Who actually pays the taxes in America?

ht Reason.tv

Obama’s Definition of Rich: “I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further…”

Here’s some great audio of Obama and Co. gradually lowing the bar on what he considers (based on who knows what…?) the divide between “the rich” and “the middle class”:

$250,000 or less…then less than $200,000…then under $150,000 a year….now $120,000 and under…

This is exactly how government works…gradually altering the deal just little enough so that supporters doesn’t get scared off and jump ship. What reason do you have to believe that Senator Obama won’t decide that you are suddenly not the middle class once he’s in office? Furthermore – by what criteria is he judging whom is “wealthy” and whom is not? Where is the constitutional authority for this?

Mark Steyn on the Europeanization of America, Soft Tyranny, Free Speech, Union Votes, Taxes, Barack Obama, Plumbers, etc…

Here’s some great audio (in two segments) from an interview between Mark Steyn and Mark Levin. They cover a huge range of topics, as the post title suggests. Funny, and informative – Give it a listen:

So happy to have Mark Steyn back on the scene.

Under Obama – I’m a filthy evil Phatty McRicherson

The best part about this ad is that the left doesn’t even deny it’s true. Here is a little segment from the HuffPo. Note the lack of denial cloaked behind, ‘well…technically speaking…’ bullcrap:

“The claim that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making more than $42,000 comes with a caveat. The Budget Resolution that Obama voted for and McCain now highlights was a provision to allow portions of the 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts to expire. Taxes would have gone up. But it was not a vote to raise taxes.”

The simple question is – will Obama raise taxes? The answer is yes. And don’t try the ‘only on the rich’ because that is total subjective class based crap. Who gets to decide that, and how is that fair? 

“Oh – we’re sorry. We’ve decided that you’ve become too successful. We are now going to steal force you to pay more than other less successful people on the assumption that the only reason you are wealthy is because you somehow exploited people to get there. But don’t get upset, we are doing it for the good of ________________(insert glittering generality: i.e. ‘the children,’ ‘the elderly,’ ‘to save the planet’)”

-you’re friendly governmental tyranny

I know that the ‘Robin Hood’ approach sounds all justified and appeals to some people – but realize that it wasn’t simply ‘the rich’ whom Robin Hood was stealing from to give back to the poor. It was the corrupt government who was taxing the crap out of it’s people, and Robin Hood fought against that tyranny, or so the story goes.

Don’t be fooled. Taxing ‘the rich’ for the benefit of the poor, is bold faced, class based Marxism.

My wife and I worked our freaking rears off to get to where we are today (with some loving help from our parents who also worked their own rears off…). We went to college so that we could get decent paying jobs, and are now paying off our own educations. The idea that the state should have the right to force us to pay more for other people who have not chosen to work as hard, in my opinion, is totally unethical.

What say you? Would you like your taxes raised when you reach a certain level of prosperity defined by politicians?

More Exxon Mobile Profits News

Excerpt:

With Americans paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, oil company earnings have been political fodder of late.

Congressional Democrats said they are having a conference later in the day to call for an end to tax breaks for big oil firms.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to enact a “windfall” profits tax on these earnings, or at the very least eliminate manufacturing tax exemption oil companies now enjoy. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to tax oil companies at a special rate every time crude goes over $80 a barrel.

Of course, does anybody ask about the profit margin that Exxon makes? No, cause that wouldn’t support the whole evil oil company theme.

And what exactly will adding tax when prices are higher do to the price of oil? It will make it higher. I think it’s amazing that anyone in congress wants to add windfall profit taxes to the oil companies. So the government now gets to decide when you have become too successful.

What do they think companies do with profits? Not to mention – Exxon just paid 32 billion in taxes. I guess that’s just not enough for the government. 

Perhaps more to come on this story as the day goes on…

Socialism FAIL: Demanding More of Something You Think Sucks

In general I would be willing to bet that in one way or another, most people feel that the American government is broken and/or failing in many ways. Try topics such as: Energy Independence, Border Security, Education, Welfare Reform, Social Security, etc… 

So here’s the ten million dollar question: Why do we want more government? Why do we think that giving more money to government and expanding or creating huge new government bureaucracies would fix these problems? 

If we are are upset with the direction that Social Security is heading, how can we possibly think that the government could handle the massive and vastly complicated healthcare and oil industries? 

Consider the following audio:

And this isn’t something necessarily exclusive to Barack Obama. President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy is a classic example of a crappy one-size-fits-all big government fail. Many of McCain’s ideas (especially concerning environmental issues) are also thinly veiled ‘government solutions’. What evidence do we have that positively support big government solutions?

The government is supposed to serve the people. In what other instance would we think more money would fix crappy service?

Situation one – You go to a restaurant and you get terrible service: the waiter is rude, they don’t bring you what you ordered, and then an hour later when they do it’s cold and soggy – is it logical to leave a huge tip and decide to come back to that restaurant more often?

