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.

Benjamin Wilhelm served as a commissioned officer in the United States military for 10 years, serving one combat tour in Afghanistan. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge among other military awards. Ben has worked in a variety of private sector businesses both large and small. He is a former military and civilian firearms instructor and an advocate for veterans issues. Ben is a strict Constitutionalist who sees the Federal government as an out of control leviathan, and the federal debt as a burden that will break the country. Ben is a divorced father of two boys.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory: ‘Writing out’ Most Guns with the Bump-Stock ban.

Published

on

By

Bump Stock

The latest Liberty grabber wave has crested, but Trump is about to give them a tremendous victory over the 2nd amendment.

Now that the Sturm und Drang of the March for gun confiscation has ‘died down’ it has become evident that, much like previous movements of the past, it came to nought aside from some localised suppressions of Liberty. The problem is there a vestige of this assault of freedom that is still rearing it’s ugly head, that of the infamous ban on so-called “Bump-Stocks”.

Those who are rightly concerned about this assault on Liberty can still inscribe their opposition with the Moonshine, Cigarettes and Fire-sticks bureaucracy [Better known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – BATF]  pushing through a new ‘law’ that all by himself, Trump has taken to “Writing Out”.  The deadline is June 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET for everyone to post their opposition to this ‘Law’.

First they came for the Bump-Stocks.

For those who may not care about someone else’s concerns over freedom, just be mindful of a reprise of Martin Niemöller Poem starting with the line: “First they came for the Bump-Stocks, and I didn’t object – For I didn’t care about Bump-Stocks…. Soon enough, they get around to coming after the firearms everyone else cares about, and eventually that will be hunting rifles or shotguns. If you chose to remain silent those guns will be “written out” as well.

But don’t just take our word for it, listen to what the Liberty grabbers have stated in bragging about the subject:

Delaney Tarr [March for Our Lives]

When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.):

Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, “So what? … I certainly hope so.”

Apparently we’re not supposed to notice when the Liberty grabber Left broadcasts their intentions to the world. We’re supposed to let them get a foot in the door of a pretext for further bans before objecting.

Giving up the question.

David Deming over on the American thinker, Made the very important point that sacrificing one more time to the Liberty grabbers of what seems to be nothing is in essence:

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

Automatic redefinition.

In point of fact, the ATF previously ruled that Bump-Stocks [and presumably other ways of ‘bump-firing a gun – Fast fingers, Rubber bands and Belt-loops] don’t actually convert ordinary semi-automatic firearms to a “Machine gun” because the trigger has to be pulled for every shot. Now with the President’s authorising this linguistic legerdemain, this definition codified in the law has been blurred to the point that any gun that can be ‘Bump-fired’ could also be banned. However, they can’t very well ban fingers, belt-loops or rubber bands, so they will just ban each and every gun that can fire too fast.

Just ‘Write-out’ this legal requirement and Voila! Any gun that can be fired too fast for the sensibilities of the Liberty grabbers can be thought of as a “Machine Gun” and banned instantly – converting most of the 120 Million gun owners into instant felons. With a bit of training,  most guns can be fired faster, so in essence, letting them change this legal definition could have them ban just about every gun in existence.

The Takeaway.

One might not care about the fate of thousands of inert pieces of plastic or what happens to those who have them. One might not care if someone won’t be able to bump-fire a weapon in this particular way. But we on the Pro-Liberty Right will rue the day that we let this go through in exchange for nothing.

If we let the powers that be arbitrarily proclaim that some guns with these pieces of inert plastic are “Machine Guns’, the day will soon dawn when ALL guns are dishonestly ‘written out’ as the same. It will then just be a slippery slope to everyone having to undergo a background check, registration and of course – TAXES – on guns that we already own. Followed by the inevitable confiscation of those guns.

Those who remain silent now will only have themselves to blame when this happens – so now is the time to stop this dead in it’s tracks. The comment window is only open for a few more days [Jun 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET], make the best of it.

