The British get it!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melaniephillips/2293196/pinch-yourself.thtml

You have to pinch yourself — a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

It’s not so much that. Econ is a little more serious than the “peace” prize. – Count to 10 on October 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM

I don’t question the seeriousness of the Econ category. I question the seriousness of the committee itself. If they are willing to confer the peace prize on the likes of Arafat can I take seriously any of their other prizes?

To ask the question is to answer it.

John Galt

If liberals really hate WEALTH so incredibly much, then why don’t they just tax that with a national property tax? I mean, if you stop and think about it, the main purpose of government is to protect people’s right to peaceably own that property. So why shouldn’t the people who own the lion’s share of stuff pay the lion’s share of taxes?

It’s the original American concept of taxing based on one’s faculties. If somebody’s got a million dollars, and he’s being productive with it, he could care less about a 1% tax on it. But if somebody’s just being a rich slug, screw him. He needs to quit sitting on his assets and let somebody else have a shot.

But for some reason, people like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, etc. – the biggest proponents of redistribution – are opposed to taxing wealth; all they want to tax is productivity. I wonder why that would be?

I realize that seems a little overboard, but look at what they do. All the major states and big cities that are in trouble, are run by Democrats. They are increasing taxes to cover the “costs” that are “unavoidable”. Taxes are the way they achieve power over us. Wealth redistribution is “managed” by tax rate manipulation. What they don’t take in taxes, is left to me for my “fair share”. I’m sorry, but I feel my fair share is ALL OF THE MONEY I EARN THROUGH MY EFFORTS. Charity is proper “wealth redistribution”. However, I do realize there is some level of taxation that should be levied, how to do it is the conumdrum.

When I first heard about the “fair tax” I thought it was just another way to raise taxes (more wealth redistribution), but once I fully understood it and the implications for politicians I began to appreciate the nuances of it.

The first and most important, is that EVERYONE will pay taxes. Crooks, underground economy, and those blessed with sufficient money to invent tax avoidance schemes, because it’s paid directly for consumption.

Next, the less fortunate will not be unfairly taxed due to the basic rebate that is given to all citizens, whether it be Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, to the disable citizen living on a pittance of SSI. This effectively shields that poorer citizen from the regressive nature of an across the board consumption tax, while those that consume most conspicuously (ie those that can afford it) will pay the most tax.

The final leg of support is that it removes much of the power that politicians gain by having the ability to unfairly manipulate the tax policies (Obama’s much ballyhooed loopholes, which are political payoffs to special interests that request them and provide benefit to the politicians who grant them.) It can’t eliminate it completely, until we make it ILLEGAL to grant earmarks, but I doubt that will ever happen. It would be all those political wrongdoers had left to use to gain advantage.

If an income tax were not adopted, he warned, within 30 years “the United States of America will be substantially owned” by fewer than 50,000 people.

It’s important to remember that the people in favor of Communism don’t want egalitarianism — they want centralized control.

Right now, instead of 50,000 people controlling half the wealth of the United States, we have closer to 500 people doing it.

ManlyRash on October 17, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Yar, yours is better :)

*eats*

So did Al Gore. So did Arafat. The real question is: how serious can a Nobel Prize be?

ManlyRash on October 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM

It’s not so much that. Econ is a little more serious than the “peace” prize. Presumably, the guy had to know something about economics to do the work that the prize was awarded for, but the advice he is giving now is as if he doesn’t understand what is happening at all.
Problem: bubble bursts and the credit market is drying up, making it difficult for businesses to get the loans they need.
Krugman solution: suck even more money out of the credit market to discourage people from working by increasing/extending unemployment benefits, and further pull people out of the workforce by giving them make work projects.
This is what caused the Great Depression.

I believe in the American Dream, the dream that anyone who wants to succeed has the opportunity to succeed. It’s the dream that made my grandmother bring my father from Italy on a boat half a century ago, and the dream that my maternal grandmother be….

