I have to pay the full cost for repairs to my car. Since I drive cars that aren't in warranty, the cost is born by me and me alone.
I have to pay for my own preventive maintenance... oil and filter changes, tires, alignments, transmission and cooling system flushes.
I have to buy my own tires, windshield wipers and brakes.
I have to schedule all of these procedures myself.
And that isn't all...
I use my car for work... the company benefits. I drive that car to work, and if it isn't insured, I can't go to work.
If the needed maintenance and repairs aren't made, my car is dangerous and could impact others... literally.
If I don't replace consumables, like tires, then my car is much more dangerous to others.
I pay my auto insurance every month, and yet it only covers me for accidents and unforseen consequences. Why is that? Why shouldn't our auto insurance cover EVERYTHING that happens to our cars? After all, our medical insurance covers everything that might happen to our minds and bodies...
And one more thing...
Why is it up to me to pay for all of it. It is expensive. I think that the company I work for should pay for it... or maybe even the government. After all, I drive my car to get to work. That means that they profit from my car. And if I don't have the car, then work isn't happening. Why don't employers pay for auto insurance...
The simplest definition for Justice is getting what one deserves. As I ask people about how they define justice, they keep coming back to the same thing... getting what is due to them, or getting what they deserve.
And yet...
I keep hearing about economic justice. And every time I hear about economic justice, the basic premise is to redistribute wealth or income. And that means taking money away from someone that earned it and giving it to someone that didn't...
So, how?
So, how does one square these two positions? If justice is getting what one deserves, why is economic justice getting what someone else worked for?
On a couple of my recent politically focused blog posts, there have been a couple of writers that have decided it was the time and place to talk about distribution of wealth and using personal tax policy to create balance. Of course, the problem was that NEITHER of these posts were about personal income taxes and their role in "appropriately" distributing wealth.
I deleted one of the comments since it was so completely off subject it just wasn't worth keeping...
But I am a fair guy...
So, here you go.
There are going to be some ground rules.
Be ready to back up your facts with a source...
Be ready to answer tough questions...
If it is your opinion, that is fine... but that doesn't make it a fact.
Don't write speeches (or copy/paste speeches)
Dialogue... make it friendly for those that might want to lurk...
No personal attacks. I don't care who has said what to whom elsewhere. When you are playing in my garage, you will be polite or you will get zapped... seriously. I have heavy junk out here and I'm not afraid of melting steel like glue-sticks.
Because I started it, I'm going to get it rolling.
I do not feel that the role of taxation is to implement social policy.
I just can't find in the Constitution anyplace that says that the federal government will work towards implementing social policies through taxation. Perhaps I have been laboring all of my life with the wrong-headed notion that the primary function of taxation was to raise money for the operation of the government...
I know that there are a lot of folks that don't agree with that, or there wouldn't be 66,000 pages to the Tax Code.
But if you think that social justice IS a purpose for income tax, comment on this...
Why shouldn't we just levy a 100% tax on all income over the average, and issue a credit for all that fall under the average. After all, that would achieve the goal of equalizing income, and eventually equalizing wealth.
But of course I know that it won't work. Anyone with a shred of honesty will admit that the result would be that the people that make the giant incomes would cease to be productive... there would be no reward. Those that struggle to be average would no be compelled to be productive... there would be no reward. For those that are just floating along... there would continue to be the same reward.
So, what that leaves us is this... For those that believe in taxation as a way to distribute wealth, the goal is to find the place where the equalization can be maximized without pissing off the productive. And that just seems to be a stupid way to build policy. Looking for a place where you are trying to inflict as much pain as you can to the productive, before they flinch just seems to be mean spirited and a bit Sadistic.
If you truly want to equalize wealth, perhpas there is a better way. And that would be to raise the level at the bottom rather than capping off the top. I think that largely, we have been very successful in this country at doing that. Look at the standard of living in the US for the poorest people. They generally live better than the middle class of most of the world... and our middle class live lifestyles of the rich in much of the world.
Can we do better, perhaps. But i don't think that we WILL do better by trying to socialize our economy. It is odd that I have heard about "capitalizing the profits and socializing the risk" in regards to the recent bailouts... but in small business, it has always been exactly the opposite.
Starting a small business is incredibly risky. The vast majority of start-ups fail. Often, those failures wipe out the people or person that tries to start the business. But, if the mountains of regulation are negotiated, and a start-up bucks the trend, they have to share an increasing amount of the fruit of their labor with the government. In effect, the risk is capitalized, yet the reward is socialized.
This is how we treat the engine of productivity in this country. And the likes of Obama would like to penalize them more for being so brazen as to succeed. BTW, don't be de-railed by the talk of Capital Gains Tax breaks for small business... It simply is a ruse for the vast majority of small businesses. Most small businesses are either sub-S Corps, Sole Proprieterships, LLPs or LLCs. Simply put, the income "passes through" the company and is taxed as individual income. It isn't paid as dividends or long term capital gains. If you are selling your business, there is certainly a benefit, but for most of those running a business, or starting a business... not a real incentive.
Fox News, the neutral network (hold your applause) recently had a story on its website about FactCheck.org, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. It is kind of humorous, kind of sad and terribly annoying.
I will readily admit that I am a Fox viewer. I turn on my hometwon boys (I have friends that work there, for Pete's sake) but have to leave after just a few shows. That would be CNN for those that aren't paying attention... I also turn on MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC. Same basic story.
A few days ago, I watched a segment with a pro-Obama advocate and a pro-McCain advocate. Aside from the weakness of the pro-McCain person, there was a little trick I noticed. The microphone was much louder for the Obama spokesperson. When they talked over each other (basically, when the Republican tried to make a point), only the Democrat could be heard. The Republican was polite and firm... but absolutely ineffectual. And it wasn't that she wasn't trying.
The other little oddity was that the host would say specifically "One at a time please" when the GOP mouthpiece butted in... and silent when the Democrat was shouting out a talking point. And he was quick to point out percieved innaccuracies of the Republican, but failed to notice those of the Democrat. She had some whoppers, too... She actually said that the country had a "$5.3trillion surplus, in the bank when Clinton left office." The truth is that when Clinton left office there was a $5.3trillion debt... the opposite of money in the bank. She further stated that there was less revenue to the government under Bush than Clinton... wrong again. The problem under Bush hasn't been revenue, but rather it has been spending.
So, back to the story about FactCheck failing to live up to their name...
The media seems to have been covering for Biden for some time. While news stories still talk about Dan Quayle’s spelling mistake 18 years later, there has been almost no news coverage of Biden’s numerous wacky statements. What if Quayle had said something similar to Biden’s recent statement that, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" A neat trick given that Herbert Hoover was president in 1929 and no one was watching television.
It might not fit the simple template for a 36-year veteran of the Senate to not understand what vice presidents do (after all, eight vice presidents have served with him), but Biden knew less about this than the political outsider, Sarah Palin. Given that they are running to be vice president, why didn’t that story dominate the news coverage after the debate?
I know that there are going to be cries of "right wing conspiracy" over the mention of fox. But, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong.
While having a conversation with one of my high end clients recently, we started talking about taxes. I will state u front that he is NOT in the 95% that one candidate claims won't be affected by tax increases... he is a top earner. He wasn't born rich... he made it himself.
This is what the conversation about tax increases came to...
If the tax increases that Obama has stated he wants come to pass, he will HAVE to cut his staff.
That means that the increased taxes will cost jobs. He is actually looking at an expansion, but because of the uncertainty in the credit markets, and the uncertainty about future taxes, he has those plans on hold. Those are jobs that aren't being created...
So, one or two of his three personal assistants my not have a job next year. He may not be hiring 50-75 new employees next year because of taxes. That seems to me that it WILL have an effect on more than just the top 5% of income earners.
But what about the Capital Gains Tax reduction?
That is just a joke. His companies don't pay him Capital Gains... He is an owner, and his income is income. If you don't think that the politicians know this , you are wrong. The "Capital Gains Cut" that some are touting to help small business is an empty sham...
But the big problem is this... 70% of people work for small businesses. Those small businesses are generally taxed on personal tax forms. While they are incorporated, as am I, they are often Sub S Corporations... and report income on the owner(s) tax forms. Simply put, those "Rich People" are the ones that create and hold the VAST majority of jobs. If you cripple them, you cripple EVERYONE.
And remember, one candidate has voted to increase taxes repeatedly... and against tax cuts. And that isn't just for the rich, that is for people making as little as $42k/year.
And just so you know, while taxes have been cut across the board during the last seven years, revenues to the government have been at record high levels. The deficit problem in DC hasn't been because of tax cuts... they spurred the economy and brought in more revenue... the problem has been spending. And if you think that after proposing $1trillion in new spending that having a Democrat Congress AND White House is going to slow that, think again.
Got this forwarded to me this past week. I can't say that I've sourced out everything, but I have the corresponding links attached so that the information below can be readily cross verified. Anyway...just my two cents. One party is trying to buy the election and it's told will have spent over $500,000,000 by the time of the election. The first time in a long time that private money will be buying an election. Here's the info as shared with me.
ISSUE
JOHN McCAIN
BARAK OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes
No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes
No
Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes
No
Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS
143 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No
Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No
Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No
Yes
Supports gun ownership rights
Yes
No
Supports homosexual marriage
No
Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
No
Yes
Voted against making English the official language
No
Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
No
Yes
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN
15% (no change)
OBAMA
39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
You can verify the above at the following web sites:
