Friday, April 12, 2013
Miscellaneous 171
1) According to climatologist, John Christy, the new cap and trade proposal in California will cost that state tens of billions of dollars and the effects will be minimal; a reduction in global temperature of about .02 of a degree Celsius and a reduction in atmospheric CO2 from 413 ppm to 412.9 ppm....To say that those people out there are nuts is an understatement.............2) I really wish that these politicians, whether they be President Obama or former speaker Gingrich, would simply knock it off with all of this, "We created X and X millions of new jobs" bullshit. The frigging morons didn't create squat. Investors, risk takers, visionaries, inventors, and of course the public that supports them - they're the ones who created the jobs. I'm telling you hear, folks, this exaggerated sense of self-importance of these damned Washingtonians is breathtaking of late.............3) According to a study cited by CNN's Erin Burnett (a person who I consider pretty nonpartisan), the federal government could raise more revenue by increasing taxes on the middle-class by 8% than it could by raising taxes on the wealthy by 100% (doubling them, in essence). She's actually cited this study on several occasions and the responses from the left have been utterly predictable; obfuscation and a rapid-fire changing of the topic. It just doesn't fit their narrative, folks; namely, that we can somehow fix the economic climate of the country simply by having one solitary segment of it fitting the bill....Not that it isn't entertaining to watch them wiggle, obviously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Jobs are created by people who buy stuff, not the ones that invent, invest, or take risks. Not even by their supporters. It is the BUYERS. No buyers, and none of this other stuff makes any difference.
It's the whole chicken versus egg thing, Jerry. Suffice it to say that they're both pretty important.
And when I said, "The public that supports them", I was actually referring to the purchasers of the goods and services.
Money Magazine took a look at the problem from a different angle recently. We tend to tax income, not wealth. Example: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg made 2 Billion dollars from selling off IPO stocks. His strategy? Buy assets that will only appreciate. Borrow money to fund lifestyle at incredibly low interest. Take in no income. Heirs inherit appreciated wealth. Never pay taxes again...ever. The point? The pro golfer Phil Mickelson who due to his skill, endorsements, etc is quite weathly but he pays through the nose on taxes at the State AND Federal level...Meanwhile Zuckerberg, Mitt Romney and of course Warren Buffett pay little or nothing. I think closing off corporate loopholes, NOT subsizing industries (Including Green Tech)and decreasing property tax deductions on high end real estate is worth considering...
Yeah, I would absolutely cap the mortgage interest deduction to about half of what it is now and do away with it completely on second mortgages (AKA vacation homes for millionaires). Those 2 actions alone would raise close to 30 billion a year, I'm hearing.
Marcus said: "Meanwhile Zuckerberg, Mitt Romney and of course Warren Buffett pay little or nothing"
I am not familiar with Zuckerverg or Romney or Buffett, but I looked into it during the Presidential race, and Romney pays a MASSIVE amount in taxes. That's $3,000,000 reported in 2010. Where I come from, that's not "little or nothing". That's a big amount.
Post a Comment