Ask a New Hampshire Democrat...About Taxing 'The Rich.' - Granite Grok

Ask a New Hampshire Democrat…About Taxing ‘The Rich.’

I am willing to bet that almost every New Hampshire Democrat supports the national agenda on taxing corporations and “the rich.”  To paraphrase Kyle Reese from the original Terminator movie, in regard to Democrats raising taxes…  “That’s what they do.  That’s all they do.”

The real problem is, of course, spending, which Democrats deny.  “It’s not about spending,” they say, “we need the rich to pay ‘Their fair share®.'” But  all you have to do to prove they are wrong (again) is to look at what would happen if Democrats actually got those taxes they say we have to have on corporations and the wealthy.

Taxing corporations is essentially a regressive tax on everything and everyone who buys their products or services.  Adding costs by force of law does not change the fact that those costs have to be absorbed and at the end of the day to make payroll and keep the lights on.  That means higher prices paid by consumers or end users or, less efficiency, poorer quality, and  job losses.   Neither of these is advertised as part of the Democrats scheme to help you help them get even with the rich because they are  really just using them to make you mad enough to help them engage in mob politics for their blind pursuit of power over you.

Now some of those Democrats will say that the only reason the prices would go up is so the rich bastards could rich.  Maybe.  But only the government has a true monopoly on unproductive and inefficient activity.  It has no competitors.  When it wastes money it has no fear of losing customers and if it needs more money it can write a law and use its police power to make sure people pay.  In the free market you have to compete and getting rich, or staying rich, has always acted as an incentive to control costs and provide services that people actually want, at pries they can afford.  But that is beside the point.  Democrat policy is already trimming back the number of wealthy for them to tax and besides, taxing rich people does not accomplish any of the things they claim it will either.

Everyone from Obama to Carol Shea-Porter and Jeanne Shaheen, and even the lowliest anonymous left-wing commenter lurking these pages, sees taxing the rich as the ultimate get-even tonic for the thirsty class warrior.  The problem isn’t government spending, it is rich bastards not paying their fair share.   What we need to do, they say, is raise taxes on the wealthy and it’ll be sunshine and utopia pouring from the faucets at the Trotsky Affordable Housing Complex, in the land of OZbama…

At least for a week…or more likley less

If taxes on the super-rich were raised so that they paid not the present 21.5 percent but 50 percent of their incomes, revenues from the top 400 earners would go up by $26 billion (one half of $90.9 billion minus the present $19.5 billion). Since this year alone, the US federal deficit will be around $1.4 trillion, or $3.8 billion a day, the new revenue would cover less than seven days of deficits.

The numbers are even worse for total federal spending. In 2010, that amounted to $3.6 trillion or $9.7 billion a day. Buffett’s new taxes up against that would be gone in just 2.7 days.

If the actual goal is to reduce the deficit, then this strategy is even less reliable than that graph showing us how the Stimulus will keep unemployment from reaching 8%, unless by that they meant….never getting below 8% for as long as Democrats have control of anything in Washington DC.  What has become the ‘Save the Alamo” cry of Democrats at every level of government, “tax the rich,” “their fair share,” would only pay for about three days worth of their current government, without ever scratching the surface of the operating budget nor the 16 trillion in debt, nor the trillions in unfunded entitlements, that have piled on the backs of our children and on ourselves.

“The plan” is a lie.

This very disingenuous obsession with misleading Americans about the benefits of Democrat political rhetoric suggests to us either a criminal desire to mislead, or a gaping degree of incompetence.   Neither is a suitable trait for leadership, and the last thing you’d ant to o is let them handle your money.

The Democrat left is built entirely on a culture that will be lead by the rhetorical nose-ring to whatever daft conclusion escapes the mouths of Democrat leadership.  All that noise, all the fury, reams of news print, hours of television media, all to advance an idea  that doesn’t even get us to next weekend.

Could I suggest that the have something else in mind, or can we agree that they are plain wrong?

There are people running for elective office on this idea.  We’re talking about electing Democrat sheep to be lead by the crooks of party leadership, whose grand plan for fixing the economy is house to house urban class warfare for a policy that pays for 3 days worth of deficits.  Do I need to point out that they have no plan for the other 362 days of that remaining year nor any other years that follow….except to keep spending.

And the New Hampshire Democrats are all in on this national strategy.  They are not making a peep in objection.  The only plan they have is to keep spending until they bankrupt us all.  They just can’t run for office on that.

>