Tax the Rich People & Businesses....Not a Good Idea

It amazes me how the liberals' solution to all problems involve raising taxes on the "rich." Currently, there are discussions on fixing the current oil crisis by imposing a wind falls tax on the oil companies due to their excessive profits. Other ideas...we can pay for health care for U.S. citizens by increasing taxes on the wealthy, and we can pay for increasing education costs by increasing property taxes. The government can provide anything to anybody... just raise taxes on the rich. Easy!

I have a question...will the government give the oil companies money when they are losing money? Some people fail to acknowledge this fact, but, if the oil companies make more money, they already pay more taxes. Although the effective tax rate for a c-corporation is something like 40-50% depending on the state residence, for simplicity purposes, let's assume it is only 10%. If this company makes $10 million dollars, they would pay taxes of $1 million dollars. If that same company is able to improve business to make $100 million dollars, they now pay $10 million dollars. Isn't it strange how the liberals try to make big business the enemy? In effect, they punish these businesses by making them pay more taxes the more money they make.

Sometimes, you have to wonder why anybody even wants to try to make money anymore. The harder you work, the more money you make, the more the government takes. Isn't it strange...you would think that the government would embrace businesses since that IS the source of their livelihood and spending. That is what the governments from overseas practice. It is not uncommon for countries such as China to help subsidize and cultivate industry. These countries understand the concept of Reagan's theory of trickle-down economics. When businesses make money, we all benefit...employees, employers, cities, states, and countries.

When businesses make money, they hire people. These employees make money and pay taxes on what income they bring home while the company matches some of the taxes and social security for each employee. Ultimately, the more people that are working for a business, the more payroll taxes the company pays the government.

When businesses make money, they buy materials and supplies to make their products or provide services. This "trickles down" so the vendors and suppliers have to employ people and purchase materials and supplies as well. The more money the business makes, the more this "trickles down" to more businesses and ultimately more workers who pay taxes.

When businesses make money, they pay more taxes the more goods they sell via the sales tax.

When businesses exist, even without necessarily making money or breaking even, they provide local taxes to the cities and counties in the way of property taxes which fund public schools as well as other local infrastructure needs. When these businesses exist, they consume utilities such as electricity, water, gas, telephone, etc. which makes it more feasible to provide these types of services to residential customers. When businesses exist, they make contributions to benefit local communities.

How can anybody be so quick to try to lay more tax burden on businesses than they already endure? Businesses are not the bad guys...they are the roots of our economy and the roots of our tax revenues. With the existing burden, not to mention the looming burden, is it really any wonder that businesses look to relocate overseas. Other countries welcome business. Other countries welcome the "trickle-down" benefits of businesses.

The liberals would have you believe that the government provides for their citizens. They provide social security, they provide welfare benefits, they provide unemployment benefits, they provide food stamps, they provide medicare and medicaid, etc. Where do they get their money to pay for all these programs not to mention all the pork barrel spending? Tax revenues from you and me and all the businesses that generate wealth for our country. When has the government really generated any wealth? When has the government created jobs? Most of what the government does is spend the money they tax you, me and our employers. And they don't do that very effectively!

I have a question...from whom would you rather receive money? Me, if I decided you were in need of $1000; or from the government after I sent my $1000 to the IRS and it was processed through the bureaucracy of collections , and all the committees that determine where all the tax revenues go, and then gets processed as a check and distributed? Most businesses calculate the cost of fulfilling an order at no less than $100. That means that just the paperwork and logistics of processing an order costs at least $100. I'm not sure how that translates into government collections, but I wouldn't be surprised if it cost the government $500 - $1000 to give you the $1000.

Have you decided yet? You can have $1000 from me, or you might get $500 from the government after all the processing costs. Oh yeah...did I mention that you could get my $1000 processed through the bank within the week? And from the government...I hope you don't need the money too badly, because I would imagine that it could take 3-6 months if not longer to get your money from the government.

Tax the rich...you're taxing the poor and needy more! Tax the rich...you're chasing businesses and investors overseas. Tax the rich...your employer might decide they can't afford to keep you on the payroll. Tax the rich...people lose their incentive to make more money and start businesses. Tax the rich...not a good idea!

Michigan economy

I just listened to a Democrat strategist on Neil Cavuto's program, and it was very interesting to hear her blame Michigan's economic woes on Republican philosophies, especially NAFTA and the deteriorating auto market. I concur that Michigan's problems are largely due to the erosion of the automotive business in Michigan.

First, NAFTA was pushed through during the Clinton era. While I have mixed emotions on NAFTA, there have been good things as well as bad things that have resulted from NAFTA. Yes, some jobs have gone overseas, but at the same time, the price of goods that consumers purchase has been lowered because other countries can produce those goods cheaper than we can. This brings me to my second point in my rebuttal.

One of the reasons that the Michigan's economy has suffered is because of the high cost of labor and overhead related to labor such as pension plans, workers compensation, health insurance, social security and other taxes. A lot of these exorbitant costs were exacerbated by the union's demands. While technology has reduced much of the labor content associated with automobile production while at the same time making it safer, unions in the automotive industry (much like the steel industry) continued pushing for higher pay and better benefits. All of this while at the same time, reducing the operational efficiency due to more middle-men between the management and labor force through the unions. Most people are familiar with the common practices of unions - if somebody is hired to be a welder, they won't perform another task even if it makes sense to get some product out of production and to the customer. The overhead associated with unions is a real drain to manufacturing plants and ultimately our society.

Even in a non-union plant, the increasing costs associated with all the new legislation such as FMLA, HIPPA, etc. make supervisors, managers, and owners spending more time and more money dealing with lawyers than dealing with real business issues such as making things more productive or developing new products.

I've oftentimes marveled at the fact that enterprising people still go the entrepreneurial route of developing new products and new businesses. Just the risk associated with product liability claims makes it pretty unattractive. All you have to do is read the headlines about how so many in our society are filing lawsuits in get rich quick schemes because they were scalded by a cup of hot coffee from McDonald's they spilled on themselves. Perhaps the best business to be in is making warning labels. Have you ever read some of the ridiculous warning labels that exist? Warning: Coffee is hot and may result in burns. Warning: Do not immerse this plugged appliance in the bathtub. Or, as evidenced by the influx of new lawyers, a person could pursue a law degree for some job security.

Tim Russert death

I am saddened at the death of Tim Russert. He was a class act! I didn't realize until today how he was probably a democrat based on is work with democrat leaders. I don't hold that against him, but instead, I'm impressed at how open-minded and practical he was regarding political subjects. Never could I detect any bias in his interviews with any political leaders, democrat or republican.

He is very inspiring in the way he loved his father given the tribute he wrote for his father. He was very inspiring in the way he loved politics, and even more so, the way he loved America. His concern was not so much about whether the country elected a democrat or republican, but rather whether the country elected a leader that could lead us in a good and positive way. I listened to Jack Welch speak on FoxNews about his relationship with Tim Russert. Apparently, he wasn't concerned about money he would receive or would be guaranteed with contracts with GE. Instead, his primary concern was that he would be able to continue as host of "Meet the Press" in the way he loved.

I hope I learn to emulate how much he loved his country, how much he loved his family, and how much he exuded unparalleled optimism. We all have something we can learn from him. He is a great hero, and he will be missed.