 

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Trump’s trade war faces resistance from GOP, but it probably won’t matter

Published

on

While the government-contrived immigration “crisis” at the border involving forced family separations has captured the headlines—effectively giving Trump and the GOP the cover they need to save DACA and create a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens—Trump’s trade war was the topic of the day during hearings with the Senate Finance Committee yesterday.

Following recent announcements of retaliatory tariffs being leveled against the US by Canada, China, Mexico, and the EU, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appeared before the committee to defend what the committee referred to as Trump’s “knee-jerk impulses” with his trade policies.

Senators from both parties blasted Ross over Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs—which Ross once defended as “no big deal” because any impact they might have on consumer prices would be “trivial”—following recent economic data indicating that tariffs were indeed having a negative impact on the US economy.

After pointing out that tariffs were responsible for raising prices by 20 percent or more for certain US manufacturers, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch questioned the administration’s claim that Trump’s trade war was a matter of national security.

“These tariffs do not support US national security; instead, they harm American manufacturers, damage our economy, hurt American consumers, and disrupt our relationship with our long-term allies, while giving China a free pass.”

As regular readers of the Strident Conservative already know, Trump has been particularly soft on China after receiving favorable treatment for his and Ivanka’s business interests in China from the Chinese government.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), who attempted to get a law passed that would return the power to levy tariffs back to Congress as the Constitution requires—it was shot down by Mitch McConnell—also pointed out that Trump’s trade war has nothing to do with national security.

“I wish we would stop invoking national security because that’s not what this is about. This is about economic nationalism.”

“We’re picking winners and losers.”

Hmm… picking winners and losers. Isn’t that something Obama did?

Despite Trump’s misguided optimism, it’s important to remember that there are always casualties in war—even in a trade war—and he is personally responsible for them because he will have caused them.

While news that there are Republicans willing to take a stand against Trump’s disastrous trade policies should be something to cheer, the GOP has become the party of Trump where loyalty and undying devotion to the NY liberal has replaced conservative values. It was just yesterday that I wrote about Sen. Dean Heller’s conversion to Trump conservatism and how as a Trump loyalist, he would be giving Trump “a wide berth” concerning tariffs.

With the GOP adopting a Trump loyalty test when it comes to enacting policy and running elections, it’s likely that we’ll see more Republicans giving Trump a wide berth on tariffs and pretty much everything else Trump wants.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Colorado Primary

Published

on

There isn’t too much action in the Colorado Primary, but the race to watch seems to be out of District 5. Colorado is a state that can embrace the grassroots. Doug Lamborn seems to have lost touch with the grassroots due to his struggle at getting on the ballot. As a result of temporarily not being on the ballot, he finds himself in a contested field and is a more vulnerable incumbent. If Lamborn’s reputation can’t recover, Darryl Glenn is poised to capitalize.

Best Pick: Darryl Glenn
Worst Pick: Doug Lamborn
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: District 3, District 6

District 1

Casper Stockham is the only Republican in this race.

District 2

Peter Yu is the only Republican in this race.

District 3

Scott Tipton is an incumbent RINO. He is unchallenged.

District 4

Ken Buck is Colorado’s most Conservative Congressman. He is unchallenged.

District 5

The first impression from this race is that incumbent Doug Lamborn badmouthed Trump. But rather, Lamborn is in a fight because he had some ballot issues because he was using nonresident signatures or something like that. He survived that court battle but that is only the first battle for in this swamp creature’s quest to stay on top. Looking at his record, he was more Conservative under Obama.

His most serious challenger is Darryl Glenn. Glenn is a candidate with a strong grasp on federalism and separation of powers. He is also running as a fiscal hawk who seems as though he would align with the Freedom Caucus on spending issues. It’ll be interesting to see if Glenn’s Youtube campaign is matched by his ground game. If so, he just might have this.

Conservative Pick: Darryl Glenn

District 6

Mike Coffman is an unchallenged RINO.

District 7

Mark Barrington is the only Republican in this race.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.