The intersectional marathon update and taxes.
As predicted in the intersectional marathon (misnamed previously), many of the democrat contenders are dropping out. It is a little surprising that Joe Biden, the one with the lowest possible intersectional score (white, male, straight) is still in, but he won't be for long. Age has finally caught up with him, and four years of being out of politics has dulled his edge considerably. Had Biden ran as he has his entire career, he could have pulled away from the wacko crowd that is controlling his party right now. There are plenty of moderate Democrats that put Trump in office in 2016. Things like being pro energy, pro-meat, and even a moderation of choice (you know, actually believing that concept of safe legal and rare, rather than "let's kill another black baby" and "it doesn't count until you put it in the car seat to take home from the hospital" wing.
Fauxahontas is still in, and while she is low scoring on the intersectional scale, (straight and white) she is female, and she did pretend to be an Indian for the majority of her career. Unlike Biden, Senator Warren is sharp, and she is trying to tap into that socialist populist vein (you know, like Hitler, Chavez, etc.) She is an advocate of government single payer health care, a government confiscation of guns (aka gun buyback) and of course higher taxes for the "rich" (did you know that the top 1% average in the US is only $421,000?) And a wealth tax.
Well, not to be outdone, a fellow loser in the intersectional marathon (white, straight, and male) but he is Jewish, Senator Sanders has come out with his own wealth tax to confiscate wealth from the richest Americans over the next 15 years. He advocates a Medicare for all plan (which his own state, cobalt blue Vermont, passed, tried to implement, and couldn't because they couldn't afford it, same with California) a gun confiscation plan (remember when he was pro-gun? wasn't that long ago) He is old, but I suspect he may be like Keith Richards, he has always been old, and will never die.
While there will be others on the stage in upcoming debates, and of course the winds of politics could change things, if you were to ask me today, it comes down to Warren.
Can we switch gears for a moment? One of the issues that will be big for the democrats next fall is something that Senators Warren and Sanders both advocate. A big fat wealth tax. Not an income tax, well, actually they advocate jacking that up too, but the wealth tax is different. As the IRS already tracks individual's wealth, each will be assessed annually a percentage based on that value. Senator Warren says 2% for the value over 50 million, Senator Sanders has a sliding scale starting at 32 million on up with 8% at the top, annually. Both forecast rosy numbers. Warren 2.7 trillion in 10 years, Sanders 4. something. How much would they get, assuming that they could pass such a thing, and it were to pass constitutional muster? (unlikely) Probably very little. Once it looked like it would pass, you would see a mass exodus. Wealth would evaporate.
Can we talk? Really the whole reason that I am writing and broadcasting this is because of something that I read while over at the socialist Sanders' website. I am not slurring him by calling him that, as that is a title he proudly, but disingenuously wears. Why disingenuously? Because what he sells is way different than the models that he alleges to love in Europe. You see, in those welfare states all carry a very heavy tax burden. He does not openly say that, which is why he is a coward and a hypocrite. All, and heavy. As in lower middle class with a 40% federal income tax. The lower middle class doesn't even pay income taxes in the US. So he speaks lies to power and not truth. But back to what I read.
His justification for the wealth tax, and the increase in income tax are neat little statistics that demonstrate how over the last couple of decades the "rich have gotten richer and the poor have not." We certainly can't say they have gotten poorer, because they haven't by any measurement. We could talk about the flood of unskilled labor coming across the border legally or otherwise, and the impact it has on wages. How not that long ago someone could have worked for a roofer and provided for a family. Or worked for a landscaper, etc. Not so much now, but I keep getting distracted, understandably because he doesn't point out the fact that the poor are better off, or what open borders does to them. He just points out the wealth gained. But under what system did he gain it?
It has been a little over a century since the progressive income tax was legalized by Constitutional Amendment. The whole point of it being to redistribute wealth from the rich to the not as rich. For that whole time that system, designed to do the very thing that Comrad Sanders wants to do now, has failed, in fact it has made things even worse, as far as the wealth gap is concerned. Can't we agree on that? For decades, we have tried all sorts of rates, from the original 7% for the top 1/2 percent, which lasted about a day (hyperbole intended, but less than two years) to the fable 90% of the 50s when you could deduct anything leaving the rich paying about the same as always, just hiding more of their earnings.to where we are today. But it is even better than that, and we can again thank progressives for this wonderful gift.
We hear about how all of these corporations have outsourced their jobs to China, Mexico, or to other low labor cost environment. Some have even relocated offices outside the US. During the 2012 election, we heard about the dreaded tax loophole that allowed companies to do this. DO you know what that loophole was? It was the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world that drove them away! Can we be more stupid? It wasn't some stupid loophole in the tax code. It was a way for corporations to avoid the oppressive tax regime, AND the stupid regulations that exist in this country. Regulations that add cost after cost to new construction, and lawsuit after lawsuit by people who have nothing better to do but to try to stop economic growth. They love the fact that diseases that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages have been reborn in California, and hope that they spread and do an encore performance to the Black Death of the 1300s. Yes they do hope that. Else why aren't they acting? #CALexit anyone? How about a wall from Yuma to Coeur d'Alene?
Sorry, just a little bit of a rant. It was the tax code that drove away manufacturing, yes, cheap labor was part of it, but regulations, high taxes, and other labor costs strangled manufacturing in the last century. The renaissance we see today in the South is all about the opposite, low taxes, minimal state regulations, and relatively low labor costs #Righttowork. Add that to the slashing of the corporate income tax, and the Chinese dragging their feet on trade, and you have a potential shift. Having a skilled workforce capable of working in modern day manufacturing is another issue, for another day.
We have tried the progressives income tax for a century to redistribute wealth, but just like a typical socialist, they say, we didn't do it right, and now are demanding a wealth tax to go along with it. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, well, maybe we are that stupid.
Fauxahontas is still in, and while she is low scoring on the intersectional scale, (straight and white) she is female, and she did pretend to be an Indian for the majority of her career. Unlike Biden, Senator Warren is sharp, and she is trying to tap into that socialist populist vein (you know, like Hitler, Chavez, etc.) She is an advocate of government single payer health care, a government confiscation of guns (aka gun buyback) and of course higher taxes for the "rich" (did you know that the top 1% average in the US is only $421,000?) And a wealth tax.
Well, not to be outdone, a fellow loser in the intersectional marathon (white, straight, and male) but he is Jewish, Senator Sanders has come out with his own wealth tax to confiscate wealth from the richest Americans over the next 15 years. He advocates a Medicare for all plan (which his own state, cobalt blue Vermont, passed, tried to implement, and couldn't because they couldn't afford it, same with California) a gun confiscation plan (remember when he was pro-gun? wasn't that long ago) He is old, but I suspect he may be like Keith Richards, he has always been old, and will never die.
While there will be others on the stage in upcoming debates, and of course the winds of politics could change things, if you were to ask me today, it comes down to Warren.
Can we switch gears for a moment? One of the issues that will be big for the democrats next fall is something that Senators Warren and Sanders both advocate. A big fat wealth tax. Not an income tax, well, actually they advocate jacking that up too, but the wealth tax is different. As the IRS already tracks individual's wealth, each will be assessed annually a percentage based on that value. Senator Warren says 2% for the value over 50 million, Senator Sanders has a sliding scale starting at 32 million on up with 8% at the top, annually. Both forecast rosy numbers. Warren 2.7 trillion in 10 years, Sanders 4. something. How much would they get, assuming that they could pass such a thing, and it were to pass constitutional muster? (unlikely) Probably very little. Once it looked like it would pass, you would see a mass exodus. Wealth would evaporate.
Can we talk? Really the whole reason that I am writing and broadcasting this is because of something that I read while over at the socialist Sanders' website. I am not slurring him by calling him that, as that is a title he proudly, but disingenuously wears. Why disingenuously? Because what he sells is way different than the models that he alleges to love in Europe. You see, in those welfare states all carry a very heavy tax burden. He does not openly say that, which is why he is a coward and a hypocrite. All, and heavy. As in lower middle class with a 40% federal income tax. The lower middle class doesn't even pay income taxes in the US. So he speaks lies to power and not truth. But back to what I read.
His justification for the wealth tax, and the increase in income tax are neat little statistics that demonstrate how over the last couple of decades the "rich have gotten richer and the poor have not." We certainly can't say they have gotten poorer, because they haven't by any measurement. We could talk about the flood of unskilled labor coming across the border legally or otherwise, and the impact it has on wages. How not that long ago someone could have worked for a roofer and provided for a family. Or worked for a landscaper, etc. Not so much now, but I keep getting distracted, understandably because he doesn't point out the fact that the poor are better off, or what open borders does to them. He just points out the wealth gained. But under what system did he gain it?
It has been a little over a century since the progressive income tax was legalized by Constitutional Amendment. The whole point of it being to redistribute wealth from the rich to the not as rich. For that whole time that system, designed to do the very thing that Comrad Sanders wants to do now, has failed, in fact it has made things even worse, as far as the wealth gap is concerned. Can't we agree on that? For decades, we have tried all sorts of rates, from the original 7% for the top 1/2 percent, which lasted about a day (hyperbole intended, but less than two years) to the fable 90% of the 50s when you could deduct anything leaving the rich paying about the same as always, just hiding more of their earnings.to where we are today. But it is even better than that, and we can again thank progressives for this wonderful gift.
We hear about how all of these corporations have outsourced their jobs to China, Mexico, or to other low labor cost environment. Some have even relocated offices outside the US. During the 2012 election, we heard about the dreaded tax loophole that allowed companies to do this. DO you know what that loophole was? It was the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world that drove them away! Can we be more stupid? It wasn't some stupid loophole in the tax code. It was a way for corporations to avoid the oppressive tax regime, AND the stupid regulations that exist in this country. Regulations that add cost after cost to new construction, and lawsuit after lawsuit by people who have nothing better to do but to try to stop economic growth. They love the fact that diseases that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages have been reborn in California, and hope that they spread and do an encore performance to the Black Death of the 1300s. Yes they do hope that. Else why aren't they acting? #CALexit anyone? How about a wall from Yuma to Coeur d'Alene?
Sorry, just a little bit of a rant. It was the tax code that drove away manufacturing, yes, cheap labor was part of it, but regulations, high taxes, and other labor costs strangled manufacturing in the last century. The renaissance we see today in the South is all about the opposite, low taxes, minimal state regulations, and relatively low labor costs #Righttowork. Add that to the slashing of the corporate income tax, and the Chinese dragging their feet on trade, and you have a potential shift. Having a skilled workforce capable of working in modern day manufacturing is another issue, for another day.
We have tried the progressives income tax for a century to redistribute wealth, but just like a typical socialist, they say, we didn't do it right, and now are demanding a wealth tax to go along with it. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, well, maybe we are that stupid.
Comments
Post a Comment