There is a debate between proponents of the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax.
The Flat Tax is a good idea and is better than the current system. But I think it is only the second best tax system we could have:
Under the Fair Tax, everyone will pay voluntarily when they buy goods and services. When the rich man buys his yacht, he'll pay it. No loopholes. When the illegal immigrant buys his beer, boom box, car, whatever, he will pay it. No dodging because his income goes unreported.
Showing posts with label Taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxation. Show all posts
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Tone Of Truth: Real vs. Perceived
Have you heard this little tidbit?
From the AP comes this story:
Unbelievable, isn't it? Who would have guessed that at some point, someone would have to pay for the gross negligence and malfeasance that has been thrust upon the American people by their elected officials? Just because Obama and Congress have been openly conspiring to overspend us into oblivion, why can anyone say he/she is surprised?
This is what they said they would do, this is what Obama told Joe the Plumber. They are making good on their promises.
In fact, most everyone who frequents this joint has always believed that Obama and his imperial rubber stamping legislature would raise taxes to pay for their power-drunken spending spree. We all saw it coming and we clearly said so, time and time again..... both here and in other forums.
But the naive dreamers (who thought we were a bunch of bigoted and paranoid right-wingers) did not believe us. They did not think that big time liberals would take our money, disregard our wishes, and thumb their noses while doing it. They thought we were delusional.
So to anyone who stumbles across this blog and fits this specific description, I have a question for you:
Can you hear us now?
From the AP comes this story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation's mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight retain control of Congress.
Unbelievable, isn't it? Who would have guessed that at some point, someone would have to pay for the gross negligence and malfeasance that has been thrust upon the American people by their elected officials? Just because Obama and Congress have been openly conspiring to overspend us into oblivion, why can anyone say he/she is surprised?
This is what they said they would do, this is what Obama told Joe the Plumber. They are making good on their promises.
In fact, most everyone who frequents this joint has always believed that Obama and his imperial rubber stamping legislature would raise taxes to pay for their power-drunken spending spree. We all saw it coming and we clearly said so, time and time again..... both here and in other forums.
But the naive dreamers (who thought we were a bunch of bigoted and paranoid right-wingers) did not believe us. They did not think that big time liberals would take our money, disregard our wishes, and thumb their noses while doing it. They thought we were delusional.
So to anyone who stumbles across this blog and fits this specific description, I have a question for you:
Can you hear us now?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Two Articles Worth Your Time
The Democrats have gone to great lengths and extremes to demonize the TEA Party. Along with the complicit mainstream media, they have painted the movement as a refuge for kooks and racists. They do it out of fear....fear that their deceits will become more easily detected and they will lose their power after November.
The GOP has been a different animal altogether.
Some Republican politicians have embraced the movement as something they have believed all along. Some have tried to hijack it for their own gain.
Still, others have realized it is not an entity that can be shaped by outside forces and it is they who merely try to ride the wave to safety.
For an interesting read about how the GOP Governor of Indiana sees it, give this piece a read when you get the opportunity. He has many detractors for many different reasons, most of them are the same old tired reasons. But mostly it's a case of the big spenders fearing those who want to eliminate bureaucracy and preserve individual freedom and liberty. His actions have usually subverted almost everything the big government crowd wants.
And they don't like him for it.
The GOP has been a different animal altogether.
Some Republican politicians have embraced the movement as something they have believed all along. Some have tried to hijack it for their own gain.
Still, others have realized it is not an entity that can be shaped by outside forces and it is they who merely try to ride the wave to safety.
For an interesting read about how the GOP Governor of Indiana sees it, give this piece a read when you get the opportunity. He has many detractors for many different reasons, most of them are the same old tired reasons. But mostly it's a case of the big spenders fearing those who want to eliminate bureaucracy and preserve individual freedom and liberty. His actions have usually subverted almost everything the big government crowd wants.
And they don't like him for it.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Taxation Infection
If you visit San Francisco and eat out in a restaurant, you might find a little extra charge on your bill. From the Chicago Tribune comes this story:
I can understand the outrage....to a degree. But let's look at something may not be so apparent to the person who wrote this article.
I have worked in businesses both large and small, over my many years in the workforce. The cost of doing business is the cost of doing business. Whatever cost a business owner or corporation must pay to keep the doors open is part of the overhead, and it always gets passed onto the customer. This includes taxes and fees levied by all levels of government.
In this case, the restaurants in SF are passing this city tax (and it is a tax) to cover the additional cost forced upon them. The only difference is they are not building it into the price of the items on the menu. They are showing it for all to see.
