Tag Archives: taxes

“Pope” Demonstrates Economic Ignorance

06 Thursday Feb 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on “Pope” Demonstrates Economic Ignorance

Tags

, , ,

“Pope Francis” [SIC?] explained the“structure of sin” he sees in the institution of tax havens.

“Every year hundreds of billions of dollars, which should be paid in taxes to fund health care and education, accumulate in tax haven accounts,” the pontiff told participants in a Vatican seminar, “thus impeding the possibility of the dignified and sustained development of all social agents.”

…

“If extreme poverty exists in the midst of wealth (also extreme) it is because we have allowed the gap to widen to become the largest in history,” the pope said. “The world’s 50 richest people have $2.2 trillion worth of assets. These fifty people alone could fund the health care and education of every poor child in the world, whether through taxes, philanthropic initiatives, or both.”

Stealing the assets of those fifty people, for the benefit of the masses would result in 50 people slowly rebuilding their wealth, poor children growing into poor adults, and hundreds of millions of middle-class people out of work and destitute. It’s not in a vault, Scrooge McDuck-style. Why doesn’t the “Pope” – and where is Pope Benedict on this, anyway?? – look into the total transfer of the world economy into the hands of the usurious wizards? Might a jubilee do more good and be more in keeping with Biblical doctrine? No, taxes are his answer. Taxes collected by the taxman, a character Jesus was known to strike blind.

Under the Omnibus – from TPC

14 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Under the Omnibus – from TPC

Tags

, , , , , ,

Under the Omnibus

Your insane President, when he’s not murdering known diplomats, enjoys signing garbage legislation from the criminal Congress. Last month, at the urging of Bitch McConnell and the other reprobates, The Trump cheerfully signed into law a poorly-cobbled amalgamation of a spending bill. The Empire doesn’t do full budgets anymore, so it’s only $1.37 Trillion at a sad time – generally once per quarter. But the embarrassing expense of evil comes with other costs. The new law also raised the age for purchasing cigars and other tobacco products to 21. And, thank God! Now, I can finally enjoy a smoke without all those damned pesky toddlers roaming around the lounge crying and exchanging germs (sorry, Bess, what they do). The ban, as you may know, is plainly authorized by the Zeroth Amendment of the US Cornsternation.

Tweeted The Trump: “Our beautiful, beautiful children. So much smoke. IRAN WILL NEVER ROLL A CIGAR. My watch. SO SAD. Obama did it too. Yuuge. MIGA.” Ketchup on a well-done steak.

My tobacconist buddy’s new warning sign. Humorous dissent is, for now, still legal.

Building on this trend of creeping incrementalism, a sarcastic state senator in Vermont, John Rodgers, whom I’d kind of like to meet, introduced a bill to ban “children” under the age of 21 from owning or using cellular mind control and tracking devices. Rodgers noted that he wouldn’t even vote for the change himself, stating that he introduced it to make a point. “The kids” can’t buy smokes or beer. Why let them dull their minds and risk their lives sexting and driving? I might suggest a rider to raise the driving age as well.

Mr. Rodgers: please keep this one in your neighborhood. Should Trump, Pelosi, and the other shits get wind of it, they may well try to federalize the concept. I’m sure the CIA-OPA could quickly conjure up a convincing B-movie-like video showing some paid actors trashing an embassy or something because Iran wants to cellularize our youth. My only hope is that they would still allow 5G to proceed apace; in addition to the wonderful biological benefits you’ll soon experience from the well-tested super-duper-micro-hyper waves, you just wouldn’t believe what else they will enable. But, you will.

Anyway, all this got me thinking. Some few of you from time to time murmur that you oppose big government. Yet and still, later this year, you’ll rush right out and cast your votes to keep it around. So be it. I’m here to help, really. The other week, for the first time in my life, I proposed a tax – for the children! Now, I have another idea.

