Tag Archives: tax

Using the Constitution Series: Speaking with a Communist

Does private property exist? If we own property, may we alter it as we see fit? Recently, while discussing property rights, a whole new argument arose…Communism.

Are individuals able to exercise private property rights or does government control property? The first time I encountered this debate was with a libertarian’s husband who felt because we pay property taxes, we don’t own property. The next time, I believe a liberal, was concerned about what his neighbor’s did, playing loud music, water rights and property values. The last argument claimed that the state owns property and we only pay “rent” in the form of taxes.

The argument transitioned to we do not have alodial title. Perplexed by the angle of the argument, I went home and researched “Alodial titles”. I realized that he was not advocating for property rights but for government control of property. In other words, you do not have control and ownership of your own property. The ability to make decisions based off your own decisions of property in land and servicing one another within business also.

Paying taxes is different than a mortgage, as the bank owns your property, you may not be able to tear down your house because the bank actually owns the property. While paying property taxes, you’re paying local government for the common good such as roads, schools, police, etc. This is based on your property value. While apartment complexes and communities pay taxes, some communities enter into a home owners association which is different than your local government. Your local government is not a home owners association.

Our constitutional republic predates Marxism, communism and fascist theories and our founder’s understood the importance of private property. Communism is defined as, “advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.” As government does identify property lines and other similar functions, they are making law concerning property rights so advocates for communism use this as a springboard into control of property. This is a far cry from control over your property.

Private property and capitalism are a cornerstone of our nation for over 225 years, this is a right protected by the Fifth Amendment. It reads, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

…the right to life issue is a whole new discussion.

For private property to be taken, it must exist. Now, there are some who claim that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government but communism is communism. Whether it’s a local, state or federal level, property is still taken. Taxing authority is different than owning property; taxes go to paying for common interests.

Private property rights are the most important of our freedoms. People cannot exercise their rights and freedoms without private property…or if they do, it will be with the permission of the property owners.

The ability to redress grievances and exercise the Five Freedoms, freedom of assembly, speech, press, religion or petition cannot be exercised without private property. When a person posts on Facebook, they are using someone else’s property to exercise their freedom of press. When you speak at a city council or public grounds, you are speaking on government property and should abide by their rules.

If government owns your property, then they may conduct “Illegal searches and seizures.” Do you have the right to bear arms if you’re renting your property? When someone invites you to use their property, it is their option to allow you to represent their property as they see fit.

When government owns all property, this economic system is communism. Those with a silver tongue will always advocate for communism over capitalism because their commodity is politics and the art of persuasion. The foundation of our economic system is capitalism. The most vulnerable within our society is…the individual! …and protecting private property rights should be sacrosanct! Without private property and respect for it …then no one is free.

…besides, the “supreme Law of the Land” protects it.

“I would have saved 1,000 slaves if they knew they were slaves.” – Harriet Tubman

Internet Taxation

Relaxed Wisdom

Relaxed Wisdom

Today 21 Republican Senators vote to tax Americans even more, while five Democrats voted against higher taxes.

Shame on those republicans, and applause for those five Democrats.

Those Republicans that are worthy of scorn are listed below. When they begin bragging about how wonderful they are and attempt to distract you with lies, don’t buy into their deceit. They will sell you a lot of snake oil, but in the end they will strike with venom again and again.

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)
Boozman (R-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Isakson (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Collins (R-ME)
Blunt (R-MO)
Cochran (R-MS)
Wicker (R-MS)
Burr (R-NC)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Fischer (R-NE)
Johanns (R-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Graham (R-SC)
Thune (R-SD)
Alexander (R-TN)
Corker (R-TN)
Enzi (R-WY)

The five Democrats with a proper vote are

 

Baucus (D-MT)
Tester (D-MT)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Merkley (D-OR)
Wyden (D-OR)

America is taxed enough.  Anyone with any common sense knows the federal government is one of the most wasteful organizations in the world.  Taxes should be cut until the government learns how to manage its business in a responsible manner.

