Taxing issues
Published December 26, 2013
by Normal Hoffman, retired clinical psychologist, published in Asheville Citizen-Times, December 24, 2013.
I wonder how many of the middle-class Tea Party supporters realize that they have been had. The billionaires who are the guiding hands behind Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works are looking out for the wealthy, but not the middle-class folks. They are also the ones who really call the shots on tax legislation passed by the Teapublicans.
Recent headlines and editorials both by AC-T and Scott Mooneyham, the Capitol Press columnist, have pointed out that the “tax reform” in N.C. is actually a tax shift from the rich to the middle class. The income tax cuts favor the rich, who are getting five to six figure tax breaks. In contrast, those at the lower to middle end of the income range actually will experience tax increases.
Tax shifts include broadening of sales taxes so that sales taxes are to be added to labor charges and services. That means that your car maintenance and other services involving labor will become more expensive with this tax increase. As I understand it, sales taxes are also being extended to nonprofit organizations providing entertainment and tourist attractions so their services will also become more expensive. The general strategy is to disguise the tax increases in increased costs of goods and services so that the middle-class Tea Partiers will not notice that their taxes have actually gone up. The recent headline on the increased parking at the Arboretum is another example of how higher fees disguise cost shifts to the middle class.
This puts one in mind of the old adage about the frogs in the cook pot who don’t notice that they are being cooked because they don’t notice the temperature rising. The strategy behind Freedom Works, Fox News, etc. is that the middle-class Tea Partiers will not realize they are being played for suckers.
I find it interesting that suggesting a tax rate for the rich at the level they paid at the end of the Reagan administration is a “redistribution of wealth” while taxing the middle class more is a “fair tax” initiative.
The idea that taxing everyone at the same rate is fair is logically and morally flawed. The fair tax “logic” requires that a person making $20K can afford to pay 10 percent and live on $18K just as easily as someone making a million can live on the $900k after taxes. The working class tends to spend all that they earn; the rich do not.
This brings us to the other flaw in the fair tax argument. That is the idea that the rich create jobs with their tax breaks. They don’t. They buy stock. Have you noticed that the stock prices are at record highs? Guess supply and demand are at work.
December 26, 2013 at 11:58 am
Norm Kelly says:
Over the years I've noticed a few things. First, logic tends to escape the average lib.
Some 'rich' people are behind the TEA people. This makes the TEA movement a bad thing. Except, by the same lack of logic, it's rich people behind the socialist ideas of the Demoncrat party also. George Soros comes to mind first. Algore is a very close second. Then there's Billary. Let's face it, Billary became rich because of their politics and politically connected friends. And they are major supporters of socialism. You know, that 'economic' system that calls for wealth redistribution; soaking the rich by making them pay for all the benefits the central planners 'give' to 'the poor'. So by the logic of this editorial writer, the socialist movement in Amerika is also an effort to dupe certain people.
Let's talk about buying stock. Who's doing it, who benefits from it? Isn't it this administration that is on the 4th or 5th round of QE? What is QE? It's the federal government buying STOCKS to prop up the stock market. To artificially inflate the stock prices. So who can benefit? Rich people? Greedy Republicans & TEA people? Don't socialists like Soros also benefit when their stocks go up, artificially inflated by the central planners? Of course, even the libs, their friends, and other socialists benefit when the stock market goes up. But what happens when the central planners pull out or stop their artificial inflation techniques? The difference is conservatives, Republicans, and TEA people are demonized for it. The socialists aren't even looked at because they are only trying to help other people. So the socialists wealth is actually good for everyone, while the conservatives wealth is good for no one. And this means it should be confiscated from them, by the central planners if necessary.
(side note: it's not the 'do good' socialists that give large sums of money to charity. it's more typical for conservative, 'greedy' people to support charities. so if socialists are out to 'help people' why are they so stingy with their donations? remember, while conservatives were giving money to help charities, billary was donating his underwear! how's that for socialist generosity?)
A fair tax? What's so bad about a fair tax? Why is it bad if the central planners don't get to tax one group at a higher rate than some other group? At what point is it immoral to continue to steal money from some group of people? Is stealing 50% of wealthy people's money acceptable? If so, then why isn't stealing 75% of their money also acceptable? Just listen to the central planners/socialists in Washington and probably your state capital also. They find nothing wrong with stealing as much money from 'the wealthy' as they want. Whatever it takes to support programs the central planners have or desire to put in place, is what they feel is right to steal from people. Someone once said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. I think it was Margaret Thatcher, but I hesitate to assign credit incorrectly. It's the thought that counts. Socialists, listen up. Thinking is actually good. Stop feeling. Start thinking. The thought of that statement is correct. Stealing from one group in order to provide benefits to some other 'favored' group is immoral and should be illegal. What Demoncrat has yet to define 'their fair share'? None of them. But they want you to believe that this level hasn't yet been reached. And people like this editorial writer want you to believe that if I pay 10% in central planner taxes, and some 'rich' guy also pays 10% in central planner taxes, this is unfair. Because after taxes the 'rich' guy gets to keep more of his money. But since he started out with more, doesn't it make sense that he would end up with more? But to socialists, this is immoral. Stealing from 'rich' guys is not immoral. It's leaving them with 'more money' that's considered immoral.
How nice would it be at the end of the tax year to simply fill in a single form that showed your gross income, the amount of taxes paid throughout the year, and then the 10% (or 15% or whatever) line to show how much tax SHOULD have been taken from you. Then the math would be quite simple. 10% of what you make goes to the central planners, the rest stays in YOUR back pocket. No special deductions. No consideration for stock purchases, tax breaks, investment losses, etc. that requires reams of paper to fill in so you can get massive deductions. Cuz the bottom line is that if you allow massive deductions, like the current system, then some people get none while others take advantage of huge deductions. Think of companies like GE, Facebook, Apple.
What's better, which plan makes more sense to you? Stop thinking about the socialist ideas constantly thrown at you by people like CNN, NBC (all flavors!), and this editorial writer? What makes more sense to you? Everyone pays the same? Or politicians decide who gets to deduct what, who gets money stolen from them, who is considered 'rich', and who is the beneficiary of their largesse? More freedom, fewer regulations, as originally called for in the Constitution seems to make the most sense. Our past showed us that some politicians stood up for the Constitution. Nowadays, Constitutionalists are referred to as radicals, terrorists, unpatriotic. This is nonsense, and needs to be fought at every turn. It's time for voters to reject Prince Harry and Queen Nancy, simply based on the stupid stuff that comes out of their mouths. We absolutely do NOT need to support the cowboy poetry festival. Or is it possible for socialists to defend this expense also? Common sense, and the Constitution, should prevail.
