Greedy Hypocrite Liberals Are Fine With Raising Taxes – As Long As It Is OTHER PEOPLE’S TAXES

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Who also said:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” — Benjamin Franklin

Pretty much at every opportunity, liberals continue to live down to my low opinion of them.  This from the other day in California:

Poll: Governor Brown’s tax initiative gaining support
Wednesday, January 25, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed ballot initiative to raise taxes has wide support among California voters, but his path to victory in November remains far from certain, according to the results of a poll released Tuesday.

More than two-thirds of California’s likely voters say they favor the Democratic governor’s proposal to raise taxes as a way to stabilize state finances. Yet roughly the same proportion say they strongly disagree with a key element of that plan, raising the statewide sales tax, according to the Public Policy Institute of California survey.

 The poll, conducted in mid-January, illustrates the difficulty the governor faces in navigating the state’s political cross-currents as he pushes his top priority for 2012.

Likely voters overwhelmingly say they favor raising taxes to pay for K-12 education and support raising income taxes on the wealthy, the cornerstones of the initiative Brown hopes to place on the November ballot. But they also do not want to raise the sales tax, believe the state could spend less money while maintaining the same level of services and are pessimistic about the direction of the economy.

 “Therein lies the challenge for the governor,” said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute. “He has some things he has attached to his tax initiative which do resonate with voters … but there are lots of other elements to question.”

 Brown and his supporters have been cleared to gather petition signatures for his initiative, which the governor refers to as “The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012.” His title does not refer to the temporary tax increases, which would raise between $4.8 billion and $7 billion a year.

 The initiative would boost the statewide sales tax by half a cent for four years starting in January 2013. It also would raise the income tax rate on those making $250,000 a year, increasing it from 9.3 percent to a maximum of 11.3 percent, depending on the amount of income. The income tax increase would start in January 2013 and last for five years.

 Most of the additional revenue would be dedicated to K-12 education, with much of the rest funding the governor’s plan to have counties house lower-level convicts who otherwise would have been sentenced to state prison.

Would I be in favor of seizing money from other people to force them to pay for the stuff I want?  SURE! says the left.

Would I be in favor of actually giving up some of my own money for the stuff I want?  HOW DARE YOU ASK ME TO SACRIFICE!!!

We live in a country in which the top five percent pay FIFTY PERCENT of the federal taxes, while the “bottom” fifty percent pay ZERO PERCENT of the federal taxes, and we’re told the rich don’t pay their “fair share.”  Because liberalism and honesty are like slimy toxic oil and clean water and these simply do not mix.

When it is somebody’s ELSE’S money, there’s no problems and no questioning.  Raise other peoples’ taxes!  Yeah!  When it is even a tiny percent of their own money, suddenly they’re saying, “The government wastes an awful lot of money and they could make do with a whole lot less, so….”

Benjamin Franklin had it right: he saw the day when America would vote for its own collapse as fifty percent plus one decided to vote itself the possessions of the few.

The “good news” – unless you’re a Californian, anyway – is that these nasty people will suffer for their own greed as the wealthy simply increasingly leave the state:

Several studies, including the American Legislative Exchange Council’s “Rich States, Poor States,” and past reports by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation have documented the movement of taxpayers from high tax to low tax states in recent years.

These studies present compelling evidence that taxes are the single largest factor in interstate migration, compared to factors such as climate, employment, family relocation, etc.
 
Our analysis takes this methodology one step further. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), we calculated both the number of taxpayers migrating, and also calculated the adjusted gross income (AGI) that left the state as well. That is, we have calculated how much money—in terms of personal income—states lose or gain due to migration. Our findings confirm that taxpayers are leaving states with higher taxes and unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities.
 
Due to the ease of interstate movement, taxpayers can easily avoid higher taxes by moving to another state. As such, there is a significant Laffer effect wherein a rise in tax rates can lead to lower government revenues as individuals flee the state. There are nine states with no income tax – Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. In 2008 alone these states gained a net total of over 80,000 new residents from the other 41 states. These migrants brought with them over $900 million of net adjusted income according to IRS data.
 
In contrast, the ten states with the highest tax burden, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania lost around 129,455 residents and $10.2 billion of net-adjusted income in 2008 alone.
 
From 1998 through 2008, the ten states with the highest tax burden lost over 3 million residents. These residents took with them a staggering $92 billion in income.
 
[…]
 
It is also clear that individuals are aware that unfunded liabilities will eventually become taxes; states with large unfunded liabilities for public employee pensions and health care are seeing workers flee, particularly workers between ages 30 and 40, who are most likely to see future tax hikes.
 
In addition to higher levels of emigration, higher tax states also maintain higher unemployment rates, placing an expanding tax burden on a shrinking tax base. It is unsurprising, then, that the top five highest-tax states consistently have about a 0.5 percent higher unemployment rate than the five states with the lowest tax burden.
 
States that attempt to raise taxes to balance their budgets encourage their most productive citizens to find more welcoming homes. They also discourage productivity, as taxpayers get to keep less of what they earn in high-tax states. Worst of all, increased taxes provide government with the permission it needs to grow by sustaining the bloated spending of irresponsible state governments. Absent significant changes in their tax-and-spend schemes, these high tax states will soon find themselves without a populace to support the extravagant costs of living in those states.

That begs a good question: just what IS California’s liberal-created pension time bomb?  I’m glad you asked:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

And since Art Laffer’s name was mentioned, one ought to cite him to point out that the so-called “Buffett Rule” Obama is demagoguing and pimping wouldn’t make Warren Buffett pay more in taxes where it would touch Warren Buffett:

Waving Mr. Buffett’s op-ed for all to see, Mr. Obama wasted no time in proposing a surtax on millionaires called the “Buffett Rule.” Putting aside all the oohing and ahhing over Mr. Buffett’s selflessness, his effective tax rate on his true income would hardly budge if this “Buffett Rule” were applied. What’s worse, raising the highest tax rates would most likely worsen the budget deficit and lead to a further weakening of the economy. Everyone would suffer.

The piece goes on to point out that Warren Buffett disingenuously understates his income by 250-fold.  And Buffett’s “rule” wouldn’t touch 249/250ths of Buffett’s real income.

What we are being force fed by the Democrat Party and by the mainstream media who serve as their propagandaists is pure Marxist class warfare.  And Marxism is a failed economic system for good reason.

Even the POOR are leaving high-taxed states for lower-taxed states.  Why?  Because many of them want a job, not a handout, and states like California kill the golden goose to rip out a few eggs rather than create opportunity:

California’s rich are leaving for lower-tax states. The state (slogan: “We’ll Owe You”) has among the highest tax regimes in the country, with a top marginal tax rate of 9.3% and an additional 1% tax on those earning $1 million or more a year.

Three states with no personal income taxes—Nevada, Texas, and Washington—are among the top five destinations for the highest-income fifth of California households, according to the Institutes own data.

Those states also are among the top destinations for California’s poor.

The real lesson here, in my view, is that high taxes and broken government chase away rich and poor alike.

But as long as there are Marxist liberals (and ALL liberals are Marxist liberals, because ALL liberals agree with the Marxist statement, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need“), screw the rich.  And screw the poor who actually want a job and opportunity to improve their own lives too.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Greedy Hypocrite Liberals Are Fine With Raising Taxes – As Long As It Is OTHER PEOPLE’S TAXES”

  1. Julie L. Says:

    bbbI take it that you’re not interested in correcting errors or genuine debate, so this will be my last reply. Final few comments – always a chance that the seed will grow.

    Know that you are not wealthy, so you either want readers to think you are or fantasize that you will someday rank in the top 5 or 10% of wealthholders. Maybe you’re jealous, caught up in a fantasy.

    You rely on religion when it’s convenient. The New Testament doesn’t think highly of accumulated wealth. Rationalization is handy for stuff like that.

    In this article, you rant about Californians wanting to take other peoples’ money. Yet all Californians can vote and a sales tax increase will affect all Californians – thus it’s not ALL other peoples’ money. So your statement is, in fact, wrong. In all fairness, your statements are so sweeping that you’ll almost always be inaccurate.

    Brown says the funds are needed to fund education. Perhaps that’s true. One thing all Americans agree on is the woefully inadequate education our children are getting.

    Which party has lead our nation and states in recent history? Well, I live in Texas, where public schools are ranked 43rd in the nation. Texas has had Repubulican governors for all but 8 years (2 terms) since 1979. Similarly, the Texas legislature has been dominated by Republicans during most of that period.

    Since 1979, we’ve had a Republican president for all but 10 years. Nothing sums it up better that Bush’s quote: “Is our children learning?” Clearly Republicans don’t have all the answers to all the questions.

    Why no mention of things like Goldman Sachs’ deception and theft? You know, the guys who packaged – I mean literally hand picked! – their bound-to-fail home mortgages and sold them as financial instruments to unknowing investors. Plenty of whom were European financial institutions…but I digress.

    That was their “front door business.” Their back door business? Shorting, i.e., betting against the very thing they were hocking at the front door. So they knowingly sold bad investments to whoever would buy them, and then bet against the decks that they themselves had stacked.

    Sometimes (and I’m being generous) wealthy people’s money is stolen from not-so-wealthy people. Does the term “robber baron” ring a bell? Please tell me why “the 99%” shouldn’t be angry about this. Wanting money to be returned to investors, plus paying for damages caused by the domino effects of their illegal schemes, seems perfectly just to me (believe it is fair to say that their deceptive activities had direct and indirect negative implications for all citizens). Every top executive at Goldman should be serving a long prison sentence.

    The other side? Here’s what honesty is. Me, and plenty of Democrats, are outraged that the Obama administration has made no effort to prosecute this heinous crime. Nor has he punished any of the Wall Street firms that used bail-out money as bonuses for their employees. Excuse me! Those who nearly sank our economy don’t deserve a job, much less a bonus.

    My point? Both parties screw 99% of the citizens. We let them. You’re deceiving yourself if you think that conservatives and Republicans have all the best answers, or that liberals and Democrats are all the hateful things you call them with none of the best answers.

    Want to help your country? Educate yourself, tell the truth, stop using hyperbole. Think of creative solutions and work to implement them. The only thing your crazy blog does is push people further into their corner and make things worse.

    P.S. I suspect that you’re a fat, white male. Did I guess right?

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Julie,

    I’ll try to help make sure that this is your last reply by blocking you.

    You know my income and weight and race, do you? And you’re personally attacking me about these “facts” that you’ve inferred?

    What if I am Hispanic or black? Either way, if I as a conservative made such guesses about anybody other than a “white male,” I’d be labeled a “racist” by hypocrites just like you.

    Let me explain what you’ve actually done here. You started out with your false hypocrite self-righteousness lecturing me on being civil and gracious and what-not. But you’ve got a giant set of fangs on you that you just couldn’t hide for very long. Here you are now asserting that I’m poor but bitter about it and lie about it; you call me a religious fraud; and mock me as being fat. You may have said other vicious things, but that’s enough. Me, I’ve been at this for four years; and dealing with people like you started to get to me the way a cop patrolling a violent city would start getting worn down by all the perps. You, on the other hand, you lasted only a few posts before you showed your ugly side. And YOU, of course, just happened to be the self-righteous phony who made the issue about such attacks in the first place.

    You said to me in your first post:

    Wow, the exchanges here explain the problem. So much vitriol, including from the Christians. I’m guessing the starting point for any solution is to start by respecting each other. I’m also guessing that this isn’t going to happen any time soon…

    “So much vitriol,” Julie L., you hater. Welcome to the club that you posed yourself as being so self-righteously above. Here you are trying to get as personal in your attack of me as you know how to do so soon after your hoity toity lecture.

    Note that I am not going to comment about your appearance, or your gender, or your weight, or your income or your race. Because unlike you I am not wearing a tin foil hat that allows the mothership to beam such information not otherwise available into my head. What I WILL say is that arguments don’t have sexual genitalia – which is to say that either a male or a female can provide arguments that are true or false regardless of gender. You, on the other hand, are a male-hating feminist who wants to undermine my credibility on the basis of being “male.” Same with my race. Only a racist bigot such as yourself would bring up the issue of my race as some meme to disqualify me from being capable of arguing the truth. Same with my weight or appearance or income. And it is frankly amazing that you as a liberal would be such a colossal hypocrite as to suggest that if I’m poor I’m somehow diminished from having either the ability or the right to present my arguments.

    It’s just another way that you as a liberal document what a giant hypocrite you truly are pretty much across the board.

    As for your pure crap drivel about your idiotic charge that “I’m not interested in correcting errors or genuine debate,” let me replay this exchange for the THIRD time (you literally did not respond to the facts that I presented and then have the naked hypocrite CHUTZPAH to say I’m not interested in debate!!!). I find it rather bizarre that you keep coming back to it on different articles where other people can’t see the past exchanges. You first said:

    I suggest everyone stop accusing others and turn on your brain for a moment.

    For example, are any of you paying almost twice as much more for a gallon of gas today than you were 3 years ago? Not even a close call for me. Last fill up: $3.18/gallon (in Dallas). If gas had actually risen by 83%, then I would have paid $1.73 in January 2009. Does anyone remember when gas was under $2/gal.?

    Seriously, at least run this stuff through the stink-o-meter before you spread it.

    And I – being very interested in correcting your errors in the spirit of genuine debate, responded with the FACTS:

    Maybe you could try turning on your own brain before you lecture others to do so?

