It's just like the Social Security legislature all over again, the federal government says one thing and then the supreme court upholds the legislation by using a completely different reason, totally different than what the legislation was sold as. In the case of Social Security, the public was told that were paying into what amounted to insurance policies, seperate accounts for each person. Well, it was challenged on the basis that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to force or require a private citizen to buy anything. The solicitor general who argued the case before the supreme court said that it wasn't that at all, it was a tax and that the federal government had the power to tax the public. Using that arguement it was upheld as constitutional. Just so you know, there is not seperate accounts, all monies collected go into the federal coffers and are spent where ever the federal government deems necessary, hence the huge discussions about the bending shortages in funding.
That brings us to today's supreme court ruling that the health care bill is constitution as a TAX. All those who believed the president in 2008 when he debated Hilary Clinton and said he was against the individual mandate she was for, were lied to, he passed the individual mandate. All those who believed him when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class were lied to, because this legislation, although it was billed as only penalizing those not purchasing insurance, was only upheld as constitutional, by TAXING those who don't buy it, were lied to. Who do you think is going to pay for all that is included in the 3000 pages of this bill? We are!! How are insurance companies going to pay for the policies that they are being forced to sell below their costs except by raising the prices for all the other policies, that would be by me and my family and your family if you now have insurance.
If only the politicians would come out and say, we are going to raise your taxes and charge you more for your insurance policy so that we can give other people who don't have insurance, don't want insurance, etc cheaper policies, how would that be received by the public? Probably not as well as the way they did it, through deceit and outright lies.
Just be honest with your intents and then let it be judged by the people.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Where is the Honor in society?
Is honor lost? How many times do we hear that word nowadays? Can it be brought back?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Cease to be idle or is it stop subsidizing freeloaders
That was one of the lines from the CES fireside given by Elder Dallin H Oaks at the Interstake Center in Oakland back in 2005: "Stop subsidizing freeloaders." He was talking to the young adult women in the Church to lock their pantries and only open them up for REAL dates, not just hanging out with guys. Well, I think we can apply it to many MANY other people. On one of the local talk radio stations this morning the hosts had people call in who are receiving unemployment. The hosts asked if the callers would be willing to accept a job that paid less than the amount they received from unemployment. The answer? Can you guess? Is it that hard to guess? Nope, it's a no brainer. The callers said "No". They would continue receiving unemployment despite the fact that they could get a legitimate job. How sad. How ridiculous. I think the taxpayers need to stand up and say, get off the government's dole! Get a job. We need to stop paying people to sit at home and not be productive when there are jobs available. Sacramento, Washington STOP SUBSIDIZING FREELOADERS!!!
Monday, February 22, 2010
Inherited?? Nice try
I am so sick and tired of hearing how this administration (as well as many congress members) "inherited" the mess from the last administration. I find it hilarious that the media doesn't point out that both the president and the vice president were senators before they were elected. As such they voted on every piece of legislation that was proposed. And you know what? They voted yes on every single piece of legislation that they now criticize Bush for having passed. You know what else? They voted yes on it BEFORE it even got to Bush's desk. I guess when you are in charge you can forget insignificant facts like the fact that they are just a responsible for the mess in which we find this country. I could say a lot more on the subject but this point alone shows the character of the current administration.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
May 19th Elections
Let me start off by saying that I am NOT against taxes. I know that they are needed to fund a government, as taxes are the SOLE source of income for a government (despite what some people may think, money does not grow in government gardens). My contention is that tax increases are NOT the answer to EVERY government spending problem.
If your friend was constantly asking for more and more money from you to buy this thing or that and never paying you back, would you continue to give that person money? No way!! At some point you would say, no more. I say, no more, to Sacramento and to Washington DC.
May 19th you will have the opportunity to vote either FOR tax increase extensions or AGAINST tax increase extensions.
PROPOSITION 1A
When the California legislature passed the budget in March, a number of changes occurred that effect every Californian financially. First, the sales tax was increased by 1%, going from 7% to 8&. Second, the income tax was increased by 0.5% in addition to the current rate (ie from 1% to 1.5%, 2% to 2.5% etc). Third, the car registration fee was increased from 0.65 to 1.0%. Fourth, the child tax credit was reduced from $309 to $99, meaning that $210 in tax credits was eliminated (reduction in taxes due). These increases are set to expire in 1 and 2 years. If proposition 1A passes they will expire in THREE and FOUR years.
