47% Incentivized to not Work, Harder

Phyllis Schlafly wrote that in 2009, 47% of Americans "will pay no federal income taxes". Not only that, but the bottom 40% of earners "not only pay no income tax, but the government sends them cash or benefits". So doing some quick math, 53% of us subsidize 40% of Americans that receive either tax credits or some other form of government assistance.

In complementary fashion to this article, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Larry Summers, current White House Economic Adviser, wrote in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, ed. 1999,

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."

So in addition to redistributing wealth from 53% of taxed earners to the bottom 40%, the 53% of taxed earners subsequently pay the current 9.7% of the Nationally unemployed to remain out of a job because the incentive to find a job doesn't exist. Isn't this common sense? Why work when the "government" takes care of one through unemployment, COBRA, welfare assistance, etc.

"Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has found that the average unemployment episode rose from 10 weeks before the recession to 19 weeks after Congress twice previously extended jobless benefits—to 79 from 26 weeks."

Even though unemployment beneficiaries take on average 19 weeks off from working, they can technically receive 79 weeks of unemployment. It's just ridiculous.

This Chicago Tribune article states, in "a 2009 report by the American Legislative Exchange Council: A decade's worth of hard data suggests that states with no individual income tax created 89 percent more jobs, and had 32 percent faster personal income growth, than did states with the highest income tax rates." So let's understand this, if a state has few tax burdens, i.e. one can infer they provide less State services, that State created 89% more jobs resulting in a personal income growth of 32%. So by whatever means the State does collect revenue, it collects more of it because the residents of said State are wealthier.

All this goes to show that the more burdensome government becomes, the less productive, less wealthy, more entitled, its Citizens become. Our country will cease to function at some point because the 53% of us paying taxes will have had enough. We'll never go back to WW2 personal income tax rates of 90+%. It's time to overthrow this crap.

Health Care "Reform"

This Bloomberg article talks about all the new taxes proposed under Pelosi-Reid-Obama's supposed Health Care Reform. Let's take a look:

1. $409.2 billion total in additional taxes by 2019 broken down by:

• $69 billion in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance. Individuals without insurance will be fined $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016 or 2.5% of income depending on which is greater [i.e. if you make more than $27,800 you'll pay 2.5% of your income in fines]. Employers with 50 or more workers would pay $2,000 per worker if they don’t offer health insurance.
• 3.8% Medicare tax on about 1 million individuals earning more than $200,000 and about 4 million couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000 [9 million people total].
• Obama’s budget allows the existing 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains to rise to 20 percent in 2011 for the same high-earners for a total of a 23.8% tax.
• Increases Medicare tax currently imposed on salaries starting at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples to 2.35 percent, from current 1.45 percent [62% increase].
• 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans is delayed until 2018, when it will apply to benefits over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for couples.
• Starting in 2013, Americans under 65 won’t be able to deduct medical expenses until they exceed 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent.
• New $2,500 limit on what can be contributed to employer-sponsored flexible spending accounts [currently there is no limit].
• Consumers who frequent tanning salons would pay a 10% excise tax.
• Insurers would be denied deductions for executive pay over $500,000.

The entire bill of taxes is a joke. 10% excise tax for frequenting a tanning salon? Who's to say that the Vitamin D produced by one's body isn't worth a 10% tax credit? What does Botox Pelosi have against tanned individuals? Why not charge 10% income taxes on obese people? They're the driving factor for most maladies requiring health care [i.e. diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, etc.]. If the President is concerned about the price of health care, why would he depress the wages of Executives that insure most Americans? Most insurance companies run on a 2% profit margin as is. Flex spending accounts allow people to pay for procedures using tax deferred dollars, now one could only afford braces much less any real health procedure. Of course a rallying cry for Democrats is that health care is the leading cause of bankruptcy. How sympathetic is it then to raise the threshold by 33% in order for one to deduct medical expenses from one's income? Why not allow all medical expenses to be deducted from one's income, including the cost of health insurance premiums? The biggest joke of all is the kickback to Unions like SEIU or UAW, delaying their "contribution" to health care reform until 2018 when their Cadillac health plans will be taxed at 40%. The entire bill is a sick, stupid joke.

All said, if Democrats believe that 2008 gave them a mandate to pass health care "reform" then the 2010 political revolution will give Republicans/Conservatives a mandate to repeal said "reform." This business of extracting wealth from the "rich" in order to distribute to the less rich, or "poor" has got to end. People need to re-educate themselves where our Rights come from. Not from Government, who can then take them away, but from our Creator. No one has a right to money, let alone health care, except that which they earn.

Shalom

A diplomatic row erupted during Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel last week after it was announced that 1,600 new housing units would be constructed in East Jerusalem. Before Israel's declared Independence in 1948, and the subsequent war that was fought against its Muslim neighbors, in the land of Palestine lived Jews and Muslim Hashemites. Now days we call the Muslim Hashemites "Palestinians," completely ignoring the fact that Jews of the day were also Palestinians. This disregards the historical presence of Jews in the land of Palestine and makes for a clever and convenient argument for the Muslim Hashemites to claim land for their "Palestinian" State.

This Jerusalem Post article titled, "Softer tone coming from Washington," states in its opening paragraph, "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who blasted Israel on Friday and kept alive a crisis in relations triggered by last week’s announcement of new housing in Ramat Shlomo, reiterated US support for Israel on Tuesday in the first public signs that the crisis was winding down." My question is why was there a crisis to begin with? Since the Jews captured Jerusalem from Adonizedek some 3,000+ years ago, they've had a historical connection to the city since. What connection do Muslim Hashemites have to Jerusalem? None. Various battles have been fought over control of Jerusalem throughout the ages, but whoever is victorious is the owner. The Israelis won their War of Independence in 1948, and won the Six Day War in 1967 [giving them full control over all of Jerusalem and the West Bank]. Which brings us to the present.

Since when in world history do the losers dictate terms of peace? Americans won the Revolutionary War and kicked out the British and formed their own government. Just to solidify our sovereignty, the British got their @$$ handed to them again following the War of 1812. Texas declared Independence following the capture of General Santa Anna following the Battle of the Alamo. Following the Mexican-American War, the terms of peace included the present day Southwest States. The Germans never dictated terms of peace following World Wars 1 & 2. The Japanese didn't dictate terms of peace following their defeat in World War 2. The Victorious always dictate the terms of peace, always. Which brings me back to my question, why was there a crisis to begin with.

There will never be peace between Israelis and "Palestinians" so long as this nefarious double standard exists. The Israelis should flat out state there will be no negotiations for any treaty between the people of Israel and "Palestinians" until the "Palestinians" stop dictating terms for peace and accept that there will never be a "Right of Return" nor will they ever have East Jerusalem as their capital nor will there be a return to pre '67 borders. If Palestinians don't agree to those terms, then war should be declared until "Palestinians" are ready to act like the losers they are and accept peace terms dictated by Israel. That's how the world works, has always worked and will always work.

If one is concerned about the well being of the "Palestinian" refugees, they should consider the fact that there is a Hashemite State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Amman is its capital. Clinton, Mitchell and Biden should educate themselves re: this country to the east of Israel and look for solutions rather than dictate to Israel what the terms of peace should include. To the "Palestinians," state the facts; you lost, accept Israel's generous offer of peace and be done with it.

Immigration Reform???

In this LA Times article, it's being reported that Schumer (D) of New York and Graham (R) of South Carolina are pushing so called immigration reform. Part of this reform entails granting US Citizenship to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In order to become Citizens, "Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law."

