STARVE THE FEDS

I consider Arthur Laffer a reasonable man. The guy relies on the beauty of mathematical logic rather than rely on second-hand news/opinion accounts like those who are mathematically illiterate are forced to do. His economic/tax theory, illustrated by the parabolic Laffer Curve, has been proven time and time again. For those who hate numbers, all he illustrates is that if the government starts at collecting zero taxes and then increases tax rates, generally incoming tax revenue increases. By default, that also means that all our individual outgoing tax expenses increase.

However, if government keeps increasing tax rates, that does NOT mean they will necessarily collect more taxes as a result. The Laffer Curve shows that the people who pay the taxes hit a breaking point as tax rates increase. Meaning, the more your goods cost more as a result of higher rates, the less goods you’ll buy, which means the less taxes are being collected. It makes sense that if we get penalized more and more for purchasing products, then we’ll just slow down or stop buying the products.

It’s the same reason some people in certain situations are reluctant to get raises at work – they know that the raise will trigger a higher tax bracket, and so they will take home less money as a result. Thanks a lot, progressive income tax system, and those who support it by keeping quiet and accepting business as usual.

So when the Bush tax cuts expire starting 2011, that means income taxes will go up, dividend taxes will go up, the capital gains tax will go up, and the estate tax (which is a fancy term for DEATH TAX) will be awakened from the dead. We die, and taxes will live.

Businesses with any financial foresight know this. Therefore, they are looking to produce as much as they can in 2010 to take advantage of the lower tax rate, so they can hoard when the higher tax rate goes into effect, which will minimize their penalties for producing. Which leads me to this thought – why are there penalties for producing anyway?

This phenomenon, called an “income shift”, will make 2010 look better than it should, but also makes 2011 and later much worse than it should. Just as the Cash For Flunkers program seemed successful at the time, only to find out the real result was that sales were stolen from the future. Someone who would have bought a car in September ended up buying them in July when the program was in effect. One more car sold in July means one less car sold in September. Instead of an even flow that is forecastable, the sales were distorted in favor of the timeline that the program was in effect.

Of course, Obama and the Congress could stick some provision in on a bill that would cancel the deadline, and let the current tax rates stand as they are, but they seem too busy convincing us that this isn’t a tax increase, it’s just an expiration of temporary tax discounts. Ummm…sounds like an increase to me. However, it is possible that if this becomes more of a political hotspot issue that we may see something passed sometime in late December, just in time for all tax preparers to relearn tax law after their software has already been installed for 2010. Nothing new here, Nothing to see here, please move along.

The Great Recession is here to stay for awhile. Jobs are opening up somewhat, but I wonder if that well will dry after the New Year rolls around. It’s times like these where I wish Mr. Laffer were wrong for once. Only time will tell.

If this doesn’t reek of some sinister slow moving conspiracy, then at what point do we start making the burden of proof be put on those who believe this isn’t an underground nationwide effort rather than putting the burden on us to prove that it is?

In Ohio, we have Ashtabula County, Richland County, and the City of Elyria to show as examples of a sheriff’s department or police department being absolutely gutted. Not just a layoff here and there, but departments almost eliminated entirely. That means no detective squad, minimal sex offender tracking, slow response times (if there’s ANY response). It’s more likely that a domestic violence beating will become a murder. It’s more likely that the inability of law enforcement to follow up will increase the likelihood of cases going unsolved, and increase the reliance on shady witness accounts.

We’re at an age where the idea of the peace being kept is now held in doubt. It’s no longer being taken for granted. Gun sales are still at historically high levels.

We can arm ourselves to the hilt all we want. The reality is that the County Sheriff is the only person that can legally stand between the force of federal government and the county’s citizens. Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Graham County (Arizona) Sheriff Richard Mack have gone a long way towards teaching Americans the true value and power of a county sheriff. It kind of makes me wonder about the timing of all these sheriffs’ deputies layoffs occuring throughout Ohio, if not nationwide.

Of course, this is all happening under the guise of “we’re simply just out of money” and “Ohio does not mandate that the sheriff maintain a road patrol”. Unfortunately, many people are expectedly seeing distorted reports linking sheriff’s departments to excessive spending, as if our law enforcement is fat that needs to be cut. With social services operating under huge surpluses, especially in my home area of Richland County, we’re supposed to be ok with the idea that we don’t need to fund our own protection?

Government is supposed to provide defense and infrastructure, at all levels. Yes, we can arm ourselves; and we can also get training as far as all the “how to’s” that come with that territory. However, there is a big difference between armed citizens and trained professionals. Even the most vigilant armed citizen will not have their guard up at all times; otherwise, we’d be unable to live our lives. Trained professional law enforcement agents make it part of their job, and part of their lives. They are paid to practice at this mindset, just like an accountant is accustomed to Microsoft Excel, and a lumberjack is to cutting wood. It’s the difference between recalling how to react at a moment’s notice, and split second instinctive reaction. There’s no contest.

