Before the great sequestration began, we asked noted economist Tim Dimas to reflect on the consequences of the election results, and the ugly class warfare that launched America into another 4 years of expected economic malaise. Tim took up the challenge and chipped away at the cliches and misguided thinking that led to the mess that is Obama 2.0 - a sort of pre-questration if you will.
Please enjoy, this month's installment of, Tim's Take.
Tim's Take
Happy
New Year, America! Your paycheck is smaller.
And
it’s all George W. Bush’s fault.
No
really, all I’ve heard about since November 2000 is that Bush is a modern day
Hitler. So Democrats did the most logical thing and allowed one of his tax cuts
on workers expire, resulting in about a $50 smaller paycheck every two weeks
(for the “average” American). Of course, nobody is screaming in the streets
that Obama broke a promise never to raise taxes on anyone earning less than
$250,000.00 a year. Enjoy that extra pinch in your paycheck, America. You
earned it: You voted for it.
This
Bush-averse logic also led Democrats to make his tax cuts on the middle class
permanent. I think that’s a wonderful way to honor “BusHitler.” (Remember THESE
gems? http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612 ) Nothing highlights how
much you hate the man quite like making his tax cuts permanent.
Figure 1 - "My predecessor was an ignorant
fool that ruined our economy, which is why you should elect me - AGAIN - and
why I'm making his tax cuts permanent" - President Barack Obama
But
wait, it gets better. You’re getting an average of $50 less in your paycheck
($100/month) so that you can get free birth control. Remember, you had to vote
for Obama because those pesky Republicans were waging a war on women. Too bad
you’re getting that $10 prescription for free but getting $100 less a month.
Good job!
Of course most Obama voters were willing to
turn a blind eye to their dwindling paycheck in the hopes of soaking the rich
and sticking them with higher taxes, which was the theme of the fiscal
cliff-deal deal, the 2012 election, the 2008 election... Like many liberal
ideas, there are two-fold problems wrapped in this worldview: first is that the
principle of hosing the rich doesn’t makes sense, second is that the liberal
execution of policy won’t deliver more revenue . I suppose that qualifies as a
double fail.
Here
are some of the errors liberals make in assaulting the rich for their wealth.
1.)
They earned it. Forbes stated that of their richest 400, 70% were self-made.
Liberals were up in arms b/c they stated that this number was closer to 60%.
Bottom line: well over half earned their way to the top.(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/many-forbes-400-really-self-204426982.html)
2.)
What’s wrong with having money? Remember, love of money is the root of all
evil; not money as an object.
3.)
The rich are already paying their “fair share.” The CBO states that the wealthy
in this country control half of the money in the United States. They pay for
70% of its taxes. This is even before we discuss the fact that only about half
of Americans pay any income taxes at all. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/cbo-rich-pay-outsized-share-taxes/) The tax burden on the
rich has fallen in recent years: it could continue to fall another 20% and it
would still be more than their “fair share.”
Common
objections to this are “Who needs that much money?”, and “What about people
before profits.” As we already discussed in the previous post, there’s nothing
wrong with making profit - that’s all that a corporation lives and breathes
for. As for “Who needs that much money?” there’s really only one response: Why
do you care?
For
some reason the left has dubbed itself arbiter of what is fair and what isn’t.
The problem, unfortunately, is that they are the ones setting the rules, and
the fact that the rich are paying a disproportionate amount of the tax burden
to begin with isn’t enough for them. This is because they wouldn’t ever be able
to squeeze enough out of the rich.
