In the US, well meaning individuals on the liberal left, mostly Democrats, and on the conservative right, mostly Republicans, may actually want the same thing. That is a reduction in the vast economic differences between the relatively poor, and the relatively wealthy in our nation, That, of course does not include extremists of either persuasion. The irreconcilable difference between the two is in the method used to achieve this noble end.
Conservatives believe that is best achieved by focusing on building, using words from the famous Chinese parable, “teaching them to fish.” They work to improve the social and economic conditions of the poor by providing suitable private sector jobs. This improves and raises the living standard of those with less. Conservatives strive to help them improve their own economic status, so they can move into the reasonably well off or even the wealthy category. This is done with a minimum of aid or interference from government, by shrinking government, and by lowering taxes.
Liberals take the opposite tack. They use class envy to incite the less well off to agitate for the confiscation or destruction of the wealth of those better off than the poor and reduce them to poverty. This achieves their particular goal of equality, the equality of poverty and dependence. They promote the opposing part of the same parable and “give them a fish.” This makes more individuals dependent on government. This is done by maximizing the control of government, by expanding the role and size of government, and by increasing taxes.
The reason for the political success of the left is that it is much easier to destroy than to build. It is infinitely simpler to use emotional appeals of class envy and hate rhetoric to motivate people to cooperate and destroy, than it is to use logic and rationality to get people to work together to build. Throughout history, men have worked together in massive efforts to build buildings, even cities, only to have them destroyed by armies of ignorant, slavish followers, even those few with admirable overall intent. There are countless examples in many scales.
A small child on the beach will squeal with joy as he runs through and quickly demolishes even a complex sand castle that took the builder many hours to imagine and create. It took but a few relatively unskilled men a very short time to destroy the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 innocent humans. Contrast this with the immense effort by countless individuals cooperating over the many years required to imagine, create plans, design, build, furnish, and then staff this complex of buildings.
The destruction of anything is far easier than the building, The left has historically been the destroyers of virtually everything. A look at those nations of the world where the left has had free reign and mostly the support of the masses provides ample evidence. I don’t even need to mention their names. Interestingly it is more the direction of change of political direction than the actual position that creates economic boom or bust.
The US is one example of political movement from right to left that is driving our nation into eventual economic chaos. No, we are not there quite yet, but we may have already passed the event horizon—the point of no return. Greece is in the midst of self destructing. I wonder if we are among the next to go that route.
In contrast, China is moving rapidly in the other direction. By removing many government controls, freeing restraints on individuals, permitting and even encouraging private investment in business and industry, and moving away from socialism toward a capitalistic system, China has grown rapidly in economic power and will soon pass the US in that essential wealth. Numerous other Asian nations preceded China down this path and many more are now following.
While this has resulted in huge economic gains and a rising standard of living for those nations, there is one nation bucking this trend. North Korea may be a military power with many advanced weapons, but the North Korean people wallow in abject poverty and even starvation under an oppressive socialist government.
All of this makes me wonder just how long Chinese money will support the socialist excesses of the US with huge loans. Remember Margaret Thatcher’s oft repeated quote, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Actually it is not the Congress, or the Whitehouse, or even the judiciary that prompts my fear and distaste of our government. These are temporarily peopled by a relatively small number of those with varying degrees of power and ability. The real force and control of the US government now lies in the legions of increasingly powerful bureaucrats who actually run the growing machine of government and seemingly, can not be removed from their positions of power—ever.
This machine is very much in control of huge numbers of career bureaucrats and has learned to manipulate well connected political forces giving them increasing powers over thousands of federal workers. They have far more real control than do any of the three main elected and appointed branches of government. The Postal Service, the IRS, and Fannie Mae are several types of examples, but there are many more. Due to the efforts of liberal Democrats since 2008, this monster machine has grown tremendously in power, in cost, and in number of employees.
The obviously powerful banking industry is deeply involved in the control of the financial sectors of this bureaucracy. I need not site examples. All one needs do is examine the resume of those pernicious bureaucrats running the Federal Reserve Bank and all others involved in controls on Wall street and the banking industry. The foxes are now living in the hen house and whose interests do you think they are guarding? Not those of the public, that’s for certain.
If you think government bureaucrats aren’t running things to their own advantage, just try to get any kind of government help if you are an ordinary citizen without a political connection. I have experienced a few of these personally. One instance involved my late wife, Barbara. In 1998 she was diagnosed with Post Polio Syndrome, a pernicious and debilitating condition that often attacks individuals who had Polio that was seemingly cured without any damage. It takes twenty to fifty years for the actual damage done to become a problem. It shows up as weakness and pain to the extremities, progresses to inability to stand or walk while causing intense pain, and eventually end in premature death. Barbara battled it for seven years until her death.
In 1999, when she became unable to stand, she had to step down as pastor of her church, ending a promising career as a Methodist minister. It was both financially and emotionally devastating. She was advised by her physician to file for SSI as she was only 59 years old. In spite of the fact that she easily qualified, she was turned down a total of five times over the next three years. It was pure luck that she found out about Congressman Mike Pence, Republican from the sixth district. She contacted his office and within two months she started receiving her SSI payments. It amazed us what this one little political connection accomplished. As we were in the third district, Pence was not even our congressman. We wrote him a letter expressing our great appreciation for his help.
It was Dwight Eisenhower who has been quoted as saying, “Beware the Military/Industrial complex.” His actual words, delivered in a speech given in 1961, are quite different and convey a very different warning. He stated, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” This warning, in its broad application, actually applies to any “acquisition of unwarranted influence.”
