Concord Monitor - we DEMAND Govt take more of your money away! - Granite Grok

Concord Monitor – we DEMAND Govt take more of your money away!

coolidge tax quote
Really!  Because you are successful, the Concord Monitor judges you to be EEEVVVIIIILLL simply because INCOME INEQUALITY!  Yep, just go that Marxist route of just because your ability is there, it must go to someone else because of their need (reformatted, emphasis mine).

Editorial: Tax reform must target inequality
Sunday, January 15, 2017

First, they start off with a joke (it HAS to be a joke, right?)

Much of what the federal government does has little or no direct impact on most people’s day-to-day lives.

Are they THAT oblivious to all the laws and regulations that define how we can live?  Or does Occam’s Razor whisper “no, just plain stupidity cover that”.  Tell that to a business owner or employee.  How about a teacher and students?  Retail stores in what and how they can sell – directly impacting consumers?  How above service providers – yep, Govt’s gotcha covered there as well.  Pretty much, you name it and Government is staring back at you.

Concord Monitor is deleting comments to stories about people who comment there on taxpayer timeThat’s not true, of course, for things like the military draft or its elimination, and major issues such as abortion and civil rights. But none of those appear to be on the agenda of the incoming president. What is on the agenda for Donald Trump and Republican leaders is the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which could affect some 20 million people profoundly and everyone else indirectly. And then there’s the No. 2 item: tax reform.

Before we go on, let me ask THE operative question: whose money is it in the first place?    Simple question, should be a simple answer.  The problem is the “now you see it, now you don’t” math sleight of hand the CM does in this editorial and the implicit Progressive Theory of Money (which does answer my simple question).

Changes to federal tax laws are all but inevitable given Republican control of the White House and Congress. What those changes might ultimately be and whether they will help or hurt America’s low-income and middle-class residents remains to be seen. The broad outlines of the Republican plan, at least the parts on which President-elect Donald Trump and House and Senate leadership agree, have been outlined.

So, just like the three card Monte street vendors, here goes the “now you see it, now you don’t” math, hoping that, like Gilford government school children, most of you will miss it.

In short, corporate tax laws will change, perhaps dramatically, and the current seven federal income tax brackets, under the plans of both Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, will fall from a low of 10 percent and a high of 39.6 percent to three brackets: 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. Some deductions from gross income will be reduced, others perhaps eliminated.

OK, the Law is and will continue to be written in terms of percentages – and the problem with that is…..what?  And here’s the sleight of hand:

Most analysts believe that the changes will lower taxes for everyone overall, but the gains will be small for most and a boon for the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers.

According to the Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of the tax breaks will go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Single-parent families and families with lots of children, however, would pay more under the plan. The top 1 percent, with incomes of $3.7 million or more, would save $1.1 million per year. The middle of the middle class would save $1,100.

From the NTU, here’s who is paying the taxes:

Tax Year 2014
Percentages Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Adjusted Gross Income Share (Percentage) Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $465,626 20.58 39.48
Top 5% $188,996 35.96 59.97
Top 10% $133,445 47.21 70.88
Top 25% $77,714 68.91 86.78
Top 50% $38,173 88.73 97.25
Bottom 50% <$38,173 11.27 2.75

 

Yep – there it is.  The Concord Monitor KNOWS that our income tax system is highly progressive (and Progressive).  Those that make more pay MOST of the income taxes.  Again, they go back to Marx while making it look like those evil Republicans are taking money away from people.

No, they’re not but the Monitor wants you to think that.  The Concord Monitor just switched from percentages to absolute  value.  With the change in the percentages, of COURSE the absolute dollar amounts are going to be larger for those that pay higher amounts of taxes.  With the lowering of the percentages, we get to revisit my simple question:

Whose money is it in the first place?

They believe that Government should have first claim on your money and combine that with Marxism, there’s the play.  They also want to you be ignorant of history as well (e.g., Democrat JFK’s and Republican Reagan’s tax cuts did spur the economy on):

Proponents of the Republican plans say they will increase federal revenue by spurring economic activity. Critics say more tax cuts will worsen the national deficit and debt.

And now the talking point.  Frankly, either the editor assigned to the piece is incompetent or in on the deal – notice the line for which they provide NO PROOF:

How should Democrats, namely New Hampshire’s two senators and two representatives, respond? First, they should insist that any plan should reduce the nation’s growing income inequality, which is a threat to democracy. Then, they should join their party in putting forward a new plan for a new era and a new economy, not Hillary Clinton’s plan.

Well, we just had the most socialist of administrations in generations – how’d they work out, not only for all of us, but for what Obama kept baying at the moon over?  No, “income inequality” (and in a free market economy in the “Land of the Free”, inequality is part and parcel.  The only way that income equality can be achieved is:

  • we all become poor
  • Government does what Coolidge suggested (above)

…is by a totalitarian government that forces “equality” upon Society.  Is that what the Concord Monitor is advocating for?  If not, let them tell us.

HOW is income inequality supposed to be a threat to democracy?  Even though it is the main purpose of the piece and makes up the title of it, they never say.  They can’t without revealing the absolute heavy-handedness it would take to achieve their Progressive “heaven on Earth” (which never turns out to be heaven – everyone else in history has already failed.  Smart people, these people.

If, as expected, Republicans use the budget reconciliation process, which is not subject to filibuster, to push through tax reform, there’s not much Democrats can do to prevent it. But they should speak loudly and clearly about the reasons for their opposition and why their plan is the better option.

Well, Editors of the Concord Monitor, you didn’t speak loudly, you just pip-squeaked.  Or are you counting on the fact that most people not ask you WHY?  To explain yourself with examples and citations?  And why IS the Democrat plan “the better option” and contrast that with the Right to Private Property.  As far as the reason is concerned, well, they’re all Socialists now – as opposed to the Right to Private Property, they just want to allocate everything and Government comes first.

Or explain-me why I’m wrong?

The weeds of tax laws are too thick to be cut through quickly or easily. Predictions about their impact are just that – predictions. Is anyone still waiting for trickle down to trickle down?

Well, healthcare premiums didn’t go down as promised (they went up far more) and the average family’s income has gone down.  Unemployment is up around 9-10% when you include those that have stopped working. Home ownership is down.  More people are on the public dole (especially Medicaid). We have cities and States refusing to obey The Rule of Law.  The Porkulus Stimulus spent a Trillion dollars – how’d that work out for getting the economy the way we were told it would?  And speaking of the economy, after 8 years of Barack, it just sucks.

Why is that, Concord Monitor?  After all, it was all your Progressive policies, right?

And how are you all with “governing by Executive Order” bit – oh, you say, you’re afraid of what Trump will do when he inherits Obama’s Imperial Presidency?  And speaking of Obama, at least Trump spends his own money – what are your feelings on the Obama family spending $100 million on their vacations – just a little bit more than “middle class” value, I’d say.

Changes to the nation’s tax code should increase, not decrease the ability of anyone, no matter what their economic station, to pursue the American dream of rising from a lowly economic station to, if not the top 1 percent, at least to a comfortable middle-class life.

You know, Obama used to say that early on.  No, not to aspire to be rich but aspire to be middle class.  In other words, don’t reach for the sky anymore – that’s the “new normal”.  You’re just dandy at rewriting that American Dream?

How’d that all work out for us?

>