In the Sample Ballot sent out by the state of California, proposition 1A states (verbatim),
“Rainy day” budget stabilization fund- Changes the budget process. Could limit future deficits and spending by increasing the size of the state “rainy day’ fund and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited into it, for use during economic downturns and other purposes. Fiscal impact: Higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010-11 through 2012-13. Over time, increased amount of money in state rainy day reserve and potentially less ups and downs in state spending.
Let’s pull this apart and analyze what it says and does.
1. The Fifth word is COULD, that should tell you something right off.
2. At the end of the end of the second phrase it states “and other purposes”, what does that mean? Whatever Sacramento wants it to mean and whatever they want to fund.
3. The state has already been depositing THREE PERCENT of revenue into the “rainy day” fund. However, the legislature has raided those funds repeatedly as so there is nothing left.
4. Where does that “roughly $16 billion” in higher tax revenue come from? From taxes!! From what taxes? Those four tax increases listed above.
Here is the chart straight out of the CA budget available for your reading here (I had to mdoify the chart because of the blog template format.)
1-cent Sales Tax Increase Begins on April 1, 2009, will expire on June 30, 2010. If 1A passes it will go until June 30, 2012.
5 percent Personal Income Tax Surtax 5 (2.5% Surtax If Federal Funding Triggers is pulled) begins in Tax Year 2009 and will expire in Tax Year 2010 unless 1A passes and then it will expire in Tax Year 2012.
Personal Income Tax Dependent Credit Reduction begins in Tax Year 2009 and will expire in Tax Year 2010. If 1A passes it will expire in Tax Year 2012.
Vehicle License Fee Increase from 0.65 percent to 1 percent begins on May 19, 2009 and will expire on June 30, 2011 unless 1A passes and then it will expire on June 30, 2013.
Vehicle License Fee 0.15 percent increase (again?) begins on May 19, 2009 and will expire on June 30, 2011. If 1A passes it will expire on June 30, 2013.
How do these increases impact you? Do the math-
How many kids do you have? Multiply that by $210. Multiply that by FOUR.
How many kids do you plan on having by 2013? Multiply that by $210.
How much do you pay for car registration now? Multiply that by 1.7. Multiply that by FOUR.
The increase in income tax is harder to figure in a simple equation.
Each time you make a purchase where tax is charged, increase that by one dollar per hundred spent.
I have friends with three children. That alone will increase their taxes by $630 a year for four years. That is $2520!!! Talk about an attack on families.
Side note: I don’t know about your school district, but ours is putting a parcel tax on the ballot this year as well so not only will the state charge more for having kids, but the city is going to charge more for children
If your friend was constantly asking for more and more money from you to buy this thing or that and never paying you back, would you continue to give that person money? No way!! At some point you would say, no more. I say, no more, to Sacramento and to Washington DC.
May 19th you will have the opportunity to vote either FOR tax increase extensions or AGAINST tax increase extensions.
PROPOSITION 1A
When the California legislature passed the budget in March, a number of changes occurred that effect every Californian financially. First, the sales tax was increased by 1%, going from 7% to 8&. Second, the income tax was increased by 0.5% in addition to the current rate (ie from 1% to 1.5%, 2% to 2.5% etc). Third, the car registration fee was increased from 0.65 to 1.0%. Fourth, the child tax credit was reduced from $309 to $99, meaning that $210 in tax credits was eliminated (reduction in taxes due). These increases are set to expire in 1 and 2 years. If proposition 1A passes they will expire in THREE and FOUR years.
In the Sample Ballot sent out by the state of California, proposition 1A states (verbatim),
“Rainy day” budget stabilization fund- Changes the budget process. Could limit future deficits and spending by increasing the size of the state “rainy day’ fund and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited into it, for use during economic downturns and other purposes. Fiscal impact: Higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010-11 through 2012-13. Over time, increased amount of money in state rainy day reserve and potentially less ups and downs in state spending.
Let’s pull this apart and analyze what it says and does.
1. The Fifth word is COULD, that should tell you something right off.
2. At the end of the end of the second phrase it states “and other purposes”, what does that mean? Whatever Sacramento wants it to mean and whatever they want to fund.
3. The state has already been depositing THREE PERCENT of revenue into the “rainy day” fund. However, the legislature has raided those funds repeatedly as so there is nothing left.
4. Where does that “roughly $16 billion” in higher tax revenue come from? From taxes!! From what taxes? Those four tax increases listed above.
Here is the chart straight out of the CA budget available for your reading here (I had to mdoify the chart because of the blog template format.)
