Stuff My Brain Says #87

"Who do you think you're kidding?!?"

Remember when Congress wanted then candidate Donald Trump to turn over his tax returns? Yeah. Fun times.

Now Congress is telling us that the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill will be paid for by making companies and the rich pay their fair share. You know, "The middle class won't be left holding the bag. The rich who haven't been paying their fair share will cover the bill." 

To quote Dana Carvey: "Isn't that special?"

(Side note: when Social Security was first "sold" to us, we were told only the very rich would pay for it. Have you looked at your paystub to see the lump that goes out for Social Security? Welcome to the very rich ... )

Did you see the commonality of the above two statements? Yup. Congress. Now, here's the funny part: Congress is the very entity that created the tax code that ALLOWS people like Donald Trump to not pay taxes.

IF those "evil" rich aren't paying their "fair share", wouldn't there be charges brought up against them? Ask folks like Wesley Snipes, Nicolas Cage, and Willie Nelson about what happens when you don't pay your "fair share". Sounds to me that if a rich person or company isn't already paying their taxes, they would have been caught by now.

Maybe Congress has been watching too many Tim Misny commercials. Of course, the reason he can "make them pay" is that they've done something illegal. You'd think since Congress is made up of a bunch of lawyers, they'd already know that.

Would somebody please ask those folks who've been in D.C. seemingly forever what changes to the tax code they plan on making? After all, one of the reasons that a lot of these companies aren't "paying", is that a POLITICIAN promises tax cuts/abatements for opening a business in their district. NOW they are crying that these very companies actually embrace those cuts and abatements?

Even if Congress were able to get more money from the rich and businesses, they would simply outspend it. It's been their modus operandi for decades. They have an addiction: other people's money.

Maybe Congress should live by this simple financial code: If your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.

© Emittravel 2021

Stuff My Brain Says #83

A law isn’t a law unless it is enforced.

No matter the topic -  gun control, taxes, even jaw walking - laws are completely meaningless if not enforced.

So, if you are mad about a nineteen year-old being able to purchase a firearm to use in a killing spree in a gun-free school zone, or whether or not President Trump paid his “fair share” of taxes, and you think the solution is more laws, look first at what laws are ALREADY on the books and are not enforced.

You’ll realize that we either need less and more effective laws, or increased enforcement of those that already exist.

Sometimes Congress does its best work when on vacation.

© Emittravel 2018

What’s Mine is Mine & What’s Yours is Mine

As I mentioned in my last post, my wife and I spent a lot of time enjoying the National Parks in the state of Utah while on vacation. Normally when we are on drives, we listen to a playlist of podcasts consisting of old and current episodes of Coverville, East Meets West, and Cracked. This gives us a nice variety.

Being that we were gone for more than two weeks, many of the podcasts we listen to on our own were piling up. Being rather anal myself, I listen to all of my podcasts in the order they come out, and do not miss an episode. As for my wife, she listens to hers as to whatever is current, and listens to older ones if she has time. So, in order to give us a bit of variety, my wife suggested we listen to some of the podcasts from my queue (No guys, you can’t have her. She’s all mine!).

One of the episodes we listened to was from the Cato Daily Podcast. Now, Cato is a libertarian (small “L”) think tank that covers a variety of topics with informative discussions. Or, as the site describes it, "The Cato Daily Podcast allows Cato Institute scholars and other commenters to discuss relevant news and libertarian thought in a conversational, informal manner." (Yeah, that's better.)

The episode that got my attention was called, “A Weak Defense of Property Rights at the Supreme Court” and is described as, “The Supreme Court’s Murr decision may leave many future property owners in the lurch when local and state governments decide to change laws governing property.” I’ve provided a link so that you can listen to it: https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/weak-defense-property-rights-supreme-court

Before your eyes glaze over and you stop reading, let me remind you of the title of this particular blog post: “What’s Mine is Mine & What’s Yours is Mine”.

