4 posts tagged “taxes”

Dear America,
I don't claim to be an expert in economics, but I'm certainly impressed by the generic understanding of supply and demand that you have exhibited as you've watched the gas prices rise over the last couple years.  According to the Federal Highway Administration, you are driving less these days - presumably because you're fed up with paying high prices for gas.  Given this reality, it's likely that this has led to more stability when it comes to the price of crude oil on the market.  This, I assume, has contributed to the gradually dropping prices that we are paying at the pump.

The joy of a (relatively) free economy, like the one you are currently a part of, is that the consumer always has the final say in whether the economy fails or succeeds.  If you don't like the price of something, you simply stop purchasing it or, in this case, limit your purchasing.  This will force the producers to limit the prices that they apply to their products and, ultimately, both parties will benefit from a competitive market in which reasonable prices for quality products becomes the standard.

However, this slight deviation from your normal ignorance of the inner workings of our economy appears to have faltered in the realm of politics.

Currently, John McCain is desperately pushing his plan to expand drilling for oil off of the American coastlines.  Inherently, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a potential future where we produce more of our gasoline locally.  That, though, won't do much to alter gas prices - especially in the near future.  According to just about everyone who seems to understand the gasoline-production process, any expansion in our local drilling would take several years to impact us directly, if at all.  McCain's attempt to impress you with his deep understanding of your day-to-day struggle to fill up your gas tank at a reasonable price is certainly an attempt to pander to you for your vote.  Please don't encourage this sort of thing, as you appear to know better than that - remember, supply and demand is the name of the game.

McCain, though, isn't the only politician trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  His opponent, Barack Obama, is now pushing his plan to institute something called a 'windfall profits' tax on the oil companies.  Now, being the good economists that you've demonstrated yourselves to be, you obviously know the difference between regular 'profits' and something called a 'profit margin.'  You are also aware, of course, of the fact that the profit margins for our major oil companies remains at a steady 8% - 10% rate.

This means that our oil companies, who are the only producers available to us for gasoline, would be staring down the barrel of a serious cut into that significantly light profit margin rate in order to pay for Obama's attempt to pander to you.

Now, I'm not trying to tell you who you should vote for because, frankly, I'm not impressed with either plan.  But I did want to address the fact that you are apparently aware (or should be) that the best way to deal with high gas prices is through limiting your use of it.  Congratulations.  Perhaps soon you'll come around to the fact that income taxes are the ultimate in modern techniques of federal enslavement.

Best of luck in November,
W.

As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election.  If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.
And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.

First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.
Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.

As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.

One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse.  Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to.  "When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans."  How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it?  Cut out the spending, of course.  "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all."
Amen, brother!

If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes.  Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.

In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected.  This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy.  However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo.  In fact, it will lead to further problems.

Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased" withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits, and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy will undoubtedly follow America home.

I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home.  We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not.  On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.

The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration.  Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests.  And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it?  "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us."  Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.

(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues.  The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)

Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into.  However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they?  Ron Paul is no different.  As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s.  Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye.  James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:

In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little..."

I would encourage you to take a look at the article.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.

Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about.  Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider.  Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent.  Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency.  However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate.  I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.

Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency.  Too bad.

As New Hampshire ends its primary election counts this evening, I remain completely uncertain about who I'm going to end up supporting in the 2008 election.  Call me indecisive, but the whole lot of the current candidates don't strike me as anything special.  Nor do they inspire me to much more than a general fear about the future of American politics and policy.

To that end, I think I'm going to start analyzing those that I see as the main candidates facing party nominations on a one-by-one basis until I can come up with some kind of decision.  Lucky for me, I don't think that the nominations are going to be that clear until after the February 5th 'Super Tuesday' election coming up.  That seems like plenty of time to start weeding out the politicians that I don't like.

First, a brief introduction to the three most important issues facing America, in this order:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government
   

Illegal immigration gets the top-spot in the list because it poses a threat to America on just about ever level - education, the deficit, taxes, security, the penal system, etc.  I don't have anything against hispanic people or hispanic culture, either.  My problem is mostly with employers who are willing exploit anyone and anything as a means to an ends in their profit margin.  My problem is burdening my children and their children with the responsibility of making right the poverty of our neighboring countries.  If it's not put to a stop, this slow slide that America is seeing is only going to get worse.  And fast.

Then there's the War in Iraq (and the War on Terror, as a whole).  Whether you like it or not, we're in Iraq right now.  Pulling out all of our troops tomorrow doesn't do anyone any good, and just about everyone in their right mind knows it.  So what to do about it?  Start setting deadlines on the Iraqi government when it comes to American financial support and slowly start settling in as a long-term military force.  If the Iraqi government fails to meet their deadlines, the money may dry up, but we need to remain there.  Let the country go to hell on its own if they can't lead themselves, but an American military presence there, acting as a deterrent for potential Husseins in the future, is essential.  End of story.

Originally, I thought about including civil liberties and whatnot into the third portion of the list, but then settled on shrinking the federal government, instead.  The reason for this is because all of the people running around and screaming about their precious civil liberties don't seem to realize that the slow constriction of civil liberties is inevitable when you have trained your government to grow at an exceptional rate.  A government that's been handed control over things like retirement planning and health care likely won't see a reason why it shouldn't begin meddling in how/when you get on a plane to fly.  The American public has been conditioning our government to spend more and more money while taking over more and more control for far too long.  It's time that we started to shrink the beast down to a more manageable size.

So, there you have it - the three most important topics up for grabs when it comes to my selection for president.  It's not that I don't care about things like abortion and gay rights, but these three things are obviously far more important.  If you disagree with me, please, feel free to post some commentary.

In the meantime, I'm going to be trying out my first candidate tomorrow.  Any suggestions as to whom I should be looking into first will be gladly considered.

Well, the second round of debates for the Republican hopefuls took place today, but I ended up missing the broadcast because of some 'productive playtime' I had to attend after work.  Ultimately, I don't think I missed too much, having briefly reviewed some of the post-debate commentary.  It sounds like the candidates just did some more shuffling around the issues - this mostly because they already know who is going to be staying and who is going to be going in the next year.  No surprises until then, you see.
By the way, 'productive playtime' is management-speak for 'drink beer on the company dime while socializing with your co-workers.'  I really probably would have had more fun watching the kiddie-glove debate.

While at my 'productive playtime' meeting, I somehow found myself involved in a conversation about class envy with a couple of the girls in my office and quickly discovered that, while the two of them shared my interest in one day becoming independently wealthy, we differed insofar as I don't lay all of the problems that America has at the feet of those whom I would like to join the ranks of.  That is to say, it's not the fault of the upper or middle classes that we have a lower class.
Apparently this idea is pretty unpopular around these parts.

When I started to point out the fact that American tax payers are suffering under a progressive tax system that raises tax demand on citizens as they progress into higher income rates, I was stared at with deep distrust and was even told 'that's a load of crap.'  When I mentioned the fact that the people in the highest tax brackets in America are paying for most of the welfare funding in America, via their income tax, I was actually told 'I don't believe that for a second.'  Really.

While I realize that the young women to whom I was speaking will never so much as read this entry, I'd like to do you, kind reader, the favor of clearing things up - just in case you suffer under this same misconception.  Wealth envy and class warfare are two marketing ploys that seem to work on Americans.  Don't ask me why, but I get the distinct impression that the tax system in America is a complete mystery to most.  This is why the government is so damned successful, I suppose, in spending all of our hard-earned dollars - because you aren't paying attention to how much of your paycheck is actually being stolen from you by Uncle Sam.

The current federal income tax system works with six different tax brackets.  Each of these six brackets represents an income level.  At each different income level, there is a certain percentage tax rate applied to the earnings.  As the tax bracket (the income level) gets higher, so does the percentage charged for income tax.  For example, if you earn $0 - $7,550 per year, you are taxed 10%, but if you earn $7,551 - $30,650 per year, you are taxed 15%.  Now, because this is automatically deducted from your paycheck by your employer, you generally don't get to see how much you're actually being charged.  Sure, they print it on your paystub, but you're an American.  If it's not on American Idol or in Cosmo, you likely aren't paying attention or reading it - you're just happy to have some cash flow for all of your hard work.

The government, though, knows that there's always some studious citizen out there who might start to realize that their take-home pay and the amount that they are actually earning don't quite add up.  This studious citizen may even be tipped off by the fact that the chunk of money removed from their paycheck before they've even received it seems to increase as they become more and more successful at earning their money.  This could upset them, and that might lead to questions - questions regarding why so much must be taken from that citizen, what that money is actually being used for, so on and so forth.
Luckily, the IRS built in an excuse to, hopefully, confuse our studious citizen.  This is called the marginal tax rate, and it's supposed to make you calm down before you get really angry about all of your money that is being wasted on pork-barrel spending in Washington.

The marginal rate taxation is a little hard to explain - essentially, it means that you are taxed for each tax bracket individually.  If you happen to earn somewhere within the third tax bracket, you are only charged the first tax bracket rate on any money that is earned within that first bracket.  You are then charged the second tax bracket rate on any money from there to the third bracket.  Does that make sense?
Probably not.  The tax system is supposed to be confusing - this way even the studios citizen will become so flustered they couldn't possibly remain angry about all of their missing cash.

Once you've thrown in the opportunity for the state to charge you further income tax at their own rate, deductions to be made for Medicare and Social Security (which you likely won't ever see paid back to you in your lifetime), you can slap on a significantly higher percentage rate of taxation.

Now, if you've actually made it this far into the post, you can pat yourself on the back - you're a studious citizen.  Stop me if I'm wrong, but if we are to function in a system where the vast majority of American tax dollars are actually produced by the top earners, wouldn't it make sense to recognize these individuals who have actually made it that far?  Doesn't it make sense to celebrate the fact that these people pushed themselves into higher-earning positions, despite a system that penalizes them for that success, while shouldering the biggest of the American tax burden?

Sure, there are always going to be spoiled children out there (Paris Hilton, I'm looking at you), but doesn't a parent have the right to raise their kid in any way they see fit?  And, to that end, isn't it your right to make enough money to one day afford the opportunity to tell Paris Hilton off to her face?
I know I certainly plan to exercise that right at some point.

Do yourself a favor and take a look at your next paystub and do some math before you take it to the bank.  How differently would you feel about our government spending if you actually had to hand them that cash on April 15th instead of just doing a bunch of paperwork to document the money that they'd automatically stolen from you over the year?

I can guarantee you that it'd put an end to seeing Congressional approval ratings at 29% and Presidential approval ratings at 33%.  Hell, if people actually realized how much they were paying for the status quo in Washington right now, I sincerely suspect that we'd find every politician there uprooted and replaced with a fresh compliment of public representatives.  Go figure.