advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

TAXING ACHIEVEMENT

By
Neal Boortz
@ November 2, 2009 8:34 AM Permalink | Comments (52) | TrackBacks (0)

A must-read blog every day in preparation for the show is Cato@Liberty. There you will find information like this ... KPMG released its latest global survey of corporate tax systems. Sounds like a real snoozer, right? Well that's why you have me. I'm the guy who wrote a New York Times best seller about taxes.

So back to this survey ... for the 10th year in a row, the average corporate tax rate world-wide has fallen. Now it rests at 25.5%. But that's the average. This means that some countries have a corporate tax rate higher than 25.5% and some less. So ... where is the United States? Well, we're stuck. Stuck at 40% .. where we've been for quite some time. Only one country has a higher corporate tax rate than the United States; Japan.

In case you haven't noticed .. .the world is shrinking. Businesses and businessmen find it easier to move around the world in search of advantageous business climates. In a world of instant communications; in a world where no business hot spot is more than one day's travel from another ... why would a company continue to subject itself to a confiscatory tax rate when it can simply move?

This, of course, brings me to the FairTax. Right now we have the second-highest corporate tax structure in the world. But what would happen if we had the lowest? In fact, what might happen if businesses could operate in the United States without any tax component on capital or labor? What if corporate leaders never had to consider the tax implications of any decision? What if business decisions could be made on the basis of what is good for the company, the stockholders, the employees and the customers, rather than on how to minimize tax consequences. This would be life under the FairTax.

Right now you can bet that business owners are contemplating ways to escape the coming increases in tax rates in the United States. The response will be to move more jobs and more business out of the country. Sure, The Community Organizer will try to find a way to erect some sort of an economic Berlin Wall to keep American wealth from fleeing tax tyranny, but it will only be partially effective. Why not try to attract wealth, rather than looking for ways to chase wealth away?

Well, you know the answer; don't you? To attract wealth the political class must transfer power to the private sector. That isn't going to happen; not with the looters in charge. The game here is power, not the economic welfare of the American people. The FairTax would be the greatest transfer of power from government to the people in the history of our Republic. You don't' see very many people with a "D" after their names who like that idea.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: TAXING ACHIEVEMENT.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/49244

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • retwisted
    you said "You are asking me to explain the psychology of millions of voters-- good one."

    Exactly my point!
    By snarkybird @ 11/03/09 01:37:27 PMreport abuse
  • @Snarky
    You are asking me to explain the psychology of millions of voters-- good one.

    What I can say is what I described is a TREND, which doesn't mean always all the time...it's just a trend.

    Maybe Reagan was elected on a day when most of the deadbeats decided to stay home, for example, or maybe the producers outnumbered them at the time....who knows. The key word is TREND.

    And btw Bush 2 barely won and mostly due to his "free stuff" to senior citizens.
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/03/09 11:36:32 AMreport abuse
  • relebowski
    wow. If your opposition to Obama is to compare him to FDR, there's really nothing left for me to say except - THANK YOU!

    I appreciate your educated view of FDR but, information does not equal knowledge and you just miss the boat entirely.

    the war got us out of the depression, not FDR. and it's that infrastructure/manufacturing/industrial/military spending by the govt (yes, through borrowing) that is credited with ending the depression.

    But, if you knew anything about FDR you'd know he did some radical things with the banks too - things that you could legitimately question as legal. And he is also credited with those decisions being absolutely correct. And now we have laws in place to do what he did all on his own.