    From Consumer Reports, “National Regular Gasoline Prices,” Janary 19, 2009:

    Regular gasoline/gallon: $1.85

    Versus:

    Consumer Reports, “National Regular Gasoline Prices, January 23, 2012:

    Regular gasoline/gallon: $3.39

    Percent increase = 83%

    As much as you love to accuse other people about their accusing, you are somebody who is wrong, WRONG, WRONG.

    So run that little bit of reality through your own personal stink-o-meter and try to spread it through your head.

    And then reflect on your own shredded credibility.

    You ignored those facts and pretended I hadn’t provided them because you prefer to keep your head up a certain unmentionable orifice.

    So I repeated those facts for you a second time and challenged you to respond. Which you never did.

    Like I said, you’re out of here. I don’t want to spend another minute wasting my time on you. But I challenge ANYBODY to explain how I did not completely and totally refute (which means “to prove something to be completely false or erroneous”) you in my response to your utterly bogus assertion.

    And now here you are – the same hypocrite shrew who lectured me about civility who is now personally attacking me – accusing me of not being willing to stand corrected or debate when YOU REFUSE TO DO EITHER???

    You’ve got serious emotional or psychological problems. That’s my last word for you.

  3. Free Market Capitalist Says:

    Julie L.,

    In the Spring of 2008, crude oil futures were parabolic and peaking near 150 per barrel, just before the deflationary collapse began in earnest. During this same time, gasoline prices were approaching 4.00 per gallon. Then the deflationary collapse picked up steam and crude oil futures were slammed and within several months had reached prices in the low 30’s. This had a dramatic effect on gasoline prices. Sometime in late 2008 and early 2009, I can remember paying as low as 1.78 per gallon and many parts of the U.S., for a time, were paying under 2.00.

    Julie, you obviously don’t understand what effects the price of gasoline. Obviously, gasoline is derived from crude oil and the price of crude dramatically effects the price of gasoline, but there are other factors involving state taxes, delivery cost, different blends etc. California, for example, always pays more for gasoline because the state taxes on it are higher and it uses special blends to help reduce emissions. These special blends are the main reason Cali residents pay higher prices for gasoline. For the most part, the price you pay depends on where you live. Apparently, you either were living in an area were gas prices were higher and never fell below 2.00, or you were unaware or just forgot, because for most of the U.S. there were times in 2009 when gas prices were under 2.00.

    I can’t really attribute the lower prices to the Bush administration, because it was really a result of the deflationary collapse of 2008, but alot of blame can be put on the current administration and the Federal Reserve for the higher prices we’ve endured since. The Keynesian style stimulus programs that Obama has been implementing has caused both crude and food prices to sky rocket. To fund these massive government programs, the Treasury has to sell bonds (debt). There are not enough buyers in the world to soak up all this supply, so the Federal Reserve has to step in and buy a large percentage of these bonds at auction – remember QE and QEII. It would be too difficult for me to explain here, but this causes risk assets like stocks and commodities to appreciate and the dollar to weaken. These stupid stimulus programs will not work and, if continued, will eventually destroy this nation. Only the free market works and we have a government that doesn’t understand this and wants to micromanage the economy.

    You also talk about the mortgage backed securities that lead to the collapse of 2008 and put the blame entirely on Wall St. firms. Wall St. firms are partly to blame, but the local, state and federal governments are to blame also and maybe more. The government began subsidizing housing through the GSE’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and began an effort to push housing (THE AMERICAN DREAM), mainly for sub prime. The liberal democrats had the biggest role in this mainly because they wanted to pander to their base and secure more votes. When the housing boom was picking up steam, banks were forced to lower their lending standards dramatically. Those that wouldn’t were often charged with some form of discrimination and some were sued for millions. Meanwhile, Wall St. had created complex derivitives by securitizing millions of mortgages, many of which contained sub prime. The banks that originated mortgages never kept them on their books for more than 60 days, as they either sold them off to Fannie or a Wall St. firm to be securitized or both. At one time, Fannie and Freddie owned over 60% of all mortgages in the U.S. and both institutions are backed by the tax payer. What this did in a nutshell was take the risk completely out of the system and the Federal government, even though they refuse to admitt this, were a big part of this tradgedy. With no risk, this housing bubble got way out of hand and colllapsed. In a free market, this would of never happened.

    It seems that liberals, especially, never want to take responsibility
    and, instead, seek to demonize and hoist the blame elsewhere. Yes, Wall St. was partly to blame, but the Federal government actually played a larger role in enabling this. I could go on and on about the collapse of 2008, but don’t have the time. Also, Julie, when trying to argue your point, you need to put your emotions aside and try to argue with facts. It seems that whenever liberals start using words like hate and vitriol, that is a sign that they are dislocated from reality and are using the pathological side of their psyches. At this point, reason becomes impossible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: