Category Archives: Monetary Policy

Dick Durbin: Ignorant, Stupid or Lying on Corporate Income Taxes?

Well, Timothy P. Carney has interesting piece up over at Washington Examiner today titled: Dick Durbin to Walgreens: You didn’t build that where US Senator Dick Durbin (D – IL) goes all Obama.  It is an interesting and accurate read.

But Timothy didn’t take it far enough I believe. So let me pick-up where he left off.

First, there is no such thing as a corporate income tax you dick, I mean Dick!  “Corporate income taxes” are merely a cost of doing business. A cost which is passed on to the consumer. It is merely an indirect tax on the citizenry that you couldn’t get passed directly or didn’t have the balls to try.  So not only do further tax the populace you don’t have to worry about collection, you make the corporations do that for you, then turn around and blame them.

Second, Dick seems concerned that this is legal under US tax law. Well, Dick you’re a sitting US Senator, been there since 1997, that’s 17 years of you writing the f’ing tax code.  You see, it is the one objective of politicians, especially Democrats, to create a problem then offer to referee, for a fee of course.

So……. We have a Dem Senator bitching about something that doesn’t really exist
and hoping you are too stupid to notice. And complaining about something that is entirely under his control and hoping you are too stupid to notice.

HuffPo. Stupid Is As Stupid Does: Companies Using Tax Havens To Skirt $92 Billion In U.S. Taxes

GumpBullshit!

Ignorance and stupidity know no bounds.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CORPORATE INCOME TAX!

A corporate income tax is merely a cost of doing business. A cost that is passed on to the consumer. And is in fact just an indirect tax on the people. Can’t raise taxes on the people directly? Raise the corp tax, the corps will pass it on to the consumer, and even do the job of collecting it for the gov’t.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/apple-tax-havens_n_3378935.html

As for Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning research group, to paraphrase Miss Hermione Granger, “What an idiot!”

 

 

John C Dvorak thinks I missed his point? Think not! But you tell me….

So John C Dvorak took umbrage at my criticism of his promoting  a wealth tax and specifically that a “property tax” is a wealth tax and is “implemented just fine”.  Says I “obviously missed the point“.

Well, let’s examine his tweets and see!

Here are the originals, and my previous analysis on the merits of property taxes.

  1. People bitch and moan about inequality and high taxes. This would all be resolved by a Swiss-like wealth tax. Why is it not on the table?
    1. https://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/490230914048208896
  2. People say a wealth tax is impractical and hard to implement. Well, property taxes are a wealth tax and they are implemented just fine.
    1. https://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/490231212418424832
  3. A wealth tax would satisfy both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who claim they want to pay more taxes. This would solve their grievance.
    1. https://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/490231554677825537
  4. Income taxes are unfair because they do now allow people to accumulate wealth. A wealth tax is the only fair tax.
    1. https://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/490231777575718913

In #4 he says: ” A wealth tax is the only fair tax”.  OK, that’s fairly straightforward and unambiguous.

In #2 he says: “property taxes are a wealth tax and they are implemented just fine.” Again, fairly straightforward and unambiguous, though completely wrong, again, see my previous analysis.

So, we have: wealth tax = only fair tax, property tax = wealth tax, and property tax = well implemented tax.  I would say that is a fair and accurate summary of Dvorak’s tweets. I  disagreed and demonstrated why a property tax ≠ a well implemented tax, and therefore why a property tax is not fair and not just.

In other words, I quite clearly got the point!

But to be fair, twitter may not be the best medium to convey the idea and rationale behind some topics; 144 character limit and all.  So, John C. Dvorak, please enlighten us as to why you think I missed your point.  I think I clearly stated your point above.

I will gladly post your reply, unedited and in its entirety, for everyone to judge whether I have or have not missed your point.  I understand if you prefer not to post here thinking I picked a fight merely to drive traffic. If you so desire, post your reply at the site of your choice and I will post a link to it there.

So, the ball is in your court. Can you defend why a property tax is a good tax which is implemented just fine?

What’s it gonna be?

Will the GOP House be bought off by Big Airlines to stifle competition?

So let’s see, Big Business (in this case, Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. along with unions) is trying to stifle competition by buying off Congress. But ins’t the House under Republican control? Shouldn’t this amendment be dead on arrival in a supposedly free-market friendly House. Fat chance. Keep an eye on your wallets folks while the airlines fatten the politicians’.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/09/3-major-u-s-airlines-fight-cancel-cheaper-international-travel/

A measure aimed at grounding an upstart airline offering affordable fares for transcontinental travel appears headed for a vote in the House of Representatives.

The transportation appropriations bill is seen as a vehicle for an amendment targeting Norwegian Air International’s new service at U.S. airports, airline officials were told by consultants. ….

…. Although Norwegian has not had access to any text proposed for the amendment to the transportation spending bill, its advisers anticipated that congressional opponents would attempt to prohibit DOT from processing the application by denying funding for this purpose or inserting language imposing requirements inconsistent with the Open Skies Agreement.

James Sherk, a labor policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, said consumers need to be on the lookout for an anti-competition move on Capitol Hill that would put everyday Americans at a disadvantage while rewarding entrenched interests. ….