Which
brings us to the execution of the policy. Hose-the-rich tactics have never
worked, most especially in recent history. France tried to raise taxes on the
rich under Francoise Hollande, but it was recently dubbed unconstitutional (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/31/francois-hollande-french-super-tax). The liberal need for
grinding the rich is not bound by the Constitution of a sovereign nation. 400
€1 homes went on the market after France elected Hollande (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214595/More-400-1million-euro-homes-Paris-market-millionaires-flee-Hollandes-socialist-tax-hikes.html). The exodus out of France
has been so pronounced that French socialists have called them the “greedy
rich.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9738178/Frances-Jean-Marc-Ayrault-slams-flight-of-the-greedy-rich.html). The point is this: the
rich won’t stick around and put up with the taxes. France is a microcosm for
this phenomenon, but it has also happened in the UK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9456722/Wealthy-Brits-look-to-flee-abroad-to-escape-high-taxes-crime-and-rain.html) and even in the United
States with the state of Maryland(http://www.cnbc.com/id/48120446/In_Maryland_Higher_Taxes_Chase_Out_Rich_Study). I know liberals love to
say “Look! Taxes were so much higher in the 1950s and the wealthy were
happier!” Here’s the reality - people vote with their feet. Of course, this
Michael Moore style of thinking ignores the fact that taxes were higher to pay
off World War II debts, and that because of WWII, there wasn’t anywhere to run.
And if you really believe people are “happy” paying high taxes, I have a bridge
to sell you. No, really...
If
liberals here and abroad are hell-bent on taxing the rich, they’re going to
find themselves up against the grim reality that if they don’t want to let the
rich live as functional members of society, the Cayman Islands will gladly take
their emigrated dollars.
I
know what you’re thinking and what your objections are. Let’s briefly debunk
your liberal (and predictable) qualms with not soaking the rich so we can all
go out to Applebee’s and be friends again.
1.)
“No one needs that much money.” -Thanks for your concern. I’ll make as much as
I like.
2.)
“Rich people aren’t patriotic.” -Joe Biden said paying taxes is patriotic. And
the rich in the US are paying more taxes than anyone. So if they aren’t
patriotic, you certainly aren’t.
3.)
“It’s really crappy that the rich would move instead of paying taxes.” -What’s
wrong with trying to protect their assets? It’s not their fault you voted
someone in that hates them for no good reason except their success.
4.)
“Rich people only care about money.” I’m pretty sure everyone cares about
money.
People
voted Obama back into office in November of 2012 thinking that they were voting
against Mitt Romney who was too rich or didn’t understand their needs. The
prior four years of economic destruction and tepid recovery didn’t register
when they went in the voting booth. As of this writing, the breaking news is
that GDP contracted for the end of 2012 by .1% The sad reality is that there
will be far fewer rich Americans if the failed economic policies of this
administration are enacted for another four years. Buckle up!
I
can’t say it any more succinctly than Lady Thatcher did: I’ll do my best to
paraphrase:
“Liberals
are far less concerned with making the poor richer, than they are with making
the rich poorer.”
Figure 2 Lady Thatcher is unimpressed
The
US president has put more effort and energy into punishing the successful and
the well-off than he has into lifting up the working class. Playing Robin Hood
is not a policy, it’s robbery. And it’s not a way to raise the middle-class.
It’s a way to subsidize votes.
Rapid
Roundup
Liberals
are all like “Romney lost, you need to get over it.” When I stop seeing
HuffPost articles berating the guy, I’ll drop it. Three months later, he
remains the left’s whipping boy.
Please
don’t tell anyone, but Marco Rubio’s meteoric rise in the GOP is encouraging to
me for two critical reasons. The first is that he’s brilliant and young,
symbolizing a possible conservative renaissance. The second is that if Rubio is
the GOP nominee in 2016 (yes, I know it’s early) I can say that liberals that
don’t like him are racist. And if those liberals are white, they will have no
defense. And I’ll be able to bless liberals with the ability to live the
utter hell of being called a racist for no good reason at all. People think I’m
joking about this, but look sharp! If you are a white liberal and Rubio is the
nominee, I’m coming for you. And I won’t be joking.
Tim
Dimas loves to hike, play soccer, and drink bubble tea (how harijuku!). He’s
also addicted to Words with Friends, even though he loses about 73% of the
time.
Before the great sequestration began, we asked noted economist Tim Dimas to reflect on the consequences of the election results, and the ugly class warfare that launched America into another 4 years of expected economic malaise. Tim took up the challenge and chipped away at the cliches and misguided thinking that led to the mess that is Obama 2.0 - a sort of pre-questration if you will.
