Don't Let Me Stop You

What the heck, you'll do what you want anyway.

Archive for the ‘tax rates’ Category

Obama Economic Debris

Posted by Dan Draney on November 4, 2008

Some Pittsburg plumbers describe exactly what will happen to their businesses and employees if Obama’s tax plans are enacted.

Flush go the plumbers: “By RALPH R. REILAND
I INTERVIEWED two plumbing-company owners in Pittsburgh recently about Barack Obama’s economic proposals for small businesses. One has 15 workers and 12 trucks, the other 52 and 34 trucks. It’s Joe the Plumber, writ large.

Both had the same reaction to Obama’s proposed new taxes and mandates. To not have their bottom lines reduced by government fiat, both said they’d be forced to lay off employees.”

They go into detail on exactly how much each regulatory change and tax will increase costs, and how that translates into corresponding layoffs. Anyone who has ever run a business, or even part of one, will immediately appreciate that personnel costs are the biggest chunk of the budget. Well, not every small business will have layoffs; some will just close. Peer into the future offered by TheOne.

Posted in Joe the Plumber, regulation, socialism, tax rates | Leave a Comment »

We Are All Joe the Plumber

Posted by Dan Draney on October 21, 2008

It’s official. In less than a week the Dinosaur Media have already spent more time and effort investigating Joe Wurzelbacher, a regular guy who had the temerity to ask Obama a question, than they have spent in the past year investigating the candidate. It wasn’t even a “gotcha” question, but Obama, unable to see his teleprompter from Joe’s front lawn, accidentally blurted out something that betrayed his actual, i.e. socialist, views.

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Before you could say, “Politics of Personal Destruction” the race was on to find some dirt, any dirt, on the man who asked the question that Obama whiffed on. John at Power Line writes of the crusade to discredit Joe in Bring me the head of Joe the Plumber:

“As Barack Obama made the rounds in his neighborhood, Joe the Plumber elicited Obama’s frankly redistributionist statement that he seeks to ‘spread the wealth around’ in his tax plan. Clearly this cannot stand.

The question itself revealed a kind of offense against royalty that in French goes under the rubric of lèse majesté. Moreover, Obama’s comment betrays a frame of mind that is unpopular among independent middle-class voters whose vote may still be up for grabs. Joe the Plumber embarrassed The Man Who Would Be King.”

We haven’t seen anything like this since Sarah Palin was tapped by McCain as his running mate. Sayeth The One: “Let he who is without sin ask the first question. The rest of you, shut the f*** up.”

Surprise! Joe did have some things in his past he’d prefer not to have everyone know about. Who doesn’t have something, be it a crazy uncle, some other nuts, a few old terrorist pals. or our own role in creating the financial crisis? Some members of the media section of the Obama campaign suggested McCain should have “vetted” Joe before talking about The Incident. However, Joe, along with the rest of us, was “vetted” back during the founding of this great country. We have the right, at least for now, to ask questions of our leaders, even questions that embarrass them.

The real issue isn’t Joe or what he said, but who Obama is, what he says and what that means. The fact is that Obama’s tax plan would raise tax rates dramatically on people founding and running successful small businesses. Joe doesn’t own one yet, but, God bless him, he wants to and he’s working hard to make it happen. That’s what creates the wealth that Obama wants to redistribute to people who are, for the most part, not working as hard as Joe. And Obama calls his stealth socialism “good for everybody.”

Talk about a close call. Obama caught himself just in time. His initial thought was to say, “From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.”

Obama said to Joe that he doesn’t want to punish his success, and that’s true. If he wanted to punish him, he’d give Joe a baby.

See also Mark Steyn’s “Joe the Plumber vs. Joe the Hair-Plugger.”

Posted in capitalism, Joe the Plumber, MSM bias, Obama jokes, tax rates | Leave a Comment »

When is a Tax Cut Not a Tax Cut?

Posted by Dan Draney on October 14, 2008

We noted previously that Obama is counting his tax increases as “spending cuts,” but wait, there’s more. He’s also calling his spending increases “tax cuts.” Somewhere around 40% of the populace is already paying no income taxes, so we were confused as to how 95% of people could get a tax cut. Used to be you actually had to pay taxes before they could be reduced, but no more. As the Wall Street Journal explains, Obama is proposing seven new “tax credits:”

Obama’s 95% Illusion – “Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be ‘refundable,’ which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this ‘welfare,’ or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a ‘Demogrant.’ Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable ‘tax credits’ would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as ‘tax credits,’ the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.”