This is why additional taxes on corporations and businesses in a time of recession only creates inflation, which can (and often does) result in more recession. This is why a tax on commerce of any kind, is a tax on the consumer.
Let's look at this in healthcare terms:
Whenever government sticks its nasty snot-dripping noses into our lives, it infects every thing it touches. Whether bacterial or viral, it spreads like wildfire and weakens the system.
Nothing succeeds in the travel industry like a bad idea. The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a "health" charge added to restaurant bills. As far as I know, this scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
The rationale for this one is to cover the employers' mandatory contribution to the City's "Healthy San Francisco" health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer's bill to cover this charge.
The restaurants' excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they're paying for employees' health coverage. That's the same excuse hotels use when they add "resort" or "housekeeping" fees to unsuspecting guests' room bills. It's the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it's sheer nonsense. Employees' health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.
I can understand the outrage....to a degree. But let's look at something may not be so apparent to the person who wrote this article.
I have worked in businesses both large and small, over my many years in the workforce. The cost of doing business is the cost of doing business. Whatever cost a business owner or corporation must pay to keep the doors open is part of the overhead, and it always gets passed onto the customer. This includes taxes and fees levied by all levels of government.
In this case, the restaurants in SF are passing this city tax (and it is a tax) to cover the additional cost forced upon them. The only difference is they are not building it into the price of the items on the menu. They are showing it for all to see.
This is why additional taxes on corporations and businesses in a time of recession only creates inflation, which can (and often does) result in more recession. This is why a tax on commerce of any kind, is a tax on the consumer.
Let's look at this in healthcare terms:
Whenever government sticks its nasty snot-dripping noses into our lives, it infects every thing it touches. Whether bacterial or viral, it spreads like wildfire and weakens the system.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Barney Frank: Plenty Of Rich People To Tax
At a time when conservation and wise fiscal prudence should be prevailing, Barney Frank gives John McCain and the GOP another gift in addition to Biden's:
Folks, they are telling us what they are going to do. They are not hiding it anymore. They are going to tax and spend this country into the ground. They are so confident they will control both Houses of Congress and the White House, they are beginning to sell their ideas right now (as if they have already won). I don't know about you, but I think this is the highest form of presumptuous arrogance one can ever see.
Are you going to let them do this? Are you really going to vote for Obama, after all of this?
Addendum:
PYY's good friend AICS of The Logic Lifeline has left a comment worthy of much thought and consideration:
Folks, they are telling us what they are going to do. They are not hiding it anymore. They are going to tax and spend this country into the ground. They are so confident they will control both Houses of Congress and the White House, they are beginning to sell their ideas right now (as if they have already won). I don't know about you, but I think this is the highest form of presumptuous arrogance one can ever see.
Are you going to let them do this? Are you really going to vote for Obama, after all of this?
Addendum:
PYY's good friend AICS of The Logic Lifeline has left a comment worthy of much thought and consideration:
They are strategically telegraphing their intent - weakly enough not to raise too many alarms, strongly enough to later claim they had a mandate to implement their socialist plans.
If Obama wins, watch closely for the words mandate and socialist policies to go hand in hand in the media.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Recommended Reading
Busy, busy. No time to write, but time to share some good reads with the PYY faithful:
From the American Spectator comes this piece on Obama's 95% smoke and mirrors illusion. Tax cuts are for those pay taxes. Anything else is just another entitlement.
Krauthammer draws some distinctions in the guilt by associations game in this column.
A commenter on Mustang's blog insists that Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the meltdown. But he is unable to explain why in a cogent manner. Here is something to help him better understand the entire situation. (Not that it will help him)
Finally, here is Mustang's latest, poignant as always.
From the American Spectator comes this piece on Obama's 95% smoke and mirrors illusion. Tax cuts are for those pay taxes. Anything else is just another entitlement.
Krauthammer draws some distinctions in the guilt by associations game in this column.
A commenter on Mustang's blog insists that Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the meltdown. But he is unable to explain why in a cogent manner. Here is something to help him better understand the entire situation. (Not that it will help him)
Finally, here is Mustang's latest, poignant as always.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Windfall Taxes On The Oil Companies' Profits: The Real Story
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing a tax on the oil companies' profits. Clinton wants to suspend federal taxes on gasoline for the summer to give some relief to the consumer, while imposing the windfall tax on profits for the producers. Obama just wants to tax the oil companies, with no federal relief at all.