I hope everyone that believes in the dignity of this nation will call their senators as many time as possible demanding better of them.

Calling Ceasefire on the Boehner Bashing

120712_boehner_crying_reu_328_605After the deal on the fiscal crisis passed, disappointed Republicans began a rallying cry resembling those of medieval times yelling, “Off with his head!”. Except instead of Boehner’s head, Republicans want his gavel. Historically, the problem isn’t Boehner, it’s tired Republican strategy.

Republicans, for decades, have been sucked in by the Democrat Party’s last-minute engineered emergencies like the “fiscal cliff”. This crisis is manufactured under the transparent drive to increase taxes. Republicans walk into negotiations demanding spending cuts and come out with tails between their legs and higher taxes. Frankly, it’s as ancient a story as The Three Little Pigs.

Almost everyone knows the story of Ronald Reagan. He thought he went for a deal that raised one dollar in taxes for every three dollars in spending cuts. Unfortunately, the majority of those cuts never came. While the Washington Post refutes the claim, there is still strong evidence to suggest that this is what Reagan believed when signing the deal.

Continuing on, let’s not forget President George H.W. Bush who, in 1990, was promised two dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in tax hikes. Sadly the story ended with a 137 billion dollar tax increase and an additional 22 billion dollars in spending.

Following suit yet again, Boehner and a host of Republicans believed that they could negotiate their way to a compromise with a party who simply wasn’t interested in a win-win scenario.

These examples aren’t meant to make Republicans out as martyrs. We are all big boys and girls with our own separate philosophies and motivations. The Democrat’s strategy works every time because Republicans refuse to learn their lesson every time.

But here is where the ball game changes: After all these years of misled Republicans, Speaker Boehner has made it clear that he will no longer negotiate with President Obama. Boehner has learned the lesson Republicans should have learned decades ago: Negotiating reasonably with Democrats is the way one loses to Democrats. Which is exactly why, moving forward, we need John Boehner as Speaker.

 

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury has nearly a decade of experience in political strategy and has recently opened a consulting firm targeted at helping businesses and campaigns flip their marketing and public relations strategies through new media. Michelle is also a weekly commentator on the Hayden Collins Radio Program and a national speaker. To book Michelle for an event or inquire about her professional consulting services click here. To get more updates, follow Michelle on Twitter or Subscribe on Facebook

 

What Makes Free Birth Control Expensive

Michelle Stansbury

Initially, when my local pharmacy informed me that the nine dollar co-pay on my birth control was now waived, I was surprised. When they went on to ask for my grocery card to give me gas points on the birth control I didn’t pay for, I was appalled. Free birth control and gas points sound picture-perfect, if you ignore the long term ripple effect.

Memorably, Milton Friedman said it best, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”  If insurance companies are mandated to provide free services at the pharmacy or doctor’s office, they have to bill the recipient later through higher premiums to compensate for the added expense. Sky-high premiums are already expected to take effect for many starting next year; the plan my family and I are on will see a dismal increase of 27 percent.

If you aren’t already seeing a frustrating shade of blue, there are also twenty new tax hikes on families and small businesses scheduled in 2013 and onward courtesy of Obamacare.

Simply put, through increased insurance premiums and taxes, I’ll be paying for my birth control and for those around me several times over when I could have paid a measly nine dollars a month. My budget will tighten because our government and the Sandra Flukes of the world refuse to heed a basic life principal: Nothing is free; no matter how many times the government mandates otherwise.

Michelle Stansbury is a political consultant, paid speaker, and Fox Radio Political Commentator. You can follow her on Twitter: @MBStansbury and Subscribe on Facebook here.

11 Deceptions About the Tax Debate

Below are the Whitehouse.gov’s “11 Facts About the Tax Debate.”  As usual, they are out of context, disproportioned, deceptive, and out right false briefing points.  Here are just a few reasons why they are nothing more than election year red herrings.  (A fitting expression for such socialist ideals.) WH.gov points are in italics.