An armed citizenry is still a good thing, but we need the Sheriff’s Department to lead us because they’ve been there time and time again, while we stand by never hoping to be in a position they’re in for fear of the possibility for traumatizing memories to set in our lives due to witnessing or being part of a tragic situation.

Apparently our county has had some beatings, break-ins, and a stabbing reported last night, the first full day of one car patrolling 500 square miles.

One more reason an armed citizenry is a good thing – there’s an organization called OathKeepers. We may need to lean on them during these interesting times. We shall see.

I don’t mean literally choke, I mean your ideas. When I say “your” I mean those of you whose ideas totally disregard the cost of such ideas. If we didn’t need cost, we wouldn’t need money or accounting. Therefore, if you hold disregard for cost or money, then you must be willing to work for free.

Do you plan on raising the debt ceiling to further all time highs? Do you even understand the consequences of unfunded liabilities? Do you even know what an unfunded liability is? Are you aware that private companies cannot have unfunded liabilities such as pension plans due to ERISA laws?

What is your plan for paying for all your ideas? Is it a fee per service, or will you raise the taxes of everyone in your district? How much waste are you willing to cut? Are you willing to cut any spending?

If you’re going to raise taxes, why are you against a flat tax or FairTax? Why this progressive tax system? What measures would you enact to stop the wealthy from moving their money away or underground because you’re taxing them to death? Do you even know a progressive tax system disincentivizes working harder and smarter, because people know when they’ll hit the next highest tax bracket? Do you know that a progressive tax system rewards people for poverty and laziness, and punishes those who provide for themselves and their families?

You have to prove to me that taxation does not equate theft. The burden of proof will always be on you, because I will never voluntarily vote in another tax increase on any level until our elected officials demonstrate a track record of not wasting the funds. So far, that list is only limited to my local township trustees. Anyone that is looking to cut the salaries of or considering laying off firefighters and law enforcement shall damn well prove to the people that no money is going to waste if they are considering a cut to the public safety.

Our tax refunds are not enough to keep us quiet. Eliminating the automatic paycheck deductions would be a great start. We should have private options to ugly unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. Instead, there’s noise about the government seizing all private retirement funds like Argentina did.

I’m seriously considering keeping my retirement funds at home in the form of precious metals locked away in a safe somewhere. If government spending continues to increase with no plans to pay the debt off, then it’s inevitable that they’ll come after money that isn’t theirs and use the force of law to get it. It’s just like the health care debacle – you can tell me all you want that there will be no death panels, but as soon as it’s time to pay the piper and you are forced to cut costs, someone out there is going to determine who lives and who dies in order to stick to the budget. Whether they embrace that fact or not is irrelevant. If it passes, it will happen. When we run out of money, we must live up to the moral expectation of our conscience to either seek more income and/or cut our spending. When the government runs out of money and simultaneously refuses to cut spending, it’s inevitable – they will come after our money.

I don’t have time for denial anymore. I may avoid the problem from time to time just so I can maintain my sanity and I can live freely and socialize with people without them seeing me go off the deep end, but I cannot allow time for denial. If it’s true that the national debt cannot mathematically be paid off with status quo methodology, then it’s put up or shut up time. Short leash, big stick, speak loudly, be heard. Choose to ignore us, go right ahead, it’s a free country. We’ll be sure to give you more of an opportunity to ignore us from either your couch or from the private sector, because we will not allow you the privilege in serving the public sector ever again, assuming our sanity and reason remains intact.

Money is the ultimate in accountability. Money puts limits of how much of any particular item we can allow ourselves to purchase. Limited capital forces prioritization of items. Except for defense abroad, defense at home, or keeping the peace at home – the rest is incidental. What’s your plan for covering these costs? No plan? If money is no object, then we hope your idea chokes upon implementation. It’s sad that our citizens will have to suffer as a result of purposeful government waste and error. Shame.

Various conspiracy theorists with their own respective causes are now pointing to possibilities of the economy being purposely tanked in order to drive all the citizenry into poverty so that those that have the gold make the rules. Where it goes from there, depends on who you ask. You must understand that I don’t necessarily buy into every theory being floated out there; but at the same time, I’m not dismissing them with ridicule either. Logic works both ways – to prove and debunk.

A commentator named Paul Kanjorski shedded some light on an electronic run on the banks that occurred September 18, 2008, where a half a trillion dollars disappeared from the market around 2:00pm almost instantaneously. George Soros has a history of manipulating world markets solely by making extraordinarily large transactions with various countries’ currencies, so I find this a little more believeable; although, this could also be attributed to electronic wars with North Korea, China, or Russia.

Whatever it is, a case can be made for the vulnerability of our nation’s economy. For example, a lack of a limit on federal government overspending (and overprinting) can lead to out-of-control inflation, which could cause Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe type situations where the dollar is rendered worthless. Even a modest (compared to Weimar/Zimbabwe) 10% annual inflation rate would drive American markets mad. Banks would collapse in mass numbers and fall onto the weight of the “full faith and credit of the United States Government” in the age of the FDIC.

Another example would be some hybrid of the Copenhagen Treaty, Cap and Trade, and the EPA’s recent and sudden willingness to make the environment ripe for the czar picking. If any usage of energy comes with paying some sort of energy tax, then we may as well kiss productive companies goodbye to other countries where energy taxes are not placed. A lack of energy due to consequences either directly caused by or similar to government rationing would just bring us back to the Amish quality of life. Now mind you, I live close to Amish Country and I envy their lifestyle when it comes to the “Simple Life” way of living, but for every person like me there’s at least a million that do not want to live this way voluntarily. Besides, I still like my internet connection, however slow it may be.

If China and other countries follow through on their threat to end reliance on the dollar as the world’s mainstay currency, that will increase our economic vulnerability even more. If we go through Version 3.0 of the Community Reinvestment Act by using it to threaten banks and businesses into stimulating the economy by duress rather than by supply and demand – that will create bubbles that will burst in worse ways than it did in 2008 two months before Election Day.

However it works, many of us are stretched to the limit. You increase household budgets by even a paltry $100 per month, and you’ll see more of the house of cards come crashing down in the form of property foreclosures, IRS property seizures, and eviction notices. As much as I do not think it is a great idea, I am also willing to bet that many in the federal government have no idea how wonderful it would be to refund the remaining $200+ billion in the TARP fund back to all taxpaying Americans instead of spending it down the toilet.

What if the banks were seized by the federal government, and this time they keep it? What if an evil government decides to keep the money in all personal and business accounts? Is this thinking too far out there? Is it beyond us? Are we so bulletproof that someone like Hugo Chavez couldn’t pull off in the USA that he does in Venezuela? Hell, even Argentina seized personal retirement funds and put that money toward their version of Social Security. So what if the feds keep our money?

A person going only by the name of “Mr. Blue” on the Mike Trivisonno Show made the point that physical defense would do us no good if the Feds have access to our bank accounts. If the Feds can take our money, why would they need to come over to our residences are confront us physically? There would be no need to. I don’t know how legitimate “Mr. Blue” is – he could be a conspiracy-hound publicity stunt for all I know – but the point is certainly legitimate. I’m tempted to withdraw everything and go to the mattress method of personal finance.

I’ve also noticed something else. On the first weekend of my door-to-door campaign for County Commissioner, it seemed that the people in retirement age were much more open and friendlier to strangers knocking on their doors asking for their vote than people in their 30′s and 40′s. Is there a generational difference of trust level? Or am I generalizing too soon? Only time will tell as I campaign some more, but I can’t help but think that there may be more to this. I mean, people in retirement age now have more than likely retired from the company they started working for when they graduated high school. Employer-employee loyalty went both directions, and people seemed to take care of each other more. People around my age keep the arm’s length; that distance seems precious. I can’t say I blame them; I’m normally the same way. I’d like to think this arose from growing up with parents who have been laid off a time or two, where the Rust Belt was taking shape and started inheriting that name. Companies could spit you out, and we were just learning how to spit them back out if better opportunities arose. Maybe crime has increased in our times – can we really send kids outside to play on the street anymore?

Hope is difficult to find in a dizzying spiral. Family seems to be the needed rock. God somehow fits into this picture too; although, being the religion rookie that I am, I have no idea how, just faith that He will somehow. It’s to the point of finding out that I have apathy toward any possible apocalypse – why worry about how it will transpire; whether by the December 2012 Mayan prediction or the Biblical Battle of Revelation in Israel – the only question that is important is who’s side I am on at the time. You’ll have to wonder that too, but you can do that on your own time. It’s not for me to decide.

We are in evil times in America. We haven’t duplicated the Japanese imprisonment camps of World War II. We don’t have Franklin Roosevelt turning a bad recession into a long depression by means of constant government intervention. Woodrow Wilson isn’t in office with his progressive agenda, although embers of that administration exist today. We have a Muslim population that no one seems to really either understand or really wrap their head around. We have a current president who surrounds himself with people with Socialist and Communist values (if something of that concept can be considered a “value”). We have government that does not understand or refuses to understand accounting, transparency, and a representative republic.

“Mr. Blue” was most certainly wrong on one point – we Tea Partiers are doing something besides protesting and going home. For someone who seemingly understands the dark side of government and the supposed Illuminati; he sure doesn’t understand what it means to be a part of this movement. He lamented on how people are too concerned about football scores and Tiger Woods to totally grasp what is happening in this country, but yet dismisses the Tea Party organizations and Glenn Beck. Maybe he needs to see who we really are.

