Connect with us

Everything

Punishing the worker is not ‘tax reform’

Published

on

I almost don’t know where to begin with this, so let me start by stating the obvious: the “experts” at The New York Times wouldn’t understand real tax-reform, let alone how it affects the average tax-paying American citizen, if it snuck up on them while walking along in downtown Manhattan and bit them in the arse.

Predictably, the New York Times begins by belittling the idea of tax reform having anything to do with cutting rates for “the wealthy and corporations.” This is straight out of the same Jimmy Carter talking points the Left has used for decades. Clearly, either they’re being intellectually dishonest or, in all that time since, no one heralding such ideology has bothered to do even the least bit of research.

The rich and the corporations pay the majority of taxes in this country. The poor pay NOTHING. The remaining burden falls on the lower-to-upper middle class working people, and the millions of hardworking small business owners.

The NYT argues that “real” tax reform would require an increase in revenue of “roughly $4.5 trillion than currently projected to meet existing commitments without increasing the federal debt…” When they say “increasing revenue” what they really mean is “raising taxes.” They assume that the current commitments are sacred and cannot be touched. This assumption is asinine.

In short, the editorial board is arguing for an increased marginal tax rate on the “wealthy and corporations” as well as to “end or reduce corporate deduction for interest paid.” They want to target write-offs “for luxuries like corporate jets.” The Left always wants to specifically target corporations and the wealthy. They argue, which on it’s face seems logical that it’s only “fair” for the “rich to pay their fair share.”

Ok… so let’s talk about fair for a moment.

How much of what I work for is owed to you?

No, I’m serious. How much of *my* hard-earned money do *you* deserve?

Now, this is the part of the conversation where leftists inevitably start belittling you about the schools and roads and bridges that we all use. Well guess what? Where in the Constitution does Congress have the power to levy taxes for such things? I’ll save you some time – no where.

Schools, roads and bridges, and any other infrastructure spending (with few exceptions), are the purview of the states and the private sector, NOT the federal government.

This is where federalism comes in.

Many are waking up the fact that the Left wants to control every aspect of our lives. And, it’s easier to do so when controlling one centralized government, not 50 individual states. They merely use schools, roads and bridges as a straw man to obsure the fact that they want to appropriate vast quantities of our own money in an attempt control us.

If they truly cared about being “fair” as they claim, than they would be arguing the case for national sales-tax or, at the very least, a flat-income tax or a tiered-tax with NO deductions. Meaning, everyone pays 10% of their income. No deductions. No credits. Everyone pays their “fair-share.”

They can’t argue about the rich and corporations finding loopholes. The simple fact is, they don’t actually care about what is “fair,” but rather what pushes their radical socialist ideology. An ideology they all claim to profess, but do not live by, mind you.

Warren Buffett, George Soros, Al Gore, along with many more multi-multi-millionaires and their billionaire overlords, push radical socialist programs such as “climate change” but don’t actually live the life they are prescribing for the rest of us.

You don’t see them voluntarily paying more in taxes. You don’t see them living in modest house(s), or driving modest car(s), so they can give their vast wealth to the poor as they demand the rest of us do. When they say they want “the rich to pay their fair share,” what they really mean is they want the middle-class to pay a disproportionate amount of the money needed to fund the social-programs either they or their financiers devised, and that are outside the Constitutional-authority of Congresss. And, do so in order to control the rest us.

A simpler tax-code would allow businesses to estimate taxes ahead of time and, if advantageous, it would allow them to invest in hiring more people and/or expanding their products/services into additonal markets.

More hiring would mean fewer people needing welfare programs, as well as more people paying taxes, which in-turn would increase revenues for the few things the federal government is actually supposed to be doing. The federal government needs money for the military, to conduct foreign trade, and to resolve disputes between the states. Nearly all other functions lie in the power granted to the states via the Constitution.

The federal government has intentionally long-usurped the power that rightfully belongs to the states and to “we the people” through an onerous and burdensome tax code. The states no longer fight back due to the outrageous amount of money needed to figh such a battle; the money they receive from the federal government as “hush money,” so to speak; and the intended and embeded fear of upsetting, or worse yet, burning any bridges that monster of a D.C. gravy-train promises to travel in the future.

This is ridiculous when you think about it. The federal government robs the states, but more importantly, the citizens of their money – and then only gives it back to some of some them. Those deemed “worthy.”

How about the states appropriate the money they need themselves instead of relying on the federal government? If California wants to expand Medicaid, or even have Medicaid at all, go for it – just don’t expect those of us in Texas to pay for it.

Federalism is a simple and wonderful concept, but it is devastating to those who merely want power.

We have 50 states. We can have 50 different ways of living. Of all the the that may be unique, the one thing we all have in common is the vast rights and LIMITED powers of the federal government enshrined by the Constitution.

Debt is a form of slavery, and the federal government has amassed far too much debt. It is long past time for the federal government to get out of nearly everything except foreign policy and ensurifng the blessings of liberty as promised. The onerous tax code of the federal government has currently enslaved several generations, and will continue to do so until we get back to basics.

Should it ever happen, count on this be a huge fight. Tax lawyers and accountants, who make huge amounts of money sorting through the tax code, will fight us at every turn. And the left-wing media, like those sitting atop the NYT editorial board, will be standing right behind them. None of these “do-gooder” ideologues actually want to return power back to the average citizen. A simplified tax-system would break the back of the organized crime-syndicate known as the IRS and do just that.

That is absolutely the last thing Leftists like the NYT Editorial Board wants. Want proof? It’s right there in their article. They talk about the debate as to which loopholes to close. How about closing all of them? How about no deductions? How about no income tax at all?