I won't even begin to attack how ridiculous it will be for them to pay taxes and a penalty [they're dirt poor!!] because that's such a joke a response would be a waste of time. But what's worthy of response is how much this cheapens US Citizenship. Millions of people have gone through the naturalization process which can take more than ten years, all in an effort to legally become US Citizens. Their efforts will have been in vain if this Legislation passes simply because all they had to do was hop the fence separating the US from Mexico. Part of the naturalization process is having an adequate understanding of the English language. As anyone can attest, most illegal immigrants south of the border come here looking for a yob and like to order Yumbo Yacks from Jack in the Box and furthermore take mijo and mija with them when they need someone to speak English for them.

One should ask themselves, with their close proximity to Spanish speaking Central and South America, what incentive do these people have to learn English? What incentive do they have to assimilate into American culture and become Americans? If they don't want to learn English and don't want to assimilate into America's superior culture, they need to get the hell out of here. They have no right to be here, and for one to feel they have a right to be here implies an absolute sense of arrogance and entitlement.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the solution is to remove the incentive illegal immigrants have to be here, one word, JOBS. Give them 90-days to leave, with no fear of reprisal, after which, all rights of Habeus Corpus will be suspended for expired visa holders and illegal immigrant trespassers. After which, they'll be deported and barred from re-entry for ten years. Employers will also have 90-days to verify rights of employees to work in the US. After which, for first time offenders, a fine of $100,000 per illegal immigrant employee; second time offenders, a fine of $250,000 per illegal immigrant employee; third time offenders will have their business confiscated and sold and all proceeds will go to the US Treasury Department. Additionally, the entire Executive Board will be subject to ten years imprisonment and at a minimum all their personal property will be confiscated and sold regardless of their spouse and children.

I'll conclude by saying that Obama is insane if he thinks he can push the same Legislation pushed by Bush via McCain-Kennedy, and not suffer the same American outrage Bush faced. If this Legislation is pushed by Obama and the Democrats, it will be the death nail come Election time in November. Nothing could actually be better for Patriots and those who are fed up with Washington's arrogance than for this Legislation to be brought to the floor of the US Senate. With a takeover of the House and Senate, perhaps a little Impeachment for Dereliction of Duty is in order.

Health Care Whoah!

The following paragraph by Robert J. Samuelson in his December 7, 2009 Washington Post Op-Ed got me thinking:

"Health care is taking over government. Consider: In 1980, the federal government spent $65 billion on health care; that was 11 percent of all its spending. By 2008, health outlays had grown to $752 billion -- 25 percent of the total, one dollar in four."

Let's do some quick math. Using the numbers provided, the 1980 budget would have been $590 billion; the 2008 budget would have been $3.01 trillion. Considering the 1980 and 2008 health outlay sums, the growth rate would be 8.81% over that 29 year period. Using this figure, one could predict a government health outlay in 2020 (12 years from 2008) of $2.07 trillion.

However, the budget only grew by 5.78% per year over the same 1980 to 2008 time period. Using this figure, the 2020 budget would be $5.91 trillion, increasing health outlays to 35% of the budget.

What can we glean from all this information in correlation with the historical growth of the US GDP? Using 2000 dollars, the Q1 1980 GDP was $5.221 trillion, the Q1 2008 GDP was $13.367 trillion. That gives a growth rate of 3.29%. So the projected GDP in 2020 would be $19.7 trillion.

Hmm... $5.91 of $19.7 is 30%. The 2008 budget was approximately 22.5% of GDP. So the tax revenue burden will have to increase 33% by 2020. This begs the all important question, where will the Federal Government get the tax revenues to pay for everything? At some point the incentive to create wealth will disappear. What disaster will befall our country at that point?

In order to prevent this disaster, one should question how the Federal Government could be put in check in order to prevent it. Another more prudent question is what has changed in the past 100 years to put us into this current circumstance. I believe that the 16th and 17th Amendments are to blame. If taxes were apportioned by State, with State Representation restored to the US Senate as was originally devised by our Founding Fathers, a runaway Federal budget would be all but eliminated . No longer would Federal mandates on States be created without a means to pay for them, nor would any populace readily open their wallet to pay 40-50% Income Taxes; 50% Estate Taxes; 15-25% Capital Gains Taxes; 12.5% Social Security Taxes; 9-10% Sales Taxes; 2.5% Medicare Taxes; and 1.25% Property Taxes and all the other miscellaneous taxes burdened by productive Citizens.