1.     Nearly $1 Trillion would be added to our deficit over 10 years under the Republicans’ proposal to continue tax cuts exclusively to households making more than $250,000 a year and to the wealthiest estates.

Only 1 Trillion in 10 years?  That sure is a better than Obama’s plan strapping us with over 10 Trillion more debt in the past 4 years, and much more in the next 10.  Republican tax cuts to those who are producing jobs realistically stimulate the economy.  History tells us that lower tax rates produce greater employment thus greater tax revenue 100% of the time!  Are 100% to 0% not good enough odds?

2.     Only 2 percent of American households will benefit from the Republicans’ proposal to extend tax cuts for those with incomes higher than $250,00 a year.

Actually 100% of Americans will benefit.  Those 2% are the ones investing in America and want to do more so more people can be employed, pay taxes, spend and invest.  All studies of history and economic models show that the sweet spot is about 17% across the board.  I.e. a flat tax of 17% produces the maximum revenue by allowing maximum employment and investment.  Thus we’re killing our selves by trying to squeeze more money than we can afford, which kills our ability to earn more.

3.     Under President Obama’s proposal, only the wealthiest 3 in 1,000 estates would owe any estate tax.

So only the wealthiest 0.3% will pay estate taxes?  He’s bragging about this?  Notice he doesn’t compare it to a Republican plan; a sure sign they have a better idea.

4.     Over the past 4 years, a typical family making $50,000 a year has received tax cuts totaling $3,600 – more if they are putting a child through college.

The White House fails to mention that our average income decreased 3.02% from 2008 to 2010.  For a $50K household, a loss of 3.2% is $1,600.

Inflation due to the Fed creating money, “monetizing the debt,” “QE3,” “printing money,” “digitizing money,” you name it.  Inflation was 4.46% in 2011 alone.  That has lowered the value of $50K by $2,238.

Those two factors alone add up to $3,830.  So even if your “tax decrease” was real, your average $50K family lost $283 per year.  Does the WH call these bragging rights?

They also fail to mention that he’s just Nationalized ALL student loans, (so he can forgive a great proportion of them).  That will cost “average” taxpayers more money.  So there are several ways we all pay for other people’s children to go to school.  Obama said, “those making under $250,000 won’t see a tax increase.”  Yup, they just won’t see it.

5.     5 million families would no longer be eligible for the child tax credit under the Republicans’ tax proposal.

Truth be known, both parties support a modification to the Child Tax Credit.  It is due to expire, so the debate is only which plan to adopt.

Additionally, the Treasury Department reports that illegal immigrants filing tax returns using the Individual Tax Identification Number are receiving more than $1.5 billion each year from the federal government through the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.  Need a fix?

6.     Because Republican proposals cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, nearly 6 million working families with children would see their taxes increase – averaging $500 apiece.

The WH has cherry picked only the most conservative of many Republican plans.  Many, if not most, do not affect this Credit.  In support of those that do, this Credit pays able people for not working.  We have enough of that.  What is not mentioned is that this proposal also abolishes tax code exemptions and credits for the rich and big business.  Everyone who is able needs to pay something.  It keeps us all responsibly involved in government.

7.     The President’s plan includes almost $700 billion in tax credits to help middle class families pay for health insurance over the next 10 years through the Affordable Care Act.

Somehow we’re to believe we aren’t going to pay the $700 billion.  That $700,000,000,000 comes from taxes.  How many will loose jobs because companies are forced to cut employment or go bankrupt because they have to pay fines, (oops “taxes,” oh no “fees,” wait “taxes,” whatever)?  They’ll have to pay much more just to employ people.  That isn’t going to help employment or the tax base.

Thus Obama Care will increase the number of folks relying on taxes to support them and pay for their healthcare, thus driving that 700 billion estimate off the scale.  This is a “Cloward and Piven” plan, plain and simple.  “Overload the economic system through escalating the need for entitlements by the increased tax load to fund them.  Mr. Obama once taught the Cloward and Piven’s strategy to collapse capitalism.  Now he’s implementing it.