They address the idea of a national sales tax and the value-added tax toward the end of the article, but conclud it would “unduly burden poor people.” So, they admit that taxes are a burden. Right now the poor pay NO taxes, but the poor still get the same services that the rest of us do. The fire department still comes to their house, their kids still go to public school, and they still get to vote on Election Day. What of the cost incurred by the non-citizen, non-legal residents? Who’s “fair-share” pays those costs?

There is no moral case for increased taxation by the federal government. Leftists will scream and cry about a ‘moral duty’ to help the poor, all while excusing their own vast-wealth not being used for anything but their own self-serving luxury.

There is no Christian case for the forced confiscation of wealth and redistribution. Christians should help those in need, but that is between them and God – not between the government and God!!

The federal government’s power is supposed to be limited, and it must be again.

Unfortunately, at this time there is a Congress of Republicans who are no more interested in limited-government than the Democrats are; as well as a President who is a life-long progressive and cannot focus on a single issue long enough to get anything meaningful accomplished. It’s time for Americans to find another solution to this tax debacle… not to mention the many other burdens brought about by this government.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment and Sports

Binge-worthy show: The Night Manager shows why Tom Hiddleston should be the next James Bond

Published

on

Binge-worthy show The Night Manager shows why Tom Hiddleston should be the next James Bond

He’s too posh. He’s too pretty. He isn’t intimidating. He’s too big as a Marvel character. There are many reasons people have dismissed the notion of Tom Hiddleston playing the role of James Bond in the famed series. All of these reasons can be dismissed by watching The Night Manager.

Available on Amazon, the AMC-BBC collaboration is six episodes long. There are reports that it could be brought back for another series, but if it never comes back, rest assured the single series is still worth a watch. The funny part is that Hiddleston might be the main draw, but he’s not even the best overall performance. That honor goes to Hugh Laurie, the well-mannered villain of the show.

As usual, no spoilers.

Much effort is put into making the beautiful people look as beautiful as possible in lovely settings even when things get crazy. It opens with Hiddleston cutting through a crowd of protesters just prior to the ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. He’s on his way to work to engage in his craft as a manager at a high-end hotel in Cairo. Even through the chaos, Hiddleston holds an air of separation from both the protesters and the military holding them back. And he does all this while wearing cargo pants and an untucked linen dress shirt.

This is where the presence of Hiddleston comes into play and demonstrates why he would be able to play James Bond. His sharp eyes announce he’s not to be reckoned with while simultaneously charming the observer. As one character later notes, “Everybody is attracted to you.”

The men want to be on his side and the women (and one man) want him to be by their side.

His impish grin may have been perfect for playing Loki in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it takes a more menacing turn in The Night Manager. We realize there’s grit behind his boyish looks that betrays two tours in Iraq and a personal grudge he’s held with him for years. If Daniel Craig brought emotionless chills to the Bond character, Hiddleston would bring an emotional fortitude. He’s only truly happy when he’s doing the right thing, which may go against the stereotypes associated with a world-class assassin, but luckily we’re in a world where stereotypes are being broken.

There’s another reason Hiddleston would be the right person for the role. Unfortunately, it’s a political one. Some are pushing for a minority or a woman to take the role to the next level. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it’s done with the most qualified person in mind and not just to make a political statement about inclusion. With Hiddleston, it’s an opportunity to use the same formula while mitigating the damage that is sure to come if they don’t select a minority or a woman. Everyone likes Hiddleston. He’ll make the passing on a controversial choice easier to swallow.

There’s even a scene when he orders a vodka martini at a bar in Cairo. It was the most obvious nod to the Bond franchise they could have made without asking for the drink to be shaken.

If you only watch The Night Manager to verify my Bond assertions, so be it. If you watch it for its great acting, engaging espionage, and brilliant storyline, well that’s even better. Either way, get your six-hour binging snacks ready.

Continue Reading

Quotes

Jonah Goldberg throws water on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal

Published

on

Jonah Goldberg throws water on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal

In a thought-provoking piece on National Review, senior editor Jonah Goldberg took a sober look at the ever-growing fire that drives the climate change debate. In the process, he threw water on their fire, particular the one being fanned right now but incoming-Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal.

While acknowledging the science seems to support substance to the climate change debate, Goldberg points out the overstated ways in which the debate is being framed. People like Ocasio-Cortez tend to blow the alarms harder and louder than necessary and the policies that arise from their klaxon calls are usually overkill.

Climate Change Frenzy Clouds Our Judgment

https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/climate-change-frenzy-clouds-our-judgment/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing a “Green New Deal.” As I’ve written 7 trillion times (give or take), progressives have wanted a “new New Deal” even before the first New Deal was over. Painting an age-old progressive idol green has nothing to do with science and everything to do with marketing.

As I suggested in the bit about the science-fiction story, I don’t think there is very much to do right now. Oh, I am very much in favor of R&D for all sorts of things. Cold fusion would be the equivalent of discovering faster-than-light travel. Personally, I am very interested in geoengineering — the science of actually fixing the problem. I am convinced the world has a low-grade fever that could get dangerously high in the future. That fever isn’t all bad by the way: E.g., it extends growing seasons and accelerates tree growth.

Whether climate change skeptics are right or not, there’s definitely reason to question the ways in which environmentalists are pushing their agenda. There’s a difference between having the debate and trying to quash it before it starts.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Alexander Acosta is the swamp

Published

on

Alexander Acosta is the swamp

Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein served 13 months in prison. His deal brought no justice to his victims who were not even informed until after the deal was made. He was protected from federal prosecution and given every amenity possible during his stay in a private wing of his prison. All of this was made possible by Alexander Acosta, the current Labor Secretary in the Trump administration.

Epstein may have escaped justice, but Acosta should not be allowed to escape repercussions for his part in the Epstein deal. If the President ever really had intentions of draining the swamp, he should start by firing Acosta immediately.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report