Then consider the following: The military is an arm of the US government and is under control of the President and the Congress. Industrial refers strictly to those industries that produce arms and military equipment. The section of our economy that actually profits the most, the generates the most dollar profits from the sale of military supplies and equipment is, guess what, the banking industry. I therefore assume that one should now change “Beware the military/industrial complex.” to “Beware the government/banking complex.” Or maybe, in Eisenhower’s meaning, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the government/banking complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
-------------------------------------------
Eisenhower’s entire Military-Industrial Complex Speech of 1961 follows
From the Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II. We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III. Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII. So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Who is it that really and truly pays taxes
For those of you who don’t like my political views, this piece is completely a-political. It is written so people can understand the effects on everyone that taxes have and how many taxes on the “wealthy” are actually paid by average and even poor Americans.
Who is it that really and truly pays all those taxes, and I mean all, every penny?
That includes all payroll taxes, income taxes, FICA, unemployment taxes, sales or value added taxes, real estate taxes, and all those hidden taxes on practically everything. Let’s follow some tax dollars and see who actually pays, where the tax debt ends up. The figures reported have been taken from the actual financial statements of real companies. The names have been changed to prevent law suits.
EXAMPLE, STEP 1: XYZ Mining in Arizona digs copper ore out of the ground in several Arizona copper mines. They refine the ore and sell it to copper users. In 2010 their sales were nearly a $billion. Their net earnings before taxes were $211 million, or 21.1% of sales. Federal income taxes on those earnings were $47 million. Taxes other than income taxes were $22 million. These included state and local taxes, franchise taxes, and federal direct mining taxes. Payroll taxes, including both portions of FICA were $67 million. The total tax portion of XYZ’s expenses were $136 million or 13.6% of total sales. Out of every $1,000 worth of copper sold, $136 was for taxes that the purchaser of the copper actually paid for. XYZ simply passed that tax burden on to those who bought their copper, a fabricator or manufacturer.
STEP 2: ABC fabricating of Texas bought the raw copper ingots from XYZ and produced copper pipe among many other products. A financial analysis similar to XYZ shows that for every $1,000 worth of pipe sold, $227 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the taxes XYZ paid, adds $42 to that amount for a total of $269 out of the $1,000 of sales. This amount is simply passed on down the chain to the purchaser of the pipe, a contractor..
STEP 3: A building contractor in Dallas bought some of this pipe for a major building project. A financial analysis similar to XYZ and ABC shows that for every $1,000 worth of pipe used and priced in the project, $296 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the taxes XYZ and ABC paid, adds $84 to that amount for a total of $380 out of the $1,000 of the contract price. This amount is simply passed on down the chain to the purchaser of the pipe, a building owner.
STEP 4: The building owner leases space in the building to a group of dentists. Their financial analysis shows that for every $1,000 of the building lease income attributable to the extensive copper piping in their suite, $198 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the previous taxes paid adds $123 to that amount for a total of $321 out of each $1,000 of the rent paid by the dentists. This amount is simply passed on down the chain to the dentists who lease the space.
STEP 5: The group of dentists have many patients that pay for their dental services. Their financial analysis shows that for every $1,000 of the patient fees they receive, $321 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the previous taxes paid adds $140 to that amount for a total of $461 out of each $1,000 of the fees paid by the patients. This amount, the entire tax burden applied to each of the 5 steps combined, is actually paid by the end user, the patient who is at the end of the chain, the final or end user.
Conclusion: It is always the end user of any product or service that actually pays every penny of all taxes. This tax burden falls on rich and poor alike and, as in the above example, currently averages about $46 out of every $100 spent by every individual, regardless of income or wealth status. That percentage can be accurately calculated another way. Currently, our federal government consumes about 41% of our GNP. Add to that approximately 5% consumed by state and local governments. It’s funny how that adds up to the same $46 out of every $100 spent by every individual, regardless of income or wealth status.
Raising taxes always increases the cost of absolutely everything. From gasoline to bread to apartment rent to health care, increasing taxes will always raise these prices for the consumer. By the same token, lowering taxes will always lower these prices for the consumer. These are demonstrable and proven facts from time immemorial. So, no matter how you slice it, the poor always pay a far higher portion of their needed income from any and all sources, than do those not considered among the poor. The less income one has, the more important that portion is that goes up the chain to pay all those taxes. Said another way, the loss of that $46 out of every $100 spent is much more damaging the less income one has. That $46 is far more important to a low income family trying to get by, than to a slightly wealthy family or even the one down the street making $50k per year.
EXAMPLE 1. A poor family has a total income including welfare payments of $1,600 a month. They pay no income taxes. Assuming they spend all of their income, 46% of what they spend, or $736 is taxes that were passed down the chain.
EXAMPLE 2. Another family makes about $5,000 a month. They invest $500 per month in savings and pay $225 for income taxes. They also have a mortgage payment of $1,000 each month. This leaves them with $3,275 of disposable income which they use for all household necessities, food, clothing, transportation, insurance, etc. etc. Assuming they spend it all, 46% or $1,622 is taxes that were passed down the chain. Their total taxes are $1,847 or 34.63 of their income.
EXAMPLE 3. Another family makes about $15,000 a month. They invest $3000 per month in savings and stocks, and pay $2,000 for income taxes. They also have a mortgage payment of $3,000 each month. This leaves them with $7,000 of disposable income which they use for all household necessities, food, clothing, transportation, insurance, etc. etc. Assuming they spend it all, 46% or $3,268 is taxes that were passed down the chain. Their total taxes are $5,164 or 34.43% of their income
EXAMPLE 4: Another “wealthy” family makes about $100,000 a month. They invest $40,000 per month in stocks and savings, and pay $15,000 for income taxes. They also have a mortgage payment of $10,000 each month. They make charitable donations of $5,000 per month. This leaves them with $30,000 of disposable income which they use for all household necessities, food, clothing, transportation, insurance, etc. etc. Assuming they spend it all, 46% or $13,800 is taxes that were passed down the chain. Their total taxes are $28,800 or 28.8% of their income.
Lets see, here’s the resulting tax table:
Family (monthly)... Income... Disposable... Taxes... Tax %... Left to Invest
Poor ...................................$1,600............. $1,600..........$736.....46.0%......................$0.0
Lower middle................... $5,000.............$3,525....... $1,847 ....34.63%.............. $500
Upper middle .................$15,000 ............$7,104....... $5,220.....34.43%.......... $3,000
Wealthy ........................$100,000 ........$30,000 .....$28,800.... 28.8% ..........$40,000
Who thinks this is fair?
The table below gives the same figures with the “Fair Tax” 15-25% base
Family (monthly)... Income... Diposable... Taxes... Tax %... Left to Invest
Poor $1,600 $0 0.0% $0.0
Lower middle $5,000 $750 15.0% $1,955
Upper middle $15,000 $3,250 21.7% $4,970
Wealthy $100,000 $25,000 25.0% $43,800
The table below gives the same figures with the “Fair Tax” 20-30% base
Family (monthly) Income Diposable Taxes Tax % Left to Invest
Poor $1,600 $0 0.0% $0.0
Lower middle $5,000 $1000 20.0% $1,445
Upper middle $15,000 $4,000 21.7% $4,220
Wealthy $100,000 $30,000 30.0% $38,800
Who is it that really and truly pays all those taxes, and I mean all, every penny?
That includes all payroll taxes, income taxes, FICA, unemployment taxes, sales or value added taxes, real estate taxes, and all those hidden taxes on practically everything. Let’s follow some tax dollars and see who actually pays, where the tax debt ends up. The figures reported have been taken from the actual financial statements of real companies. The names have been changed to prevent law suits.
EXAMPLE, STEP 1: XYZ Mining in Arizona digs copper ore out of the ground in several Arizona copper mines. They refine the ore and sell it to copper users. In 2010 their sales were nearly a $billion. Their net earnings before taxes were $211 million, or 21.1% of sales. Federal income taxes on those earnings were $47 million. Taxes other than income taxes were $22 million. These included state and local taxes, franchise taxes, and federal direct mining taxes. Payroll taxes, including both portions of FICA were $67 million. The total tax portion of XYZ’s expenses were $136 million or 13.6% of total sales. Out of every $1,000 worth of copper sold, $136 was for taxes that the purchaser of the copper actually paid for. XYZ simply passed that tax burden on to those who bought their copper, a fabricator or manufacturer.
STEP 2: ABC fabricating of Texas bought the raw copper ingots from XYZ and produced copper pipe among many other products. A financial analysis similar to XYZ shows that for every $1,000 worth of pipe sold, $227 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the taxes XYZ paid, adds $42 to that amount for a total of $269 out of the $1,000 of sales. This amount is simply passed on down the chain to the purchaser of the pipe, a contractor..
STEP 3: A building contractor in Dallas bought some of this pipe for a major building project. A financial analysis similar to XYZ and ABC shows that for every $1,000 worth of pipe used and priced in the project, $296 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the taxes XYZ and ABC paid, adds $84 to that amount for a total of $380 out of the $1,000 of the contract price. This amount is simply passed on down the chain to the purchaser of the pipe, a building owner.
STEP 4: The building owner leases space in the building to a group of dentists. Their financial analysis shows that for every $1,000 of the building lease income attributable to the extensive copper piping in their suite, $198 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the previous taxes paid adds $123 to that amount for a total of $321 out of each $1,000 of the rent paid by the dentists. This amount is simply passed on down the chain to the dentists who lease the space.
STEP 5: The group of dentists have many patients that pay for their dental services. Their financial analysis shows that for every $1,000 of the patient fees they receive, $321 was for taxes. Factoring in the portion of the previous taxes paid adds $140 to that amount for a total of $461 out of each $1,000 of the fees paid by the patients. This amount, the entire tax burden applied to each of the 5 steps combined, is actually paid by the end user, the patient who is at the end of the chain, the final or end user.
Conclusion: It is always the end user of any product or service that actually pays every penny of all taxes. This tax burden falls on rich and poor alike and, as in the above example, currently averages about $46 out of every $100 spent by every individual, regardless of income or wealth status. That percentage can be accurately calculated another way. Currently, our federal government consumes about 41% of our GNP. Add to that approximately 5% consumed by state and local governments. It’s funny how that adds up to the same $46 out of every $100 spent by every individual, regardless of income or wealth status.
Raising taxes always increases the cost of absolutely everything. From gasoline to bread to apartment rent to health care, increasing taxes will always raise these prices for the consumer. By the same token, lowering taxes will always lower these prices for the consumer. These are demonstrable and proven facts from time immemorial. So, no matter how you slice it, the poor always pay a far higher portion of their needed income from any and all sources, than do those not considered among the poor. The less income one has, the more important that portion is that goes up the chain to pay all those taxes. Said another way, the loss of that $46 out of every $100 spent is much more damaging the less income one has. That $46 is far more important to a low income family trying to get by, than to a slightly wealthy family or even the one down the street making $50k per year.
EXAMPLE 1. A poor family has a total income including welfare payments of $1,600 a month. They pay no income taxes. Assuming they spend all of their income, 46% of what they spend, or $736 is taxes that were passed down the chain.
EXAMPLE 2. Another family makes about $5,000 a month. They invest $500 per month in savings and pay $225 for income taxes. They also have a mortgage payment of $1,000 each month. This leaves them with $3,275 of disposable income which they use for all household necessities, food, clothing, transportation, insurance, etc. etc. Assuming they spend it all, 46% or $1,622 is taxes that were passed down the chain. Their total taxes are $1,847 or 34.63 of their income.
EXAMPLE 3. Another family makes about $15,000 a month. They invest $3000 per month in savings and stocks, and pay $2,000 for income taxes. They also have a mortgage payment of $3,000 each month. This leaves them with $7,000 of disposable income which they use for all household necessities, food, clothing, transportation, insurance, etc. etc. Assuming they spend it all, 46% or $3,268 is taxes that were passed down the chain. Their total taxes are $5,164 or 34.43% of their income
EXAMPLE 4: Another “wealthy” family makes about $100,000 a month. They invest $40,000 per month in stocks and savings, and pay $15,000 for income taxes. They also have a mortgage payment of $10,000 each month. They make charitable donations of $5,000 per month. This leaves them with $30,000 of disposable income which they use for all household necessities, food, clothing, transportation, insurance, etc. etc. Assuming they spend it all, 46% or $13,800 is taxes that were passed down the chain. Their total taxes are $28,800 or 28.8% of their income.
Lets see, here’s the resulting tax table:
Family (monthly)... Income... Disposable... Taxes... Tax %... Left to Invest
Poor ...................................$1,600............. $1,600..........$736.....46.0%......................$0.0
Lower middle................... $5,000.............$3,525....... $1,847 ....34.63%.............. $500
Upper middle .................$15,000 ............$7,104....... $5,220.....34.43%.......... $3,000
Wealthy ........................$100,000 ........$30,000 .....$28,800.... 28.8% ..........$40,000
Who thinks this is fair?
The table below gives the same figures with the “Fair Tax” 15-25% base
Family (monthly)... Income... Diposable... Taxes... Tax %... Left to Invest
Poor $1,600 $0 0.0% $0.0
Lower middle $5,000 $750 15.0% $1,955
Upper middle $15,000 $3,250 21.7% $4,970
Wealthy $100,000 $25,000 25.0% $43,800
The table below gives the same figures with the “Fair Tax” 20-30% base
Family (monthly) Income Diposable Taxes Tax % Left to Invest
Poor $1,600 $0 0.0% $0.0
Lower middle $5,000 $1000 20.0% $1,445
Upper middle $15,000 $4,000 21.7% $4,220
Wealthy $100,000 $30,000 30.0% $38,800
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Starter Opinion Piece by Howard Johnson
A starting Op Ed piece by Howard Johnson, June 25, 2011
Some time ago I was severely chastised for some rather pointed comments I made about liberal Democrats and their policies in an email sent out to the 200 plus individuals on my address list. Though the bulk of responses received were positive, a few were angry and quite critical. I took the time to respond with a rather lengthy explanation you can view, along with my original offending piece in my blog, http://hojo2rants.blogspot.com. I also sent emails with an acknowledgment of having read their objections along with a sort of apology to those who chastised me. It was probably a complete waste of time since none of the objectors acknowledged or replied to my emails or to my blog. My guess is they didn’t take time to do so because, well, my guess is they really are not interested in my opinions or why I have them. I don’t really blame them. (or for that matter, any opinions that differ from theirs.) If I had been backing people and policies that destroyed Detroit for instance and is now destroying our country as this is written, I probably wouldn’t want to hear about it, talk about it, or try to defend it either.
Typically, those I wrote about, listen to or read, only products of those sources that agree with their elite views, They completely ignore, disbelieve, or ridicule any facts or logic that disagrees with their emotionally driven belief systems. That’s pretty much the case for most of those folks who live in lala land.
One of the strongest objections voiced was to my use of the term idiot as a description of those who promote and believe in the machinations of the left, and in particular, the current administration and Congress from 2006 to 2010. I was rebuked as a name caller for using such language. I am hereby making a sincere apology to those I insulted by such use of the word idiot. This is an apology to all you true idiots of the world for having insulted your intelligence by equating you with liberal Democrats. I promise never again to do so.
Oh yes, for those who don’t know, here’s a definition of idiot:
Idiot - 1 usually offensive, a pejorative: a person affected with extreme mental retardation, maximum mental age of 3 years. 2 a foolish or stupid person
Examples of Idiot - Don't be such an idiot! [Only an idiot would invest in a company just because a casual acquaintance recommended it] [Only an idiot would support liberal Democrats.]
Origin of idiot - Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiōtēs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own — more at suicide
First Known Use: 14th century
Why do I say this? It’s very difficult to deny the fiscal reality of Greece, Iceland, most of Europe, the states of California, Michigan, New York, and others, and especially the city of Detroit. Even though staunch liberal Democrats (the left) will deny the patently obvious, they must at least admit these examples of the financial manipulations of the left achieved far less than positive results. Of course, they could just absolve themselves of all responsibility and blame it on George Bush as they have virtually each and every other of their miserable failures, the many problems their efforts created.
EXAMPLE: Remember King Lyndon’s Great Society programs? Part of that was his Model Cities program which cost billions of taxpayer dollars and was a total failure. I need only repeat one of King Lyndon’s pronounced promises: “Detroit will be a shining example of the benefits of our Model Cities program.” It is quite telling how accurate Johnson’s prediction was. It certainly has become an example of the results of the policies of his great society programs now being greatly expanded by Obama and his cronies.
The combination of liberal Democrat control and UAW greed turned Detroit from the city with the highest standard of living in the US, and with a population of one and a quarter million, into a virtual third world city of the very poor with a population of less than half of what it was forty years ago. And the Detroit private sector? Virtually non existent are private sector jobs. Drive through the inner city of Detroit and you will see rough fields littered with trash where neat homes once stood. Most of those still standing are abandoned shells often having been torched after being stripped by vandals. You can even see hundreds of burned out and abandoned homes and businesses in a drive through the city on I-75. This is just one of the realities that give the lie to all the ridiculous promises of liberal Democrats.
For those who do not know me, I may despise the self serving, vote buying actions of Democrats, but I am not particularly enamored of Republican politicians either, particularly when they ape the actions of Democrats or try to satisfy everyone by being centrist. Centrist, that's another word for wishy-washy or gutless, and without a recognizable position on anything. Newly announced Republican Presidential candidate, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, is one example of a centrist. Among Republican hopefuls, he will be the darling of the far left, (main stream) media crowd who will try to foist him off on the Republicans. A confirmed RINO, Huntsman would be another gutless campaigner like John McCain.
While trying to look like another Reagan, background and all when he introduced his candidacy, he solemnly announced he would be a pussy in his campaigning against the anointed one. The truth in stark contrast is that Reagan soundly denounced Carter and his destructive plans and actions throughout his campaign. Whatever Huntsman is, he's no Reagan. I suppose I would hold my nose and vote for him if he were the Republican candidate, but only because the alternative would be so much worse. Right now my choice would be Michelle Bachman or Herman Kane. At least they tell it like it is and would go after Obama and his dismal record big time.
Unfortunately, they will increasingly be crucified by the media, particularly if they gain any momentum. As far as I am concerned, the nastier the media treats a possible candidate the higher that individual stands on my list. Right now, Bachman and Kane sit atop that list. Either is far batter qualified to be President than the inexperienced, silver tonged socialist orator-golfer that now sits in the Whitehouse when he isn't vacationing at some exotic and expensive place, or denigrating America on trips around the world.
The two following pieces are by Rachel Marsden, an international political and communications strategist, syndicated columnist, analyst, writer, and journalist based in Paris, France. She has appeared in varying capacities on Fox News, CNN, CNBC, Fox Business, Al Jazeera, LCP TV France, iTele France, France24, and Global Television, Sirius Satellite Radio and other TV and radio outlets. She is an internationally syndicated columnist with Tribune Media Services, and contributor to Human Events, Townhall.com, the Wall Street Journal, Spectator Magazine, and other publications.
Socialist Failure Greece Begs Private Sector for a Bailout
by Rachel Marsden - 06/19/2011 - HJ Comments in brackets [ ] and italics.
As a free-market, limited-government conservative, the total implosion of the Greek economy is the most stunning example of everything I’ve ever tried to warn about in regard to socialism. Despite the rest of Europe and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promising last year to give Greece 110 billion euros over three years, the country remains in a death spiral, with its budget deficit at 13.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). By contrast, the last actual figure for America was at 8.8%. [and growing rapidly]
So how did things get this bad for Greece? As IMF negotiator Poul Thomsen said of the country last year: “[Greece’s] revenues have declined significantly, while spending, especially on wages and entitlements, has risen sharply.” There you have it: the definitive formula for an economic meltdown.
One might think that would have been a wakeup call for Greece. Not so, apparently. This week, Prime Minister George Papandreou—a socialist, not surprisingly—faced revolts, resignations and defections from within his own party last week. What exactly is he supposed to do? Shake out the couch for spare change? The socialists broke the bank and there’s nothing left to spend. Meanwhile, the IMF and EU refuse to hand over the next bailout installment unless the Greeks can prove they’re making significant moves to get their house in order.
The IMF initially recommended the following measures, which have already been adopted: Cuts to Christmas, Easter and summer bonuses for workers in the public sector and state-owned enterprise. No raises in pensions or publicly funded wages for three years. Increased taxes on luxury items, tobacco and alcohol. And Greeks can no longer retire on a full pension at an average age of 61, and have to wait until they’re 63. [Americans please note this]
Now, the Greek government is set to raise sales tax by 2% to 3% and sell government assets. The result? Riots in the streets.
The world is witnessing, in real time, the total collapse of a socialist system to the point that the conservatives are now ahead in the country’s polls. But it’s now a case of too little and far too late.
The problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of other people’s money. Greece was spending beyond its means by injecting cash into a public-sector system that wasn’t in turn producing anything of real value on which it could then turn a substantial profit. When this system slid into the negative, they borrowed on credit until their credit rating tanked and they couldn’t get loans. [Sound familiar?] So they turned to Europe and the IMF, which are made up of countries borrowing money themselves on credit to manage their own debts. Where in all of this is anyone actually producing anything that’s turning a significant profit? While in China, they have enough cash floating around to buy up the treasury bills of every other cash-strapped country, thereby stringing them up by the short and curlies and ensuring the red carpet treatment anywhere and everywhere they might wish to go on a round-the-world tour.
So where do defenders of freedom turn when they see how socialism has turned them into slaves of communism? To the free market and the private sector they’ve been up until now taxing into oblivion in the interest of spreading the wealth. You can’t make this stuff up. On Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced at a Berlin press conference that they’d like to offer the opportunity to private sector banks and investment funds to dole out some cash on a “volunteer basis” to bail out Greece, because those 110 billion euros they’re currently forking over in installments definitely won’t be enough, and none of the countries who might be expected to pony up this new injection of funds has any more money to flush down the toilet. Sarkozy adds that this all needs to happen before September, so the private sector better hurry up and jump on this most excellent opportunity to never see their money again.
Oh boy, let’s all hold our breath for the “Peugeot Parthenon.” “Citroen Coliseum” and the “Airbus Acropolis” Meanwhile, Nigerian scam e-mail writers are probably taking notes in the event this rip-off actually achieves lift-off: “Dear Mister CEO, Sir: I have city to sell in Greece! Please transfer $1,000,000,000 to account below and I will send keys in mail. Many blessings!”
Dark humor aside, the Greek case should serve as a reminder to Obama, America, and every other country led by someone trying to spend their way out of economic trouble that it will always lead to things getting much worse. And, as Sarkozy and Merkel have now effectively acknowledged, the free market is the best solution to economic difficulty.
IMF Chief Case Proves There’s Shocking Wealth in Being A Socialist
by Rachel Marsden - 05/29/2011
Apparently there’s some good money to be made with a career as a professional Socialist. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French Socialist Party’s formerly best hope for president and former International Monetary Fund chief now sits in a $50,000 a month townhouse rental in Manhattan’s Tribeca district in the wake of his Picasso-collecting heiress wife posting $1 million bail and $5 million bond. This doesn’t include the $280,000 monthly bill for detectives and lawyers in a bid to clear him of charges of allegedly sexually assaulting a maid at a luxury NYC hotel.
All this flaunting of wealth by someone who was supposed to be the best hope for the great unwashed French masses has forced his party to acknowledge the disconnect. Benoit Hamon, the Socialist Party’s spokesman, says that he “understands that this could shock millions of French.”
Color me personally unshocked, Benoit. Strauss-Kahn – or “DSK” – is a longtime French civil servant. Climbing to the pinnacle of public service and politics is how the left gets rich – and it’s really the only way they can do so, aside from marrying rich or inheriting wealth, because their business model doesn’t really allow for much else without delving into capitalist activities. Even the universally recognized symbol of extreme leftism, Che Guavara, was a product of Argentine high-society and invested in a yacht company before setting out to lead the peasants in revolution against capitalism.
DSK has been mayor, parliamentarian, minister, then subsequently collected a $500,000 yearly salary as head of the IMF. Whenever I see a wealthy self-described socialist, it’s a pretty sure bet that, like DSK here, they fell into a giant pile of someone else’s cash at some point. Redistribution of wealth primarily towards themselves is how socialists roll: What’s Jacques Taxpayer’s is mine. What’s wifey’s is mine. What enters my hotel room is (allegedly) mine…A French BFM TV reporter broadcasting live recently from DSK’s new apartment held up two NYC newspaper covers expressing shock at his monthy living costs, explaining to French viewers that although Americans have less of a complex about money than the French, they’re still raising eyebrows at the lavish spending. That's because his new spread is theoretically supposed to substitute for a jail cell. Not too many people charged with rape end up landing a massive new pad with a “girl’s room” or "nanny's room" within a week of release – let alone someone who was supposed to represent the great hope for the so-called people’s party back home.
Not to say that socialists don’t deserve to be well-paid for a productive job well done, but the key word is “productive”. The position of IMF chief shouldn’t be held by anyone for whom it’s the best paying gig they’ve ever known. Instead, it should pay nothing in salary and allow for bonus performance-based payouts. For example, DSK was set lay out an austerity plan and strategy for Greece to reduce its debt in exchange for a 110 billion Euro bailout from Eurozone countries. The head of the IMF shouldn’t get a cent of salary until his advice pans out and Greece turns a profit based on it. The same goes for the 78 billion Euros the EU just gave Portugal to sort itself out. The IMF chief ought to moralize to them as he’s apt to do, and if his hot air manages to push their sinking ship’s sail in the right direction, then he should get a cut. Instead, we hear that countries like Tunisia went from 3.7% growth to 1.7% growth, according to the IMF. Whoops, looks like global governor DSK underperformed. Those who want to be responsible for the world should then take responsibility for the world.
The great paradox is that Socialists like DSK want to run their own countries and the entire planet while enjoying the power, prestige and salaries associated with doing so. But at no point are they ever accountable or responsible for any results. If they ever did solve the world’s problems, they’d be out of jobs. If countries couldn’t depend on the IMF, they’d be forced to get themselves in order, which would likely mean cutting costs and limiting government. A limited government wouldn’t rely so heavily on civil servants and clunky paper-shuffling administrations. DSK and other self-proclaimed societal managers would have to find something more productive to do.
Being a man of the people moving societal goalposts around, making all sorts of rules, and telling others how to live pays wonderfully and represents the pinnacle of socialist achievement. That’s the dirty little secret the French are discovering with the DSK affair. It’s hard to make a living as a socialist otherwise -- on an open, level and fair field with everyone else. The ones who secretly aspire to it are hardly going to protest it. DSK’s biggest claim to fame prior to his IMF stint involved bringing in the now-repealed 35-hour French workweek, handicapping capitalism and forcing employers to pay the same salary for less productivity. Ironically it’s that same kind of thinking from which he and the IMF had to rescue bankrupt EU countries. The private sector equivalent would be someone who burns down your house then offers you the chance to pay him to rebuild it. DSK and socialists are good at creating employment and wealth – for themselves.
Some time ago I was severely chastised for some rather pointed comments I made about liberal Democrats and their policies in an email sent out to the 200 plus individuals on my address list. Though the bulk of responses received were positive, a few were angry and quite critical. I took the time to respond with a rather lengthy explanation you can view, along with my original offending piece in my blog, http://hojo2rants.blogspot.com. I also sent emails with an acknowledgment of having read their objections along with a sort of apology to those who chastised me. It was probably a complete waste of time since none of the objectors acknowledged or replied to my emails or to my blog. My guess is they didn’t take time to do so because, well, my guess is they really are not interested in my opinions or why I have them. I don’t really blame them. (or for that matter, any opinions that differ from theirs.) If I had been backing people and policies that destroyed Detroit for instance and is now destroying our country as this is written, I probably wouldn’t want to hear about it, talk about it, or try to defend it either.
Typically, those I wrote about, listen to or read, only products of those sources that agree with their elite views, They completely ignore, disbelieve, or ridicule any facts or logic that disagrees with their emotionally driven belief systems. That’s pretty much the case for most of those folks who live in lala land.
One of the strongest objections voiced was to my use of the term idiot as a description of those who promote and believe in the machinations of the left, and in particular, the current administration and Congress from 2006 to 2010. I was rebuked as a name caller for using such language. I am hereby making a sincere apology to those I insulted by such use of the word idiot. This is an apology to all you true idiots of the world for having insulted your intelligence by equating you with liberal Democrats. I promise never again to do so.
Oh yes, for those who don’t know, here’s a definition of idiot:
Idiot - 1 usually offensive, a pejorative: a person affected with extreme mental retardation, maximum mental age of 3 years. 2 a foolish or stupid person
Examples of Idiot - Don't be such an idiot! [Only an idiot would invest in a company just because a casual acquaintance recommended it] [Only an idiot would support liberal Democrats.]
Origin of idiot - Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiōtēs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own — more at suicide
First Known Use: 14th century
Why do I say this? It’s very difficult to deny the fiscal reality of Greece, Iceland, most of Europe, the states of California, Michigan, New York, and others, and especially the city of Detroit. Even though staunch liberal Democrats (the left) will deny the patently obvious, they must at least admit these examples of the financial manipulations of the left achieved far less than positive results. Of course, they could just absolve themselves of all responsibility and blame it on George Bush as they have virtually each and every other of their miserable failures, the many problems their efforts created.
EXAMPLE: Remember King Lyndon’s Great Society programs? Part of that was his Model Cities program which cost billions of taxpayer dollars and was a total failure. I need only repeat one of King Lyndon’s pronounced promises: “Detroit will be a shining example of the benefits of our Model Cities program.” It is quite telling how accurate Johnson’s prediction was. It certainly has become an example of the results of the policies of his great society programs now being greatly expanded by Obama and his cronies.
The combination of liberal Democrat control and UAW greed turned Detroit from the city with the highest standard of living in the US, and with a population of one and a quarter million, into a virtual third world city of the very poor with a population of less than half of what it was forty years ago. And the Detroit private sector? Virtually non existent are private sector jobs. Drive through the inner city of Detroit and you will see rough fields littered with trash where neat homes once stood. Most of those still standing are abandoned shells often having been torched after being stripped by vandals. You can even see hundreds of burned out and abandoned homes and businesses in a drive through the city on I-75. This is just one of the realities that give the lie to all the ridiculous promises of liberal Democrats.
For those who do not know me, I may despise the self serving, vote buying actions of Democrats, but I am not particularly enamored of Republican politicians either, particularly when they ape the actions of Democrats or try to satisfy everyone by being centrist. Centrist, that's another word for wishy-washy or gutless, and without a recognizable position on anything. Newly announced Republican Presidential candidate, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, is one example of a centrist. Among Republican hopefuls, he will be the darling of the far left, (main stream) media crowd who will try to foist him off on the Republicans. A confirmed RINO, Huntsman would be another gutless campaigner like John McCain.
While trying to look like another Reagan, background and all when he introduced his candidacy, he solemnly announced he would be a pussy in his campaigning against the anointed one. The truth in stark contrast is that Reagan soundly denounced Carter and his destructive plans and actions throughout his campaign. Whatever Huntsman is, he's no Reagan. I suppose I would hold my nose and vote for him if he were the Republican candidate, but only because the alternative would be so much worse. Right now my choice would be Michelle Bachman or Herman Kane. At least they tell it like it is and would go after Obama and his dismal record big time.
Unfortunately, they will increasingly be crucified by the media, particularly if they gain any momentum. As far as I am concerned, the nastier the media treats a possible candidate the higher that individual stands on my list. Right now, Bachman and Kane sit atop that list. Either is far batter qualified to be President than the inexperienced, silver tonged socialist orator-golfer that now sits in the Whitehouse when he isn't vacationing at some exotic and expensive place, or denigrating America on trips around the world.
The two following pieces are by Rachel Marsden, an international political and communications strategist, syndicated columnist, analyst, writer, and journalist based in Paris, France. She has appeared in varying capacities on Fox News, CNN, CNBC, Fox Business, Al Jazeera, LCP TV France, iTele France, France24, and Global Television, Sirius Satellite Radio and other TV and radio outlets. She is an internationally syndicated columnist with Tribune Media Services, and contributor to Human Events, Townhall.com, the Wall Street Journal, Spectator Magazine, and other publications.
Socialist Failure Greece Begs Private Sector for a Bailout
by Rachel Marsden - 06/19/2011 - HJ Comments in brackets [ ] and italics.
As a free-market, limited-government conservative, the total implosion of the Greek economy is the most stunning example of everything I’ve ever tried to warn about in regard to socialism. Despite the rest of Europe and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promising last year to give Greece 110 billion euros over three years, the country remains in a death spiral, with its budget deficit at 13.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). By contrast, the last actual figure for America was at 8.8%. [and growing rapidly]
So how did things get this bad for Greece? As IMF negotiator Poul Thomsen said of the country last year: “[Greece’s] revenues have declined significantly, while spending, especially on wages and entitlements, has risen sharply.” There you have it: the definitive formula for an economic meltdown.
One might think that would have been a wakeup call for Greece. Not so, apparently. This week, Prime Minister George Papandreou—a socialist, not surprisingly—faced revolts, resignations and defections from within his own party last week. What exactly is he supposed to do? Shake out the couch for spare change? The socialists broke the bank and there’s nothing left to spend. Meanwhile, the IMF and EU refuse to hand over the next bailout installment unless the Greeks can prove they’re making significant moves to get their house in order.
The IMF initially recommended the following measures, which have already been adopted: Cuts to Christmas, Easter and summer bonuses for workers in the public sector and state-owned enterprise. No raises in pensions or publicly funded wages for three years. Increased taxes on luxury items, tobacco and alcohol. And Greeks can no longer retire on a full pension at an average age of 61, and have to wait until they’re 63. [Americans please note this]
Now, the Greek government is set to raise sales tax by 2% to 3% and sell government assets. The result? Riots in the streets.
The world is witnessing, in real time, the total collapse of a socialist system to the point that the conservatives are now ahead in the country’s polls. But it’s now a case of too little and far too late.
The problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of other people’s money. Greece was spending beyond its means by injecting cash into a public-sector system that wasn’t in turn producing anything of real value on which it could then turn a substantial profit. When this system slid into the negative, they borrowed on credit until their credit rating tanked and they couldn’t get loans. [Sound familiar?] So they turned to Europe and the IMF, which are made up of countries borrowing money themselves on credit to manage their own debts. Where in all of this is anyone actually producing anything that’s turning a significant profit? While in China, they have enough cash floating around to buy up the treasury bills of every other cash-strapped country, thereby stringing them up by the short and curlies and ensuring the red carpet treatment anywhere and everywhere they might wish to go on a round-the-world tour.
So where do defenders of freedom turn when they see how socialism has turned them into slaves of communism? To the free market and the private sector they’ve been up until now taxing into oblivion in the interest of spreading the wealth. You can’t make this stuff up. On Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced at a Berlin press conference that they’d like to offer the opportunity to private sector banks and investment funds to dole out some cash on a “volunteer basis” to bail out Greece, because those 110 billion euros they’re currently forking over in installments definitely won’t be enough, and none of the countries who might be expected to pony up this new injection of funds has any more money to flush down the toilet. Sarkozy adds that this all needs to happen before September, so the private sector better hurry up and jump on this most excellent opportunity to never see their money again.
Oh boy, let’s all hold our breath for the “Peugeot Parthenon.” “Citroen Coliseum” and the “Airbus Acropolis” Meanwhile, Nigerian scam e-mail writers are probably taking notes in the event this rip-off actually achieves lift-off: “Dear Mister CEO, Sir: I have city to sell in Greece! Please transfer $1,000,000,000 to account below and I will send keys in mail. Many blessings!”
Dark humor aside, the Greek case should serve as a reminder to Obama, America, and every other country led by someone trying to spend their way out of economic trouble that it will always lead to things getting much worse. And, as Sarkozy and Merkel have now effectively acknowledged, the free market is the best solution to economic difficulty.
IMF Chief Case Proves There’s Shocking Wealth in Being A Socialist
by Rachel Marsden - 05/29/2011
Apparently there’s some good money to be made with a career as a professional Socialist. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French Socialist Party’s formerly best hope for president and former International Monetary Fund chief now sits in a $50,000 a month townhouse rental in Manhattan’s Tribeca district in the wake of his Picasso-collecting heiress wife posting $1 million bail and $5 million bond. This doesn’t include the $280,000 monthly bill for detectives and lawyers in a bid to clear him of charges of allegedly sexually assaulting a maid at a luxury NYC hotel.
All this flaunting of wealth by someone who was supposed to be the best hope for the great unwashed French masses has forced his party to acknowledge the disconnect. Benoit Hamon, the Socialist Party’s spokesman, says that he “understands that this could shock millions of French.”
Color me personally unshocked, Benoit. Strauss-Kahn – or “DSK” – is a longtime French civil servant. Climbing to the pinnacle of public service and politics is how the left gets rich – and it’s really the only way they can do so, aside from marrying rich or inheriting wealth, because their business model doesn’t really allow for much else without delving into capitalist activities. Even the universally recognized symbol of extreme leftism, Che Guavara, was a product of Argentine high-society and invested in a yacht company before setting out to lead the peasants in revolution against capitalism.
DSK has been mayor, parliamentarian, minister, then subsequently collected a $500,000 yearly salary as head of the IMF. Whenever I see a wealthy self-described socialist, it’s a pretty sure bet that, like DSK here, they fell into a giant pile of someone else’s cash at some point. Redistribution of wealth primarily towards themselves is how socialists roll: What’s Jacques Taxpayer’s is mine. What’s wifey’s is mine. What enters my hotel room is (allegedly) mine…A French BFM TV reporter broadcasting live recently from DSK’s new apartment held up two NYC newspaper covers expressing shock at his monthy living costs, explaining to French viewers that although Americans have less of a complex about money than the French, they’re still raising eyebrows at the lavish spending. That's because his new spread is theoretically supposed to substitute for a jail cell. Not too many people charged with rape end up landing a massive new pad with a “girl’s room” or "nanny's room" within a week of release – let alone someone who was supposed to represent the great hope for the so-called people’s party back home.
Not to say that socialists don’t deserve to be well-paid for a productive job well done, but the key word is “productive”. The position of IMF chief shouldn’t be held by anyone for whom it’s the best paying gig they’ve ever known. Instead, it should pay nothing in salary and allow for bonus performance-based payouts. For example, DSK was set lay out an austerity plan and strategy for Greece to reduce its debt in exchange for a 110 billion Euro bailout from Eurozone countries. The head of the IMF shouldn’t get a cent of salary until his advice pans out and Greece turns a profit based on it. The same goes for the 78 billion Euros the EU just gave Portugal to sort itself out. The IMF chief ought to moralize to them as he’s apt to do, and if his hot air manages to push their sinking ship’s sail in the right direction, then he should get a cut. Instead, we hear that countries like Tunisia went from 3.7% growth to 1.7% growth, according to the IMF. Whoops, looks like global governor DSK underperformed. Those who want to be responsible for the world should then take responsibility for the world.
The great paradox is that Socialists like DSK want to run their own countries and the entire planet while enjoying the power, prestige and salaries associated with doing so. But at no point are they ever accountable or responsible for any results. If they ever did solve the world’s problems, they’d be out of jobs. If countries couldn’t depend on the IMF, they’d be forced to get themselves in order, which would likely mean cutting costs and limiting government. A limited government wouldn’t rely so heavily on civil servants and clunky paper-shuffling administrations. DSK and other self-proclaimed societal managers would have to find something more productive to do.
Being a man of the people moving societal goalposts around, making all sorts of rules, and telling others how to live pays wonderfully and represents the pinnacle of socialist achievement. That’s the dirty little secret the French are discovering with the DSK affair. It’s hard to make a living as a socialist otherwise -- on an open, level and fair field with everyone else. The ones who secretly aspire to it are hardly going to protest it. DSK’s biggest claim to fame prior to his IMF stint involved bringing in the now-repealed 35-hour French workweek, handicapping capitalism and forcing employers to pay the same salary for less productivity. Ironically it’s that same kind of thinking from which he and the IMF had to rescue bankrupt EU countries. The private sector equivalent would be someone who burns down your house then offers you the chance to pay him to rebuild it. DSK and socialists are good at creating employment and wealth – for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)