The Tax Less Taken

It's been a year. Is it safe to come out of hiding?

Talk about backwards! Our (not so) Dear Leader has once again revealed his true colors concerning his perception of your property. Critical of the Republican plan to extend tax cuts for all Americans, Obama states that to extend tax cuts to the top 3% would be "to give" an average of $100 million to each of those people.

Let me say that again: extending tax cuts = giving money to the taxpayer.

Still didn't catch it? Try this: Not taking their money = giving them money.

I'm sorry... but "not taking" is not synonymous with "giving".

"Not taking" necessarily means that the property not being taken belongs to the person keeping the property, and not to the person wanting to do the taking.

"Giving" necessarily requires that the property must first belong to the person doing the giving.

If the person "not taking" is the government, then the property necessarily belongs to the tax payor.
If the person doing the "giving" is the government, then the property must necessarily first belong to the government.

So...

To claim that a tax cut would "give" property to the rich would necessarily mean that the property belongs to the government... which is interesting, since "tax" necessarily means that the property is surrendered to the government, meaning that it first belonged to the tax payor. But for a liberal, the property never truly belonged to the person earning it, or the "wage earner", which means that at tax time, we are really figuring out how much of our salaries Our Dear Leader is willing to let us have.

Hmmm... have you been watching Greece lately?

Scary Thoughts for Halloween

Remember when the Reid and Pelosi wanted be the de facto president? Remember that? They thought that if they legislated an end to the war, the real President shouldn't be able to call them on it. Remember that? (Check this old post.) Fortunately, they quickly discovered a small thing we call the Constitution which provided a little check on the legislature. The dynamic duo were muffled and the war continued unhindered.

With a vote for Obama, there will be very little need for that pesky little Constitution. There will no longer be a check on the majority. And those now in power who have been chomping at the bit to get busy spreading the wealth (other's wealth) will have nothing to stop them. Oh sure, there's that pesky little thing we call the Supreme Court, but because it is conservative, it is pretty bound by that little constitution thing to deciding only constitutional things. It can't veto stupid legislation, or legislation that merely destroys that pesky little thing we call capitalism.

If the pollsters have their way, we will soon have a socialist lawyer running the "free" world. He and his ilk have long longed to be more like Europe, to place equality above liberty. He uses words such as "middle class" and "wealthy" to avoid pesky little words such as "proletariat" and "bourgoise" to avoid letting his redness slip.

McCain concerned conservatives because of his willingness to sell out, er, reach out, across the aisle. However, his history has demonstrated that he supports the traditional American dream. That is that we can pursue whatever legitimate course of employment or venture we think will get us where we want to be. This requires an adherence to the basic concept that, except for government's inept interference, the markets will adjust themselves, the wealthy, and those growing wealthy, will employ others, in their quest to acquire more wealth. Based on McCain's history, we can feel somewhat comfortable that when he reaches across the aisle, it will be to those Democrats who also adhere to these ideals.

On the other hand, Obama's history leaves us with little hope that we can attain what he and the current elite already have. The best we can do is hope for a few crumbs of bread. As a member of the extreme upper-lower/lower-middle class, I want to hope for better. I want to hope that I can eventually see success in business, such that I am making good money. While I am not looking to become rich, I would sure like to become so should good fortune fall my way. I don't see that under Obama. His history of associations and comments seems to speak otherwise.

I know a man who told his prospective employer that he didn't want to be paid more than $xx,000. Why? Our already existing socialist programs have been very good to him and his family. Should he make more than that, he stands to lose it all, which would require that he make much more in order to make up for those benefits. See, socialism creates large gaps between just getting by and getting ahead. As the government gives, we can get by on $xx,000, but if we make more than that, we actually do worse, unless we can get to $xxx,000. Since that is a very difficult gap to overcome, why try? Even if we do, we are then rewarded with a much higher tax burden "to help those who are following". So we then have to hit $x,000,000 before we can really breathe. The more we socialize, the more difficult that gap becomes.

That's about all my scary thoughts for now.

This wig hurts.

FairTax: Is it really that fair?

I will begin by admitting ignorance on this issue. There is a movement afoot to replace the federal taxation system with a national sales tax. It has been floated around for years, but it apparently has been introduced by a bill in Congress. While I am not coming out against it just yet, I am also very hesitant to endorse it.

I will try to include links as I find them. I think this is worthy of investigation, and we should be fully aware of the ramifications before accepting such a drastic overhaul.

Here are a few I have found so far:

Off the Fence (Plain Language Explanation)
FairTax.org (frequently asked questions)

I have a few concerns:
1. It may not be as fair as it sounds. As members of the Mormon church, we pay a tithe of 10%. Having had good years and poor years, I can confidently attest to the fact that 10% becomes more of a sacrifice the lower one's income falls. To give you an example, someone making $300 per week (approximately $15,000 annually) will pay $30 in tithing. Doesn't sound like much, until you look at everything else that has to come out of the leftovers. Just to pay rent will likely consume almost two weeks' income. And that is for basic comforts. Contrast that with the person making $1500 per week ($approx $76,000 annually). He will pay $150 per week, but the $1350 remaining will go a lot further. He can likely pay his mortgage in one week, and his house will be one of choice, rather than necessity. He will then have more discretionary income left over the rest of the month.
This is not an attempt at class warfare. I have no problem with successful people. It usually denotes people who have made better decisions, or taken advantage of opportunities. But, in the current tax situation, the first fellow, if he has a family, will likely have no federal taxes taken out of his check. Thus, he is living mostly free of federal taxation. Under the FairTax plan, he will receive a prebate, based on, presumably, what he would be expected to purchase. But does this take into account that he was already living on moneys not already taxed? On that income, every dollar has more value to the wage-earner.

2. The presumption seems to be that companies, relieved of corporate taxes, will magically reflect this relief in their pricing structures. I can't buy into this. I am not saying that business execs are evil, any more than politicians. But the maxim would seem to hold that once assessed, taxes seldom are revoked. Thus, while those who are taxed in their paychecks might see more money on the front end, those who had enjoyed the lower withholding (and have adapted their budget to survive at that level) will now be faced with disproportionately higher retail prices (at least until the markets supposedly adjust, as it is presumed the free market will cause to happen).

3. How will this affect charity? Do corporations really donate to charities out of the goodness of their hearts?

4. Will this new plan help us to live more free from government entanglement? Or will it exacerbate the situation?

Just a few concerns... What do you think?