My father mentioned not too long ago that someone once wrote (I’m paraphrasing his paraphrase) that democracy is heading into its last stages when the general public realizes that it can vote to direct largesse to itself. I hope more middle Americans go for the apple of McCain’s approach over the cotton candy of Obama’s approach. And it’s a shame that Democratic-driven policies led to the current credit crisis that may very well send many of middle America to Obama’s approach.

I wish McCain were a better spokesman for his tax policy and his health-care policy. He always seems to foul his explanations off. I also wish he’d highlight the simplicity of his two plans for taxpayers. McCain proposes doubling the personal exemption and providing the $5,000 health care credit. That’s very straightforward on a return. In contrast, Obama proposes a series of seven tax credits, which may or may not apply to a particular taxpayer.

(1) A “clean car” credit, which is available to purchasers of only certain autos (up to $7,000).
(2) An increase in the earned-income credit, which applies to low-income earners.
(3) A college-tuition credit of $4,000, which applies only to taxpayers paying college tuition.
(4) A mortgage-interest credit, which applies only to homeowners.
(5) An increase in the childcare credit, which applies only to those who have kids, have two working parents, and pay for childcare.
(6) A “savings” tax credit of up to 50% on $1,000.
(7) A “make work pay” tax credit of $1,000(M)/$500(S), which phases out at $150K(M)/$75K(S).

It’s kind of a Byzantine system of credits. And I suspect that there are many phase-outs and limitations. I’m also sure that those who may be eligible for any or all of them will enjoy poring over the forms and instructions necessary to claim them on a tax return.

On balance, they seem like a lot of work for the benefit received–especially when you take into account the rest of the Obama-Biden package.

Fixed it, young man.

http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=68

Poll finds American reject redistribution of wealth as suggested by Barack Hussein Obama.

PRINCETON, NJ — When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Read: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx

Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy

[Note: Elect John McCain for a free America and economic growth.]

redistributionists now claim that we have never done redistribution on a scale large enough for it to succeed.

And a popular definition of mental illness is: the act of repeating the same failed procedure over and over and expecting a different outcome.

I don’t understand why the hell THIS hasn’t been given its due… it’s Obama’s GLOBAL wealth redistribution to the entire world on the backs of American Taxpayers that is in Congress RIGHT NOW. If he wins POTUS, it is as good as done.

Fostering laziness and the suckling of the welfare tit is the ‘progressive liberal’ MARXIST way.

Why and How are Obama and the Defeatocrats able to get away with this stuff without being raked over the coals for it!?

FlatFoot on October 17, 2008 at 1:24 PM

AHGGGG! I forgot all about THAT! I need to keep scaring myself by reading that again and again.
My God that is one of the most frightening notions I’ve ever heard a politician shmooz across. Of course he had to say that in Europe. Methinks the average American would crap their pants & run him out of town if he’d said it here!
I really hope that most Americans would rather work for their own than get a handout.

…
Obama just said it is a right to have good, affordable health care….
MayBee on October 17, 2008 at 1:03 PM

We hear all the time politicians lawyers demanding free medical care for everyone. Ever hear of a doctor demanding free legal advice for everyone? Or free accounting assistance for all? How about free babysitting? Free ….???

Where does it end??

I agree that medical service is pretty dam important, but in our society I would argue that legal and accounting service is just as important, with our daunting and onerous tax code.

So Obama, what is your universal legal and accounting care plan? Hmmmm?

Betsy Newmark: Obama’s macaca moment.

pt on October 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM

let’s hope so, although George Allen did not reveal any hidden truths but was simply annoyed at a creep who was stalking him throughout the campaign

ManlyRash on October 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM

I wouldn’t do that… I would demand my medal and my reward go to the little Polish lady who got screwed by Algor a few years ago.

*eats*

This guy seriously got a Nobel prize? – Count to 10 on October 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM

So did Al Gore. So did Arafat. The real question is: how serious can a Nobel Prize be? Too bad I’m in no position to ever be nominated or receive a Nobel Prize, because nothing would delight me more than the opportunity to spit on the medallion, drop it to the ground, grind it under my heel and tell the committee to stick the million dollar prize up their collective asses – all in front of the international news corps.