So much for ending welfare as we know it. It’s all about “spreading the wealth around.” As he tells the plumber in the video, Obama doesn’t want to punish his success. If he had, Obama would probably have given the guy a baby. Here’s a tip: Just say, “Keep the change, Barack.”

Posted in Obama, tax rates | Leave a Comment »

When Is a Cut Not a Cut?

Posted by Dan Draney on October 9, 2008

This caught our ear in last night’s “debate” between John McCain and Barack Obama. The question is from Teresa Finch about why either of them should be trusted with our money. Good question, Teresa. This is part of Obama’s answer (emphasis added):

Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate – “… And so while it’s true that nobody’s completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets.

So here’s what I would do. I’m going to spend some money on the key issues that we’ve got to work on.

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We’ve got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can’t keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children’s future. We’ve got to have a different energy plan.

We’ve got to invest in college affordability. So we’re going to have to make some investments, but we’ve also got to make spending cuts. And what I’ve proposed, you’ll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

Is there anyone sentient who believes that last part? How can that possibly be true considering the laundry list of “top spending priorities” that he recited here and in the previous debate. McCain has put the cost of Obama’s spending plans at over $800 billion, and Obama has not challenged him on that.

As far as we know, Obama has offered few, if any, specific spending cuts. During the primaries he promised to eliminate the missile defense program, but he claimed in the last debate that he now sees missile defense as essential (at least until he gets elected).

The only explanation that makes sense is: when Obama says he is cutting more than he’s spending, he must be counting his plans for tax increases as “spending cuts.” This is standard liberal “framing” over the last several years, which attempts to equate goverment spending with letting people keep their own money. The underlying premise, which is never stated because it’s indefensible, is that all money belongs to the government. Note that an actual spending cut decreases the government’s role in the real economy, while a tax increase has the opposite effect.

We can also see that idea behind this Obama statement from the debate (emphasis added):

But understand this: We also have to look at where some of our tax revenues are going. So when Sen. McCain proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he’s going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth, that’s money out of the system.

Actually, Senator, that’s money back into the system. The real system, where wealth and jobs are actually created. The system is the private sector, not the government.

Again, Obama falsely equates government spending with letting the people who created the wealth keep some of it. Note the implicit claim that continuing the current tax rates represents some kind of giveaway to individual taxpayers. Meanwhile, in LiberalThink any cut in corporate tax rates, which are far higher than in the rest of the industrialized countries, would be a giveaway to big companies, and lost forever from “the system.”

What would these evil businesses do with the government’s money? Expand instead of contract? Stay in business instead of folding? Employ more people instead of fewer? Hold their prices down instead of raising them? Raise wages and benefits instead of cutting them? The horror.

Posted in Obama, tax rates | Leave a Comment »

The Problem with Liberals

Posted by Dan Draney on September 20, 2008

Fred Thompson’s speech at the Republican National Convention was somewhat overshadowed by the blockbusters Sarah Palin and Rudy Guliani delivered, but it was excellent in its own right. Our favorite part was this one:

“We need a president who understands that you don’t make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don’t lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they’re just going to tax ‘businesses’! So unless you buy something from a ‘business’, like groceries or clothes or gasoline … or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business’, don’t worry … it’s not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the ‘other’ side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.”

Liberals, socialists and communists (but I repeat myself) just don’t get this fundamental aspect of reality. The private economy, that is businesses large and small, is the goose that is laying these golden eggs they are so keen to redistribute. Government itself does not create any jobs, at least no real ones that aren’t canceled out by job losses from the effects of taxation or borrowing.

The US now has one of the highest tax burdens on business of all the industrialized countries. The results are obvious, if one is willing to look and think: fewer US jobs and higher prices. Businesses don’t pay taxes, only people do. Businesses only pass along their costs from the taxes through higher prices, by employing fewer workers, and/or they go out of business.

Socialists/liberals like to make a big deal about their “compassion” and concern for The Little Guy, but their true agenda is all about punishing success. Envy of The Rich is what really motivates them. The Poor are really just a stick for liberals to use against The Rich.

Joe Biden’s miniscule charitable contributions are a recent case in point. Sen. Biden, the self-proclaimed “Joe Lunchbucket” of the Senate, averaged $369 per year in contributions in the 10 yrs of tax returns he recently released (average income: $245,000). It’s a safe bet that many conservative Nebraskans of much more modest means than Biden exceed his 10 yr contribution total every year. Apparently raising taxes is not only patriotic; it’s also an act of charity.

Posted in capitalism, regulation, tax rates | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: