Tuesday, 26 February 2013


Taxation the Peoples Business

Or as I like to say, Taxation: how do we get the best deal.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/25/obama-still-wrong-on-taxes-nyt-joins-the

It always strikes me as ironic that those demanding the highest taxes, are usually the ones who most likely to be screwed by them.

John Maynard Keynes wrote that “25 percent taxation is about the limit of what is easily borne” and that “Aggressive taxation may defeat its own ends by diminishing the income to be taxed.” As you raise taxes you get less money.

The above article brings important quotes,

"You don’t have to be a Marxist political economist to observe that Obama is trying to impose a big tax increase on a lot of people who didn’t vote for him. At least those rich people got to vote, which is more than can be said for the colonists. But there’s something ugly about the whole thing."

I should also note this is how democracies are destroyed historically.  Not by rampaging invaders, but by the majority voting themselves more largesse from the treasury.  Its like eating all the food from the granary.  Eventually you run out of seed corn and then people start dying.

For all those interested in learning about whats happening between Japan and China, I suggest reading this,

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/china-tests-japanese-and-us-patience?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130226&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=267e1b2005b8417caa33bee06e7443f5

A long interesting piece on Ted Cruz's fight with the Marxists


http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/25/jane-mayers-mccarthyist-attack-on-ted-cruz/

"But for a freshman Senator to draw the kind of fear that generates this type of assault from the New Yorker, he must be doing something right."

Yeah my thoughts too.

Remember when we told Citizens United was going to be Armeggedon.  That Super PAC's were going to simply buy elections?

I remember that as someone who has actually got people elected to office, that it was all garbage, but those seemingly in the know told me I was out to lunch.

Well here is a good talk about Romneys campaign, and how despite spending more money he still lost.

http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_knight/2013/02/25/another-reason-mitt-romney-lost-he-had-a-full-blown-idiot-stuart-stevens-running-his-campaign/

"Considering the horrendous amount of what was very rightly called campaign malpractice in that WaPo piece, there actually is a viable argument that Mitt Romney could take Stuart Stevens and Co. to court for fraud."

A great comment on the thing below,

"That Romney's campaign would prove to be a paper tiger should have been predictable from his performance in the primaries. Despite making "competence" and "electability" core foundations of his campaign, Romney's campaign also struggled mightily throughout the primaries despite being able to overwhelm his opponents in staff and advertising. He was able to win the nomination because he was the only candidate with the reputation and funding to assemble a large campaign organization before the primaries began."

No comments:

Post a Comment