If government is full of dark forces such as lust for power, money, and women; and I am campaigning in order to be a part of the “Elected Officials Club”, am I throwing myself to the wolves? I’m learning a lot – who my allies are, and who are opposing me by feigning interest until put on the spot. Lukewarm responses say much more with their silence rather than what is being actually said.

Indeed, hope is difficult to find in a dizzying spiral. I have chosen to fight back twice as hard.

The idea is almost surreal. I mean, we actually have to take steps to work against our own government. We have to slow down their “progress”. We have to mitigate the damage. We have to get the wrongdoers out of there and hope that the course can be reversed. It’s a “cutting our losses” type of mentality.

A truly representative government does NOT work against the will of whom they represent.

I can’t trust anything anymore. It’s man-made global warming – to Climategate – to potential sudden Ice Ages. It’s Kenneth Gladney, the one who was beaten at the Carnahan Town Hall near St. Louis back in August, who has still not seen justice. Hate crime legislation, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton be damned, the law works only if you’re on the same side. The law is a weapon; and ditto for the selective enforcement of law. Add to it that the federal government is considering charging their citizens for dying, because taxing the living isn’t bringing in enough revenue. Add to it that we may be jailed for refusing to purchase mandatory health care as dictated by our caring, benevolent lawmakers. Are we all potential political prisoners in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

Is 2010 too late? What is it going to take? How much damage are they willing to inflict? What are they willing to sacrifice in order to shove their wrongdoing down our throats? How do we show them that we mean what we say and say what we mean? Can the life-controlling aspect of any health care bill be interpreted as a threat to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Can the rumors of restricting the right to peacefully assemble come to be true? Is it going to come down to choosing between living in a socialistic tyranny versus being murdered defending the right to be left alone to me and my family’s freedom? What is it going to take?

Are the Tea Party movements taking a break? Are we pausing for holiday reflection and coalescence? Are we all moving towards putting ourselves in office like we are doing in northern Ohio? I know we aren’t dead, folks. How are we going to show we’re still living?

Will this tax season serve as an incentive to further protest tax paying to irresponsible agencies? What incentive do governments have to remain fiscally responsible? What will shift the public sector mentality from spending everything allocated to their department in order to avoid budget cuts – to acting as responsible trustees of taxpayer money, knowing the money isn’t really their own to spend?

I’m not really too worried; we are awake just waiting to pounce. I have been accustomed to this turbulent year of 2009 going a hundred miles an hour, so consecutive relative slow news days can stir panic in someone living semi-sheltered as I can sometimes be. In the meantime, it feels like we all live on parallel universes, involuntary consumers to two opposite propaganda machines. Climategate is on the rise, health care legislation is on that suspenseful slow movement on the falling ladder before it rapidly hits the ground. Even if it passes despite my predictions, we’ll be the first to tell the government where to stick it.

It’s becoming more of a certainty that we are heading toward a depression, because we are a stagnant economy at best. How can any business hire anyone when the rules of employment are in danger of changing radically? If an employer’s role in health care costs are going to change by government mandate; if taxes are going to be raised in any way possible – by life or by death; if Crap and Trade is passed and the Copenhagen Treaty is signed which will enact major roadblocks in front of easy energy, why would you hire anyone even if you had the means to do so currently? Obama is killing our economy; is it deliberate?

The FairTax plan may be the only way out of this, because the way we’re heading now – is that the takers will exceed the makers in population, so the makers will disappear. That will leave little for the takers to take. The makers will quit working sensing this, and there will be no more to tax. It’s poverty for everyone.

Income tax season is around the corner. It’s time to find a creative way of famishing them before they famish us. Starvation will be the ultimate character builder. Only then will the true leaders stand while the parasites flee to latch onto others.

Sometimes I forget how much of a “bean counter” reputation that many of us accountants have. I was reminded of that last month when a volunteer group director stopped by the accounting office to talk about her conference trip, and how she was touched by a particular speech whose point was generally along the lines of “Why do we need accounting anyway? Why can’t we just do what we want to do, make it happen, and forget all the tracking and the paperwork?”

I found it humorous that she forgot who she was telling this to, and she slipped away awkwardly after I gave her a hard time in good fun. But it does bother me that some people believe that train of thought, because they don’t understand the need for accounting or tracking.

I was unpleasantly surprised when I got promoted to my first accounting job, only to find out that most of my job was documentation. Everything needed to be tracked, verified, and initialed by the Accounting Manager or Controller. The concept of internal controls makes much more sense to me now, but at the time I thought my job was around 25% doing my actual job, and 75% covering my you-know-what.

So what does a world without accounting look like? Well, a lack of responsible accounting got us Enron and WorldCom. “Cooking the books” was what allowed the corporate executives to raid the company’s pension funds without the general public noticing. A lack of fiduciary duty on the part of auditors Arthur Andersen put a multi-billion dollar business, out of business. It’s what also led the federal government to rush the Sarbanes-Oxley bill through Congress just so they can show they’re on top of things, which just about every business can attest in hindsight that is a great example of over-regulation.

A lack of responsible accounting is also what got our federal government in the cesspool they are in. Unmistakably, liberals are united around a cause they strongly believe in, and they seem to believe the quickest path to achieving their cause is to bypass all the tracking and paperwork. Pass the stimulus bill, and don’t worry about how we’re going to spend the $787 billion. Chip in several hundred billion as a “down payment” on government health care, and don’t plan on where the money is going. I’d be willing to bet many of the same people complained about George W. Bush’s wars lacking an “exit strategy”. Whereas Bush had to manage soldiers’ lives as Commander-in-Chief, the federal government does the same with our money.

The states are forced to be held somewhat accountable because they operate on a balanced budget. The federal government has no such restriction. Like any shopping addict can tell you, free money becomes spent money in a hurry.

I’ll say it again: Many who want the government to solve our problems, including health care, may have honorable intentions but simply do not understand the economy at all. Emotional appealing does not pay the bills, otherwise we’d all be crying to our landlords or mortgage banks. It’s not going to pay for health care either.

It’s easy for those who disregard finances at home to disregard finances from our government.

It’s easy for those who don’t understand the economy to just pass along the cost to the “rich”, since it seems so much easier for them to pay our bills better than we can.

It’s also easier for the irresponsible to blame other people more than themselves.

If you’re having problems with the chicken coop, you don’t turn over management to a bunch of foxes.

Even if we tax the rich at 100%, it would still not be enough to pay the national debt. And if you were taxed at 100%, you’d move out. So there would be less rich to tax, so the middle class would be next. If we’re not at this point already, we’re approaching it quickly.

We bean counters have to count the beans. We have to track revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, and cash flow. Any failure on any of these subjects makes the person, the company, or government at risk of not being able to pay their bills.

You can plead on Facebook all you want about how nobody should die because of of inability to pay for health care, but the fact is, someone has to pay for it. Will you? Or will you make the other guy pay for it? What does that say about you?

All of us know people in tough situations through no fault of their own. We all can’t help that. But I also would like to keep a zillion pets at my house. I can’t afford that, so I don’t.

You don’t pay for my food or my housing, so I don’t expect you to pay for my health care. In fact, I don’t want you to.

I am posting this on the fly. I don’t know how my math is going to turn out. You probably don’t believe me, but oh well.

I am not talking about the old American slave period up until the Civil War. I’m talking from a purely mathematical perspective.

If our tax rate was 100%, which means all of the money we make goes straight to the government, that would mean we would be working for nothing. Of course, like many others, if I worked and got no net wages from my work, I’d quit my job. So in that situation, the government would have to use deadly force and intimidation to get us to work. Hence, slavery.

I fall into the trap of just paying attention to income taxes when talking about taxes in general. It’s the type of tax I have most firsthand experience with; I worked at the H&R Block in Wooster, Ohio, for 4 years during peak season.

It’s not just income taxes. It’s also sales taxes, gasoline taxes, FICA (Social Security and Medicare), and hidden taxes that are passed along to the consumer after going through the supply chain.

So let’s just say I make $40,000 per year. That is not my actual salary, but let’s just say that it is. On income taxes alone, based on filing single for tax year 2009, taxes will total $6,188. That leaves me with $33,812.

I commute long distance to work. My car gets 35 miles to the gallon, and I drive 70 miles to work one way. I’ll assume I drive about 4,400 miles per month; and federal and state gas taxes amount to 46¢ per gallon in Ohio. That comes out to $694 total for gasoline taxes for the year. That leaves me with $33,118.

I buy approximately $75 worth of groceries per week. That would make $3,900 per year. My county’s sales tax rate is 6.75%. Therefore, another $264 went toward my county, which leaves me with $32,854.

Let’s not forget Medicare and Social Security! How can I forget my longtime friend whom I never see unless I get my paycheck, and then he’s there to hold out his hand and take 7.65%. Seeing any return on that is highly unlikely given government’s lovely track record when it comes to promising entitlement programs. That 7.65% affects the entire $40,000; so let’s say goodbye to another $3,060 that I’ll never see again. That will leave me with $29,794.

Ohio has a state income tax system. Their tax tables put a $40,000 per year worker at $1,408 due in state taxes. Yikes, that puts me down further to $28,386.

I work in Akron, and they have a city tax rate of 2.25%. There goes another $900 toward a city I don’t even live or vote in. Hey wait, isn’t that taxation without representation? I’m left with $27,486.

My real estate taxes amount to around $1,200 per year. The money goes toward my township, whose government I have no qualms with whatsoever, but it also goes toward our local school district that I’ll more than likely never send my child to. That leaves me with $26,286.

Let’s not forget the hidden taxes that get passed along the supply chain! You do know that every time a product is made and sold along the line, taxes get paid and added in along the way. The tax is included in the price of the final product. For example, the wheat farmer is taxed on his property, the wheat purchaser pays sales tax on the wheat, the mill sells the wheat to a manufacturer who pays tax on the wheat, who then turns around and sells bread to the grocery store, who also pay the tax. A smart business never eats their tax, they just simply pass it along to the next buyer.

An estimate of the total embedded hidden taxes we pay as consumers is about 23%, or 23 cents for every dollar. I’m not sure how accurate this estimate is, but it seems to hold up over time so far. Source: The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. The 23% is an inclusive number, I won’t get into the difference between inclusive and exclusive tax rates; you can look that up. Using the $3,900 per year of groceries at a 23% inclusive rate, that puts the hidden taxes at $897. That leaves me with $25,389.

I think I covered as much as I could in one sitting. I did not cover other goods and services besides groceries, and I did not cover government administered tolls on freeways. I also did not cover drivers license renewal fees. We could estimate that those costs would put me down to approximately an even $25,000. That means $15,000 went to taxes. The true tax rate overall is $15,000/$40,000 = 37.5%. If I made $40,000 per year, I got to keep 62.5% of that money (or 5/8 if you like fractions).

And to think of all the tax clients who made $15,000 per year and walked away with a $5,000 refund every year while paying no taxes.

If 40% of the American population currently pay no income taxes, how close is that to approaching, say, 60%? What if that 60% always voted to take the money away from the other 40% that pay taxes?

That is why it is absolutely essential that an American citizen should lose the right to vote should they receive more tax money than they paid in. Think of it as an admission price for participating in our country’s government. If you need help, that’s fine, but don’t vote yourself more help. That vote should go toward whoever is indirectly giving you that money. If we keep status quo, that’s the end.

Taxes is the most quantitative way of measuring freedom. If a 0% tax rate equals complete freedom from government, and 100% equals absolute enslavement to the government, then I am only 62% free. The government has entitled themselves to over a third of my income.

There goes the argument about the whole “taxes for the rich” idea. Unless you consider $40,000 rich, I guess.

If the federal government raises tax rates directly or indirectly by even 10%, that would put me down to 52% freedom. Almost half. How would you feel to be half owned by the government? Does that also mean that half freedom is also the same as half slavery? Is the glass half full or half empty?

Granted, taxes such as real estate and sales taxes are voluntary to the extent of how much I buy.

But as for the feds, starve them. Absolutely. Starve the feds, and increase our freedom.

I saw a statement on Facebook the other day; it said something along the lines of “If government is supposed to be run more like a business, will they pack up and go to Mexico too?”. The question apparently alluded to the sorry state the city of Niagara Falls, New York, is now.

I understand the frustration, as I am originally from Western New York, and root for my home area to do well. However, that statement is untrue on many levels.

First of all, government should not run on a profit. They don’t produce anything, they don’t provide competitive services; therefore, there should be no profit. It sure would be nice to have a surplus every once in awhile, but I am a realist (even if Clinton did achieve a surplus briefly with a Republican Congress). The government/ non-profit mentality is to use up all the funds allocated or else you leave the impression that you didn’t need the money in the first place.

Second of all, government would not pick up and leave Washington for Mexico City (at least literally if not figuratively at times). The reasons “for-profit” companies may do this are for many reasons; including cheap labor, favorable political climate, and cheap freight.

I don’t like this any more than many of you do. Being someone who has lived in the Rust Belt for all my life where the steel industries’ abandonment of my hometowns have devastated many a family, I’ve seen and lived the lasting damage. Niagara Falls is proof of that. The actual falls themselves are beautiful and something to behold, but the city itself is a complete hole.

I don’t like how companies abandon American labor for cheap foreign labor. I confess that I snicker at times when I hear about various quality control issues originating from China. I rejoice when I see companies that originally looked to Chinese labor to cut costs now have to reconsider due to quality issues and rising fuel prices.

However, there is one overlooked aspect where I don’t blame the companies at all for leaving; and that is avoiding high taxes. To me, that is only common sense. I love New York and all, but New Yorkers cannot seriously support some of the highest taxes in the USA and then expect businesses to stay and pay those taxes. The same goes for Michigan and the auto workers’ union. You cannot pay $35 per hour for a $17 per hour job and expect the company to stay put. Unless, of course, your company is bailed out at our expense, is nationalized, and restructured to favor unions going against any bankruptcy and contract law, but that’s another story.

The USA corporate tax rate is 35%, one of the highest in the world. Ireland’s is 12%. Where would you set up shop?

