Corporate Taxes? Yeah Right.

Rant Warning... Again

Ok, this is another thing that really makes me mad about the left. One of their most effective strategies is to say that they will lower taxes on the poor and middle class and shift more of the burden onto the wealthy and "corporations." Here's why this is bogus: News Flash- There is no such thing as a tax on a corporation. Only individuals are taxed- either as owners of corporations, workers in corporations, or buyers of products from corporations. Any tax hike on a corporation ultimately effects individuals-owners, workers, consumers. 

Example:

Joe owns company A that makes widgets. His gross income before taxes is $1,000,000. Currently Joe makes an after tax profit of approximately $650,000 (in a 35% tax bracket). He sells 100 of his widgets for a profit of $10,000 a piece. So currently a buyer of Joe's widget is effectively paying $3,500 in taxes.

If Obama gets elected he wants to raise Joe's tax bracket to 39% making his income $610,000 all things remaining equal. Joe is a businessman and is taking risk. It is good and right for Joe to make a profit. Joe now has a decision to make, either he will: 

1. Take the pay cut and continue making 100 widgets per year and selling them for $10,000 each (this will not happen). 

2. cut the pay of his workers or the quality of his materials by $40,000 and continue to sell the widgets for $10,000 each, in which case he will continue to make $650,000. 

3. raise the price of his widgets by $400 each- still making $650,000. 

4. do some combination of options 2 and 3 (this is most likely). 

It is unlikely that Joe will take a pay cut, because every other producer of widgets doesn't want to take a pay cut, and doesn't have to. They just pass the increased cost along to workers or consumers, because that's what every other widget producer will do (assuming market forces work to drive the price to equilibrium, so that they get rewarded appropriately for the amount of risk they are taking). 

Now, under Obama's plan the workers of corporations, or the consumers of corporations pay the taxes. Joe's widget's now cost $10,400 meaning you pay $3,900 in taxes instead of $3,500 in taxes, or the worker's pay has been cut so that the profit remains. 

The reason politicians get away with this is because in figuring tax increases they don't take into account the effect of corporate taxes on the individual. Obama can say that his tax plan will reduce taxes on 95% of Americans, and it will reduce income taxes, but it will have an offsetting increase on embedded taxes in the products we all buy, thereby raising the tax burden across all classes of society. 

I guess my point is, don't be fooled by the lure of the corporate tax, it is a myth, and a ploy used by politicians to buy your vote. Think about what this means for Obama and company. There are only two possibilities (if you can come up with a third please let me know):

Either they know the corporate tax is a sham and they peddle this to the unsuspecting American people, or they don't know their basic economics and are doing this with genuine motives. They are either conniving, or innocently ignorant. 

I'll leave that decision to you,

JB 

The Hypocrisy of the Left on Charitable Giving

Warning: Here comes another rant.

Yeah, this makes me mad, really mad. Democrats are all about “helping the needy” and “taxing the rich and giving to the poor.” But when it comes time to pay up and accomplish this, what do they do? Give to these efforts out of their own pocket? No way, they want the government to pick your pocket to pay for their pet charities (just one example: the government gives $330 Million per year to Planned Parenthood- the largest abortion provider in the world).

Senator Joe Biden recently released his tax returns since 1998 to the present. While he and his wife were making $200,000-$300,000 a year they were giving anywhere from $120 to $995 per year to charity. Barack Obama’s record pre-2005 when he started his run for President was better than Biden’s but not by much. From 1997 until 2005 Obama’s average giving was well under the national household average of 2.2% per year. To put this in perspective in the year 2002 Obama and his wife claimed $1050 to charity while the average American household gave $1872. Keep in mind that their income was $259,394 that year putting them in the top 2% in terms of income earners in the US. Al Gore and the Clinton’s were not very generous during their administration either, though to their credit they have been very active in charitable giving since. Bush, Cheney, McCain on the other hand have been much more generous than their Democratic counterparts, giving an average of around 10% of their income per year to charities. They could do more and probably should, but if everyone would follow these Republican’s example in giving we would be able to take care of all the people in the United States who cannot help themselves, and let the government get out of the business of charity.

