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.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report