So it seems now that the government is going to prop up every failed business that comes hat in hand. Apparently you can make an inferior, crappy product, but still get my tax dollars to prop you up, so long as you are "too big to fail." I love this line of reasoning. Because a company is big enough, we need to ensure that it stays afloat peddling garbage. Squandered money loaning it to people that couldn't afford it? No problem, we'll keep you going. Building crappy cars that chug gas faster than frat boys chugging beer at a kegger, all when gas prices are skyrocketing? Hey, you are an American institution! And besides, those are good union jobs we need to protect!
So many people are heralding the collapse of free-market capitalism in all of this. But how can it be, when this isn't really a free market we are seeing collapse? The American auto industry has been bogged down by so many things for so long - the strangulation of unions, the incessant regulation of standards by the government, their inability to stick a finger in the wind and discern that now is the time for fuel efficiency. So the government's answer is to bail them out. Why is it that we think it is a good thing to prop up a failed enterprise? I know, people will lose jobs. But that is not the job of the government to control. You lose one job, you go look for another. There is no right guaranteed by any of our founding documents to the job of your choosing for the rest of your natural life, including retirement and healthcare benefits. We are guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness.
I suppose it is to be expected, though. Consider that this is the modus operandi of the modern liberal mindset - especially since FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society. So ingrained is it now in society, that even supposed "conservative" Republicans support massive government bailouts. The mindset is this idea that the way to solve any problem is to throw more money, preferably government money (after all, it just grows on trees, or flows freely from the pockets of the greedy rich) at it. Call it Keynes on steroids. Public education failing? Well, give it some more money. Companies failing because they gave mortgages to people with no income? Bail them out. We couldn't think of holding anybody responsible! American car companies making crap that doesn't sell and strangled by unions? Quick! Somebody write them a check! Can't get enough people to vote Democratic to win the presidency? Promise "tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place!
It is not bad for bad companies to fail. The world doesn't end. Ever wonder why you don't see many stagecoach manufacturers anymore? They made a product that nobody wanted to buy anymore, so they ceased to exist. Notice the railroad sleeper car industry is also not what it used to be? Or how ocean liner-as mode of transpotation is practically non-existent? When people no longer want your product, or you just aren't doing a good job anymore, you probably need to say your fairwells. Why should my tax dollars pay for something we don't want anymore?
It is telling that so many people think that government should step in and meet every need out there. Can't get a job? Government will take care of that. Can't pay for medical insurance? No problem, we'll get right to work on that. Bought more house than you can afford? Don't worry, we'll get those greedy rich people to pay your mortgage. Besides, you were probably deceived when you got the mortgage in the first place. They should have known that you wouldn't necessarily understand that you needed to have an income to afford a mortgage.
All the while, numerous people go about their lives they way they should. When the bills come, they pay them. When they want a house, they save for it. When their job doesn't pay enough to support their family, they look for another job. If their company is going under, they start looking to relocate. What happens to these people under these circumstances? They get screwed. They pay double. Not only are they caring for themselves, but their tax dollars are also going to prop up those who don't want to actually have to work for what they want. These are the people who, when they realize they need medical insurance, they get a job that provides it, rather than complain that nobody is giving it to them.
The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 10% of the total tax revenues. And yet they believe they are being screwed over when wealthy people see tax cuts. Basic mathematics seem to fail them. They can't see that if you cut taxes by, say, 10%, then in terms of absolute dollars, of course the guy paying $10,000 is going to keep more money than the guy paying $10. Along come politicians that tell them that they deserved that $1,000 in tax cuts - even though they were only paying $10 in the first place, and the rich person, still paying $9,000, is screwing them over.
But in doing this, crafty politicians, like our newest president-elect, ensure their future victories. When they promise handouts to more than 50% of the people, they guarantee their establishment in power. The only hope for their downfall, then, is the economic disaster that inevitably follows such policies. Confiscatory taxation that punishes the productive members of the society to prop up the unproductive is self-limiting. Eventually the goose stops laying golden eggs - either it dies, or it moves to another country that is cheaper to work in.
So congratulations! It looks like we, the taxpayers, now own investment banks, AIG, and pretty soon, we will also own the "big" 3 automakers. Who wouldn't be excited? We just bought some pretty massive failing companies! While we're at it, is it too late to buy the American Motors Corporation and bring back the Pacer and the Gremlin? And hey, is DeLorean for sale? For that matter, I don't think it is too late to pay top dollar for the rights to keep producing the Betamax player, or the Laser Disc, or 8-track players? I think I've got some K.C. and The Sunshine Band 8-tracks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's not 45%, it is 38%. You should really check your info before you publish it as truth.
Well, the bottom 50% pays a total of 2.99% of the total tax revenue. So excuse me for that 2.99%. Also, consider that Obama said that taxes would be cut on the bottom 95% of individuals, or everybody making $250,000 or less.
As you can see at this link, though, the cutoff income for the bottom 95% is actually $153,542, nearly $100,000 less than Obama's numbers. I figured I was just using the same calculator he uses.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
I'm not arguing with you that there is a discrepancy in what Obama/Biden said nor that the majority of taxes are paid by the wealthy. I'm just getting frustrated with bloggers echoing the distorted facts and figures that have already been spun by various pundits and misguided media cheerleaders for each party (e.g. O'Reilly, Olbermann, etc). But I do have to point out that according to the page you directed me to it looks like under Bush that bottom 50% has paid less and less. Granted the last two years is because of the dems in congress, but you have to remember they aren't the only ones that put their stamp of approval on it.
Yes, what the bottom 50% has paid has been dropping in the Bush administration. And I will gladly lay all of it at the feet of the Bush administration. And I think it is a good thing - I wish that more people paid less in taxes.
Which is why it was particularly disingenuous for Obama and company to claim that the Bush tax cuts have only helped the wealthy. If anything, the top 5% are now paying more of the bill than they were at the end of the Clinton administration.
The problem is that what Obama proposes is not merely tax cuts, so much as payouts. In this way, he can also pass off "tax cuts" to those who don't actually pay taxes at all. That is what I have issues with. If he only wanted to cut taxes, fine. But sending a check to a person is not the same as cutting taxes.
So the top 5%, or even less, will be shouldering more of the burden under Obama - paying their fair share, as it were - despite the fact that the top 5% (~$153,000 and above) are already paying just over 60% of all the income taxes. Apparently it isn't fair that the bottom 95% of earners should have to come up with the remaining 40%.
I think we just need a flat tax with no loop holes.
Post a Comment