Re: The “progressive” taxman cometh
- From: Secular Human <eelder1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 22, 6:50 pm, jose <josefsop...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:03 pm, walk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:50 am, jose <josefsop...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The “progressive” taxman cometh
By Henry Lamb Sunday, June 22, 2008
A farmer told two men they each could have all the watermelons they
could harvest in four hours. The first man harvested 100 melons; the
second man harvested 200 melons. Before they loaded their trucks, an
IRS official appeared and told the first man the government required
28 of his melons as tax.
The second man, watching the encounter, began counting out 56 melons
for the taxman. The IRS official said to the second man: “no, that’s
not enough, the government requires 70 of your melons.”
Is this fair? Is this right? Is this smart?
Why should the second man, who had the ability and the will to produce
twice as much as the first man, be penalized for his effort?
Now meet Joe Hardworker. As a young man, Joe worked hard, paid every
penny of tax his government required, and still managed to buy some
land as an investment. Now Joe is old. He sold his land for a
respectable profit, with the hope it would be sufficient for his
retirement. An IRS official appeared, and told Joe he must pay the
government 15% of his profit as capital gains tax.
“Why?” asked Joe. “I paid tax on the money I earned to buy the land;
the government did nothing to increase the value of the land, why does
the government deserve any portion of my profit?” The taxman replied:
“just be thankful you sold your land before Barack Obama becomes
president. Your tax would be nearly twice as much after he’s
elected.”
Now meet Sara Businesslady. She started a small business ten years
ago, producing packaged cookies baked from her grandmother’s recipe..
She has 23 employees, and pays better wages than local retail
outlets. She must first pay a Certified Public Accountant several
thousand dollars to tell her that she must pay the government 25% of
her profits. Had her business been more successful, she would have
had to pay an even higher rate.
Here is Mr. Ten-Forty. On the first day of April, he began collecting
his bank statements, receipts, and his IRS forms. The instruction
book is at least four times longer than the U.S. Constitution. Aside
from the several pages of forms in the package, he has to download
half-a-dozen additional forms. After investing at least 15 hours of
frustrating effort, looking for every possible deduction, he discovers
that he must pay 28 percent of his income to the government. Had he
earned more income, he would have been punished by having to pay an
even higher rate.
In an ideal world, every person and every corporation would pay the
same tax rate on their income, with no deductions for anything. A
universal flat tax rate would be fair, and for most people, the rate
would be lower than the rate now being paid.
The rate would be lower for the top earners; the tax rate for the rest
of us would remain about the same. In terms of impact to quality of
life, a flat tax rate would impact low and middle-income earners the
most; top earners would experience no impact whatsoever to their
ability to provide the basics for living.
A flat tax rate brings only the perception of fairness, not a real
fairness when you consider the basic cost of living. If I earned $1
million and had to pay 20% in taxes, I still have bundles of money
left over; if you earn only $40,000 and have to pay 20%, you will
experience a significant decrease in your ability to provide the
basics for your family.
A single tax rate would
reduce the IRS bureaucracy to a mere shadow of itself. Tax attorneys
and CPAs would need to find productive work. First-time employees and
low-wage earners could assume the same tax responsibility everyone
else bears. Tax returns could, indeed, be no more complicated than a
postcard.
This, of course, is not a perfect world. The “progressive” tax rate
system arises directly from the socialist philosophy “From each
according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Despite all
the political rhetoric about fairness, there is nothing fair about the
progressive tax system.
Thomas Jeffereson also said something similar; he conceived of a tax
system wherein only the wealthy paid taxes.
Barack Obama thinks it is fair to increase the tax on the man who
harvests 200 watermelons, and reduce the tax on the man who harvests
100 watermelons, using the flawed logic that since the second man has
more, he can afford it. This logic ignores the principle that what a
person earns should be his. It ignores the principle of equal
opportunity, and equal burden. And, perhaps worst of all, it
penalizes productivity and success.
A flat tax system penalizes the average workers (who make up the bulk
of the population) and poses no undue hardship to the most wealthy -
who may or may not work harder than the average person.
Why so many middle- and lower-income people identify with and want to
help the very wealthy is a puzzle. Do they really think they'll
someday be part of that fortunate group and want to make sure that
when they arrive at the top they don't have to part with a penny of
it? Sorry to break it to you and others who think they will someday
be rich, but it ain't happenin'! MOST people never break out of the
economic "class" they were born into; only a very few ever get to be
extremely wealthy, and they don't need any help, support or tax
breaks.