…

READ THE WHOLE THING HERE

The Wealth Tax We Need (but will Never Get) – from TPC

31 Tuesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Wealth Tax We Need (but will Never Get) – from TPC

Tags

, ,

Taxes…

Wherein Perrin PROPOSES a Tax

I know. I was shocked too. But, it’s a new year (happy 1998!) and we must all change with the times. Everyone can agree that if America needs something, then it’s a privatized college football league. If there’s anything else, then it’s another tax. All the cool politi-critters are a squeaking away about it – like fat stupid rats locked in the cheese factory. If the peeps could be roused from the sofas and the Netflix-Sackler Family comas, then they’d be on-board too. And, this is not an idea that I come to lightly. Careful study of the articles even here at TPC gives credence to the popularity of the phenomenon.

MB lamented both the death and the fiscal failings of The Textile Man: “There’s so many folks out there that bust ass every October & December to make those property tax payments & here he was just not paying them.” Our esteemed editor, just last week, pondered why the home county folks “don’t pay their damned property taxes…” Seriously, you scofflaw slackers! If you don’t turn over your money (and, is it really ever “yours”?), then how can the good Sheriff continue to pay Commy Traig or whomever hundreds of thousands of dollars per year!? Any and all local political corruption depends on your financing. Do your damned jobs!

Da hit the national tax scene hard, heavy, and nobly with his Letter to the 2020 Democratic Nominee: “we still need a wealth tax for the good of us all.” Here, here! You darn tootin’ we do!

I have not spoken with Bess, Kayla, Fred, the Sheriff, or the Sharif about this, but I know for certain they are all in agreement.

Da was right – we need a wealth tax. It’s time for the truly wealthy to pay their fair share. And, truly, who’s wealthier than … The Federal Reserve? Back in October, I replied, in agreement, to Mr. Millsaps heartfelt thoughts as follows: “How about a 100% tax on all Federal Reserve assets, real, fake, and potential? I’ve got an idea…” Well, I do. Here it is…

ALL AT TPC…

Tax for Thee, But Not for Me

26 Thursday Dec 2019

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Tax for Thee, But Not for Me

Tags

,

The Amerikan way.  The rich support a wealth tax on the richer.

A majority of millionaires support a wealth tax on those worth $50 million or more, but their support declines for a tax on those worth $10 million, according to a new poll.

Fifty-nine percent of millionaires said they would support a new federal tax on wealth over $50 million, according to the Q4 CNBC Millionaire Survey. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s tax plan includes a wealth tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million and 6% over $1 billion.

Forty-eight percent opposed a wealth tax on those worth over $10 million.

Attitudes toward the wealth tax are also strongly dependent on political party rather than wealth levels. Fully 88% of Democratic millionaires support a tax on wealth over $50 million, compared with just a third of Republican millionaires.

Do these Robins in the hood not know they can just voluntarily pay additional taxes on a voluntary basis? Whatever. I think I have a solution to this issue which would raise untold sums of revenue and simultaneously pay off ALL debts. More on that next week at TPC.

A Wealth of Taxes

17 Tuesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on A Wealth of Taxes

Tags

, , ,

Large corporations, those wily government entities, pay next to no taxes.

About 400 of America’s largest corporations paid an average federal tax rate of about 11% on their profits last year, roughly half the official rate established under President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law, according to a report released Monday.

The 2017 tax law lowered the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, but in practice large companies often pay far less than that because of deductions, tax breaks and other loopholes.

In the first year of the law, the amount corporations paid in federal taxes on their incomes – their “effective rate” – was 11.3% on average, possibly its lowest level in more than three decades, according to a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever. This did get me thinking though. My comrades over at TPC, two of them, have of late been defending taxation with zeal. One promoted the “wealth” tax. That… How about a corporate wealth tax? One aimed primarily at private banking corporations? One in particular. This particular private bank has assets and wealth that must be imputed given the bank’s unique ability to create such out of thin air. I suggest a putative assessment of infinity. The tax could be levied accordingly. Now, since we have no need for infinite money, I think a rate (or number) sufficient to PAY OFF EVERYTHING should do it. One time. No more debt of any kind. And then, abolish said private bank and send its owners packing. Yes?

‘Good For You’

22 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on ‘Good For You’

Tags

, , ,

Now pay more. Squaw Warren is on the warpath, again, against those freeloading billionaires.

“Here’s the thing: Doing the wealth tax is not about punishing anyone,” Warren said. “It’s about saying ‘you built something great in this country, good for you. But you did it using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You did it getting all of your goods on roads and bridges all of us help pay for. You did it protected by police and firefighters all of us help pay the salaries for. So when you make it, you make it really big, you make the top 10th of 1% big, pitch in $0.02 so everybody else gets a chance to make it.’”

However, not everyone else on the stage echoed that sentiment. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) described the proposed wealth tax as “cumbersome.”

We all know that Scrooge McDuck just swims around in his money, like all rich folks. That needs to stop. Thanks, EW! Come on, Booker! Get on the 158%(!) tax train already.

There is No Upper Limit on Taxation

15 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on There is No Upper Limit on Taxation

Tags

, , , , ,

Another potential gift of the 16th Amendment. Squaw Warren’s tax plan is technically, legally possible.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has unveiled sweeping tax proposals that would push federal tax rates on some billionaires and multimillionaires above 100%.

That prospect raises questions for taxpayers and the broader economy that experts are starting to ponder: Under which circumstances would taxpayers have to pay those rates? How might that change their behavior? And would investment and economic growth suffer?

Potential tax rates over 100% could result from the combination of tax increases the Massachusetts senator proposes for the very top tier of investors. She wants to return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, impose a new 14.8% tax for Social Security, add an annual tax of up to 6% on accumulated wealth and require rich investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other income even if they don’t sell their assets.

Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.

One of the lies told to sell the Sixteenth was that the highest rate would never come close to 10%. My weak math skills suggest that 158 is greater than 10. This may be TPC’s topic for next week. For now, I think I am actually in favor of this scheme of theft and slavery. But maybe that’s just the accelerationist in me. Tick. Tick. Tick.

UPDATE: When reading the WSJ article about Squaw, note the names of the policy-makers and backers.

Why is “raise taxes” always the go-to?

06 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Why is “raise taxes” always the go-to?

Tags

, , ,

Another Boomer reads from the worn, old script.

Dalio, who founded the hedge fund in 1975, told CNBC from the Greenwich Economic Forum that the national debt, pension liabilities and health-care liabilities will ultimately have to result in higher taxes since defaulting isn’t an option.

“We’re dealing with almost a currency issue, longer term, in terms of what is the value of currency when those liabilities – not only the debt liabilities, but the pension liabilities and the health-care liabilities, which are like debt. They are promises that have to be paid – they will either be paid by higher taxes or they’ll be not paid and defaulted on,” he said.

“I don’t think they will be defaulted on,” he added. “I think by and large they’re going to be paid, but if they raise taxes too much, then it changes the nature of that economics.”

Category error. It’s not “almost a currency issue.” It’s not economics. It’s sorcery. Including everything that could be a liability, there isn’t enough wealth left to tax. Default is a given. The choice is to do it peaceably and gracefully or to suffer collapse and war. And, war is the default condition.

Now In Those Days A Decree Went Out…

10 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Now In Those Days A Decree Went Out…

Tags

, , , ,

The Dems 2020 Nominee for President (my guess), Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren plans to steal the remaining value left in the economy.

The tax-and-spenders of the world are desperate to find new ways to pay for the crumbling welfare states of western democracies. And they’re targeting the “rich” to do it.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), a 2020 presidential candidate, has proposed a 2% annual tax on assets of households with a net worth of $50 million or more. The tax would increase to 3% for billionaires.

Warren’s policy team estimates the wealth tax would raise an astonishing $2.75 trillion over the next decade. She suggests the tax would be a good way to start paying for proposals such as “Medicare for All.”

