Thoughts on Taxes

Here are some basic thoughts on the subject of income taxes. This is only a very basic outline, just as I wanted it to be.

“Rich people” pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than I do, and that percentage is always going up. Because of this (along with costly labor union mandates) many big business owners have been outsourcing overseas where they have incentives to grow as a company rather than consequences for growing. Consequences like getting slammed with higher and higher tax rates as they do in The States. Outsourcing is clearly not an evil plot against America on the part of the business owners; they are simply doing what they must in order to protect their bottom line and their investors. Lower the tax rate for big businesses and you give them an incentive to stay here and grow. And if businesses grow, then they will need to hire more people, thus creating more jobs. This, Rachel Maddow, is economics 101.

Now Republicans are not and have not proposed actual tax cuts for the rich in a very long time. When you read about “Republican tax cuts for the rich”, that is simply demonizing the party through a play on words. The so called tax cuts that Republicans are proposing are, in fact, only stopping the tax rate increases for job creators (a.k.a. “rich people”). This is an attempt to give the “rich”, “corporate”, “big business owners” an incentive to grow and create jobs. There are many companies that have grown to a certain point and then been forced either reduce or outsource, because they know if they remained stateside, and grew any more, and made any more money, they would find themselves in a new tax bracket and the subsequent tax increase would cause them to take in less than they would if they grossed less. And remember, if companies stop growing, they stop hiring.

Democrats want higher tax rates for the rich and lower rates for the poor. According to them, this would bring in more revenue and put dollars back in the pockets of poor people. Looks good on paper, but the problem is that most poor people work for rich people and, if those rich people are taxed to the point of needing to outsource or cut back, then the poor people lose their jobs. Secondly, most poor people (if they have any children) are already not paying anything in for taxes. Or at least they get it all back at the end of the year. For years my wife and I were included in this category. We would pay our taxes in and then get it all back when we filed. If our tax rates had been any lower, we would’ve been getting payed by the government (we actually did one year). On the other hand, if you try to tax the owner of the company that I work for too much, he may feel the need to build a production plant in Dubai, where he won’t pay income taxes and will receive all kinds of incentives to grow and make more money and hire more people – more people in Dubai. And consequently, I would lose my job.

Advertisements

The Financial Reform Bill

Have you heard the news? A massive new bill was just signed into law by our president. All twenty-five hundred pages of it! Some call it The Wall Street Reform Bill; others call it the most partisan piece of horse shit ever to be signed by a US President. While I’m not surprised that Obama signed the bill, there is something that is confusing me about the entire hubbub surrounding this “historical landmark”.  People who support the financial reform bill are dubbing it “Obama’s Bill of Change”. According to the bill’s proponents, finally, Obama has signed into law a bill to bring about hope and change for our ailing economy. Obama’s new bill has altered the system so that taxpayer money can no longer be used to bail out large financial companies. Thanks Obama!.. But wait, wasn’t it Obama who was signing the checks that were using taxpayer money to bail out large financial companies? This is where the confusion sets in. You see, we’re being had, and proponents of the new law are just ignorant enough to think that finally Obama is ending a practice that was started by evil conservatives. They hold closely to that belief, and are unwilling to conceive that the first large company bail out check was signed by non-other than Barrack Obama: as were the second and third.

I’m all for the government having the authority to split up monopolies or oligopolies, but they’ve already had the authority to do that for quite some time, as demonstrated by President Theodore Roosevelt when he acted to split up large railroad companies that had grown so big that they posed a threat to the American economy. The financial bill is not about giving the Federal Government the authority that they already possessed, which was the authority to recognize monopolies and divide them; instead, the financial bill is about giving the Federal Government more authority to regulate financial companies even to the extent of directly supervising them and writing laws applicable to them without congressional permission. When any government maintains direct supervision of the education system, the health care system, and the financial system, what do you get? Yep, you said it.

Ask a liberal what he thinks of the financial reform bill and he’ll say that he is pleased that finally Obama is putting a stop to big business bail outs and out of control government spending; however, if you had asked that same person how he felt about Obama’s big business bailout plan when Obama was signing the checks, he would have said that Obama was just doing what he had to do. After all, these companies are just too big to fail. Are liberals really that stupid? Well, I know quite a few of them and, trust me, they couldn’t find their own backsides with both hands and a set of instructions.

Really, who am I to comment on the financial reform bill? After all, I only read just over five hundred pages of it before I gave in to boredom and abandoned the endeavor. Yet, who is congress to vote on such a bill, and who is our president to sign such a bill when you and I both know that they didn’t read half that much of it. Due to the length of the bill, who can blame anyone for not wanting read it? If reading a twenty-five hundred page bill sounds like fun to you, I have a suggestion. Go out and buy a copy of “War and Peace”, rip out all of the pages and burn them. Then stare at the ashes for fifteen hours. I’m quite sure that this would be more fun than trying to sort through all of the legal gibberish within the financial reform bill.

Now we arrive at the question, what should our response be to our government no longer taking into consideration “We the People’s” preferences and aspirations for the direction of our country? VOTE! And bear in mind that voting only in accordance with your political party is often times a very clear indicator that you lack the intelligence to conduct your own research regarding the matter. To utter the words or acknowledge the thought, “I always vote Republican”, or, “I always vote Democrat”, is like saying, “I simply prefer to remain uninformed and generally ignorant of things which matter most in my life”. I recently spoke to someone who was on her way to vote Blanch Lincoln into another term in the senate seat here in Arkansas. Blanch Lincoln voted for the health care reform bill and the financial reform bill even though she received over twenty thousand calls and letters from voters asking her not to. This person told me that she had to vote for Blanch, probably because she has unfortunately grown too dependent on a government subsidized program that Blanch Lincoln supports; a story that is all too common.

Reason. How swiftly it does fly!

Nathan Gray