Once he has betrayed the multiple collectives that have latched onto him, once those collectives understand that he does not represent their values, that he cannot or will not fulfill their wishes, and he can no longer unite his followers against a common negative (Bush), he will necessarily attempt to focus his rhetoric fully against Wall Street, and subsequently the American Businessman in general. He will attempt to turn the "failed political policies of the past" into the "failed business practices of the past" in an attempt to garner some sort of majority socialist support, despite that business has not been the failure, but that government has been.
The American Businessman is the heart that pumps the blood of the economy, subsequently the government, and therefore is the engine of the country. Deep inside, every American knows this to be true. Deep inside, every American knows he or she is a particle of the engine that makes our country great. Deep inside, the American people will understand that it is each and every one of them, individually, that is subject of the attack at the core.
Americans will not long tolerate a man who continues to deride each and every one of them as the reason for a failure that does not exist.
Now it seems that the American Businessman, if I may indulge myself with a pat on the back, is beginning to prove me correct. ABC News reports that upper-income tax payers are beginning to look for ways to sidestep his tax hikes. Specifically, we are given the example of a dentist, Dr. Sharon Poczatek.
"I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."
"Generally it means being less productive," she said.
"The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."
It's important to recognize the true facts of a plan like Obama's that so many people turned a blind eye to over the course of the election is that his plan does not help the small businesses he proclaimed to be the engine of the country. The plan disincentivizes a small business from breaking into the next tax bracket, and keeps them from being able to hire newer employees.
Even with this recognition, we are being told not to worry about it, because we're not thinking big-picture enough:
"Those who are going to be taxed more are obviously going to complain but I think they may miss the point," said Lisa Rotenstein, the chair of the Harvard Healthcare Policy Group at the Institute of Politics.
"This could have broader implications for the American economy as a whole - improved health care means a healthier workforce that is more productive," said Rotenstein.
Rotenstein, like Obama or John Conyers or anyone pushing for any sort of national healthcare, still continues to push aside the real point. The real point, that they most certainly do not miss, but rather simply dismiss as a short-term inconvenience, is that if small businesses like Poczatek's dentistry office cannot afford to pay their employees if the government decides to steal more of their money, then it doesn't make any bit of difference if the healthcare could mean a more productive workforce. If these potentially healthier people cannot be hired, they cannot go to work to begin with, and there is no production.
As I write this, Ben Bernanke has just called for higher taxes and socialized medicine, and the Dow is down yet another 20 points so far today, following a 300 point plunge yesterday. As the American People watch their money disappear one day after another as Obama's ever bigger federal government becomes ever more meddlesome in the private sector, who can possibly blame people like Sharon Poczatek for saying to hell with it?
Posts
Ms. Rotenstein, please attribute your quote "improved health care means a healthier workforce that is more productive," to the Soviet leader from which you quote & the year please. Otherwise, this is pure plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteNeither you nor the ABC journalist nor Sharon Poczatek understand how taxes work. But at least ABC was good enough to talk to a financial advisor who understood and correct their article.
ReplyDeleteSit down and shut up. Class is in session.
Tax brackets do not apply to the total income, only to money earned beyond the start of that bracket. That is, Sharon Poczatek and others earning more than 250K will only pay the top tax rate for money earned beyond 250K.
By sabotaging her income she is not saving one single cent.
You should thank the so-called liberal media for providing you with a journalist ignorant enough to confirm your demonstrably incorrect understanding of how taxes work.
I do understand it quite well actually. The argument still stands that someone like Sharon will be unable to make the new hires she might otherwise have made, which is the point that I made. It amounts to a disincentivization to earn enough to try to hire more.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to get into taxes on net income and the like if you want, but my argument still holds up in that case as well.
I suppose, unlike liberals for the past eight years regarding Bush and the war, I am to be crucified for oversimplifying to prove a point, rather than celebrated?
Class dismissed.
No Paul, you don't understand. This idiot dentist said that she was willing to give up $70,000 in income to avoid paying $2,100 in taxes. Are you serious? Did anyone do the math? $2,100 is not a new hire. Perhaps if Obama is given more than a minute to succeed and implement some sort of viable national health care system, she won't have to offer health care coverage to her employees (or will end up paying less for her own) - that would probably save her $2,100 and then some.
ReplyDeleteInteresting sidebar on Sharon - I did a google search for her, and she came up in someone's blog as having fired off an angry letter to Larry Summers back in '05 when he made his foolish 'women and science' comment - she of course was very incensed, being as she considers herself 'a woman and a scientist'. Hope that old Larry didn't read that ABC news article, or his point will be pretty well proven, wouldn't you say? What idiot doesn't understand the concept of marginal taxation?
You have not debated anything but the value, and have entirely removed yourself from debating the actual point, which is the government taking from the achiever to provide for the non-achiever.
ReplyDeleteAs to what idiot doesn't understand the concept of marginal taxation, shall we start with Tim Geithner? Or perhaps we'll start with the President or his wife and their bullshit land deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko? Or any of the, what is it now, six, seven, twelve, cabinet nominees that have been tax cheats?