There would be an absolute rejection of this confiscation of wealth, and most assuredly a rejection of the welfare state and the economic redistribution that occurs under it. Do either the Democrats or Republicans advocate restoring our Federal Republic? Do either the Democrats or Republicans warn us of the Economic tyranny that will occur in the not too distant future? The answer to both questions is no. The solution is to reject the current Political Party structure and elect Representatives that fundamentally understand both the premise of Liberty and why our Federal Republic was conceived the way it was in order to protect that Liberty.

Proposed Theft [i.e. Tax]

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a 'global' tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending."

When they passed the Stimulus bill in early 2009, we were promised unemployment would not go above 8%. As of December 2009, we're at 10%, a 25% increase. We were promised this bill would create jobs. Supposedly it has, at a cost near $250,000 each according to this Reuters' article. Additionally, the average payroll is approximately $60,000. So... sounds like four times as many jobs should have been created with what was spent so far. The math simply doesn't add up and that's because of the inherent corruption that exists when government meddles in the free market.

This SF twit also stated that, "I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity.”

WE ALREADY PITCH IN!!! The top 1% of income earners dole out over 1/3 of their income in Federal Income Taxes alone [soon to be 40%]. In CA they pay out an additional 9% in State Income Taxes. We also pay out a Capital Gains Tax between 15-25% depending on how long the stock, house, etc. was held onto. In CA we pay a sales tax anywhere between 8.75-9.75% depending on which county one lives in. This is ridiculous. What services does the government provide to those people that pay anywhere up to 60% of their income in taxes? What has the government done in order to deserve 3/5 of what one makes?

This is the inherent problem with redistribution of wealth. One class of people pay for the benefits of another class of people. Those on the receiving end will continually vote for the Political Party that promises the greatest benefits, currently the Democratic Party. As the benefits increase, so does the burden placed on the tax paying class, to the point the incentive to produce wealth is diminished. "To each according to his need" anyone? We witnessed the collapse of the Soviet system due to this philosophy, and we've witnessed the unleash of wealth creation in China when they disbanded this principle and adopted free market capitalism.

The only way to spur Economic growth will be for our burden to be reduced. You want a capital infusion into our Economy to spur job creation? Temporarily suspend Capital Gains Taxes. You'll collect a percentage of the wealth created anyways via Federal Income Taxes and State Income Taxes and Sales Taxes and if people use that capital to purchase property to construct new warehouses, new office space, etc., you'll collect property taxes too. Unfortunately Progressive dimwits like Pelosi, Reid and Obama don't understand this principle.

The only way our country will recover from these asinine tax policies and proposals will be if we change the leadership in the House and Senate and elect Politicians that fundamentally understand capitalism and its inherent superiority to every other economic model in existence. Until then, we'll continue to suffer as a Nation under these economic stifling conditions making us less competitive, and thus, less prosperous. Pelosi does care about our prosperity afterall, she stated so.

How about them govt. apples a day

An apple a day, keeps the Doctor away. I digress.

So Dick Morris published an article stating the death rate of cancer in the United States is 0.18% while the death rate in the United Kingdom is 0.25% while in Canada it's 0.21%. So in numbers, that means in the US, approximately 552,982 [using CIA Factbook 2009 numbers] people died from cancer last year. If we were to have the death rates of the UK or Canada, respectively 215,048 or 88,477 MORE people would have died last year. Anyone for that system of health care? Anyone want to volunteer a relative or perhaps yourself to fulfill those INCREASED numbers? I think the few percent more of GDP we pay for SUPERIOR health care is worth it. Any cancer survivor or relative of one disagree?