The debate about "allowing" the Bush-era tax cuts to expire has been in the news a lot lately. At this time, all the major news outlets, Fox included, keep spouting on about how if the tax cut is allowed to remain in place for the "rich" it will "cost" the government $700 billion in revenue.
There is so much wrong with all of that and it makes my head spin. First of all, taxation does not equal revenue. They are called "tax receipts", and we are not "customers" we are taxpayers. We don't have the ability to shop with our feet, unless we are planning to move to a State in the Union with lower State and and Local taxes. We are stuck with the Federal taxes. The ability to tax is a legal writ to commit violence. They are taking that money from us for their own purposes such as: redistribution, pork, international give-aways, vote-buying, and good old corruption. A small portion of the budget goes towards the common defense and other necessities, but at least 60% of the budget is duplicative, wasteful, and unnecessary. I used the word "violence" because the government can lay hands on you and pitch you in jail if you do not own up to your patriotic duty to pay those taxes. They are not a choice.
So why does the government and media seem to think that we live in a state of perpetual taxation? If "revenue" is going to drop by $700 billion over the next 10 years, then perhaps it is time to control your "expenses"? You know, the nice, simple equation: excess revenue (profit) = revenue from sales (taxation) - expenses. If you were IBM, or GM, losing that kind of money means that you had better come up with a way to either boost sales, or cut expenses. Preferably, you will do both. If you are the government, you tax until the Laffer curve breaks, and then you tax some more (oh, and print until you simply have enough green paper or electrons). This can not go on indefinitely. Eventually, the system will break.
All taxes should be voted on, period. If the bill "expires" the tax cut, then it implies that taxes were only temporarily suspended. I do not want to live in a place where taxation is the perpetual and not the periodical. A natural state of taxation can be said to exist. If anything, the Democrats and RINOs must be made to put their name on record as supporting a tax increase.
We need a flat tax and a flat, and small, taxation on wealth creation. Once the "rich" are no longer as afraid or worried that the government will come up with creative ways to take their hard-earned money they may actually INVEST some of it into the private economy. This is where you create jobs, not in the White House. It is the pursuit of wealth and fame that adds energy to the velocity of money and the expansion of the economy.
So, just to recap: taxation is the removal of money from those who earn it by the government, who then turn around and give more than 60% of that money to the people who have not earned it. Taxation is recorded as a "tax receipt" in the government ledgers. Revenue is something that a company makes on goods and services sold. A profit is when the revenue number is bigger than the expenses number. Simple, right? I wonder if IBM outlined a financial policy where they re-name profit losses as "deficit", and then spend as much as they want how that would be received by stockholders? Maybe if they put a "Mae", or "Mac" after their name it would be more palatable?
There, feeling better on the Stoa....NEXT!
--Zavost
A Rare update from the Stoa:
One of the items that is mouldering on the desks of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is the continuation of the absence of the Death Tax. This item will likely not be addressed before the end of year and will result in yet another huge tax being imposed upon the American people. Why does it look like we live in a natural state of taxation? Why must Congress have to pass an extension for the absence of taxes? Yes, I know the the bill originating the tax was likely written in perpetuity and that this bill was an exemption with a sunset clause so don't remind me of it. I believe that all bills that tax the people (i.e. spending bills) must have a sunset clause. I think that is only common sense. This will allow various Congresses to eliminate programs and spending bills that no longer serve either a real purpose (as re-voted upon by Congress) or have been duplicated by other spending programs. Sounds like common sense, right?
Anyhow, it seems so wrong to me that the government, which has taxed every penny you have ever made in your life, two or three times over, feels that it has the right to take 55% of all of your assets upon your death. If the Progressives can say, with a straight face, that broadband Internet is a human right, then how about the right of inheritance? If you can't pay it, then you have to liquidate the estate so that you can pay your taxes. This means homes, land, family heirlooms must be converted to cash so that you can give the government its due. This is just plain wrong on the face of it. Not much thinking involved with this one.
Since I just popped onto the Stoa to have my say I'll wrap my bathrobe about myself once more and head back to my domicile.
--Zavost
No comments:
Post a Comment