Obamanomics - Part II
Posted June 13th, 2008 by Da King
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles
The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:
Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others
Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).
As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).
A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).
Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
King,
That is a very impressive list of taxes that you must have been looking at your last telephone bill when drawing it up. I love looking at that bill and wondering where all those taxes to the phone company go.
When one looks at a list of taxes like that one he wonders why they have forgotten to include a commode tax on usage of that piece of modern technology. Just think of the money to be made there if they can come up with some reporting device to establish on each of those instruments in each home in the US and think of all the mental gymnastics we would all go through to avoid that tax. Maybe that would be more abdominal than mental, though. Think of all the jobs that could be created by government exercising a tax like that one. Repairmen to "fix" the fixes that many would think of to beat this one at the meter, potty police making sure we didn't tamper with our devices, all those office personnel needed to coordinate the work of these "repairmen" and "potty police". I think that we are lucky that Obama and other liberals haven't thought of this one yet. Lets pray they never do see this suggestion.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Mr. King,
The Beatles song you cite was written by George Harrison in response to England's usurious top tax rate. At that time, it was 3 times as high as our top rate is and 6 times as high as the tax rate for those who derive their income from investments.
When the Democrats criticize Bush's tax cut for the wealthy, they usually talking about tax fairness and fiscal responsibility.
The list of taxes is quite impressive, but you should note that most fall disproportionately on the poor and middle class. I would guess that for most of those taxes that I pay takes a larger percentage of my income than Bill Gates. Historically these taxes have been implemented and increased as the top income tax rate has fallen and used to subsidize the income tax cuts. Inasmuch as neither Obama nor McCain would have any control over these taxes, I find it pretty tangential in a discussion of a candidate's fiscal program.
Eliminating Bush's tax cuts, removing the SS cap, and doubling the capital gains tax are all good ideas to restore fairness and fiscal integrity.
No one wants more taxes, but on a per capita basis most of us pay less than our share of the cost of the federal government. Take the federal budget, divide by the population. This is the per capita cost of government. Add yourself and your dependents and multiply this by the per capita cost of government. This is each taxpayer's burden. Now compare this to the amount of federal income tax you actually paid, which is larger?
June 15th, 2008 at 7:17 am
It looks like your argument for tax increases has come full circle, frank.
Maybe one reason the tax burden is more than most pay is because 'the rich' are footing much of the bill for the rest of us.
What is "fair" about placing a heavier burden on people because they have more money? If we want to punish them, we could still go to a flat tax then put 'the rich' in orange jumpsuits and have them pick up trash on the side of the road.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Mr. larry d.,
The Bush temporary tax cuts were sold on the basis of the government surplus which he inherited and rosy projections of the economic future. It is certainly not the situation now, so why not let these cuts expire. Capital gains should be taxed as any other income. Why should people who earn their livings with their backs, brains, or skills be taxed at a higher rate than those fortunate enough to get their checks from the mailbox? The SS cap is quite simply unfair. Why should the poor and middle class be taxed on 100% of their income while the rich are taxed on a fraction of theirs?
A graduated income tax is fair because the government provides the environment under which they thrive. For example, the government provides intellectual property rights, and patents, regulation of other business practices, etc. It provides the structure for investment vehicles, the stock market,etc. In short, they receive more service from government. But when we talk about tax burden, we should be talking about tax vs. disposable income rather than tax vs. gross income. Or do you think that these changes will cause changes in the lifestyle of the Gates' or the Buffet's? I seem to recall that they did quite well for themselves before Bush's tax cut.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
They may take advantage of services from the government that others don't use, but they aren't receiving anything anyone else can't receive. Anyone can use patent services, 'the structure for investment vehicles,' etc., can't they?At the same time, there's lots of social services wealthy people do not use.
And what's anyone's lifestyle have to do with fairness? Is it a jealousy thing for you?
June 16th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Roy,
Some legislators have already beat you to the idea of a toilet tax. I'm sure it won't be long before President O-bama-rama grabs onto this one.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6241446_ITM
June 16th, 2008 at 7:46 am
frank,
I have to disagree with your statement that the capital gains tax should be raised. That would be the worst economic move to make, especially now, when we're in an economic downturn. It would discourage investment, harm retirement plans and other market instruments, and reduce venture capital. Doubling the capital gains tax would have a negative ripple effect throughout the entire economy.
Not to mention the fact that when the capital gains tax was cut, capital gains revenue actually increased. That was no coincidence.
I'd put the capital gains rate at 10%, and the corporate tax rate at either zero or 10% (preferably zero). Then we'd see new business come into this country instead of leave, new jobs created, wages rise, product and service prices fall….and the economic downturn would be over in a flash.
Or, we can elect Obama and the Dems and let socialism continue it's progressive destruction of our economy and country, all in the name of "fairness" and "social justice", as we send ever more and more of our hard-earned dollars to the ineffective and wasteful huge government bureaucratic dolts.
Your choice.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Mr. King,
When I spoke of treating capital gains as any other source of income, I was talking about the issue of fairness. How is it fair that people who work with their hands and brains should pay a higher tax rate than someone who receives a check in the mailbox?
As to letting "socialism" continue its progresssive destruction of our economy and country, you are scaring yourself by believing your own hyperbole. You can expect Obama to be in thrall to the financial sector domestically, and the Council on Foreign Relations, internationally. In the past thirty five years, we've had five Republican administrations and two conservative Democratic ones. For most of this time there has been a large enough group of blue dog Democrats to prevent much opposition from the Democratic party. At the same time, the Republican members of Congress has consistently voted as a unified bloc.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:29 am
frank,
All I can say about socialism is that the REAL federal deficit last year wasn't $162 billion, as the government claimed, it was $2.5 trillion when you add in the growth of all the unfunded entitlement liabilities. Obama will only greatly increase that number, making socialism not just my fear, but an inevitable looming reality. And it's going to get much, much worse in about 10-15 years if we stay on the same path. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Don't worry King.
Obama has a plan to seize profits and investment money from the private sector to pay for it all. It didn't work in the USSR, but that was then and this is now.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Mr. King,
I'm beginning to understand your liberal (no pun intended) definition of socialism. It seems to be when us lower class actually receives money returned from our taxes. I assume that the $2.5 trillion you mention is largely SS obligations. These have been overfunded since at least 1982. The other major federal liability is Medicare. I have paid Medicare tax for many years now, so I know that it is at least partially funded.
I agree that we are on an unsustainable path. There is no way that we can continue to be the world's policeman. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military, and even that seems insufficient.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
frank,
The $2.5 trillion is how much the unfunded Medicare/SS and other liabilities increase each year we don't deal with the problem. Medicare is the lion's share of that amount. The unsustainable fiscal path we're on has little to do with the military.
I have nothing against helping people, but it doesn't do much good if you destroy the country in the process. It won't be long before Medicare/SS consumes the entire federal budget. There won't be money for anything else. We will be forced to double or triple tax rates to pay our obligations. Anyone who thinks that is okay isn't doing much thinking. I find that liberals are so stuck in their class warfare rhetoric box that they fail to see the fiscal tsunami coming our way, that will leave everyone in future generations far, far worse off than we have been. That is the legacy we are leaving our children, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
larry,
Those like Obama think that socialism just hasn't been done right yet, and that THEY can get it right because THEY are so wise and good. They don't seem to realize the fatal flaws lie within the socialist model itself, no matter how many times history teaches that lesson.
There's a great quote by Winston Churchill about socialism:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery".
Amen.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I just read this frank, and I thought of our discussion about socialism. According to a new Rasmussen poll, a plurality of Democrats believe the oil industry should be nationalized.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/just_47_oppose_nationalizing_oil_industry
June 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Mr. King,
Those are some pretty small numbers. Almost as small as Bush's approval rating. Since no one is promoting this idea , it seems a moot point.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
frank,
I consider any number of americans above 1% (the communists) to be alarmingly high. The fact that 37% of Democrats think the oil industry should be nationalized illustrates where Dems rank freedom. Brainwashing progressing nicely.