    truly - if FDR comparisons are your opposition to Obama, well that's just the gift that keeps on giving. Should we just assume since Obama can't also have 4 terms that he will at least have 2 then?
    By snarkybird @ 11/03/09 10:45:43 AMreport abuse
  • resnarky
    Obama is a good reader and a poor leader. He puts his ideology before the good of the nation and the principles United States was founded on. BTW, there were many president like him throughout 20th century and all of their doings were overcome. So I believe his radical agenda will be stopped beginning with the attempt to destroy our health care.
    I am going to compare BHO to one of these presidents. The president I will focus on specifically is FDR. In high school and college US History I was lead to believe that his policies actually improved the economy throughout the Great Depression. However, upon researching, studying and analyzing the facts on my own, I concluded that if not for the New Deal, the Depression would not have lasted this long. Granted, Smoot-Hawley, was also a contributor, and the Fed was missing its purpose. But the sheer quantity of laws and spending passed was unprecedented. Especially for the amount of time taken by Congress. The reason I chose FDR was that I see a lot of events happening in parallel to the 1930s. Marxist president and liberal congress seeking to expand the power of the government as quickly and as greatly as possible. While I do believe that Obama is a far left socialist-marxist, I consider FDR to be a total communist.
    Lastly, Obama won because he duped a lot of independents into believing that he is a moderate. Even if you are to the left of dkos, mm and soros you should still have enough common sense to know that he is flaming liberal.
    By Lebowski @ 11/02/09 11:10:00 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    Obama won because people were ready for something different and he is a remarkable speaker and charismatic personality. and his story is uniquely american...what he's achieved, where he came from, etc.

    if your theory is true, uh - explain reagan. or Bush I or Bush II. Or Nixon (largest electoral victory in history).

    explain the 94 "republican revolution".

    explain the slim margin the dems enjoyed until 2008.

    I am not denying there are people who do indeed vote like this. but there is no evidence to support they have any more or less impact than those who vote along abortion lines
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 04:21:36 PMreport abuse
  • Taxes/Economic Development
    It's about jobs people, and the Demoidiots don't seem to get that! Remember that crazy Cajun who kept saying, "It's the economy, stupid!" We may just trot out all his little sayings and start playing them for the Obamanuts!

    Coporate Taxes affect whether or if a employer will invest in a large facility or if they will expand. If there are favorable tax incentives, they will do it-particularly in a down market like now. Labor is less expensive and so are goods and services.
    Many firms will not expand in this down market, but some will take the longer view and perhaps plan modest expansions down the road.

    Where do you think they will do it? Where the welcome mat is out and less expensive. If they know going in that their coporate tax burden is going to be 40% and they will receive no tax forgiveness (incentives) and possible additional taxes in the future(medical health care insurance) where would YOU go? India right now looks swell!

    Remember this next year when you, your neighbor, or your kid is STILL looking for a job-as in gainful employment! Think about it when you go to pull that lever for Congress!
    By Forsyth Mom @ 11/02/09 03:55:58 PMreport abuse
  • TJ - here is the 40%
    It's in the footnotes section of the report how they determined 40%, page 32 and 33:

    United States (2009 rate = 40%)
    The marginal federal corporate income tax rate on the highest income bracket of corporations (for 2009, USD 18,333,333 and above) is 35 percent. State and local governments may also impose income taxes ranging from less than 1 percent to 12 percent, and the top marginal rates of which average approximately 7.5 percent. A corporation may deduct its state and local income tax expense when computing its federal taxable income, generally resulting in a net effective rate of approximately 40 percent. The effective rate may vary significantly depending on the locality in which a corporation conducts business. The United States also has a parallel alternative minimum tax (AMT) system, which is generally characterized by a lower tax rate (20 percent) but a broader tax base.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 03:30:25 PMreport abuse
  • Snarky has been spending.....
    too much time with Truth Ignorer!!

    "I'm saying that voting patterns do not support your theory there." --Snarkybird

    The politician that offers the most "free stuff" almost always wins. Conversely, politicians that even think about taking any "free stuff" away don't stand a chance. That is why touching Medicare has been equated to touching the third rail on the train tracks.

    How can you not notice these voting patterns, Snarkybird??

    Obama won largely based on his stance of "wealth distribution." Deadbeats that vote want their free stuff. Remember that idiot that got up and said now that Obama is Prez she doesn't have to worry about her mortgate anymore? Multiply that by the mindset of MILLIONS of voters....but you say "Nope don't see a pattern here!!"
    By Twistedsaint @ 11/02/09 03:28:53 PMreport abuse
  • LOL @ snarky
    And you think you're fighting? I think you wouldn't be fighting so hard if we weren't making headway. Don't know what polls you are looking at but the conservatives are doing fine. They aren't all GOP. And that's what really kills ya. The GOP as it stands now (as we've stated before) has a lot of garbage in it. We have to clean that out before we can find real leadership. Don't worry your little head off girlfriend, we'll find one.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 02:39:41 PMreport abuse
  • Reader
    some days the topics on here are not very controversial and don't warrant much discussion so carrying a heated discussion on from a previous day just seems like the thing to do. also, our comments are sometimes very slow to post so continuing into the next day is acceptable.
    By Jeff @ 11/02/09 02:33:51 PMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird Do you remember the last election?
    Ken Rogulski, WJR in Detroit.
    ROGULSKI: Why are you here?
    WOMAN #1: To get some money.
    ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
    WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
    WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
    WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

    Note the phrase “That's why we voted for him!”

    Why are you denying what has plainly happened?

    It should be clear from that exchange what is happening in this country, again are you trying to fool yourself or others into thinking that isn't the case?

    And I mean 'judicial activism' in the sense that we are gradually moving away from the 'rule of law' to the 'rule of men'.

    How about we phrase it this way: Should Government have Limited or Unlimited power?
    By ACE @ 11/02/09 02:22:01 PMreport abuse
  • Tax rate
    Corp rate is 35%, not 40%
    By TJ @ 11/02/09 01:45:47 PMreport abuse
  • reace
    You said ""“a-g-a-i-n” Votes can be bought – with time, property and the efforts of others.

    “a-g-a-i-n” The rule of law can be subverted by judicial activism.""

    I'm saying that voting patterns do not support your theory there.

    and judicial review is only viewed as "activism" when the ruling isnt one you like. but I'll ask - Bush v Gore - judicial activism?
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 01:39:06 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    I agree - I am your opposition. But I'd like to have a real opponent.

    I've said many times - you have no agenda and no leadership.

    you should be out there fighting and I've said - bring it!

    but so far, it's just opposition for the sake of it and all polling indicates GOP support in deep decline.

    Worse than reid or pelosi support.

    sorry, but if that isnt a wake up call, I don't know what is.
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 01:36:04 PMreport abuse
  • Re: Joyce M/Blythe It usually takes a couple of days of wrangling to get 'snarkybird ' understand something.
    In the case of last Friday, he/she ignored the posting until the very last minute so I couldn't respond.

    Wondering who 'reader' really is?
    By ACE @ 11/02/09 01:16:20 PMreport abuse
  • Andrew Sullivan
    Well that's one opinion. And a bad one. It completely ignores the conservatism of the founding fathers. So I think it's influence goes back just a bit farther.

    Tax cuts without spending cuts, yeah that's bad, but that's what usually happens when libs or RINO's such as Bush attempt to be conservative.

    Conservatives have certainly done more for women and minorities than liberals, cause their "solution" is always a handout, which just keeps them down. Clinton's welfare reform (written by Newt btw) resulted in more single mothers going back to work, that's empowerment.

    We've had too many progressives posing as conservatives and hurting our efforts in the past 100 years. Now that more are waking up maybe those of us who care can now get the republic back on track.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 01:16:05 PMreport abuse
  • Steve L.
    i'm not offended. it would be a waste of my time and emotions to get offended at something online. and i don't see all corporations as evil, or greedy. unless they are evil and greedy.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/02/09 01:08:58 PMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird “a-g-a-i-n” Okay, so you didn't read my other postings?
    “a-g-a-i-n” Votes can be bought – with time, property and the efforts of others.

    “a-g-a-i-n” The rule of law can be subverted by judicial activism.

    Or are you still DENYING this happens?

    As to your question (even though you never answer mine except with mindless talking points)
    the answer is term limits, plain and simple.
    By ACE @ 11/02/09 12:48:36 PMreport abuse
  • LOL@Reader
    3. There is a growing trend towards posters "carrying over" the previous day's back-and-forth. Can it. When the whistle blows, the game is over. Move on.
    By Reader

    You might have something there, but the other stuff, forget about it! I usually learn something from ACE and all the links. Those are easily skipped over if you are short on time (or patience).
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 12:45:32 PMreport abuse
  • Not buying it snark
    rejoyce
    I never said you should sit down and take it.

    I think I've specifically said to you almost exactly the opposite.

    I just poo poo the idea that this is some problem because of liberals or democrats. Or that it's unconstitutional. That's just bunk.
    By snarkybird

    Saying things like "just bunk" and "poo pooing" is pretty much TRYING to demean efforts to point out the errors the administration are making. You infer through your attitude (thinking you do it so cleverly we can't put a finger on it but you are wrong) that we are complaining about something that is a done deal, the election is over, you won, so we should shut up. NOT.

    Yeah you keep trying, but you keep failing because it's becoming more and more obvious the only reason people like you continue to attack anyone who attacks Obama & Company is because you truly do like the direction we're going. And you want to make sure that it doesn't get sidetracked.

    Too bad, enjoy it while it lasts. Progressivism is a disease on our Republic, hopefully we'll be able to educate Americans enough to keep it from rearing its ugly head again any time soon.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 12:36:18 PMreport abuse
  • why the GOP fails so badly these days...
    """It's hard to find a more sublime version of it than Laura Ingraham's email (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjQwYTY2OGMxYzBkNDQxNTRiYTgzZWY4ZjllOWY4Nzk=):

    Conservatism is the most influential political philosophy of the past 100 years because it's built upon essential truths.

    The past 100 years? I don't know any Hooverites who think the last century was a triumph for small government and individual liberty. Look at the size of government since 1909. Look at the level of taxation. Look at the welfare state. Look at racial civil rights. Look at the role of women. The West is immeasurably more statist than it was a hundred years ago, and even the most dramatic counter-revolutionaries, such as Reagan and Thatcher, did very little to alter the contours of the state. The Bush Republicans implemented the biggest expansion of government power, debt and spending since LBJ.

    But, look, Ingraham isn't really thinking here. This is a statement of doctrine, not politics, and all religions require a certain mythology (the idea that a conservative movement that began in the late 1950s extends backward to the earliest part of the century is truly religious thinking). So one can forgive the thoughtless hyperbole.

    What worries me is the slow transformation of what was a vital pragmatic adjustment to liberalism's policy failures in the 1980s into a kind of eternal dogma. But tax cuts are not always the solution to every emergent problem; global warfare may not be the best way to exercize American power in the multi-polar world we now live in; social change - a multi-racial society where women and gays seek and deserve full equality - should be imaginatively shaped by the right, not outright rejected on religious or nostalgic grounds. """ - Andrew Sullivan

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/conservatism-as-doctrine.html
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 12:24:49 PMreport abuse
  • reace
    You said "snarkybird So what's your response to the Limited vs Unlimited Government question?"

    a-g-a-i-n - govt is only limited by us and the same checks and balances that have been in place since its inception.

    let me ask you a question: how many terms have your federal reps managed to hold on to?
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 12:14:49 PMreport abuse
  • Speaking of Taxation
    Coming soon to your other liberal states:
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-state-tax31-2009oct31,0,2028140.story

    This is specifically for snarky and his lib crowd to read. Should be no prob for you to understand as it is from a liberal newspaper.
    BTW Arnold is not a fiscal conservative and Ca legislature is ultra liberal so saying it's all republicans' fault won't cut it.
    This may be asking a lot but I'm looking forward to some common sense responses from the liberal crowd.
    By Lebowski @ 11/02/09 12:08:58 PMreport abuse
  • Doc
    Nice try with the analogy, but no. I have no choice but to pay taxes at the point of a government gun and I have paid those taxes for 25 years. Therefore if I can find a way to get some of MY tax money back through investments or whatever, I will certainly do so. That you choose not to invest in evil greedy corporations is your business.

    P.S. I'm not the first person to notice your "tone" on these boards so I don't know why your offended.
    By Steve L. @ 11/02/09 12:02:33 PMreport abuse
  • Cato's disservice on this issue
    The problem with this statistic is that this number is a marginal tax rate, not the effective tax rate. I cannot seem to find effective tax rates for any other country but the US to determine the true effect of the tax loopholes and exemptions given US businesses, because if the effective rate was indeed 40%, why would any company headquarter here in the US?
    By Pete @ 11/02/09 11:53:58 AMreport abuse
  • Learn Mandarin
    An American starts a business needing a 25% profit margin to make it worth the long hours, the prospect of losing his home, being sued, putting up with prima donna employees and all the ensuing government regulations, etc..
    The government taxes the crap out of him but he passes the taxes on to the price of his product in order to maintain his minimum 25% profit margin.
    Chinese products enter the country with no tarrifs attached and the American consumer buys them instead, forcing the American businessman to lay off some of his employees to maintain his 25% profit margin. Less people working means that less people buying American and more people buying Chinese.
    And all the while, the government is hawking T-Bills like crazy to the Chinese who are selling their products to Americans using the money loaned us by the Chinese.
    What the hell's the matter with this government.
    If Snarky, who I respect as a somewhat misguided intellectual, is correct in stating that we get the government we deserve, then America is now atoning for some terrible sins.
    By Carlos @ 11/02/09 11:36:23 AMreport abuse
  • Re: snarkybird So what's your response to the Limited vs Unlimited Government question?
    Note to 'Reader', I didn't have the time to make this post really long for you, so I promise to readdress this issue in a couple of weeks with a 2000+ essay on the subject, just for you, mmm, K?
    By ACE @ 11/02/09 11:36:13 AMreport abuse
  • Truthignorer
    Those countries with higher personal income tax also have more entitlement programs, hence the higher income tax.

    Do away with both corporate taxes and crippling entitlements, voila, healthy economy.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 11:33:42 AMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    I never said you should sit down and take it.

    I think I've specifically said to you almost exactly the opposite.

    I just poo poo the idea that this is some problem because of liberals or democrats. Or that it's unconstitutional. That's just bunk.
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 11:32:53 AMreport abuse
  • he didn't do it alone....................
    SNARKYBIRD........I don't respond to your posts 'cuz frankly they are often wrong butt........

    you may blame bush all you want.....butt he didn't do any of the things you noted by himself......

    a congress that is controlled by the opposing party had a big hand in all the "BAD" things you noted today......

    in closing.....I agree with your reply to ACE.......

    see I can be civil.......you socialist!!!!
    By butt neckid @ 11/02/09 11:23:23 AMreport abuse
  • Steve L.
    i am a outsider, that's for sure. but i don't need you're sarcastic Bravo! i am not superior to any man, and no man's superior to me.

    i'm glad you made money off of our tax dollars. it seems to me it's like the poor people who make money off of welfare payments.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/02/09 11:21:21 AMreport abuse
  • You Can't Lower Corporate Tax Rates Without Raising Other Rates
    Not that this is going to do any good, but what Boortz fails to mention is that all of those other countries that have lower corporate income tax rates also have high personal income tax rates, high payroll tax rates and high VAT (think, FairTax) rates.

    Personally, I would like to see the US eliminate corporate taxes altogether, but -- unlike Boortz -- I won't claim that we can do so without raising rates somewhere else.
    By TruthSeeker @ 11/02/09 11:18:32 AMreport abuse
  • By "we"
    I mean conservatives.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 11:15:51 AMreport abuse
  • I'll tell you when you can..........................
    READER...........did I die and leave you in charge here?????

    you sure got some big brass ones com'in here and tellin' us what to do or not do..........

    so I'll tell you when you can kiss my hairy red stinky butt........

    NOW!!!
    By butt neckid @ 11/02/09 11:14:57 AMreport abuse
  • re.Reader
    Thank you! And that goes for me as well.
    By Carlos @ 11/02/09 11:13:20 AMreport abuse
  • Snarky your logic is lacking
    You think just because we deserve what we get from elections that it's ok to just sit back and take it, when politicians (not just Obama) lie to us, go in a completely opposite direction than their campaign led us to believe, that we should just sit back and take it.

    Guess what?

    Ain't gonna happen and that attitude is downright anti-American! So forget it. We are not going to lay down, roll over, or what ever little phrase you wanna use.

    You progressives are ruining this country and we're going to continue to call you on it.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 11:12:31 AMreport abuse
  • Corbett Shut Up
    You don't speak for all of us ya know.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 11/02/09 11:07:58 AMreport abuse
  • reACE
    You said ""WE used to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, now we have speech codes and campaign finance reform.

    WE used to have the right to keep and bear arms, now we have ever tightening restrictions on the right to defend yourself.

    WE used to have The right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, Now we have the threat of police in SWAT regalia smashing down you door and invading your home without any warning.""

    Weird. I agree with all of that. Which is why, by and large, I can't stand the republican viewpoint. Because all those things came to us via republicans and either the drug war, or the brady bill (brady was part of reagan's staff), or the patriot act.

    free speech zones? EXACTLY! Bush. The USA is a free speech zone. period.

    no knock warrants? drug war.

    campaign finance reform - granted, it was bipartisan and I agree with it's intent (to try to keep money/influence out of campaigns) but it has been a trainwreck and needs to be done away with. Personally, I am all for public financing of campaigns.

    but even with all of that, I STILL stand by my statement - we get the govt we deserve. and we get it through the power of our votes.

    you can always find a voter who is ignorant and votes for stupid reasons - abortion is a great example.

    but this is damage we've inflicted on ourselves through fear mongoring of public officials in an effort to replace freedom with security.
    By snarkybird @ 11/02/09 10:30:18 AMreport abuse
  • Advice to posters
    I believe I speak for many readers of this forum in the following:
    1. I will not bother to read any posting longer than about 2/3 of screen (Ace!).
    2. If your posting relies on clicking on ONE link, I might consider clicking on it. If you post two or more links, forget it.
    3. There is a growing trend towards posters "carrying over" the previous day's back-and-forth. Can it. When the whistle blows, the game is over. Move on.
    By Reader @ 11/02/09 10:26:46 AMreport abuse
  • layne better off dead meyer
    2 dollars, I WANT MY 2 DOLLARS
    By The Paper Boy @ 11/02/09 10:26:14 AMreport abuse
  • Give it a rest already
    ENOUGH of the FairTax BS already. We're sick & damned tired of hearing about this nonsensical pipe dream.

    You've sold your book & made your money. Stop trying to drum up more sales.

    It is well past time to stop beating this dead horse.
    By Corbett @ 11/02/09 10:19:53 AMreport abuse
  • Give it a rest already
    ENOUGH of the FairTax BS already. We're sick & damned tired of hearing about this nonsensical pipe dream.

    You've sold your book & made your money. Stop trying to drum up more sales.

    It is well past time to stop beating this dead horse.
    By Corbett @ 11/02/09 10:19:53 AMreport abuse
  • Where is it?
    I have read the book and support it fully, but that was a few years ago. Is it never going to be passed?
    By Lane Meyer @ 11/02/09 10:17:14 AMreport abuse
  • snarkybird Are you trying to fool everyone else or fool yourself? [My response from Friday's Discussion]
    A government with an UNLIMITED claim on your time, property and efforts means we have an UNLIMITED government.

    A government that DOESN'T have Unlimited claim on your time, property and efforts means we have a LIMITED government.

    A government that has no limitations can claim whatever it wants from the people, it doesn't have to(and won't) live within it's means, it has no Limits to what it can and cannot do and it has NO LIMIT TO IT'S POWER over the people.

    Supposedly, we have control over things through the vestiges of our ONE vote and the rule of law.

    Do you remember this from the beginning of Oct?

    Ken Rogulski, WJR in Detroit.
    ROGULSKI: Why are you here?
    WOMAN #1: To get some money.
    ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?
    WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from. But, he givin' it to us. To help us.
    WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
    WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

    Clearly we have people who are willing to use the power of their vote as an instrument of plunder.

    So much for you vote protecting your property when a politician can simply buy votes with YOUR time, property and effort.

    And we have seen the rule of law subverted by Judicial activism.

    WE used to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, now we have speech codes and campaign finance reform.

    WE used to have the right to keep and bear arms, now we have ever tightening restrictions on the right to defend yourself.

    WE used to have The right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, Now we have the threat of police in SWAT regalia smashing down you door and invading your home without any warning.

    The bottom line is that while once we had these fundamental rights, they have been gradually eroded over the years.

    By the same token, new rights have been created out of whole cloth – and in this bizarro world the ruling elite can blithely ignore rights that have been clearly written in the founding documents while Pushing these new “rights”.


    Clearly, the government is NO LONGER LIMITED by the rule of law or your One vote.

    And yet you some cannot acknowledge what is clearly evident before you. To use your phrase from the other day: ““are you really this obtuse? “.

    Again, Are you trying to fool everyone else or fool yourself?

    Are you trying to rationalize all of this in your own mind or do you really know that we are dealing with a government that is rapidly spinning out of control but you are 'getting something' out of it for supporting the effort?
    By ACE @ 11/02/09 10:04:24 AMreport abuse
  • @ Jack & T-Shirt
    Can either of you point to the time and place when anyone here said TARP was a good idea? Didn't think so.

    Oh, and we get it already... you're both so superior because you triangulate yourselves above the two major parties. You're outsiders. Bravo.

    Of course, that doesn't stop you from writing mind-blowingly stupid things like "give me publicly funded health care insurance over TARP bailouts any day. At least we get something for the money taken from us by force". Yes, you'll get a shortage of doctors and long lines for health care. Hooray!

    On the other hand, from TARP I happened to get a nice increase in my stock value on companies like C, BAC & WFC. So I actually did make some money back on TARP. But that's just so capitalistic, I know.
    By Steve L. @ 11/02/09 10:03:35 AMreport abuse
  • taxing work
    Give me freedom over government healthcare or TARP bailouts, there, Jack.
    By paco @ 11/02/09 09:55:24 AMreport abuse
  • Jack Smythe
    oh, no. you can do that. you'll get labeled as a "wealth envy" monster. bad, bad, Jack Smythe.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 11/02/09 09:44:01 AMreport abuse
  • @ 3mp3
    "It's patriotic to pay your taxes. What's the problem anyway? You still get your 60%."

    Please post a copy of your last tax return (with personal ID numbers blocked of course) showing the additional voluntary tax you sent to the IRS just to get up to that 40% number, Mr. Patriot.

    If you didn't pay your 40%, kindly shut the h-ll up and keep your ridiculous drivel to yourself in the future.
    By Steve L. @ 11/02/09 09:37:16 AMreport abuse
  • Corporate Tax Rates
    Wow, Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than we do? No wonder they don't make anything!
    By Steve D @ 11/02/09 09:02:29 AMreport abuse
  • 2.3 billion in TARP taxpayer dollars down the toilet.
    Will Boortz, Hannity, and Limbaugh obsess about the billions of taxpayer dollars seized from taxpayers to bailout the now bankrupt Cit Group? Will they fume about the bonuses these "talented" Cit Group executives got while they were driving their company into the ground and burying our money with it? Or will the hosts concentrate on blasting publicly run health care over and over again. Give me publicly funded health care insurance over TARP bailouts any day. At least we get something for the money taken from us by force? This is an example of the "talent" that Boortz so staunchly defends in our free market place. The is the "creme de la creme" that we gotta keep at any cost" according to AM talk show host propagandists.

    Poor shareholders. They and the taxpayers are the true victims here?
    By Jack Smythe @ 11/02/09 09:02:05 AMreport abuse
  • Businesses Relocating
    Yep, it's true. My "freelance boss" recently relocated his small ad agency's headquarters to Panama, from Chicagoland, just because he could, and because, as he he told me, it's way too expensive to do business in the US. Luckily I work remotely for him, so I still have work- maybe even moreso because he has to pay less taxes on his profits! Unfortunately I still have to pay a ton of taxes on *my* income...
    By Michelle @ 11/02/09 09:00:24 AMreport abuse
  • Tax rates
    What this report doesn't take into account is that US corporations pay the lowest tax rates in all the world once deductions are added in. And these companies that flee America for cheaper tax rates are just unpatriotic. It's patriotic to pay your taxes. What's the problem anyway? You still get your 60% so that you can give out big bonuses and buy gold plated plumbing for the executive washroom. The simple fact is most men get into business so that they can boss women and minorities around and they don't really care what their compensation is.

    Corporate greed runs a world in need.
    By 3mp3 @ 11/02/09 08:47:21 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement