Is Raising Taxes on the Rich really Bad?

There is a lot of focus on raising taxes on the rich, corporations, and small-businesses and giving tax cuts to the middle-class. Do these really matter?

Think about this:

If I raise taxes on a big corporation like Target what will they do? First, they’ll increase the cost of the goods they sell by a little more than that amount. You and I will pay more for everything we purchase and probably buy a bit less. Since they’ll sell less they’ll also lay off a few people, not very many, but a few. The layoffs and price increases will hardly be noticeable.

If I raise taxes on those who make over $150k or $200k, or $250k what happens? Realistically the companies they work for will, over time, increase their salary by enough to make up the difference. In order to attract someone to do a more difficult job the relative increase in their take-home must make it worthwhile for them. This increase will also find it’s way in to the cost of the products they sell and yep, you guessed it, you and I will pay more, buy less, company will lay off a few people, etc.

If I then give the middle class a tax cut what happens? Will the companies they work for give them lower wage increases over the next few years? Relative to those who’ve had their tax burden increase, you betcha. Even without the lesser wage increases will that tax cut be enough to make up for the increased cost of goods because of the higher prices from the tax increases above?

Guess what, this is kind of a zero sum game. How you spread the tax burden has little real impact on individual’s daily lives. A free economy will eventually work it out so everyone maintains about the same relative spending power.

The key is that phrase Tax Burden. The more money that is taken out of the economy by government for government programs, the worse off everyone is. It’s not really born more by the rich or by big bad corporations or by the middle-class. It’s born by everyone. Every single dollar of additional government spending negatively impacts each and every single person who earns their own way in this world.

Any focus on how the burden is spread is nothing but a smoke screen. It only hides increases in government spending. “Hey middle-class, we’re going to take $200 less from you and instead take $400 more from those terrible corporations and wealthy folk and then use that extra $200 for government programs.” Sounds good doesn’t it? What nobody mentions is that the cost of goods will go up by $400 so the middle class is actually less well off by $200.

In the end, any increase in government spending impacts everyone. The person who makes $45k per year may take home $1k more but will also find that stuff they want to buy has increased by $3k so they actually have $2k less to spend. There goes that flat-screen TV or Disneyworld vacation. But hey, we got tax break and a government program in the trade!

California Teachers Assoc gives $1m to fight marriage amendment.

Sort of old news by today, but thought I’d bring it up anyway. The California Teachers Association has give over $1 million this year to fight California’s Prop 8. In other words, they’ve spent over a million bucks of already underpaid teachers money to prevent the state of California from defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. And this has what to do with the average teacher or with educating our children?

Obama endorses Bill Ayers book on CPS

Oops, according to this on Foxnews there is yet one more previously unknown element to Obama's relationship to William Ayers. This book BTW, endorses some of the same government agencies and tactics as were involved in the raid on the YFZ ranch. If I remember correctly, Rozita Swinton, who made the false claims against the FLDS (and who has still not been charged for filing a false report) was an Obama delegate from Colorado Springs. I'm not in to conspiracy theories, but this is interesting.

Update: Not a bad deal for Ayers. In the past 6 hours this book has jumped from #51,021 on Amazon to #6,710.

Vote - Or Else!

The Tennessee Tribune is publishing lists of people who don't vote. Is this a good idea? Will forcing people to vote, people who likely have little interest in an election and thus know little or nothing about the candidates, improve our country? Will the knowledge that they WILL be voting, voluntarily of course, encourage them to take an interest and learn more about the candidates or will they just vote according to who their neighbors or the Tennessee Tribune supports?

Media: This ACORN Too Hot to Handle

Everyone in the Media has some political bias. Even if not a favorite candidate, at least strong preferences on some issues. It’s part of being human. Even the most unbiased reporter will be biased to some extent on some issues. It’s going to happen. The question is how much and to what extent it will be admitted.

During this election we’ve seen what is perhaps an unprecedented level bias and of kid gloves treatment of a candidate - Barack Obama. From an overtly racist, hate-filled, and conspiracy theory worshiping pastor to a close friend who to this day has no qualms about bombing innocent judges homes or even the Pentagon. From questions about his citizenship to an unusually very high number of illegal and questionable campaign contributions, many in the liberal side of the media have soldiered on. They’ve ignored or soft-pedaled issues and helped cover flip-flops on everything from accepting public financing to meeting with terrorists with no pre-conditions.

ACORN is apparently proving too much. Whether too much in itself or just the straw that broke the camels back, some in the normally liberal leaning media are backing off on their preferential treatment of Obama. The cost has risen too high. Individually each of the other issues could be explained away. Obama didn’t know Bill Ayers had been a terrorist and still harbored terrorist views. Obama only heard good sermons from Rev. Wright, never any of the hate filled racist diatribes he was so well-known for. Obama had no idea the church’s mission statement was racist. Questions about Obama’s having been born in Kenya and receiving Kenyan citizenship or having later become an Indonesian citizen are just the rantings of a crazed lunatic (and they may well be), nothing for serious media folks to be concerned with or investigate.

ACORN can’t be explained away so easily. Questions of voter fraud have trailed them for several years and across several states. They’ve had a reputation. Obama was an attorney for them. His campaign gave their associated organization nearly a million dollars this spring for get out the vote efforts. There is no way Obama couldn’t have known their history. No plausible deniability here. At a minimum they were a known very questionable organization for a presidential candidate to be involved with and give so much money to. The very best that can come out of this one is some extremely poor decisions on Obama’s part. Decisions that question both his decision-making and integrity. But this time, the best case is unlikely.

Expect a lot less soft-pedaling on this one after today.