All of these facts illustrate my main point: Some High-Profile Democrats are hypocrites by claiming to be the party who is on the side of the poor and the downtrodden, yet their charitable giving tells a much different story. Your checkbook tells much more about where your heart is than anything you say with your mouth. Obama and Biden ought to be ashamed of themselves for claiming to be on the side of the poor, and yet not giving of their own funds to support the very people who put them in office.

I know what the reply will be… “But they give with their tax dollars!!” Well so do the Republicans, and that didn’t stop them from giving generously. Maybe it is a difference in philosophy. I believe that individuals and non-government entities do a much better job of getting help to people who need it than the government. Maybe the Democrats think government does a better job, but I didn’t see in any of their tax returns where they paid more than their share of taxes.

Sarah Palin’s tax returns will be let out in the next few days from what I hear and my prediction is that she and her husband have been much more generous than either Biden or Obama.
Rant over and out… until next time.
Jon

Why Hilary Doesn't Want Obama To Win, and Why She Must Campaign For Him

Warning: This is just a guess (real possibility). Don't take me seriously (unless you want to of course.) I am engaging in speculation (which I don't normally do and don't reccomend). I just know the Clinton's well enough to make an educated guess on her thoughts and feelings in the situation she is currently in (I also have at least half a brain). I realize that this is imputing less than honorable motives to Hilary (but she is a politician afterall).

If Obama wins the Presidential race, it will be at least another 8 years before Hilary even has a shot at leading the free world. If he wins, it almost guarantees that she will never be President. On the other hand if McCain wins, she will have another shot in 4 years.
Her predicament is that she must campaign for him because not doing so would also kill her chances of becoming President. My prediction is that the Clinton's will campaign for Obama, but only enough to appear to be in full support of him, secretly hoping that he loses the race. There will be no real way to prove that this is what happened, but the recent decision of Hilary to pull out of the U.N. Rally against Ahmadinejad got me to thinking about it. If you see Hilary and Bill making few and half-hearted attempts at campaigning, I will be vindicated. If they go all out and campaign for Obama, I will eat crow.
But I don't think I'll be picking feathers out of my teeth any time soon.
Let me know what you think.

Update: One of Hillary's big supporters just announced that she is supporting McCain for President! Very interesting...

Florida- the outakes

I want to say thank you to my husband for sharing his thoughts on this blog. I hope he continues to share! But lets take a break for just a moment from some of the more serious issues and have a little chuckle. :) We have hundreds of photos from Florida, but I'm sad that not everyone gets to see the funny outakes. So I gathered some here for you to enjoy!

legs are flying!

DRAMA!

They had had enough. :)

You try to get 22 people to look and smile at the same time!

The Economy Stupid!!

As a Christian, this issue is probably the least consequential to my Christianity, though my Christianity informs my views on this issue.

In order for the economy to thrive you must have certain ingredients. Here are the most important elements that must be present for a strong economy:

1. Capitalism- Individuals must be able to own property and goods, and to develop them to sell for profit. The process of production, buying and selling must be free and regulated by the market itself.

2. A non-oppressive tax system- The taxes on income and capital gains must be relatively low compared to the rest of the world, otherwise you will drive businesses out of the country in our mobile and portable world. There must also be a disparity between capital gains and income taxes (if you have an income tax as we do). If there is no tax-incentive for capital investment, this will discourage economic activity and will slow our economy.

Like many other issues in this race, the economic plans and philosophies of the candidates are very different.

Democrats want more government regulation on industry and wants the government to get into more businesses such as insurance, and health care. They also are in favor of progressive income tax systems which are oppressive and counter productive. The Democrats are for income redistribution to some degree because "what's the big deal? The rich people can afford it." As Obama told O'Reilly on his show.

Republicans for the most part are for less government regulation (not counting the recent real estate bailouts) in business, and seek to let the markets regulate themselves. They are also for lower taxes and a disparity between capital gains and ordinary income taxes. They don't seek to punish success, and believe in the power of free markets to create wealth and prosperity for all, even the lower classes of society.

This is another reason that I vote for Republicans most of the time, because I believe (in general) that their economic policies are more favorable to a strong economy, and they are more likely to keep tax rates reasonable.

The Role of the Government

This topic is logically prior to my first couple posts on abortion. I wanted to emphasize the most important issue of our day which I believe is abortion, and the issues surrounding the sanctity of life before this issue.

Government is not man's idea it is God's. According to the Bible the reason government exists is to limit evil (Romans 13). There are not many prescriptions in Scripture for government, but it is pretty clear that it should identify evil and restrict it. Therefore, the Bible does not prescribe any certain form of government, and Christianity can flourish in many different forms of government.

Here are the responsibilities that government has to it's citizens:
1. Protection- The government "bears the sword" which is the unique ability to carry out punishment on crime (hopefully that fits the offense). The government does this to restrict evil, and suffering. That means that it should protect the citizens of our country from countries and individuals that would want to harm us, and protect its citizens from other citizens that would seek to do them harm (prison system, justice system of the courts etc.) In our country the government puts together a military and gives them the right to defend us by use of force if necessary. Because of our unique position in the world, we must have the best trained troops, the best weapons and counter weapons in the world. I want our President's primary responsibility to be that of protector.

2. The second responsibility of the government flows from this primary responsibility and that is to create the opportunity for success. It should not give handouts and cause people to become reliant on the government (this is counterproductive, causing poverty and government reliance), but gives people incentive to work hard and be successful.
Functions under this responsibility include: Infrastructure- We must have good means of transportation in order for the the people to be successful. Ensure a free market- Encourage competition and substitutes, allow the free market to regulate itself as much as possible and prevent monopolies. Low taxes- Ensure that the government does not impose unreasonable and oppressive taxes on it's people.

Here again, the Democratic party tends to be lighter on military and instead seeks to reallocate those resources to give handouts to its people. We saw the reduction of our military under Clinton, which is one reason we have had to invest so much in our military since that time. To Clinton's credit however we did make some strides to reform welfare, so in that area he deserves some credit. Obama on the other hand plans to shift the tax burden more on the rich and institute an even more progressive tax system. He wants to do this to create a more "socialized" health system, and to give further handouts to the poorest in society- a worthy goal, but ultimately unhelpful both for the ones who pay and the ones who receive. When politicians begin doing this, it is a very effective way of getting into office. Lowering taxes on the poor and middle class (which is the vast majority of the citizens) and shifting the tax burden more to the rich wins (buys) votes, but is a wealth redistribution method that has never worked in the history of the world. We don't have to try this in America, we know what happens- see Russia, China, and other communist countries. This illustrates the main difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats think that government is the answer to our problems, and seek to make it bigger and touch more areas of our lives.

The Republicans on the other hand are more concerned with having a strong military and less concerned with giving people handouts, but instead creating an environment in which people can succeed if they work hard or fail if they are lazy (This is biblical by the way- "If anyone is unwilling to work [which presupposes he can], let him not eat." II Thessalonians 3:10). I realize that there are people who truly need help, and the church has a responsibility to help those people. Granted, the church has failed in recent times, and the burden for taking care of people has fallen on the government. That burden needs to be shifted back to the people in churches, ministries and other organizations that can have oversight on it's efforts to relieve those who truly need help. The Republicans don't think that government is the answer to our problems, and seek to make it smaller (for the most part).

As I have said before and will continue to say. We don't need to become beholden to a party, but need to hold the people in our respective party responsible to be not just conservative in name, but also in practice.

Comments

In the interest of free speech and debate, I will allow pretty much all comments, unless they get really personal and inflamatory. I expect everyone to deal with each other with dignity and respect. With that in mind go ahead and make comments that are helpful, reasonable, substantiated, courteous, and not defamatory.
Jon

What can the President do about abortion?

Some may have the idea that the President can’t really do anything about the abortion issue. After all it is a constitutional right- right? Not exactly. The watershed case of Roe v. Wade in 1973 set the precedent for abortion rights. It has consistently been upheld in the courts since that time. One of the steps to end abortion on demand is for there to be enough court justices who were favorable to overturn Roe v. Wade to institute a new set of laws dealing with abortion. In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court was given the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. For this reason, if we had enough judges who believe the protection afforded to citizens by the Constitution should be applied to all persons, even those in the womb, we should be able to change the precedent in the way abortion is looked at by the courts.
The President has the ability to appoint justices to the Supreme Court as we have seen recently with Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Another term of Republicans will ensure that we have the chance to replace at least one pro-choice candidate with one who may be more sympathetic to the pro-life mindset. This is probably the most important way the President can have a positive impact on the issue of abortion. There are policies that the President can institute to encourage and facilitate a culture of life, but they are all secondary to this important responsibility.
As Christians we do have the responsibility to watch out for “the least of these” and to care for those who cannot take care of themselves. While Democrats will use this same command from Scripture to say why they think government should be in the business of welfare, I see this as a different issue altogether. The government’s job is to protect its citizens and to build infrastructure and to facilitate business and free enterprise. The government has a responsibility to protect these children from slaughter, and we as citizens of this nation should stand up for them and demand that the government do so.

My next post will discuss the role of government and how to think about it as a Christian.
Until then,
JB

Politics Time! By Jonathan

Ok, so until now this has been a cute family blog. I am taking the initiative to add the dimension of politics to the heart warming flavor my wife has so effectively cultivated. I hope that it will compliment rather than conflict with what she has done, so here we go!
I am first of all a Christian, and don’t put my hope and trust either in the political process or the government. For this and many other reasons I find myself on the side of Republicans more often than not, but I am beholden to no political party- I serve a King and a Kingdom.
With that in mind I plan to write a series of posts on the issues that determine how I vote. My plan is to do them in order of importance, starting with the most important. My first post is on the issue of abortion.
This issue is, and I believe will be reflected upon as, the defining issue of our time. How we ultimately resolve this has massive implications for how we value (or devalue) life, and who we do (or do not) protect. If you believe that human beings have dignity and are to be valued above all other forms of life on Earth, and that our existence as distinct biological entities known as “persons” begins at conception then more than likely you fall into the category of “pro-life.” If you believe that women have the right to determine the value (or non-value) of their children in the womb, do not recognize “fetuses, babies…whatever you want to call them” as persons, then you probably fall into the category of “pro-choice”- that is- value is assigned by the mother giving her a choice as to whether or not, depending on her circumstances, she will carry the fetus to term.
Should this be legislated? The short answer is “yes.” The reason that abortion should be legislated is because it is the function of the government to protect its citizens. When we begin removing our protection from different segments of society and then systematically kill certain groups based on perceived weaknesses, challenges that they may have, or plain inconvenience, it becomes very difficult to know where to stop- think euthanasia (mercy killing). How long before you are seen as being a drain on society because of your handicap, your beliefs, or your ethnic background? When the strong majority use their influence to snuff out weaker minorities, dictatorship is the logical end.
In the coming election the two tickets are almost as divided on this issue as you can get. John McCain has had a consistent pro-life record, and lives it. He is an adoptive parent. Palin is crystal clear on this issue- she has a son with Down’s Syndrome in an atmosphere where 90% of his fellow 47ers are systematically killed for their perceived inconvenience. She also has a child who is pregnant and welcomes her grandchild when it would have been easier to abort in privacy. This kind of integrity and consistency is missing in much of politics.
On the other ticket you have Obama, who has admitted that the moral/ethical question of the status of the unborn is “above my paygrade.” It is incredible to me that someone who is not willing to take a stand on the foundational issue of whether or not the unborn are in fact distinct biological entities known as persons, is so willing to legislate allowing their slaughter. Another issue that is troublesome is his unwillingness to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
On this issue, the choice is clear.

Florida-Piper's remake

The journey of the red bandana dress began when Jonathan's cousin Ashley gave it to Addie Leigh before our Florida trip of 2006. I was half-way through my pregnancy with Piper and just finishing my horrible morning (all-day) sickness. I was just beginning to get my energy back but still had not even thought about rounding up cute outfits for the annual pictures on the beach. Well, Ashley saved my life when she presented me with this darling dress! We took pictures together with her son Bradley who is exactly a year younger than Addie Leigh. To coordinate the kiddos we used Addie's bloomers as a doo-rag. :) The pictures in the red bandana dress turned out to be some of my favorite pictures out of ALL of the pictures that we have of Addie Leigh. (and let me tell you, this child has a TON of pictures!) Since we were so successful with Addie Leigh, I wanted to have a remake when Piper was big enough for the dress. She has a lot more hair than Addie Leigh had at that age, but the pictures are just as cute! Thanks Cousin Ashley for the sweet dress!

Mama's big baby girl

Addie Leigh in 2006

Piper in the same dress 2 years later

Mama's little baby girl