Personally, I would set up shop in the USA as much as I could, but I know my profits would be taking a serious bath. The tax cuts could help me expand my business, and hire more employees.

I’ll never understand those who are mad at oil companies for making a $40 billion profit during one quarter. The oil companies actually have to pay workers to drill, build rigs, and refine the oil. The government collects $14 billion of that money for doing none of the work, assuming the $40 billion is before taxes, and the corporate rate is a flat 35%. I wouldn’t mind making $14 billion from doing nothing, would you?

If you individual states want to pay high taxes, that’s fine with me. But don’t go crying when the new auto plant wants to relocate to Alabama. Don’t cry to me or anyone else when your favorite doctor moves to Texas to take advantage of their caps on malpractice suits. With common sense ideas such as a flat tax or Fair Tax, there’s no reason that a real reform in our tax structure wouldn’t provide some wonderful incentive for all the companies that left to come back.

More taxes = more government. More taxes = less business. Therefore, more government = less business. Less business = less jobs = worse economy. Take your pick and live with the bed you helped make.

Yeah, how about that? The IRS doesn’t seem to have any qualms about auditing you and threatening to take away your property if you don’t pay up to their ever evolving tax code. Even if you followed the tax code by the letter, that’s enough to make anyone nervous. You’d have to trust that they won’t make a mistake on the side of confiscation. Why can’t we make the Feds equally nervous by turning the tables on them? Because it seems many of us Americans would rather ignore the situation due to its inherent unsexiness and then proceed to take it up the butt.

For those of you that are a little sore, here’s some logic to back up my previous assertion.

I’m learning that many larger governments like to use funding as a weapon over the smaller governments in their district.

A small case in point: Richland County, Ohio. In the late 1980′s, in a rare quest for government efficiency, Richland County and its associated cities, villages, and townships agreed to let the county handle the 911 emergency system and use the corresponding county sales tax increase to fund the county general fund designed to pay for the 911 system.

Fast forward to 2009, and Richland County’s 15% unemployment rate is causing quite the shortfall on tax revenue. According to some township officials and the county commissioners’ meeting minutes, the commissioners conveniently decided that the townships should have had the 911 system all along and that the county wants to pass along the cost to them.

I don’t have all the facts, but it seems to me that the county likes to push smaller governments around, especially by trying to pass along its shortfalls to the townships, reneging on a 20-year agreement. My suspicion is that the 911 system is being dangled as bait to entice taxpayers to approve of another sales tax increase, which would loosen the incentive for the county to actually, I don’t know, not waste money?

I’m requesting a copy of the current county budget. If my suspicions prove false, you’ll hear it from me first. If you don’t trust me, look up the budget yourself.

This can go further to a larger case in point – the state’s power over the counties and townships. I’ve seen conflicting information as whether or not Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is considering wiping out township governments altogether and replace them with an enlarged state government. If it is true, the state can always dangle funding as a carrot. This might go something like, “Oh, you’re objecting to my plan? Well, let’s see if I approve fixing the potholes of your sorry excuse for a Main Street.”

The largest case in point and star of the show – the joke that we call Obama’s “stimulus plan”. Whether or not you agree with how effective this is in stimulating the American economy, there is no doubt our federal government loved to use the money as a weapon. As it is with Medicaid (which is currently 10-20% of most states’ budgets – hey, I thought this was a federal program!), the money came with terms that completely subjugated the states’ individual programs (such as welfare and unemployment). You had governors that saw this and rejected the money – like Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Marc Sanford of South Carolina, and Sarah Palin of Alaska – and out came the negative politics from the federal government.

Money is power. And as long as you demonstrate that you desire more of it, someone more powerful than you will dangle that carrot as a means to persuade you to do their bidding. This is where most corruption begins in government, because this plays into politician greed.

The only difference is, townships and counties cannot print money. States cannot print money. But the federal government? The Federal Reserve has a printing press ready to go.

Enter in Ron Paul and House Bill H.R. 1207. This bill calls for mandatory auditing of the Federal Reserve. There is no such auditing now. This entity (NOT a government entity, mind you) is free to do as it pleases, funding federal reserve banks throughout the USA, and making economic policy decisions.

The USA did not always have a central bank. Woodrow Wilson was responsible for installing the Federal Reserve in 1913; the same year that the income tax amendment was passed.

This place isn’t audited? If even small-potatoes corporations have to be audited by law, why not the central bank that controls trillions of dollars and has the largest impact on our economy? Especially if the IRS wants to audit you for a several measly thousand.

As for me, I say let’s just abolish the Federal Reserve altogether. I don’t want to even mess with the extra work that comes with auditing such a monstrosity, especially with Obama’s and Pelosi’s continued broken promises for transparency. In addition, as long as the Federal Reserve exists, the concept of states are meaningless. When the federal government wields power with printed money, then state sovereignty is just an illusion.

Therefore, the first step in starving the feds is to starve The Federal Reserve. And I mean starve it to death, permanently. The Congress can handle the slack with all the spare time they have after they stop pushing counterproductive legislation. Yeah, I know it’s Congress and all, but we do elect them. We don’t elect anyone to the Federal Reserve now. So why even have it? We just plain don’t need it.

I’ve already established in previous posts that we all have good intentions; that we want the best for everybody. I’ve also established that liberals want to get to that goal by way of empowering the federal government further, whereas I want to get there by eliminating most of the federal government altogether.

I may have not been so clear in establishing that government as an entity is inherently flawed, because it is run by the self interest of men (and women).

A country of 300+ million people such as the U.S.A. is also guided by the self interest of men. The only difference is, it’s the self interest of 300+ million individuals, and not just select hundreds of people in Washington D.C.. As any organizer knows, the larger the crowd is, the more difficult it is to unify them. Therefore, I’d have to conclude that I’d rather be guided by the self interests of 300+ million people, because much of one person’s self interest is negated by another’s, and only the true will of the people can serve as the unifying force.

In other words, it’s much easier for several people to collude and conspire rather than large crowds.

Because I am not in favor of eliminating government 100% (anarchy), I’m more in favor of a republican form of government rather than a democracy. It’s the best chance that we have of the overwhelming majority who don’t know squat about economics elect those who do to office. It’s the best chance that those that we elected who turn out corrupt can be put out of office via elections and term limits. The government should be about a philosophy, and not about the officials  themselves like many of our incumbents.

Also, if we had a pure democracy, we would self destruct, and here’s why.

A true economist understands that the wealthy will always be outnumbered by those who are not wealthy. Even if you give everyone a one million dollar stimulus check in the mail, that only means our $100/week grocery bill would rise to $500,000/week. No store in their right mind would continue to charge $2 for a loaf of bread if they knew all their shoppers got one million dollar checks. It’s the same reason car dealers are salivating at the “Cash For Clunkers” clause in our latest troop funding bill, because they know they’ll get a piece of that $4,500 someway somehow.

Anyways, a society with a few rich and many not-so-rich just needs a little class envy to stir up the pot. Whether it be a slow or fast process, eventually the 90% of have-nots are going to vote to confiscate the wealth of the other 10% and give it to themselves because they feel entitled to it. And if I was in the 10% category, I’m moving the hell out so there is nothing more for the 90% to confiscate.

That leaves no haves, and all have-nots, all scrambling for crumbs.

How dare all of you that arrogantly point your finger at me and others and accuse us of being not compassionate because we don’t favor the government health care system! How dare do any of you favor any freebies for yourselves just as long as someone else pays for it!

Besides, we ALL have health care. If we walk into an emergency room because we got a splinter in our hand from holding onto wood railings, the hospital is required by law to take care of us, regardless of our situation or ability to pay.

The system definitely needs tweaking; you get no argument from me there. If we just sever the ties that bind health insurance with our employers, as well as allowing interstate competition instead of the state-by-state system we have now, we’d be fine. I say if we can choose any auto insurance we want by going online or picking up the phone, then we should do the same with health care. If we couldn’t get auto insurance unless our employer offers it, then the problem of uninsured drivers would increase dramatically.

Getting back to the point though – it’s so easy to spend other people’s money, isn’t it? Some of us will drive across town because gas is $2.49 per gallon instead of $2.50, yet have no problem complaining how the owner of the Cleveland Indians baseball team needs to spend millions of dollars more to keep quality players from leaving the team. Many of us also have no problem claiming we should all have health care, as long as someone else pays for it. Why not put your money where your mouth is and pay for it yourself?

The situation gets worse because we have a progressive tax system. Why do some of us pay 15% while others pay 35% or more?

I say if we all paid 15%, then the 20% difference will benefit us greatly. Even if it is a “tax cut for the rich”, I never got a job from a poor person. Even if someone benefited by $2,000,000; some may sit on it but many others want to turn it to $4,000,000 or more; and one good way of doing that is to start or expand their business and hire people to better their business. Even if someone wanted to invest, companies will benefit from the extra infusion of capital, and be more willing to break ground for a new plant with it.

What would you do with an extra $2 million? Spend it on yourself? How would you handle all the have-nots that have plans for your stash?

I say, handle your own financial situation, and stay the hell out of mine and others. To do otherwise is cheap and arrogant, and I will treat you as such.

How about an anecdote to close this entry? This comes from a fellow conservative friend, bandmate, and ally. This is paraphrased due to lack of memory:

Conservative: “What don’t you like about conservatives?”
Liberal: “Because they tell us how to run our lives.”
Conservative: “Well, I choose to ride my motorcycle without a helmet.”
Liberal: “Why would you do that? You should be wearing a helmet!”