To see why either of these two approaches are not good ideas, let's have a a basic review from high school economics:
1. Price is what the company charges the consumer. Cost + Mark-Up = Price.
2. Cost is the expense incurred in the making, marketing, and transportation of the product. This includes any taxes levied on the company.
3. Profit is the price minus the cost.
If we can understand this simple principle, we can plainly see that raising the taxes on any company only results in the costs of their products going up. To make up for that rise in cost, the company will raise the price to the consumer. If the price in feed for livestock goes up, the result is higher prices for beef, pork, or chicken at the grocery store. If the price of gas goes up, transportation costs go up to get the meat to the grocery store. This also results in a higher price to the consumer. So it only stands to reason that if the government decides to tax meat, the same thing happens.
This is true of ANY product.
If Hillary suspends the federal tax on gas for the summer, the price goes down. But if she slaps a windfall tax on the oil companies, the price goes back up. Net gain for the consumer is nothing. And when the federal tax is added back in at the end of the summer, the price goes back up even more. If Obama simply taxes the oil companies and doesn't suspend the federal tax, the price just goes up with no relief for the consumer.
The moral of the story: No company is going to absorb a higher cost of doing business without passing it on to the consumer. The tax that Hillary and Obama want to implement to punish the oil companies for making their profit, will ultimately punish the consumer.
What are your questions on this topic?
To see why either of these two approaches are not good ideas, let's have a a basic review from high school economics:
1. Price is what the company charges the consumer. Cost + Mark-Up = Price.
2. Cost is the expense incurred in the making, marketing, and transportation of the product. This includes any taxes levied on the company.
3. Profit is the price minus the cost.
If we can understand this simple principle, we can plainly see that raising the taxes on any company only results in the costs of their products going up. To make up for that rise in cost, the company will raise the price to the consumer. If the price in feed for livestock goes up, the result is higher prices for beef, pork, or chicken at the grocery store. If the price of gas goes up, transportation costs go up to get the meat to the grocery store. This also results in a higher price to the consumer. So it only stands to reason that if the government decides to tax meat, the same thing happens.
This is true of ANY product.
If Hillary suspends the federal tax on gas for the summer, the price goes down. But if she slaps a windfall tax on the oil companies, the price goes back up. Net gain for the consumer is nothing. And when the federal tax is added back in at the end of the summer, the price goes back up even more. If Obama simply taxes the oil companies and doesn't suspend the federal tax, the price just goes up with no relief for the consumer.
The moral of the story: No company is going to absorb a higher cost of doing business without passing it on to the consumer. The tax that Hillary and Obama want to implement to punish the oil companies for making their profit, will ultimately punish the consumer.
What are your questions on this topic?
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Rangel Wrangle
Today, we live in a society of which there are many that think government should be able to drain your account, so they can have money to buy your vote. This group is made up mostly of politicians and those that stand to gain from them, both in influence and financially.
It's not enough that they spend billions on bogus programs that create dependency, they need more. And the people that are being targeted to foot the bill are those that work hard for their money.
No folks, the big spenders are not satisfied with the money they already seize from us, by force. Now they feel they need more, to support their spending addictions. As of this writing, they are making plans to sock it to us in the form of a surtax, on what they perceive as wealth.
Here's how they are trying to package this deal:
Sounds nice, right? Well let's see more:
Now don't get me wrong here. There's nothing wrong with helping out the middle class. But someone will need to foot the bill.
It's not the fact that the filthy rich will pay that irks me. They can afford it.
It's the notion that rich people deserve to pay for politicians and their pork. It's also the idea that we just cannot seem to get it out of our heads that government should have the right to wrest money out of our pockets, before we ever see it. For some reason there is an elitist class that worships government and believes that the more money it collects, the less suffering there will be in the world. As if our tax code isn't complex enough, they find seek to make it even more so.
But the thing that gets me the most is, it is rich people that create jobs. The more we saddle them with taxes, the less they invest. The less they invest, the less opportunity there is for the rest for those of us that want to work and succeed. No one thinks of that when they scream for the rich to be punished.
It's not enough that they spend billions on bogus programs that create dependency, they need more. And the people that are being targeted to foot the bill are those that work hard for their money.
No folks, the big spenders are not satisfied with the money they already seize from us, by force. Now they feel they need more, to support their spending addictions. As of this writing, they are making plans to sock it to us in the form of a surtax, on what they perceive as wealth.
Here's how they are trying to package this deal:
Corporations would see their top tax rate cut to 30.5% from 35% under a tax plan unveiled Wednesday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to fellow committee members.
Sounds nice, right? Well let's see more:
Middle and upper-middle income families would benefit under the plan by a repeal of the alternative minimum tax starting Jan. 1, 2008.
Now don't get me wrong here. There's nothing wrong with helping out the middle class. But someone will need to foot the bill.
Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.
It's not the fact that the filthy rich will pay that irks me. They can afford it.
It's the notion that rich people deserve to pay for politicians and their pork. It's also the idea that we just cannot seem to get it out of our heads that government should have the right to wrest money out of our pockets, before we ever see it. For some reason there is an elitist class that worships government and believes that the more money it collects, the less suffering there will be in the world. As if our tax code isn't complex enough, they find seek to make it even more so.
But the thing that gets me the most is, it is rich people that create jobs. The more we saddle them with taxes, the less they invest. The less they invest, the less opportunity there is for the rest for those of us that want to work and succeed. No one thinks of that when they scream for the rich to be punished.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Inaccurate Assault On The Fair Tax Debunked
If you've read this WSJ piece by Bruce Bartlett, you have read some things that need sorely correcting, because the entire piece is saturated with bad information.
As you may have guessed, Neal Boortz has offered to step up to the plate and has taken Mr. Bartlett to task for the inaccuracies that seem to come from either, Mr. Bartlett's ignorance or his blatant attempt to skew facts for his own purposes.
This proposed Fair Tax is the fairest method of taxation, I have ever heard of. Yet, many in the Washington circles don't like it and want to demonize it. Why don't they like it? I am sure there are several reasons, but the ones that come to mind are obvious:
1. The rich will have to pay their fair share, without their customary large deductions and write-offs. And we all know that Democrats and Republicans alike, want to have these deductions.We have people who are of great wealth that finagle their taxes in such a way, they show little or no income on April 15. yet they own yachts, wear Gucci, have mansions in several parts of the country/world.
2. It will weaken the federal government's power over the people. The tax will be voluntary, in the sense that: If you don't buy something, you will not pay anything. The current source of their power exists in the present income tax system, whereby, a portion of our income is demanded and taken before we ever see it. This means it's involuntary.
I have often said that people have become so accustomed to their net pay, they often forget about the gross pay. Income taxes get sucked out and we have all learned to live with it. We really do not miss it, when it is withheld without our consent. But if we all got our entire check on payday and had to write out our income tax check on a weekly, bi-weekly, or however basis, we'd all be in a foul mood on payday.
And really now, who cares how the government gets their money as long as they get it, right? Why not put more money in our own pockets and still let the government have theirs, at the same time? I cannot imagine one good reason why, the American people are so dense that they cannot see this and will not put massive amounts of pressure on the candidates to address this issue. It's a no-brainer.
If you haven't read the Fair Tax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz, maybe it's high time you do.
As you may have guessed, Neal Boortz has offered to step up to the plate and has taken Mr. Bartlett to task for the inaccuracies that seem to come from either, Mr. Bartlett's ignorance or his blatant attempt to skew facts for his own purposes.
This proposed Fair Tax is the fairest method of taxation, I have ever heard of. Yet, many in the Washington circles don't like it and want to demonize it. Why don't they like it? I am sure there are several reasons, but the ones that come to mind are obvious:
1. The rich will have to pay their fair share, without their customary large deductions and write-offs. And we all know that Democrats and Republicans alike, want to have these deductions.We have people who are of great wealth that finagle their taxes in such a way, they show little or no income on April 15. yet they own yachts, wear Gucci, have mansions in several parts of the country/world.
2. It will weaken the federal government's power over the people. The tax will be voluntary, in the sense that: If you don't buy something, you will not pay anything. The current source of their power exists in the present income tax system, whereby, a portion of our income is demanded and taken before we ever see it. This means it's involuntary.
I have often said that people have become so accustomed to their net pay, they often forget about the gross pay. Income taxes get sucked out and we have all learned to live with it. We really do not miss it, when it is withheld without our consent. But if we all got our entire check on payday and had to write out our income tax check on a weekly, bi-weekly, or however basis, we'd all be in a foul mood on payday.
And really now, who cares how the government gets their money as long as they get it, right? Why not put more money in our own pockets and still let the government have theirs, at the same time? I cannot imagine one good reason why, the American people are so dense that they cannot see this and will not put massive amounts of pressure on the candidates to address this issue. It's a no-brainer.
If you haven't read the Fair Tax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz, maybe it's high time you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)