Situation two -You take your car in to be serviced and it takes twice as long for them to fix it as they first quoted you, and they charged you twice the price even though they don’t really fix the problem – Should you agree to pay twice your promised price? Should you return to that business with a larger problem or recommend it to friends?!?

With government programs, it’s an even more absurd situation. Once a government program is in place YOU ARE FORCED TO PAY THEM more money through taxation for FAIL-tacular service.  That crappy restaurant you went to…oh well, the community has decided that that’s where you are going to eat and spend your money. Those jerks that screwed your car over…too bad, the votes are in and that’s where the collective has decided you will be required to take your car…

Don’t be fooled – big government solutions are what Socialism is all about. The government takes a huge amount of your hard earned money so the elected few can decide how and were to waste it. (Note who has the deciding power there.) Whose judgement on how to spend your own money would you prefer: Yours, or Washington’s? Would you rather take money from your own wallet and choose how to spend it – or be forced to pay into the collective and let the community vote how you should spend it? The latter is exactly what you will get with Socialism.

Also, in my opinion, it is important to remember that just because you are fed up with the current government, this does not mean anything new would be better. I find this to be the huge problem with Sen. Obama’s campaign on ‘change’. Again, what change? Is increasing taxes so we can throw more money into the morass of government bureaucracy a good change from the current government? Is that really a change at all?

To me, this is a major concern in this years election. Which candidate is promoting the most government based solutions (aka: Socialism or Epic FAIL) to problems? That candidate will be receiving a fatty ‘No Thank You!‘ from wtc. Hopefully the other candidate will be open to criticism if they propose similar crappy big government solutions.

 

Understanding High Oil Profits

It’s that time of year again when the oil companies report their profits and everyone throws a fit. I admit, my own initial reaction to hearing about high profits is negative. But logical decisions and understanding are not based on gut reactions and emotional perceptions. Here is a great article from Investors Business Daily that adds some clarity to the role that profits play in supply side economics (I have added emphasis for skimmers):

Profits Of Doom?

Profits: Exxon Mobil’s first-quarter earnings of $10.9 billion, up 17% from a year earlier, are stirring outrage in Washington. Some are calling such profits “obscene.” What a sad lack of understanding of economics.

Case in point: Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Like her rival, Barack Obama, she’s pushing a massive “windfall profit” tax on those “greedy” oil companies. “There is something seriously wrong with our economy when Exxon’s record $11 billion in quarterly profits are seen as a disappointment by Wall Street,” Clinton said Thursday. “This is truly Dick Cheney’s wonderland.”
No, what’s seriously wrong is that politicians such as Clinton can cynically manipulate public opinion to enact disastrous policies.

Indeed, rather than be upset at Exxon’s profits, Americans should be thrilled — and angry at a Congress that doesn’t seem to want to encourage the oil industry to make even more.
Our free-market economy is built on profit. Higher profits mean more jobs, higher incomes, more investment in equipment and people, higher standards of living. Yes, profits are the engine for all of this — and that includes the profits of “Big Oil.”

By signaling that supply is scarce, higher profits encourage more production. Except, that is, when Congress through its inept lawmaking stands in the way. And that’s the case now with the oil industry.

Congress seems almost constantly at war with the oil companies — slapping them with taxes and pillorying their CEOs while ignoring the fact that higher profits lead to more exploration, drilling and development.

If anyone is to blame for our current energy mess, it’s Congress. At least 20 billion barrels of oil sit untapped in Alaska and another 30 billion lie offshore. Such sources that could help satisfy U.S. demand for years to come. Yet, Congress has put them out of bounds.
Instead, Congress scapegoats oil profits. In reality, according to Ernst & Young, from 1992 to 2006 the U.S. oil industry spent $1.25 trillion on long-term investment vs. profits of $900 billion.

Truth is, oil industry profits are in line with the rest of American industry. In 2007, a record year, they earned 8.3 cents per dollar of sales. Beverage companies and cigarette makers, by contrast, earned 19.1 cents. Drug makers, 18.4 cents. Indeed, all manufacturers, 8.9 cents on average, made more than “Big Oil.”

Besides, we’ve tried windfall profits taxes before, in the early 1980s, and they were an utter failure. As the Congressional Research Service found, revenues produced for the government were nearly 75% below what was expected. Meanwhile, domestic oil output fell 8%, while oil imports surged 16%.

That’s just poor policy, and even worse economics.

Remember: Oil companies don’t really pay “windfall profit” taxes, anyway. You do. Some 50 million Americans today own oil company stock, either directly or through 401(k)s and mutual funds. Don’t be suckered: “Windfall profits” taxes come right out of your retirement account, not out of the oil industry’s business.

Oh sure, Big Oil’s profits are up. But so are the taxes they pay. In 2006, that came to $90 billion — up 334% in just four years.

This is how Clinton-style populism works. It starts with ignorance and ends with serious damage to our economy.

Oil prices aren’t high because profits are up; they’re high because we don’t have enough oil. By clamping down on drilling, refusing to move forward on nuclear energy and hitting producers with punitive taxes, Congress is doing all it can to ensure we don’t have enough in the future.