Better to look around at your neighbors' economic situation and figure
out what might make their lives easier; the very wealthy can certainly
take care of their own needs and wants. You, like most of us, will
never see the high side of a 6 or 7-figure income - ever - and the few
who do won't take you along as a reward for being a cheerleader for
the wealthy.
Progressive politicians are clamoring to impose “windfall” profit
taxes on big oil companies. They are quick to recite the $36 billion
in profits big oil reported during the first quarter of 2008. But
they fail to mention that this amounts to less than eight percent of
gross income. If progressives can justify this tax, then why is the
tax not applied to every corporation that earns eight percent profit,
or more? During the last quarter of 2007, Microsoft earned more than
40 percent profit on gross income. There was no cry for a “windfall”
profit tax on Microsoft.
Microsoft profits don't appear to have been obtained on the backs of
the common person; their products are luxuries that are easily done
without. Petroleum prices affect every aspect of life, from simple
costs of transportation to the costs of producing and shipping goods,
and the resulting increased prices for food and other necessities make
it harder for everyone, especially the less well, off to survive.
Steeply rising fuel prices and record-breaking profits in big oil are
not coincidentally linked. If the basic costs of oil production were
the primary cause of increased oil costs, then Big Oil should have
seen decreased profits, not the obscenely increased profits they've
racked up.
MLW
U.S. tax policy is horrendous, and every time Democrats gain control,
the tax policy worsens. This issue should be among the highest
priorities for every voter in 2008.
Henry is the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty
International.
Henry Lamb can be reached at: he...@xxxxxxxxxxxx Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Whenever I hear such views I cannot say I am
surprised any longer. The Democrats have been
promoting class envy now for many years. It's a
tenet of Marxist/Leninist ideology. It's failed
wherever it's been tried and because it's built on
envy and hatred and atheism, it will always fail.
If you are so enamored with this ideology and its
implementation so far on the planet, why don't you
move to Cuba or Venezuela or The People's
"Republic" of Red China where Marxism/Leninism is
practiced under a dictatorship? Obviously, under a
dictatorship because the human soul would not
tolerate the lose of freedom if left to their own
devices.
Democrats never seem to learn the obvious lessons
about taxes. The more you tax the less you get.
The result of lowering taxes is so well documented
it makes me wonder what is it that the Democrats
really want and it sure isn't helping the little
guy. Actually, it's more like enslaving the little
guy by making him completely dependent on the
government and its handouts. Some Democrats in the
congress have openly called for the
nationalization of the petroleum industry. If they
succeed and proceed on this road to a
Marxist/Leninist Utopia led by Obama, Reid,
Pelosi, etal, the US Constitution will be a famous
relic of the past if it can be anymore trashed
than it already has been.
The Constitution has already been distorted and
twisted beyond recognition. The founding fathers
would weep at our failure to maintain their
original intent. The constitution was originally
intended to limit the scope, power and range of
the central national government, i.e., the Federal
government. Today, instead of a document that
protects the states and the people from an over-
reaching, omnipotent and tyrannical central
government, it has been turned on its head and has
thoroughly misinterpreted by men in black robes.
It now limits the states and the people in every
aspect of their lives and ...
read more »
Yayda. Yada.Yada. We got 8 years of Supply side economics form Bush, a
suspension of the Estate tax and capital gains dropped to 17 per cent.
The republicans doubled the deficit, created 1/3 of the jobs created
in the Clinton administration, created mortgage crisis and have the
country on the cusp of a recession. Supply side economics are tax
regressive and weaken the Middle class. Your day in the sun is over
and your party is fully deserving of the boot it will be getting in
November.
.
- References:
- The “progressive” taxman cometh
- From: jose
- Re: The “progressive” taxman cometh
- From: jose
- The “progressive” taxman cometh
- Prev by Date: Q REPUBLICANS HAVE ZERO HONOR, THEY ARE THE BIGGEST LOSERS EVER!!!
- Next by Date: Re: The “progressive” taxman cometh
- Previous by thread: Re: The “progressive” taxman cometh
- Next by thread: Re: The “progressive” taxman cometh
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