1-cent Sales Tax Increase Begins on April 1, 2009, will expire on June 30, 2010. If 1A passes it will go until June 30, 2012.
5 percent Personal Income Tax Surtax 5 (2.5% Surtax If Federal Funding Triggers is pulled) begins in Tax Year 2009 and will expire in Tax Year 2010 unless 1A passes and then it will expire in Tax Year 2012.
Personal Income Tax Dependent Credit Reduction begins in Tax Year 2009 and will expire in Tax Year 2010. If 1A passes it will expire in Tax Year 2012.
Vehicle License Fee Increase from 0.65 percent to 1 percent begins on May 19, 2009 and will expire on June 30, 2011 unless 1A passes and then it will expire on June 30, 2013.
Vehicle License Fee 0.15 percent increase (again?) begins on May 19, 2009 and will expire on June 30, 2011. If 1A passes it will expire on June 30, 2013.
How do these increases impact you? Do the math-
How many kids do you have? Multiply that by $210. Multiply that by FOUR.
How many kids do you plan on having by 2013? Multiply that by $210.
How much do you pay for car registration now? Multiply that by 1.7. Multiply that by FOUR.
The increase in income tax is harder to figure in a simple equation.
Each time you make a purchase where tax is charged, increase that by one dollar per hundred spent.
I have friends with three children. That alone will increase their taxes by $630 a year for four years. That is $2520!!! Talk about an attack on families.
Side note: I don’t know about your school district, but ours is putting a parcel tax on the ballot this year as well so not only will the state charge more for having kids, but the city is going to charge more for children
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Why have the CBO if Congress doesn't heed it's warnings?
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. CBO assists the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses. In accordance with the CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, CBO's reports contain no policy recommendations. (That's direct from the CBO website cbo.gov)
While the 'stimulus' bill, now called the Reinvestment Act of 2009, was still being debated, the CBO released it's analysis that showed that the short term effect (ie next couple of years) the Act would help the economy. BUT in the long term the effects would be worse on the economy than if nothing had been done. Around the year 2016 the Reinvestment and Recovery Act would cause the GDP (gross Domestic Product) to drop. That's never a really good thing. Hum...
Now fast forward to the current debate over Cap and Trade. The idea is admirable and has worked in the past for helping to curb sulphur emmissions that lead to acid rain back in the early 90s. The current proposed use of the idea of setting a "cap" on the amount of carbon emmissions that are allowed into the enviornment. Companies can "trade" their allowances so that large emitors can buy emmission allowances from smaller emitors. Good in theory. However guess who emits carbon? YOU DO!! Everytime you drive your car, use your lawn mower, use your water heater or washer and dryer, basically anytime you use energy. Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say.
Here is what the CBO had to say: (you can read their whole report here)
"The rise in prices would impose a larger burden, relative to income, on low-income households than on high-income households for two reasons. First, low-income housedholds spend a much lager fraction of their income than do high-income households.
In addition, energy-intensive items compose a greater share of low-income households' total expenditures. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistic
indicates that, measured as a share of income, spending on energy-intensive items by households in the lowest income quintile averages more than five times that by households in the highest income quintile (see Table 1).
Although the price of energy-intensive items such as electricity, natural gas, homes heating fuels, and gasoline would increase the most, the price of most items would rise in response to the imposition of a cap-and-trade program (because energy is an input for almost all goods and services). The price increases (as a percentage of income for items that were not energy-intensive would account for approximately 40 percent of the total price increases for households.
The price increases caused by a ca-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefirs to households from lessening climate chane, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average househols roughly $1,00 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional cost for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) off all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200for the average household in the highest quintile.
The higher prices that woud result from a cap on CO2 emissions would reduce demand for energy and energy-intensive goods and services and thus create losses for some current investors and worskers in the sectors of the economy that supply such products. Investors might see the value of their stocks decline, and workers could face higher risk of unemployment as jobs in those secotrs were cut. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed amount investors because sherholders typically diversigy their porrfolios. In contrast, the costs of unemployment would probably be concentrated amount relativesly few households and, by extension, their communtities.
The magnitude of those transitional costs would depend on the pace of emission reductions, with more rapid reductions leading to larger transitional costs."
How much are you going to have to pay?
Didn't Obama say no taxes on 95% of American working families? This looks like a tax to me.
While the 'stimulus' bill, now called the Reinvestment Act of 2009, was still being debated, the CBO released it's analysis that showed that the short term effect (ie next couple of years) the Act would help the economy. BUT in the long term the effects would be worse on the economy than if nothing had been done. Around the year 2016 the Reinvestment and Recovery Act would cause the GDP (gross Domestic Product) to drop. That's never a really good thing. Hum...