In all of the different articles I’ve read and all of the podcasts I’ve listened to on the subject of property, not one has looked at it from this perspective: According to those in government, “What’s Mine is Mine & What’s Yours is Mine”.

According to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Do you see what it does NOT say? “...that among these are Life, Liberty, and Property.”

According to the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 1774:

“That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights:

1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.”

On July 4, 1776 (almost two years after the above), Congress approved the final draft of the Declaration of Independence (which was not signed until August 2, 1776).

Somewhere between October 1774 and July 1776, the clearly lifted phrase changed “property” to “the pursuit of Happiness”. Why?

There is much speculation from different historians, but what is clearly evident, is that those who set up our government did not consider property (outside of their own - most were wealthy land owners) to be a right of the people.

In other words, in the eyes of the government, you do not own anything. They do.

“Wait there, J.P., I own my house.”

Do you? First off, most don’t “own” their house. They have a long-term rental agreement with a bank. But even if you have paid off your mortgage in full, you do NOT own your home. You want proof? Stop paying your property taxes - or your income taxes. They will TAKE it from you. You pay the government “rent” (via taxes) in order to live in that home. You stop paying your rent, they will evict you and take it from you.

“Okay, maybe my home. But I own my car.”

Really? If you don’t purchase a license plate (or tags), or in many states, don’t have car insurance, you cannot drive the vehicle. And most cities have ordinances that state that you cannot have a vehicle that cannot be moved sitting on your property over a certain period of time. If so, it can be taken from you. So, as far as it being a vehicle of transportation that you own, without said taxes and fees paid, you do not have a vehicle of transportation. You pay for the right to have it.

“Okay, what about my X-Box? I own that, don’t I?”

Well, you have to consider the following proverb: What you own can be used to pay what you owe. If you stop paying “rent” (a.k.a “taxes”), the government can take what you own to pay what you owe. That includes your X-Box.

Even in death you can’t “take it with you”. Not because you can’t drive a U-Haul to heaven (because you can't), but because the government has a right to tax what you own. This is called an estate tax and is simply defined as a tax levied on the net value of the estate of a deceased person before distribution to the heirs.

Not only did you pay taxes when you made money. Not only did you pay taxes when you bought something with that money. You have to pay taxes AGAIN on the net value of what you have when you die before your kids have any right to it.

Why? Because, in the government's eyes, you DON’T OWN ANYTHING. It all belongs to them anyway.

Even the interest you earn can be subject to taxation.

So, when you hear a politician say that a tax cut would be taking income from the government, you’ll understand that they think that a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

But don’t worry. You have the right to pursue happiness. As long as it does not include property ownership.

Me? Oh, I’m Happy!

© Emittravel 2017

Is the Game Rigged?

Donald Trump has been all over both (so called) main stream and social media shouting that the whole election process is rigged. You know Donald Trump: the guy who didn't pay taxes in about 18 years. Or did he?

Now that I have your attention, let's try to decipher both of those accusations.

First off, is the election rigged? I've written quite a few posts where I go into the election process ("Does the RNC WANT Me to Vote with the DNC?"; "I'm Bushed: Have We Ben Trumped?"; "What's a Reagan Conservative?"; "Independent Influence"; "Thank You Obama?"; "Stuff My Brain Says #77"; "A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice"; "Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9"; "Stuff My Brain Says #78"; "Repeat After Me"; "What Are You Afraid Of?"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #10"; and "It Just Doesn't Matter!"), so you can take some time and read those. One aspect I haven't given time to is the “early voting" process. I mentioned previously that I didn't know much about it, but I've done a little digging since. And what I've found seems to support Donald's cries.

Several states have the option to vote early. Those votes are not counted UNTIL election day along with all of the other votes (not including Absentee Ballots). So, what's the point of early voting? Polls, my dear friends. Polls.

Once people have voted, whether via early voting or on election day, pollsters like to ask immediately to whom did a person vote. They are then able to report this information as “news". This is helpful in that people tend to vote for those whom they believe are going to win. If they hear that a certain candidate looks to be winning, they tend to vote for that person (so they can say they supported the winner). Or, if they were going to vote for another candidate, they don't vote at all ("What's the point?")

This is especially an issue on election day, as those in the Eastern Time zone tend to close their polls earlier than those in the Pacific Time zone. Reports of those results have the ability to have an effect on voting results in other states voting later. And the polls don't have to close to be impactful, as pollsters report on what the trends are based on those leaving the voting stations say they voted for.

(Personally, I believe that it should be illegal for any results reporting to take place until AFTER the last state has closed their polls. This would eliminate such voting influence on election day.)

Hillary Clinton has been pushing promoted tweets on Twitter encouraging people to vote early in states that can. The (so called) mainstream media report the polls of those individuals asked after voting early whom they voted for. Why is she pushing the early vote? Because a lot of the reporting says that she is the one winning in those states who vote early.

Now, as far as Donald Trump paying, or in this case not paying, taxes goes…

Donald Trump reported a very large loss about 18 years ago. According to tax LAW, that loss can be written off over subsequent years, especially if the loss amount is far greater than the amount paid in taxes in any given year. And since the U.S. government won't give a refund covering that loss (the government hates having to return any of OUR money), the loss is divided over the number of years it takes in “paid" taxes to cover the loss. More like credit than "cash back".

Hillary Clinton used the legal polling system to show herself the winningest candidate that you should vote for, and Donald Trump used the legal tax code to not pay taxes. Both functioned within the law.

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the (so called) mainstream media who uses polls as news, and be mad at those very leaders in our government who WROTE the tax laws that people can use to not pay taxes.

Is the game rigged? That depends on your perspective. Are you playing the game?

©Emittravel 2016

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #7

It's broke . . .

There is a real lack of accountability when it comes to government spending.

If you ask the average person (by that I mean those with a job, and not self-employed) what they make, they will most likely give you the net amount. If you ask them what their gross is, they wouldn't have a clue.

I too, am an average person by that criteria. But, to be honest, without actually looking it up, I couldn't tell you what I made in gross OR net. That kind of info never seems to stick in my Etch A Sketch brain.

The difference between the gross and the net on your paystub is shown as a list of deductions: (where applicable) 401(k), medical insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, AND (always applicable) a multitude of taxes: local, state, and federal.

Once upon a time, we working stiffs would get a paper paycheck, along with a paystub attached that gave you all those deductions. Then one day the paychecks went direct-deposit to your bank and the paystubs became a thing you could only see if you logged into an account online and brought them up.

So, what does this have to do with the lack of accountability when it comes to government spending? Plenty.

Most folks have no idea how much they are sending to the government each pay period. Out of sight, out of mind. Because of this, the HOW money is spent by our government becomes less impactful. Don't think so? Remember back in 2009, when President Obama's stimulus spending was kicking into gear? When asked, some people thought it was "Obama's money". They had little-to-no idea that the money being shuffled around was coming from their paychecks, or of someone close to them.

Because of this lack of connectivity, people have very little understanding of WHY the government shouldn't be spending money on whatever sounds good. Your grandma was right: money DOESN'T grow on trees!

Like I say in the bio of my blog, I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. What does that mean? I'm okay with the government providing social services to better society, but they had better be financially sound (a.k.a. "in the black") when they do it. And we are NOT financially sound. How much is the deficit? Remember when the multi-trillion dollar deficit was trumpeted on the news? Do you have any idea what it is now? Take a look. And WHY isn't it cried about anymore?

Because it is gone! No more debt! It was completely wiped away with "Obama's money".

(Okay, I kid, I kid!!)

So, what's the solution? You are not going to like this (but the self-employed people already know what I'm going to say): Eliminate automatic deductions of payroll taxes. Make people write the checks.

Do it for one year. Each payday make people have to pull out their checkbooks and write a check to EACH of their governments (federal, state, AND local). And, since it is normally taken off the top, make them write the checks FIRST! BEFORE they put gas in their car, or food on their table, or pay for the roof over their heads. Write it first.

Only then will people feel the impact of what they send to their governments, and only then will they force their representatives to be a little more responsible with "YOUR NAME's money".

. . . time to fix it!

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #5

Speaking of the current debt/budget crisis: I find it rather ironic that the party that ran on "hope and change" hopes that nothing will change. Any cuts in spending have been labeled nothing short of criminal. What do they think CAN be changed if they sincerely hope for this nation to survive? And don't say "increase taxes on the rich": they've been spouting that for years - that's not change, that's a worn-out record!

(I just realized that many of my readers may not catch the "record" joke above. I need either newer jokes, or an older audience!)

© Emittravel 2011

Stuff My Brain Says #33

I really would not have a problem with paying taxes if the government was a better manager of my money. And I'm not alone in this. Think about it: why do the "wealthy" spend so much time and money AVOIDING taxes? Because they KNOW what a lousy investment the government is! That is one of the main reasons I laugh at people like Warren Buffet who say that the wealthy don't pay enough - HE takes every tax loophole available! Because Warren Buffet didn't become Warren Buffet by throwing his money away with bad investments.


Get a clue Washington. You want more tax revenue? Jesus said it best: "Whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with a lot, and whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with a lot. So if you haven't been faithful with unrighteous wealth, who will trust you with true wealth?" Luke 16:10,11

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #27

One of the more current events in this election cycle is the amount of money Mitt Romney makes, the amount of taxes he pays, and the amount he is worth. This is being pushed by the media as a negative to Romney, and I find it parroted by people who apparently have difficulty producing anything resembling an original thought. Here's one for you: name me the last presidential candidate that had a gross income of $30k or less (in today's dollars), and STILL became President. That's right: the office of the President is deemed for the wealthy; the, dare I say, "evil one percenters". So, Romney's wealth is NOT news. If he DID make only $30k/yr, THAT would be news. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

© Emittravel 2012

Any Graphic Artists Out There?

I'm not good at visuals. I can't draw a straight line with a ruler. I can't draw stick figures (they all come out male). I even have difficulty coming up with pictures to illustrate my blog. So, I'm asking for help.

I have an idea for a political cartoon, but I can't draw it. In one of my poems I mention that if a picture paints a thousand words, it is the poet's job to come up with the thousand words.

What follows is a description of what I have in mind. If you are of the visual bent, and can bring this to light, please contact me at nocturnecsh@gmail.com. I'll post the image to this blog (linking it to Twitter, Facebook, and Google+) - with full credit to you. Thanks!

Imagine the inside hull of a ship. On one bulkhead is a huge hole with a deluge of water flooding the compartment. The water is labeled "Spending" or "Debt". In the center of the frame stand a donkey and an elephant. Both have buckets in their hands and they are scooping the water from one side (their left?) and pouring it out on their other side (their right?). They are NOT throwing the water out, just moving it. One says to the other: "I think we need bigger buckets."

As you can tell from the cartoon, both the Democrats and Republicans are showing themselves inept when it comes to handling basic economics. The Democrats are crying that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share". If only they would our crisis would be over. The Republicans are saying no to any new taxes, but haven't proposed anything remotely serious when it comes to anything productive. Oh, I understand that they want to come up with some $1.6 trillion in cuts - OVER TEN YEARS! Who really gives a flip when they will increase spending by about $8 trillion over the same ten years?

Listen: you can confiscate ALL the resources of EVERYONE in the country and the problem WOULD NOT BE SOLVED. Why? Because these morons in D.C. will simply OUT SPEND the revenue - as they have been doing for YEARS.

That is why the proposed cartoon has both parties working hand in hand as the ship goes under.

So, thanks folks! Have at it. Can't wait to see what you come up with!

© Emittravel 2011

Stuff My Brain Says #6

Posted as a comment concerning Warren Buffet and Bill Gates discussion on why taxes are too low for the wealthy:

These guys are a joke. If they would just take the standard deductions they would pay more in taxes, but they don't. They use all the available write-offs and loop-holes available. So, they are saying that the only way to get them to pay more in taxes is to have the government FORCE them? Hypocrites. How about just writing a bigger check, or declining any refunds?

And mathematically their argument does not work. If you take all of their wealth, not just their income but sell everything they own, and give it to the government, it wouldn't fund it for four months. THEN where do you go to get the money? It's not an income problem, it is an outgo (spending) problem. When the government consistently spends more than comes in, no amount of income will fix it.

An old saying: When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall!

© Emittravel 2011

Taxing into Oblivion - Is That Even Possible?

It is funny to me that the environmentalists have been screaming that we need to find alternative sources of energy and that we need to cut back our energy use drastically, due to the limited amount of oil in the earth, but politicians believe that there is an endless supply of tax dollars to be had, and they think they need to spend more so that we don't run out.

Just let that (incredibly long sentence above) soak in for a minute. I guess that goes to prove that opposites do indeed attract; environmentalists and big-government politicians do seem to spend a lot of time together . . .

Now I do not consider myself an environmentalist. Heck, the way the city I live in got me to recycle was by a monetary incentive: the city pays (we pay via our tax dollars) for trash pickup by the pound - the company that picks up our recyclables does not charge the city, for they make their money in the processing and selling of said recycled materials - for every pound we recycle we save tax dollars - incentive!! But I do believe we are called to be good stewards (managers) of what we have.

(willing to save a buck!)

In MHBAO, fossil fuels ARE limited and we will EVENTUALLY run out - but not tomorrow. So, we SHOULD be looking at alternative energy sources, but without panic and ESPECIALLY without government mandates. And I also believe, and common logic verifies this, that eventually the feeding of government will exceed the sources of food (taxes).

During the last presidential election, the definition of what was considered "rich" was questioned. If the money to pay for everything was to only be taken from the rich, what, exactly, would make a person fall into that category? Would $500k? Or $250k? Maybe it was $150k? How about $100k? Is that combined income for couples, or is that for singles? And is that amount adjusted for inflation? But hey, as long as I make less (and resign myself to NEVER making more) they can punish those "evil" rich.

(the truly "evil rich" - who are exempted from most of what they dish out)

Just a quick look at Social inSecurity would tell you that the government is incapable of keeping their word on anything. Social inSecurity was designed for a tiny percentage of the population, and was to be paid for by a tiny percentage of the population - the most wealthy (a.k.a the "evil rich"). Today I'm not considered part of the "evil rich", according to the gyrations of the oh-so-wise-and-benevolent politicians, but when I look at my pay stub I see quite a large amount being taken for Social inSecurity. So, what am I?

Oh, and let's not forget that the "trust" fund that originally held the money put in, so that there was something to draw from upon retirement, has been sucked dry already. That's right folks, nothing but I.O.U.s. (Quick lesson: there is NO such thing as being taxed and having that money going ONLY for a certain purpose - it is all just one big pie to the politicians.) You and I are paying for those currently receiving it. Think about the effect unemployment has on that!

Before you think I'm just meandering in this blog article, I do have a point to make. The money for all of these "necessary" bailouts, stimulus, and other programs, is supposed to be coming from those "evil rich". We are told that is one of the reasons for eliminating those "evil" Bush tax cuts. But like Social inSecurity, what happens when that oil well runs dry? They start drilling in YOUR wallet. At one point, and we are darn close to it now, there will be more spending taking place than revenue sources.

The solution is simple: you can only raise taxes so much (before you cripple the economy and cause a major collapse). Politicians need to do the unpopular and cut spending. I know, I know - that is political suicide! After all, isn't that what they were elected to do? Spend your money better than you can? They say that if you rob Peter to pay Paul you are guaranteed Paul's vote. What happens when you run out of Peters? Will they decide we've spent enough at that point?

There is an old proverb: When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.

©Emittravel 2010