Archives for posts with tag: Tax

Mr. Blunt and Cranky, like almost everyone else, gleefully piled onto the Internal Revenue Service recently. The targeting of political groups certainly seemed abusive, after all. And everybody hates the Taxman.

After subsequent revelations and upon further reflection, this writer has come to the conclusion that we all got played by a bunch of political scumbuckets. You see, it turns out that there were excellent reasons to suspect these groups of using the tax code for nefarious purposes. After all, Social Welfare Organizations are not allowed to be primarily political organizations.

Here’s a quick summary of why one might be suspicious: 432023_667625673262947_52727540_n (This from the excellent Rob Rogers. Follow his blog: http://blogs.post-gazette.com/opinion/rob-rogers-cartoons )

Also, as The Rude Pundit pointed out, having the word “party” in your name is a wee bit of an indicator of political activity.

Note to self: next time the media scrum is kicking the crap out of a football that one does not happen to like, don’t kick until you know it deserves to be kicked.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Mr. Blunt and Cranky has a tendency to throw gauntlets. Part of that is a personality trait, and part of it is designed to promulgate his viewpoint. When one issues a challenge, one must accept that the “challenge-ee” will pick the glove up and whup it right back at the challenger. And so it goes.

In some cases, the replies are piles of neatly arranged facts (real or alleged), with which the combatants duel away. This usually happens with economics and other quantifiable topics. But there are done subjects that are not as easily proven or disproven, and that’s where we can’t always settle on a common view.

For example: last Saturday’s post about Steubenville , in which this writer threw down on the town for their lack of action in the face of a truly horrific rape crime spree.

A lot of responses came back, alleging bias, assumptions, tendentiousness, and so forth. All reasonable thoughts, and worthwhile discussion topics. However, no one came back with any proof to counter the original post: rather, the replies were either themselves based on inference and anecdotal evidence, or were naught but ad hominem attacks.

It is always possible that your humble correspondent is full of s***. If you can prove that 90 % of Steubenvillians are in fact bravely and loudly fighting back against the rape culture that permeates their city, just forward your evidence along and a full retraction will be published.

Bring it. It would be good to be proven wrong on this topic.

Mr. B & C

A “shell game” is an old trick, beloved by con artists: they have three shells and one small pebble. They put the pebble under one of the shells, and then rapidly move the shells to and fro, mixing them up so you can’t tell which is which. They then ask you “which one is hiding the rock?” Most of us guess wrong, and lose our money.

Ohio Guv-boy John Kasich is clearly a connoisseur of the shell game: he has outlined a large number of changes to the tax code that are confusing and nearly impossible to follow, and labeled them a “tax cut”. Not surprisingly, people in and out of government are scratching their heads, trying to follow The Kasich’s sleight-of-hand routine.

Ohioans would do well to remember a few things:
Number A; Bob Taft once noticed that an income tax cut was about to bankrupt the state, and proceeded to push through a sales tax increase-this cut taxes on the rich and shifted the burden to the middle class and poor. The Kasich is doing something similar, but with more smoke and mirrors-while “cutting” taxes, he is proposing a whole raft of new taxes, again mostly hitting everyone but his wealthy paymasters and cronies.

Letter 2; this is just another example of the discredited and failed theory of Trickle-Down economics. Steal from the poor, give to the rich, and the rich keep the money, instead of magically giving it back to the unwilling donors.

Thirdly; the late great George Harrison summed up The Kasich’s little scam very neatly, as Mr. Vaughn demonstrates:Taxman. That is the Song For The Kasich.

The entire history of The Kasich’s tenure has been one shell game after another. People need to remember the reason con artists work the shell game in the first place: the con man always wins, and the other players always lose.

Mr. B & C

Back in those storied days of Yesteryear, Mr. Blunt and Cranky didn’t mind paying his taxes. Not as much, anyway. And the reason for his hitherto tolerant attitude was this: he could see the value returned for his “investment” of tax dollars.

Roads and bridges were better maintained, our food and medicines were protected, we had plenty of cops and firefighters, our soldiers got the medical care they needed, and so on. The average taxpayer seeing the benefits of his or her hard-earned.

Today, not so much. Our taxes are redistributed to crooks and cronies who sock it away in offshore tax-free accounts, and we are told we can’t have even the most basic services that we have paid for, because “there isn’t enough money”. Too bloody right there isn’t, because Congress and their partners in crime have stolen it all.

Supply-Side economics and corruption have bankrupted our nation, and the recipients of our unwitting largesse are lolling about in their gated communities, laughing at the lot of us who continue to keep playing their game. We pay more, and get less. They pay nothing, and get everything.

Enough of this: it is time to tell our “representatives” to spend our tax dollars on things the taxpayers have paid for. Donald Trump has gotten his stack of bennies, and doesn’t need any more government handouts.

We, on the other hand, deserve to get what we have paid. That is not an unreasonable request.

Mr. B &C

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-20/who-are-mitt-romneys-47-percent-a-breakdown is a good read, explaining the three demographic groups who ol’ Willie M. Romney was trash-talking behind their backs, said back-stabbing recently revealed by a hidden video camera (First, Pamela Anderson. Now, the Republicans. They never learn).

According to Mitt, if you are likely to vote for Obama, don’t pay Federal income taxes, and/or receive Federal benefits, why then, you’re a lazy, mooching little bit of scum beneath his tasseled loafers and thus unworthy of his thought. Much has been made of the rudeness, the insensitivity, the manifold other failings revealed by the statement. Not much has been made of the lie behind the words, so Mr. Blunt and Cranky shall make something of it here:

This writer falls into one category – likely Obama voter (not so much pro-Obama as anti-Romney), so he must be a whimpering little begging victim in Romneyworld: at least that is Willie’s lie.

Here’s the truth: this writer works 13-hour days at his  main job, is starting two small businesses, pays a s***-load of taxes and takes care of home, hearth, family and  community in his copious free time.

A moocher, am I? Hey, Mitt, stop cowering behind your wealth and power, and stop over  the house all on your lonesome and let’s see if you have the nuts to say that lying crap to my face. Bring it, you little nancy-boy. Here’s five bucks that says you won’t .

MR. B & C.

Ol’ Willie M. Romney is keeping relevant information about himself and his money (as if there were a difference, and there isn’t, not really) locked in a box that he and his Dominatrix Mistress Boss wife refuse to open, thus leading Mr. Blunt and Cranky to indulge in yet another Schrödinger analogy: since we cannot see what inside the box, people are free to speculate on the “state” of ol’ Willie’s taxes and their underlying finances. And, of course, since they are free to do so, they do so. And do so. And do so. Rinse and repeat.

Queen Ann and her Consort are beaucoup cheesed off that all we icky normal people keep asking their Royal Romninesses about their tax returns. Neither of these clueless faux-royals seems to grok the whole “public servant” thing: unlike the way they have lived their lives up to now (being served by lowly little people), they are aspiring to a position in which Mitt is asking to serve us. And if he wishes to get that job, he’s gonna have to provide some information to his prospective employers, just like a cook, gardener, butler, or any other sort of servant.

Here’s the thing about Schrödinger’s concept: the only way to know the state is to open the box and end the experiment. Until that is done, folks are going to speculate about R-Money in the manner of their choosing (just as physicists do with electron states, albeit with less intellect), and Willie is gonna look more and more secretive, thus less and less trustworthy. Mitt has only himself to blame for closing the box. Why is so he stubborn, petulant, and obstinate? And most importantly, why is he so bewildered by peoples’ insistence that he open it? That’s for tomorrow’s post.

Mr. B & C

When Mr. Blunt and Cranky was Young Blunt (and not quite as cranky), he wasn’t making much money and had trouble coughing up the security deposit on an apartment. After crunching the numbers, a solution was arrived at – he would eat almost nothing for a couple of weeks. After that, he’d be able to afford groceries and the apartment.

Man, those were tough days to get through: one week, the entirety of each day’s calories came from 1” thick, 4” x 4” slices of old (and nasty) fruitcake from the previous year’s holidays. Two of those slices per day.  Your humble correspondent lost a bit of weight and felt pretty crap the while, but since it was temporary and he was young and healthy, he got through it. No way he would have done it if he had had to do it for a longer period of time: he could have gotten really sick or even starved to death.

As a short-term fix, cuts can be effective, if properly used. In the long term, cuts by themselves only work if you have lots of stuff to cut out, and it is a mistake to assume that there’s always lots to cut.  We have been busily cutting away for several decades, like hyperactive beavers in a forest of balsa wood, and there aren’t many easy things remaining to cut out of the governmental  budget. So when politicians start talking about cutting even more and foregoing revenue, one would be well advised to ask some more questions about those cuts, such as why, what, for how long, and so forth.

The “what” depends on party ideology, pretty much, so there’s not a lot of new data to be gotten within that question.  The “why” and “for how long” are where we find what will be done unto us by our “representatives”.

Dems want to cut handouts to certain types of industries and rich folks, and use the savings to finance other governmental activities that they like. They don’t want to starve the government to death, they want it healthy over the long haul; so they’ll cut in one place and add to another place as they deem fit.

Repubs actually want to get rid of government (Post-1976 Rs, anyway), so they have no objection to starving it to death (unlike this blogger’s younger self): in fact, one of the leaders of the Republican party has said he wants to starve the gummint until it is so weak that he can “drown it in a bathtub”. 

This writer doesn’t like everything that is done by the Feds, Staties or Local Yokels; but he likes the idea of police, firefighters, running water, freedom from being invaded by foreign powers, paved roads and other governmentally-derived goodies. Indeed, he likes them so much that, like most valuable commodities, he is willing to pay for them. So, he favors a balanced approach to taxing/spending.

As with our own bodies, we can only cut so many “calories” from the government for so long before we wind up starving it to death.

Mr.  & C

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 153 other followers