Now fast forward to the current debate over Cap and Trade. The idea is admirable and has worked in the past for helping to curb sulphur emmissions that lead to acid rain back in the early 90s. The current proposed use of the idea of setting a "cap" on the amount of carbon emmissions that are allowed into the enviornment. Companies can "trade" their allowances so that large emitors can buy emmission allowances from smaller emitors. Good in theory. However guess who emits carbon? YOU DO!! Everytime you drive your car, use your lawn mower, use your water heater or washer and dryer, basically anytime you use energy. Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say.
Here is what the CBO had to say: (you can read their whole report here)
"The rise in prices would impose a larger burden, relative to income, on low-income households than on high-income households for two reasons. First, low-income housedholds spend a much lager fraction of their income than do high-income households.
In addition, energy-intensive items compose a greater share of low-income households' total expenditures. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistic
indicates that, measured as a share of income, spending on energy-intensive items by households in the lowest income quintile averages more than five times that by households in the highest income quintile (see Table 1).
Although the price of energy-intensive items such as electricity, natural gas, homes heating fuels, and gasoline would increase the most, the price of most items would rise in response to the imposition of a cap-and-trade program (because energy is an input for almost all goods and services). The price increases (as a percentage of income for items that were not energy-intensive would account for approximately 40 percent of the total price increases for households.
The price increases caused by a ca-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefirs to households from lessening climate chane, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average househols roughly $1,00 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional cost for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) off all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200for the average household in the highest quintile.
The higher prices that woud result from a cap on CO2 emissions would reduce demand for energy and energy-intensive goods and services and thus create losses for some current investors and worskers in the sectors of the economy that supply such products. Investors might see the value of their stocks decline, and workers could face higher risk of unemployment as jobs in those secotrs were cut. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed amount investors because sherholders typically diversigy their porrfolios. In contrast, the costs of unemployment would probably be concentrated amount relativesly few households and, by extension, their communtities.
The magnitude of those transitional costs would depend on the pace of emission reductions, with more rapid reductions leading to larger transitional costs."
How much are you going to have to pay?
Didn't Obama say no taxes on 95% of American working families? This looks like a tax to me.
Pay raise for Congress
Dispite the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost every month, and dispite the millions of foreclosures and pending foreclosures, dispite the caps they themselves are imposing on the salaries of others, dispites the doom and gloom outlook that the President is exuding to the American (and international) public, Congress voted to allow the automatic annual 2.8% pay increase to remain in the $410 BILLION omnibus spending bill. They could have chosen to not take the increase. But do you think they would do that? NO WAY!!!!! Well some voted against the raise.
What does that mean? Let's do the math.
Congressional members made $169,300 as of January 1, 2008.
The automatic pay raise of 2.8% for 2009 would mean a $4740.40 increase bringing the total to $174,040.40.
Now multiply that by the number of congress members. According to Wikipedia there are 535 members of congress. So 535 x 4740.40 = $2,536,114 additional funds needed to pay congress. The total bill just for salaries is then $93,111,614.
So the $2.5 million doesn't seem that big when comparing that to the $410 BILLION of the spending bill but that is the mentality that gets us to the point where we are in debt so badly. A million here, a couple million there ADD UP.
Do you get a 2.8% AUTOMATIC payraise this year? Would your company just fork over the money if all your coworkers voted to raise their own pay? Didn't think so. The real world doesn't work like that.
Oh yeah, and how much does the average American make? In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. So your congress members alone make more than 3 times the national HOUSEHOLD average.
What does that mean? Let's do the math.
Congressional members made $169,300 as of January 1, 2008.
The automatic pay raise of 2.8% for 2009 would mean a $4740.40 increase bringing the total to $174,040.40.
Now multiply that by the number of congress members. According to Wikipedia there are 535 members of congress. So 535 x 4740.40 = $2,536,114 additional funds needed to pay congress. The total bill just for salaries is then $93,111,614.
So the $2.5 million doesn't seem that big when comparing that to the $410 BILLION of the spending bill but that is the mentality that gets us to the point where we are in debt so badly. A million here, a couple million there ADD UP.
Do you get a 2.8% AUTOMATIC payraise this year? Would your company just fork over the money if all your coworkers voted to raise their own pay? Didn't think so. The real world doesn't work like that.
Oh yeah, and how much does the average American make? In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. So your congress members alone make more than 3 times the national HOUSEHOLD average.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)