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Noun:
1a: An assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
1b: An untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: Something that misleads or deceives
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
By nature man is a political being. One of the things that set us apart from the beasts is our ability to speak in ideas, to rally others to our causes, and to consider the future beyond the next meal. In fact, our reasoning ability, our memory of history, and our ability to plan for the future sets us apart from all other species.
One of the other things that set us apart from the beasts is our ability to deceive. So today’s rant is about this ability. Specifically, our ability to use (misuse) language to cover our agenda and hide the truth from those we wish to rally to our causes, who might not otherwise support the true nature of our goal if it was stated baldly and plainly. Since I am conservative in nature, I am going to rant about those abuses of language by the Left, which they use to advance their Socialist agenda.
Below, and in the next few entries to come, are several examples of double-speak and lies that are espoused by the Left to further advance their causes, which are either intentional distortions of the truth; or outright lies. If this kind of thing offends you, go make some Pizza instead. There is a recipe in the archives.
So here goes…
“The rich aren’t paying their “fair share” of income taxes.” (Both double-speak and lie)
So, here is a perfect example of the type of class warfare used to try and rally the working men and women of America to vote for someone whose agenda is not in their best interests. A couple of facts for you to consider: “The Rich” is an ambiguous term that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, depending on what public policy weapon he or she intends to use against them. By leaving the term ambiguous, the speaker can leave it to his/her audience to define it for themselves – and the definition never includes the audience (nobody thinks of themselves as Rich, even John Kerry). Promising tax cuts for the “Middle Class” without defining who is “middle class” and who is “rich” leaves all who fall for it open to subjugation by an ever-expanding political class and their enabling bureaucrats. This is a Marxist tactical maneuver designed to hide the true agenda. (For expansion on this, PLEASE read The Communist Manifesto.)
For my purposes here I will consider two types of “Rich”
Type One is the person who through good fortune, previous hard work, previous entrepreneurial success, or lucky parentage, is living on the interest and dividend income of their investments or trust funds. This is the type of person most often castigated as not paying their “Fair Share” of (income) taxes owing to the fact that they have no wage income. These people pay capital gains taxes on the sale of their investments and regular income tax on that portion of their savings that generates interest. These people should more accurately be called “Wealthy” since their means derives from the growth of their wealth almost exclusively. When speaking about tax policy, these people are used as the stalking horse (look it up) so that punishments (extra tax burden) can be perpetrated on the next group of “Rich” – the High Wage Earner.
Type Two-the High Wage Earner-is the person who, through either hard work, business success, entrepreneurial success, or good fortune, is working on a daily basis as a producing member of society but whose income is substantially above the median. These are the people whose income is targeted by the moochers in Washington DC, and who are represented to the average blue-collar Joe as not worthy of consideration while their income is being confiscated. The High Wage Earner is also the person whom everyone in America should aspire to be some day, because they are SUCCESSFUL.
A couple of facts: As of 2006, wage earners making more than $200,000 annually paid more than 53% of all Federal Income taxes collected (34% of total receipts including income and payroll taxes). Wage earners making more than $100,000 per year paid more than 80% of the Federal Income taxes collected (63% of total receipts including payroll taxes). Wage Earners making more than $50,000 per year paid almost 90% of the TOTAL wage and income taxes collected! (1)
I am not sure what your definition of “Middle Class” is, but I am sure it probably includes at least the lower end of the groups referenced above. If your definition of “Middle Class” is everybody making LESS THAN $50,000 per year, well I’ve got news for you. This group pays almost NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Most of what they pay is Payroll Taxes (OASDI, FICA, Medicare, RRRA, Etc.). This group’s total tax liability was less than 12% of the total federal income and payroll tax receipts collected, almost all of this from the $30,000-$50,000 per year group
Tax Statistics By Group (2):
Top 1% (income >$364,656) paid 39.38% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Top 5% (income >$145,282) paid 59.67% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Top 10% (income >$103,911), paid 70.30% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Top 25% (income >$62,068) paid 85.99% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Here is the double-speak punch line: The second 25% (income > $30,880 but <$62,068, basically what everybody considers the “middle class”) paid only 10% of all income taxes collected in tax year 2005. This group represents one fourth of all tax filers (33,152,910 total returns) in America. To lower taxes on this group, you must shift the tax burden still higher to the more productive members of society, or flatten the tax burden so that the lower 50% of all taxpayers increase their share of the taxes paid. The fact is that 66,305,818 (the bottom 50% of all tax returns filed) had either a small amount of taxes paid, or had money “refunded” to them through EITC that they never paid in the first place. The Bottom 50% of all tax filers pay only 4% of the Federal tax burden.
Conclusion: The “Rich” (High Wage Earners) pay MORE than their “fair share” of taxes.
Opinion – If you continue to marginalize successful people, your economy-which depends on them-will eventually collapse. See France or pre-Thatcher Great Britain as examples of progressive socialism in action. They are great examples of the devastating effects of confiscatory taxation and Liberal social programs which stifle productivity and keep unemployment high.
“Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage helps workers” (Lie)
The Federal Minimum Wage was enacted in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Prior to this in 1933, a minimum wage requirement was a part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, believed by some to have halted the employment recovery then in progress and prolonging the Depression.
Recent data (3) suggests that the seasonal unemployment increases nationwide are primarily in the 16-24 age group, a group composed of high school and college students working seasonal jobs. The most recent jump to 6.1% unemployment comes directly after the July 24, 2008 increase in the Federal Minimum Wage. (Side note: This analysis excludes recent significant non-seasonal job losses in Michigan attributed to the Auto Industry contraction and increases in tax levies on businesses.)
Increasing the minimum wage harms those workers most that it was designed to help. To quote a 1992 study from the National Center for Policy Analysis (4):
“Only 3.7 percent of hourly wage earners are paid the minimum wage and most of those are not poor.
A majority of minimum wage workers are either young persons living in non-poor families or a second or third earner in a household - not the primary breadwinner.
In 1992, only 198,500 of the nation's 4.7 million minimum wage earners were adult householders.
Only 1.2 percent of all minimum wage workers (about 58,600) were adult heads of households with less than $10,000 of income.
Supporters of a higher minimum wage also frequently imply that a large portion of minimum wage workers are single mothers for whom welfare is an alternative to work. However, this belief is also disproved by the facts.
Single parents, male and female, make up only 6.5 percent of the minimum wage workforce.
Only about half of them (155,900) of a total 311,600) work full time. The number of poor people earning the minimum wage is small in part because most poor people of working age are not working.
Only 9.2 percent of poor people of working age have full-time jobs.
About 60 percent do not work at all.
Thus the minimum wage increase proposed by President Clinton would do little to reduce poverty. Instead, it would cause real hardship for some low-income Americans, the very people it is designed to help. A large majority of scholarly studies demonstrate that increasing the federal minimum wage causes higher unemployment. Those who suffer are most likely to be teenagers, racial minorities and low-skilled workers.
Teenage unemployment rose sharply when the minimum wage was increased from $3.35 to $4.25 in 1990 and 1991.
Furthermore, the extent to which teenage unemployment exceeds that of the whole population tends to increase in direct proportion to increases in the minimum wage.
All the evidence shows that the job-killing impact of the minimum wage is worse for blacks than for whites.
Prior to the imposition of the minimum wage, the unemployment rates for blacks and whites were very similar.
Today, however, the unemployment rate for nonwhites is about twice the rate for whites, and changes in the unemployment rate for nonwhites closely parallels changes in the real minimum wage.
For example, the 1990 and 1991 increases in the minimum wage were accompanied by rising nonwhite unemployment, which reached a peak of 13.1 percent in June 1992.
The minimum wage reduces on-the-job training opportunities that allow low-skilled, low-income workers to rise up the job ladder out of poverty.
An increase in the minimum wage would also shock the labor market and might trigger a recession, especially since this is a time of economic uncertainty. In the past, increases in the minimum wage have triggered recessions or prolonged depressions. For example:
Evidence demonstrates a link between minimum wage increases and the recessions of 1990-91 and 1974-75.
A good case also could be made that both the 1979-80 economic downturn and the recession that began in late 1981 were exacerbated by minimum wage increases, but this link is less obvious because inflation and other factors were involved
A minimum wage requirement mandated by the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933 halted an increase in employment, lengthening and deepening the Great Depression.”
Conclusion: The biggest beneficiaries of a Minimum Wage hike are the politicians who propose it. They get to appear to care about working people while knowingly putting them out of jobs. Business which are forced to comply with this hike react in rational ways, by either raising prices to cover their new expense basis, or by laying off marginal or entry-level workers in order to stay afloat. This has an extra benefit to the politicians, namely that they get to vilify the businesses and/or the President for "causing the unemployment". Give me a break!
Beware the politicians who promise you something that they cannot deliver. If a politician is looting one faction of the population in order to give you ill-gotten gain, run! YOU will be the next victim when those before you are used up, and those behind you will benefit from YOUR destruction.
Pax,
Newbius
1 Tax Data source is the US House Joint Committee on Taxation publication dated March 14, 2007: http://www.jct.gov/x-11-07.pdf, Page 7, Table 4;
2 Group Taxation statistics from the IRS, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01etr.xls
3 Labor statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
4 Quotes regarding the Minimum Wage are from the National Center for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190.html
(WARNING: Political “Rants” ahead!)
DOUBLE-SPEAK
Language used to deceive, usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
LIE
Intransitive verb:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Noun:
1a: An assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
1b: An untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: Something that misleads or deceives
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
By nature man is a political being. One of the things that set us apart from the beasts is our ability to speak in ideas, to rally others to our causes, and to consider the future beyond the next meal. In fact, our reasoning ability, our memory of history, and our ability to plan for the future sets us apart from all other species.
One of the other things that set us apart from the beasts is our ability to deceive. So today’s rant is about this ability. Specifically, our ability to use (misuse) language to cover our agenda and hide the truth from those we wish to rally to our causes, who might not otherwise support the true nature of our goal if it was stated baldly and plainly. Since I am conservative in nature, I am going to rant about those abuses of language by the Left, which they use to advance their Socialist agenda.
Below, and in the next few entries to come, are several examples of double-speak and lies that are espoused by the Left to further advance their causes, which are either intentional distortions of the truth; or outright lies. If this kind of thing offends you, go make some Pizza instead. There is a recipe in the archives.
So here goes…
“The rich aren’t paying their “fair share” of income taxes.” (Both double-speak and lie)
So, here is a perfect example of the type of class warfare used to try and rally the working men and women of America to vote for someone whose agenda is not in their best interests. A couple of facts for you to consider: “The Rich” is an ambiguous term that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, depending on what public policy weapon he or she intends to use against them. By leaving the term ambiguous, the speaker can leave it to his/her audience to define it for themselves – and the definition never includes the audience (nobody thinks of themselves as Rich, even John Kerry). Promising tax cuts for the “Middle Class” without defining who is “middle class” and who is “rich” leaves all who fall for it open to subjugation by an ever-expanding political class and their enabling bureaucrats. This is a Marxist tactical maneuver designed to hide the true agenda. (For expansion on this, PLEASE read The Communist Manifesto.)
For my purposes here I will consider two types of “Rich”
Type One is the person who through good fortune, previous hard work, previous entrepreneurial success, or lucky parentage, is living on the interest and dividend income of their investments or trust funds. This is the type of person most often castigated as not paying their “Fair Share” of (income) taxes owing to the fact that they have no wage income. These people pay capital gains taxes on the sale of their investments and regular income tax on that portion of their savings that generates interest. These people should more accurately be called “Wealthy” since their means derives from the growth of their wealth almost exclusively. When speaking about tax policy, these people are used as the stalking horse (look it up) so that punishments (extra tax burden) can be perpetrated on the next group of “Rich” – the High Wage Earner.
Type Two-the High Wage Earner-is the person who, through either hard work, business success, entrepreneurial success, or good fortune, is working on a daily basis as a producing member of society but whose income is substantially above the median. These are the people whose income is targeted by the moochers in Washington DC, and who are represented to the average blue-collar Joe as not worthy of consideration while their income is being confiscated. The High Wage Earner is also the person whom everyone in America should aspire to be some day, because they are SUCCESSFUL.
A couple of facts: As of 2006, wage earners making more than $200,000 annually paid more than 53% of all Federal Income taxes collected (34% of total receipts including income and payroll taxes). Wage earners making more than $100,000 per year paid more than 80% of the Federal Income taxes collected (63% of total receipts including payroll taxes). Wage Earners making more than $50,000 per year paid almost 90% of the TOTAL wage and income taxes collected! (1)
I am not sure what your definition of “Middle Class” is, but I am sure it probably includes at least the lower end of the groups referenced above. If your definition of “Middle Class” is everybody making LESS THAN $50,000 per year, well I’ve got news for you. This group pays almost NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Most of what they pay is Payroll Taxes (OASDI, FICA, Medicare, RRRA, Etc.). This group’s total tax liability was less than 12% of the total federal income and payroll tax receipts collected, almost all of this from the $30,000-$50,000 per year group
Tax Statistics By Group (2):
Top 1% (income >$364,656) paid 39.38% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Top 5% (income >$145,282) paid 59.67% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Top 10% (income >$103,911), paid 70.30% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Top 25% (income >$62,068) paid 85.99% of all income tax collected in 2005.
Here is the double-speak punch line: The second 25% (income > $30,880 but <$62,068, basically what everybody considers the “middle class”) paid only 10% of all income taxes collected in tax year 2005. This group represents one fourth of all tax filers (33,152,910 total returns) in America. To lower taxes on this group, you must shift the tax burden still higher to the more productive members of society, or flatten the tax burden so that the lower 50% of all taxpayers increase their share of the taxes paid. The fact is that 66,305,818 (the bottom 50% of all tax returns filed) had either a small amount of taxes paid, or had money “refunded” to them through EITC that they never paid in the first place. The Bottom 50% of all tax filers pay only 4% of the Federal tax burden.
Conclusion: The “Rich” (High Wage Earners) pay MORE than their “fair share” of taxes.
Opinion – If you continue to marginalize successful people, your economy-which depends on them-will eventually collapse. See France or pre-Thatcher Great Britain as examples of progressive socialism in action. They are great examples of the devastating effects of confiscatory taxation and Liberal social programs which stifle productivity and keep unemployment high.
“Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage helps workers” (Lie)
The Federal Minimum Wage was enacted in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Prior to this in 1933, a minimum wage requirement was a part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, believed by some to have halted the employment recovery then in progress and prolonging the Depression.
Recent data (3) suggests that the seasonal unemployment increases nationwide are primarily in the 16-24 age group, a group composed of high school and college students working seasonal jobs. The most recent jump to 6.1% unemployment comes directly after the July 24, 2008 increase in the Federal Minimum Wage. (Side note: This analysis excludes recent significant non-seasonal job losses in Michigan attributed to the Auto Industry contraction and increases in tax levies on businesses.)
Increasing the minimum wage harms those workers most that it was designed to help. To quote a 1992 study from the National Center for Policy Analysis (4):
“Only 3.7 percent of hourly wage earners are paid the minimum wage and most of those are not poor.
A majority of minimum wage workers are either young persons living in non-poor families or a second or third earner in a household - not the primary breadwinner.
In 1992, only 198,500 of the nation's 4.7 million minimum wage earners were adult householders.
Only 1.2 percent of all minimum wage workers (about 58,600) were adult heads of households with less than $10,000 of income.
Supporters of a higher minimum wage also frequently imply that a large portion of minimum wage workers are single mothers for whom welfare is an alternative to work. However, this belief is also disproved by the facts.
Single parents, male and female, make up only 6.5 percent of the minimum wage workforce.
Only about half of them (155,900) of a total 311,600) work full time. The number of poor people earning the minimum wage is small in part because most poor people of working age are not working.
Only 9.2 percent of poor people of working age have full-time jobs.
About 60 percent do not work at all.
Thus the minimum wage increase proposed by President Clinton would do little to reduce poverty. Instead, it would cause real hardship for some low-income Americans, the very people it is designed to help. A large majority of scholarly studies demonstrate that increasing the federal minimum wage causes higher unemployment. Those who suffer are most likely to be teenagers, racial minorities and low-skilled workers.
Teenage unemployment rose sharply when the minimum wage was increased from $3.35 to $4.25 in 1990 and 1991.
Furthermore, the extent to which teenage unemployment exceeds that of the whole population tends to increase in direct proportion to increases in the minimum wage.
All the evidence shows that the job-killing impact of the minimum wage is worse for blacks than for whites.
Prior to the imposition of the minimum wage, the unemployment rates for blacks and whites were very similar.
Today, however, the unemployment rate for nonwhites is about twice the rate for whites, and changes in the unemployment rate for nonwhites closely parallels changes in the real minimum wage.
For example, the 1990 and 1991 increases in the minimum wage were accompanied by rising nonwhite unemployment, which reached a peak of 13.1 percent in June 1992.
The minimum wage reduces on-the-job training opportunities that allow low-skilled, low-income workers to rise up the job ladder out of poverty.
An increase in the minimum wage would also shock the labor market and might trigger a recession, especially since this is a time of economic uncertainty. In the past, increases in the minimum wage have triggered recessions or prolonged depressions. For example:
Evidence demonstrates a link between minimum wage increases and the recessions of 1990-91 and 1974-75.
A good case also could be made that both the 1979-80 economic downturn and the recession that began in late 1981 were exacerbated by minimum wage increases, but this link is less obvious because inflation and other factors were involved
A minimum wage requirement mandated by the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933 halted an increase in employment, lengthening and deepening the Great Depression.”
Conclusion: The biggest beneficiaries of a Minimum Wage hike are the politicians who propose it. They get to appear to care about working people while knowingly putting them out of jobs. Business which are forced to comply with this hike react in rational ways, by either raising prices to cover their new expense basis, or by laying off marginal or entry-level workers in order to stay afloat. This has an extra benefit to the politicians, namely that they get to vilify the businesses and/or the President for "causing the unemployment". Give me a break!
Beware the politicians who promise you something that they cannot deliver. If a politician is looting one faction of the population in order to give you ill-gotten gain, run! YOU will be the next victim when those before you are used up, and those behind you will benefit from YOUR destruction.
Pax,
Newbius
1 Tax Data source is the US House Joint Committee on Taxation publication dated March 14, 2007: http://www.jct.gov/x-11-07.pdf, Page 7, Table 4;
2 Group Taxation statistics from the IRS, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01etr.xls
3 Labor statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
4 Quotes regarding the Minimum Wage are from the National Center for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)