Cut Me, Mick!

I am completely fed up with the blathering nonsense about the “Bush Tax Cuts” and the bigger issue the blathering is designed to hide or avoid.

The blathering is about letting the tax rates revert to what they were prior to 2001, before Bush cut them. Let’s at least be honest about this part: Bush didn’t cut anything. He proposed new lower tax rates, and Congress with the support of a bunch of Democrats, who insisted on a 10 year sunset clause, passed a law creating them. Still, for 10 years our rates have been lower than they were before the 2001 law. While we are in this truthful fervor let us also add that if taxes revert to the previous rates that means our tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year.

To hear Democrats and the media talk, extending the current rates to next year is the same as a tax cut. Do people actually believe this shit?

Last time I looked, whenever something gets higher that’s called an increase. So let’s call a spade a spade here and simply declare that if the government does not recommit to the current rates then all of our taxes will increase. It does not matter whether they increase because of government’s commissions or omissions; they still go up. Extending the current rates next year is not “cutting” taxes for anyone; it is simply not increasing them. If I pay taxes at the same rate next year as I paid this year what exactly was cut?

It’s not like there is some magic tax rate that results in the “proper” amount of tax to pay. The original law changing the rates to their current level called for those changes to expire and revert to the rates in effect prior to 2001. However, that does not mean those pre-2001 rates were the “true” or correct” or “sanctified by God” (oops, can’t reference God in these government things, forgot) rate that we must all pay. The rates are entirely within our purview to select through our elected officials. If they choose rates we don’t like, screw ‘em, vote the bitches and bastards out!

Let’s do it one better: I propose that we raise the rates for everyone that does buy into this “tax cut” idiocy. Those of us who don’t accept it will continue to retain the rates we have now.

Do you want to bet how long the buyers-in continue to do so?

But, what about the deficit, we have to do something about that. The only way to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes, right? Are you kidding me?

Is there anyone in America that believes that the minute the government gets its hands on more revenue it is going to use it to pay down the deficit? C’mon, really? I want to talk about this bridge I’ll let you have dirt cheap if you believe any of this crap.

I’ve always felt sorry for brown-eyed people because they are so common and often are discriminated against. Everyone knows blue and green-eyed people have more opportunities in this world. Look at all the movie stars and models and Swedes as proof! I would really like to help all those browned-eyed people escape their commonness by getting them colored contact lenses so they can be just like me (I have greenish eyes). The problem is that I don’t have enough money to pay for all those contacts lenses. So I got to thinking, why don’t I get a loan on the promise that my son and grandchildren will pay it back, because, you know, they are going to have the money when they become adults and won’t a mind a bit helping out. If enough other blue and green-eyed people from around the country did the same thing, we could help all those poor disadvantaged brown-eyed people now.

Stupid idea isn’t it? Except, our local, state and federal governments are as busy as beavers doing exactly this sort of thing. Often as not, the cause of the new entitlement or give away is just about as ridiculous in concept as my brown-eyed people cause.

Even if the feds took every penny of income from the top 5% wealthiest members of the nation it would not be enough pay for all the entitlements and obligations government has created. They could take every dime that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet make as income this year and it wouldn’t make a dent.

That brings me to the last bit of nonsense and outright lying foisted on us. These taxes we are talking about are “income” taxes. The argument is about the percentage rates we will pay on the amount of income we earn, not how much we own or have in wealth.

Let’s say Paris Hilton has a couple hundred million in the bank; She probably does not, but this will work for my point. She owns that 200 million and it is not taxable because it is not income; it is not new money to her, she already had it. Let’s further stipulate that she has good, safe, simple interest being earned on that 200 million; you know, like a super savings account that we could all get if we had 200 mil. Let’s further say she makes 8% interest a year on her 200 mil. All of that interest from her savings account this year is income. How much did she earn? A cool 16 mil.

Letting the current rates expire means that poor Paris Hilton’s rate on her 16 mil would go from 35% to 39.6%. In dollars, her income tax bill will go from 5.6 mil to 6.3 mil (assuming no deductions) leaving her only 9.7 mil to play with. Poor baby! Boy, I guess we showed her that she can’t party every night in a different city in the world and ignore all those less fortunate than her.

In our example, Paris Hilton has a relatively tiny amount of “taxable income” in comparison to her actual wealth. Even worse, most of her income is no doubt sheltered in some way, like in municipal bonds, or a gob of deductions offset big chunks of it. In our example, her 6.3 mil tax payment would probably be more like 2 mil or less once her lawyers and accountants and financial experts got done with it. Even if it is 6.3 mil, it still would not pay the all up expenses for the Prez to go to Ohio for a couple of days to campaign for some lousy tax and spend Democrats.

Someone, tell me again how we are going to solve our deficit problems through raising Paris Hilton’s income tax rates?

All this screaming about how the wealthy should pay their fair share is really a smoke screen designed to keep the conversation away from what it really ought to be about. That is what is really pissing me off. I don’t give a hoot about Paris Hilton’s or Bill Gates’ income taxes. I do care that they are being used to defend an otherwise indefensible position.

The simple fact is that it is not about taxes or the deficit. It is about the spending. If we stop spending, we won’t need to increase taxes. Heck, we might even be able to cut taxes.

Now that I think about, maybe that does sound like a bad idea.

After all, how can we possibly help all those brown-eyed people escape their unbearable situations (or get their votes) if we don’t spend money on them? What about all the fat people? The ugly people? I even know some webbed-toed people. Oh the horrors they all must suffer! The children, think of the children!