Some of the wealthiest people in the world support the idea. A public letter signed by George Soros, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and the daughter of billionaire Charlie Munger calls for a wealth tax to “help address the climate crisis, improve the economy, improve health outcomes, fairly create opportunity, and strengthen our democratic freedoms.”

Note the comparisons to FR and CH. But, also understand, the same lies (with nearly the same numbers) are being pushed here, as were used to foist the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. You know, only the very richest will may, but only 2%. A few decades later, everyone was paying and the 2% grew to 90%. Maybe another reason they don’t teach history or economics now.

Caesar Gets Zilch

13 Monday May 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Caesar Gets Zilch

Tags

, , , , ,

Sayeth the Lord. Jeffery Barr explains away any confusion about what Jesus said to the Rabbinate in re allegiance (and taxes).

…

The Catholic Church considers Herself the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.”

The 1994 Catechism instructs the faithful that it is morally obligatory to pay one’s taxes for the common good. (What the definition of the “common good” is may be left for a different debate.) The 1994 Catechism also quotes and cites the Tribute Episode. But the 1994 Catechism does NOT use the Tribute Episode to support the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes. Instead, the 1994 Catechism refers the Tribute Episode only to justify acts of civil disobedience. It quotes St. Matthew’s version to teach that a Christian must refuse to obey political authority when that political authority makes a demand contrary to the demands of the moral order, the fundamental rights of persons, or the teachings of the Gospel. Similarly, the 1994 Catechism also cites to St. Mark’s version to instruct that a person “should not submit his personal freedom in an absolute manner to any earthly power, but only to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Caesar is not u2018the Lord.‘” Thus, according to the 1994 Catechism, the Tribute Episode stands for the proposition that a Christian owes his allegiance to God and to the things of God alone. If the Tribute Episode unequivocally supported the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes, the 1994 Catechism would not hesitate to cite to it for that position. That the 1994 Catechism does not interpret the Tribute Episode as a justification for the payment of taxes suggests that such an interpretation is not an authoritative reading of the passage. In short, even the Catholic Church does not understand the Tribute Episode to mean that Jesus endorsed paying Caesar’s taxes.

V. CONCLUSION

St. John’s Gospel recounts the scene of a woman caught in adultery, brought before Jesus by the Pharisees so that they might “test” Him “so that they could have some charge to bring against Him.” When asked, “u2018Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say,’” Jesus appears trapped by only two answers: the strict, legally-correct answer of the Pharisees, or the mercifully-right, morally-correct, but technically-illegal answer undermining Jesus’ authority as a Rabbi. Notably, Jesus never does overtly respond to the question posed to Him; instead of answering, “Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.” When pressed by His inquisitors, He finally answers, “u2018Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her,’” and, of course, the shamed Pharisees all leave one by one. Jesus then refuses to condemn the woman.

The scene of the woman caught in adultery and the Tribute Episode are similar. In both, Jesus is faced with a hostile question challenging His credibility as a Rabbi. In each, the hostile question has two answers: one answer which the audience knows is morally correct, but politically incorrect, and the other answer which the audience knows is wrong, but politically correct. In the scene of the woman caught in adultery, no one roots for Jesus to say, “Stone her!” Everyone wants to see Jesus extend the woman mercy. Likewise, in the Tribute Episode, no one hopes Jesus answers, “Pay tribute to the pagan, Roman oppressors!” The Tribute Episode, like the scene of the woman caught in adultery, has a “right” answer – it is not licit to pay the tribute. But Jesus cannot give this “right” answer without running afoul of the Roman government. Instead, in both Gospel accounts, Jesus gives a quick-witted, but ultimately ambiguous, response which exposes the hypocrisy of His interrogators rather than overtly answers the underlying question posed by them. Nevertheless, in each instance, the audience can infer the right answer embedded in Jesus’ response.

Read the whole thing and what brought him to this sound, extraordinarily well-researched conclusion. Taxation is more than theft, it’s slavery. Show me the money!