Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on one thing: they will "look out for the hard-working middle class", and not overtax those making under $250,000 per year.
In the past 8 months, I have gotten 3 raises that increase my base salary by exactly $700 per month. The difference in my paycheck? Exactly $26 per month.
My morale has been effectively murdered. Why should I take on more responsibility and strive to advance in my career path if all Iget out of it is ulcers, headaches, and $26 a month??
If this is how a Republican administration "looks out for the middle class", imagine the personal liberty devastation that could come in January 2009.
I know that as Conservatives we want to boycott this election because it lacks a candidate that adequately represents our philosphy - BUT the alternative to John McCain is worse than we realize.
I ask one simple favor on behalf of moderate income singles everywhere: do not vote FOR McCain, vote AGAINST further erosion of our freedoms. I don't want to sound like MTV or Puff Daddy, but there is a lot at stake - so vote or die!
8 comments:
If not for a Dem and not for McCain, then who? Am I supposed to write-in vote for Reagan or something?
Don't give me any Ron Paul stuff, either...
Chris, thanks for bringing a practical, real-world example to the blog. A lot of times the stuff I say on here feels academic and irrelevant, so this is a breath of fresh air.
Eversmart, I think Chris is saying to vote for McCain as a way to vote against Hill-bama, and I agree he is the lesser of two evils on a number of issues.
Not disagreeing with the thought behind it, but your numbers seem pretty extreme. I don't know a whole lot about marginal tax rates, but even if you were pushed into the next rate by your new income, the percent doesn't seem right. You might want to take your pay stub to someone that could look at the numbers to make sure your witholdings, etc. are right.
Thanks for the concern but I got bumped into a much higher tax bracket. I have no dependents and I'm not married. It's brutal. It's about 36% of my total income that I now pay. Par for the course, I know, but nonetheless, it demonstrates how the code can kill ambition
The Code can create ambition for politicians searching for ways to please lobbying groups.
I would rejoice for the elimination of the Code, in favor of a flat "fair tax."
Hank, what would prevent a fair tax from being muddled with numerous and complex exemptions created by the lobbyists and politicians? Mark my words-Congress will never give up the right to modify the tax code. Once you open the door to it the exemptions roll in, the revenue estimate goes down and the tax rate goes up and we find ourselves in the same place...
The code not only punishes wealth creation, but forces workers to spend countless hours and dollars on tax preparation.
Like most other wasteful, needless regulations I've been forced to study these past 3 years, the code is purposely written in such an infinitely complex manner so that it will force average people to throw their hands up and say "screw this, I'll just have to hire someone to do this." It is essentially a jobs creation act for the accounting and legal lobbies. God forbid we have a simple, no-nonsense flat rate because then people might actually be able to figure out this stuff on their own and save the economy billions of dollars.
I mention this not to piss off any accountants (i.e., Hank or his alter ego), because lawyers are 10x more guilty of this sort of thing.
I agree the fairtax is a good way to go, but I also agree Congress would quickly find a way to meddle with it once enacted. A compromise might be to return to a two-rate system, 15% and 28% and eliminate as many deductions and loopeholes as possible (like we did in 1986). W pledged to do this in '04, but we all know how that turned out.
You bring up a point "barstool69" which I thought about while writing my response. Our political system is a major hurdle to the ideal flat tax. You are right in saying that for the flat tax to work, loopholes would must be closed.
The only solution to that problem would be to eliminate the benefits of becoming a career politician. I'm not exactly sure how to accomplish that. Establishing single, two year terms congressional terms without pay? Abolishing lobbying groups? Restablishing the Confederacy? A Monarchy?
Post a Comment