Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Ah, it must be April...
Lots of funny stuff floating around the intarwebz today.
Here is a interesting article on the recent targeted violence agains senators who supported the health care bill: http://themoderatevoice.com/67140/palin-dont-retreat-instead-reload/
And on a related note we have Hannity calling his audience "Tim McVeigh Wannabes": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ani93EHvXcE#t=7m45s . To be fair though, the audience *sounded* like they were clapping because they heard him say "tea party" and not "Tim McVeigh" right?
Here is a interesting article on the recent targeted violence agains senators who supported the health care bill: http://themoderatevoice.com/67140/palin-dont-retreat-instead-reload/
And on a related note we have Hannity calling his audience "Tim McVeigh Wannabes": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ani93EHvXcE#t=7m45s . To be fair though, the audience *sounded* like they were clapping because they heard him say "tea party" and not "Tim McVeigh" right?
Mystery Survey!
The First Letter
This one came a few days ago (3-28-2010):
This one came a few days ago (3-28-2010):
Of course I too am interested in tax increases, but my party doesn't send me any lovemail. Non-descriptive envelope, not sure who it's from either...but hey! There is a survey inside! Maybe they want to hear my opinion! Lets see what they have to say:
Ah yes, The Heritage Foundation. Their website is here: http://myheritage.org/ if you want to read more on them. If you want to really see what they are all about, here are their "issues": http://www.myheritage.org/issues/ . I love the loaded questions in this letter, all bullet pointed and bold where it counts. Of course, who would support a large tax increase? Who would support taxing working family's? The liberals and congress with the blessings of the President, of course! They are all out to get us right where it hurts; our wallets.
So send them your...money? Wait, The Heritage Foundation needs money too? Times are tough for everyone I guess, even back in the Bush days: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts . Apparently they ran out of money to keep displaying their charts and graphs toward the bottom of the page. A shame really because I wanted to see them back it up. Ah well.
There was more on the back:
So over 100 million taxpayers would pay nearly $2,000 more in taxes? Ok, specifically who? What demographic are we talking about here? The top 1%? Middle-class taxpayers? Be specific guys, don't just play into people's fear with general statements.
The Death Tax, AKA Federal Estate Tax, is set to "...phase out over the next few years and disappear entirely in 2010 -- only to return in 2011 when the temporary repeal expires." (quoted here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/PlanYourEstate/TheDeathTaxIsFarFromDead.aspx). I can sort of agree with them that this tax needs to be modified or even removed entirely, but I believe it would be best handled on a state-by-state basis. When one really looks at it "...the estate tax affects only estates of considerable size (presently, over $3.5 million USD, and $7 million USD for couples) and provides numerous credits (including the unified credit) that allow a significant portion of even large estates to escape taxation." ( Quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States )
And then we have the marriage penalty. "The marriage penalty originated in 1969, when Congress tried to equalize what was then an advantage for couples, as compared to single taxpayers." (Quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty). I'm sure all the liberals, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama went back in time and put congress up to this. But lets look at the numbers. In 1997 the congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the average penalty was $1,380. The average penalty that this letter quotes is $1,480, exactly $100 more in the span of ten years. Could this be a natural rise due to median family income over those ten years? If so, $100 isn't a "sea change" by any means. Sure it's more money, but once again, they use fear to sway opinion.
Here is the survey, front page:
And here is the back:
Looking at the questions, they don't provide any specifics. Some aren't even questions. For example take "questions" one, three, five and six. Those are statements designed to prove that their numbers are correct. Number five is my favorite. I didn't know that 17 million American seniors would have to pay (an average of) $2,034! That's outrageous! Well, maybe not that outrageous when you are given the numbers. In fact, taxes have remained steady (if not lower) for the past ten years across all incomes. Any increase in taxes, when viewed on average would be nominal. Check out this article from The NY Times: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/ . Though the data is from mid 2009, the point is viable; even if President Obama raises taxes to levels we haven't seen since Clinton was in office, it really isn't going to be an obscene change. In fact, it may just pull us all "kicking and screaming" out of this recession. As taxes go up, GDP goes up as well.
"Question" three is great too. 42 million family's will see a $2,084 hike in taxes. Well sure, if you lump together high, middle and low income family's, but that data isn't provided either. Specifically which tax bracket will see this increase? Everyone across the board? You can't tell me that Bill Gates is going to see the same exact $2,084 increase that Joe the plumber making less than $20,000 a year is going to pay.
I'm going to allow open comments here, except for any personally directed comments, those will be nuked. So please tell me how wrong I am...or how right. Just bring the facts.
I have a big stack of letters like this, so stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)