Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Soaking the rich – part 564

California keeps raising its taxes thinking in its delusional liberal mind that somehow this will extricate the state from its ills. New York was jealous of California, so after California raised its tax rate, New York raised its tax rate. New York is now going to attempt to impose a 2% millionaire tax on "New Yorkers" who earn more than 200,000 dollars a year. The top tax rate will be 8.97% in the State and New York City will be 12.62%. Of course, the result will be predictable. There will be less tax revenue flowing into state coffers, because those who have the wherewithal to earn the money also have the wherewithal to leave the state.

My brother in liberal Oregon sent me an email that was sent to all teachers from the Oregon Education Association, (OEA). It reads like a joke (or one would think) or it appears like one of those endless and incessant forward chain spam letters of which we are all too familiar that we receive from some friend or colleague who believes against all hope in the veracity of the chain. But no, the sad part is its true - this is how liberals actually think. When faced with reason, liberals just look the other way.

Here is the email he received (Pay close attention to the 2nd question. This banner also headlines the OEA's homepage. Its the first thing you see when entering the OEA's website.


Save Our Schools
S.O.S Mission No. 3

Download an 
S.O.S campaign sign and put it in your superhero car!

Drive around your community and help spread the message far and wide. We need to Save Our Schools!

If you're asked: "Are our schools really in trouble?"
You can say: "Yes, this once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis means we may not have enough money for a full school year / to keep teachers on the job / to support valuable programs for our kids."

If you're asked: "How can we save our schools?"
You can say: "Contact your legislator! Tell them to ask corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share to help protect our schools and vulnerable Oregonians!"(italics mine)

I do have a question. What is my fair share - 50%, 60%, 90%? Why don't we just endorse our entire paychecks to the government?


Tony said...

My high school economics teacher used to say that Silicon Valley grew in part due to low taxes that acted as incentives for business like IBM to come here and set up shop. IBM created thousands of jobs.

Thanks to a "Big EVIL" corporation, Arthur Dias (your dad, my grandfather) was able to raise 14 kids in Los Gatos, California with his wife, Jan.

I think that most Americans seem to understand that the Rich have a natural tendency to want their money to grow (yes, usually the Rich want to become Richer).

The poor usually are either poorly educated or make terrible decisions in life that place them at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Many Liberals would say to the Rich, "You MUST share, and here is a government solution to a problem that may or may not exist and here is how it will work and you must hire this many people to do the job and it must be approved by this sub-committee and, well, while were at it, why don't we add a provision that says that hand-guns are not allowed on school premises, oh and we need to subsidize corn..." (you know, that's not just liberals, conservatives do that kind of stuff too)


Some Rich people say "I CHOOSE to share".

Some don't. But even when they don't, in the process of "getting richer", the rich share.

Conservatives understand that when the rich try to cultivate money, they create jobs in the process, to me that is a type of "sharing".

People with money invest in companies that hire people.

People with money hire other people to do things for them.

For example, I am coordinating the Video and Photography for a wedding coming up. A person with some money is hiring me and I am hiring three other people.

This is productive, 'trickle-down' economics.

Now, none of us are rich (neither the person hiring me nor the people I am hiring). However, the person that is hiring me is definitely in a higher tax bracket than I am.

If his taxes were higher than they are now, would he hire me and my crew? Maybe, maybe not! Perhaps his budget would be less and I would only be able to hire one cameraperson instead of two?

See what I'm getting at? Raising taxes HURTS the people working for the Rich.

Well, I guess that if his taxes were higher, they could pay for my unemployed benefits because I wouldn't be able to get as many jobs.

But wait, I haven't been working at a 'real' job, I'm a contractor. Not only that, but I've been going to school, so that means that I didn't work much because I didn't want my financial aid to get dinged.

If you are a student and you work, you may ruin your chances of getting free money and qualifying for cheap loans from the government.

If you don't work, then you HAVE to borrow, if you want to study.

If you don't work, you can't get laid off. If you don't get laid off, you don't get any unemployment!

I guess I might qualify for welfare, except that my wife makes too much (barely enough). Not only that, but I have to start repaying my school debts.

So, I better go get a 'real' job, real quick!

But nobody's hiring because we're in a recession!


Mark said...


That was really good. Great post

Paul said...

That was an excellent post Tony:)

Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member