It has become common to name a Law the opposite of its worst feature to mask its true identity, i.e. ”The Federal Reserve” which is private and has no reserves.  Would you vote for the “Unaffordable but Compassionate Care Act”?

8.     The top 2 percent of households, with and average of $800,000, would see additional tax cuts under the Republican plan.

… as would most income brackets.  These wealthy people are already in the highest tax bracket.  This misleading information only mentions the cuts and not the main part of the plan that drastically removes tax exemptions in the first place.  Most Republican restructuring is designed not only to simplify taxes and reduce exemptions, but also to incite job creators.  Read the bills!

9.     Under the President’s plan, income tax rates for high income households would return to the same tax rates as in the ‘90s.  During that period, the United States created 23 million jobs and ran a budget surplus.

Remember the 17% rule?  Higher tax rates actually produce less revenue than lower rates above 17%.  When Bush lowered the tax rate in 2003, the tax revenue actually increased due to greater employment and higher wages.  Even Obama agreed to extend them for that reason.

It isn’t trickle down, it is flow down, and the government needs to be at the bottom of the flow, not the top.  Under the Republican plan everyone’s effective tax rate would be reduced, causing greater employment thus more tax revenue.  Businesses would be incented to locate and operate here in the US rather than overseas.

The government doesn’t create jobs, the people do.  Even government jobs are created out of the people’s tax dollars.  The government doesn’t build anything; we do, to include the government.  When the government uses our money to build inefficient, ineffective, failing, or just plain fraudulent institutions, we pay the price.

For example, the 90s is when the Liberals were most influential at inflating the housing bubble by incentives to lend to those who couldn’t afford those loans and eventually penalizing lenders that did not.  That escalated inflated prices that eventually had to burst.

10.     The President’s plan would continue the 10 percent tax bracket, which allows everyone to pay a 10 percent tax rate on their first $8,900 in income (or $17,800 for married couples).

Notice there is no mention of a Republican plan here, because under the Republican plan, middle-income families of four pay no taxes on the first $39,000 of its income.

So the President is bragging about doing nothing?  I have to admit, doing nothing has been one of his least problematic qualities.

11.     The Republicans plan eliminates the American Opportunity Tax Credit, meaning 11 million families and students paying for college would see an average tax increase of $1,000 each.

Actually there is no tax increase involved.  It means that the $1,000 credit for having a child in college expires December 31st 2012.  Both parties have competing plans for an amended version.  Reality always sounds a little different than WH talking points.

So shall we talk about unemployment?  How about why businesses move jobs overseas?  How about Agenda 21, (disguised as “Sustainable Development)?  Can we discuss how many more doctors will be created under Obama care?  How about illegal aliens; Homeland Security that considers “we the people” a greater threat than rife illegal boarder crossings?  Let’s discuss why the US prosecutes innocent supporters of the GOP (i.e. Gibson guitar), while allowing anything black, or Muslim, or alien, or Occupy movements go unprosecuted, (per stated administration policy).  How ‘bout that Medicare?  Social Security?  Where do those fit in your list to debate?

Barack Obama was right about “Hope & Change.”  Never has America hoped for change more than now.

God bless America.

Olympic Medal Winners Face a Tax Hit

In his third Olympic Performance, Michael Phelps won a total of six medals: four gold and two silver. His performances in the thirtieth Olympiad is sure to bring big financial awards, but his performances are also going to cost him.

Every American who won a medal in the London Olympics will receive cash rewards from the U.S Olympic Committee. Each gold medal winner will receive $25,000, each silver medal winner will receive $15,000 and each bronze medal winner will receive $10,000 respectively. This means when Michael Phelps returns to the states, he will be collecting a healthy $130,000 from the USOC.

Phelps with his record breaking 19th Olympic Medal

However, Phelps will also be taxed for each medal he received. For each gold medal, Phelps will have to pay the IRS approximately $9,000, for each gold, $5,400 for each silver, and if he would have earned a bronze, $3,500.

Soon after stories surfaced about U.S. Olympic athletes facing deep financial hardship, some Washington politicians have offered and supported a bill that would offer the athletes a reprieve.

Republican law makers led by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown introduced a bill named Olympic Tax Exemption Act last week. The bill has already gained the support of President Barack Obama.

“Our young athletes endure years of grueling training and make enormous sacrifices so they can represent our country on the national stage and make us proud. Our thanks should not come in the form of a giant tax bill from the IRS.” Brown said when asked about the bill.

Follow Me on Twitter @chrisenloe.

ObamaCare – Punishing Success and Responsibility

By now we have all heard the “You Didn’t Build That” speech. President Obama does not often make his true feelings known, but that speech was telling.

As he tries to back-peddle from having the man behind the curtain revealed, it is important to point out a few little ways the Affordable Care Act re-enforces his proclamation that success is to be punished.

Time and time again the ObamaTax on people who choose not to purchase health insurance has been referred to as the “freeloader” tax. It is to be imposed on folks who are young and healthy, can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

This is actually MORE insulting than the “you didn’t build that” speech. Many people who are young, healthy and CAN afford to buy health insurance, but choose not to, actually pay their doctor bills when they get them. If the bill is expensive, they arrange terms and abide by them. These responsible people are the ones who will feel the worst sting of the ObamaCare Tax.

According to the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) in 2010 29% of the adult population (19-64) had medical debt, but only 16% had been contacted by a collection agency. That indicates that 13% were paying their bills on-time. Those people will soon have the pleasure of paying a penalty tax, for which they receive neither reward nor benefit simply because they have been responsible free market citizens.

So if you CAN afford health insurance but exercise your freedom to choose not to buy it, even though you DO pay your medical bills (incidentally you pay more for the same service than an insurance company does), you are now a freeloader and are penalized for being responsible!

Yet another provision in the onerous law, of which this author has heard no one speak, allows your employer to charge you more for the same insurance than another worker who makes less money than you do. So as a reward for loyal longtime service you get to pay more money for the same insurance than does a new hire. In case you are skeptical, here is the language, straight from the bill.

‘‘SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan
(other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.

Notice you cannot discriminate in favor of a high-wage employee, but you CAN discriminate in favor of a low wage one.

Just two more ways the current administration has found to punish success and reward failure.

European High court upholds jet plane carbon tax

A law requiring flights into and out of the European Union (EU) to pay a carbon tax was upheld by the European Court of Justice on Wednesday saying that, “application of the emissions trading scheme to aviation infringes neither the principles of customary international law at issue, nor the open-skies agreement.”

The law requires that any aircraft landing or taking off from an EU airport is required to purchase a carbon permit which could cost the airlines, passengers, freight carriers and customers nearly $12 billion by the end of 2020. The amount of the tax is proportional to the distance flown by the airplane after departing an EU airport or from the last take-off prior to reaching an EU facility.

The most immediate impact will be the it will now cost more for Europeans to travel anywhere by airplane and freight costs requiring air transport will be more expensive.

The airlines have little choice and are complying with the ruling “under protest”. The cost of the tax will be passed on to passengers making travel to and from Europe more expensive.

Freight carriers are taking a different approach to the business-killing decision. UPS is studying ways to redirect flights around the EU.  In an interview with The Wall Street Journal the carrier explained how it might modify its routes to deal with the expensive carbon tax:

Mitch Nichols, president of UPS Airlines, said in an interview that the company may look at redirecting flights between its hubs in Hong Kong and Cologne, Germany, by going through Mumbai. That will cut the cost of the tax by about a quarter because UPS would only be charged for the distance flown between Cologne and Mumbai.

Airlines are unlikely to make similar changes, but passengers might. While the airlines will still offer direct flights into Europe, savvy travelers may opt to fly into a nearby non-EU nation simply because the ticket won’t have the up-charge on it or they may choose alternate destinations altogether.

Ultimately the tax will have a stifling effect on EU manufacturers as it will cost more to bring raw materials into the EU and be more expensive to ship finished goods out. The affirmation of the proposed change could put more pressure on European manufacturers to move their operations to non-EU countries.