Is Obama's New Tax Plan a War on Women or just a Bad Plan?
The New York Sun has an interesting op-ed entitled, "Obama's War on Women":
I have never thought punishing people--whether men or women--for making more money and rewarding them for making less was a good strategy. How can you tell your kids to grow up to be successful and earn a good living when Obama's tax plan is to take a good percentage of it if you are "too successful?"
It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
I have never thought punishing people--whether men or women--for making more money and rewarding them for making less was a good strategy. How can you tell your kids to grow up to be successful and earn a good living when Obama's tax plan is to take a good percentage of it if you are "too successful?"
Labels: politics
posted by Helen at 4:48 PM
42 Comments:
I fear that the considerations the op-ed cites will not be understood fully by the persons most likely to be harmed by them. They simply won't look closely enough.
The great genius of socialists and nanny-staters has been to deflect our attention from the hand reaching into our pockets and onto the hand offering us fake "benefits" for which we'll ultimately overpay, with both our money and our freedom.
Sounds like my possible future. Hey, I'm still not 40 - maybe my husband would agree to a 3rd child after all and I'd have something to do while staying home ...
Taxes? From each his ability (decided by others) to each his needs (again decided by others).
I have no problem paying for the care and feeding of the goose that lays the golden eggs, as I've said before. But the tax system is akin to two men hired to dig a hole. He who digs more, gets payed more. The government then takes a disproportionate amount of his pay to give to the one who doesn't dig as much, or at all. What the hell is that all about?
The difference is, those who cannot dig at all, for reasons beyond their control, need help. Well, lets help them. Help them to stand up and walk on their own. The rest of them should go pound salt. Or their own extended family should care for them. Not me. I've already got problems of my own - that the government won't help me with - I make too much money.
Government, being a necessary evil, needs to be controlled by the people. In the land of the free, it is the other way 'round. Regardless of what we may actually think.
Why is it a "War on Women?" Isn't it just as much a war on husbands? Wouldn't it be more specific to say its a "War on families" or "war on marriage", or do they not do that because husbands and marriage don't get the widespread sympathy and pandering women get?
In any case, I'll pass on Obama. Keep the change.
@br549
Problem is, he who digs less (or doesn't dig at all) pays less (or pays nothing), yet gets an equal voice to those who dig most.
This is how societies collapse, because when the takers outnumber the makers, they outvote the makers and basically rob the makers.
No easy solution.
do they not do that because husbands and marriage don't get the widespread sympathy and pandering women get?
Pretty much. It's a variant of "world to end, women hardest hit".
It amazes me how little basic psychology the left understands, except when it comes to cigarettes. With cigarettes, they understand that if you punish a behavior (by raising the price) that you get less of the behavior.
Yet when it comes to income, they think they will raise more money by punishing financial success!
Idiots.
Trey
The author really had to do contortions worthy of the US Olympic gymnastics team here to put the focus on women.
Left-wing politicians like to call for higher taxes on high earners. That's all this is.
And there are lots of assumptions built into this author's little world - the man has the "big" job (I guess that's the reason she married him) and pumpkin doesn't want to acknowledge that a huge river of money is flowing her way from the man when it also comes time to tax her own earnings.
Yeah, she might as well stay home - Oprah's on.
By the way, the comparisons about a "man digging a hole" and people getting income in proportion to their work is not a very good model for how society really works.
For starts, I refuse to believe that Heather Mills, although she is vastly richer than I am, has contributed more to society or has worked harder than I have. But there you have it, the little dumpling is far richer than me.
It would be an anomaly if it remained with Heather. But in many cases you have a high-earning spouse and a low-earning or no-earning spouse, and the latter also has a stake on that money.
People inherit money, there are trust funds set up for people, people get sinecures with a high income through family ties or on other grounds, so it looks like they're working etc.
Lots of stuff goes on in the world. It's wise to pick the right family before you are born and you should be rewarded for that good choice.
Now although envy may very well be involved in my statements here, it is also simply a plain fact that it's true. People get money in unwarranted ways. So at least think about that with regard to the "man digging a hole" models. And men digging holes don't earn very much, far less than a housewife watching Oprah. That's how society works.
jg, please. heather doesn't know which end of a shovel to put into the ground.
Should I have said building a bridge, a house, assembling an automobile? How about brain surgeon vs. dishwasher at the Cracker Barrel?
If a brick layer hires two helpers to carry bricks and mix mortar (so he can do what he does best - lay brick), one will be better than the other. Faster, or stronger, or smarter and therefore a better helper and worth more money to the brick layer. He SHOULD be paid more. Can you now follow the rest of the analogy? If there is no incentive to be better today than yesterday - if you are penalized for hard work, intelligence, or plain old drive - and a disproportionate amount of your work is awarded to someone else because they do not possess your ethics, drive, or intelligence - then why the hell kill yourself?
Society is the loser.
I wonder if Obama's wife knows about this and is willing to give up 54% of her $300,000+ income.
In all reality, this proposal isn't coming from Obama. It's coming from averge Americans who make $45K per year and are simply jealous of anybody who makes 200K. To them, those people are "rich
and therefore suspect. Obama's just giving them what they want like any good politician.
But I thought Obama wasn't just another politician. I wonder how his wife feels about that and if he's already figured a way around it for her.
@br549: "doesn't know which end of a shovel to put into the ground."
To the left, that is easy. You but the handle in the ground because it is smaller and easier. Then when the person next to you uses the more difficult metal end, and consequently digs more dirt, you demand they split the difference in their income with you.
"jg, please. heather doesn't know which end of a shovel to put into the ground."
-------------
But the point I'm getting at is that under the model and belief that people with money have earned it, then Heather has certainly worked harder and provided more for society than most or all of the people here.
The further point that I'm trying to make, and something I've only recently come around to really SEEING in society, is the MOST of the people with money haven't necessarily worked harder or even provided more for society than anyone else. To start with, spouses of rich people are also rich themselves - meaning that around half of rich people already got it in a parasitic way for that reason alone. No one wants to think about that for some reason. Throw in inheritance, sinecures due to family ties, the foundation that a rich family can provide, a name that can be exploited (i.e. Hilton) and even the odd lottery winner and I'm not so sure that society rewards work, at least not in the way I used to believe.
"But the point I'm getting at is that under the model and belief that people with money have earned it, then Heather has certainly worked harder and provided more for society than most or all of the people here."
--------
Just for clarification, because I REALLY have trouble getting my points across here for some reason: Heather Mills sucks. No, she hasn't worked harder than anyone here. The point I tried to make is that if you have enough Heathers in society (and we do), maybe the notion that the "rich" have earned it is simply WRONG.
A world that recognizes work:
No income tax. 100% inheritance tax with the existing $10,000 per year transfer limit. Possibly a national sales tax.
Women: A consensus figure is set on the value of child-bearing and raising small children. She gets that annual figure, and that's it. She doesn't get the man's money just because. Divorce just becomes each party taking their own stuff.
In return, free college education. Whatever you do to earn money in society, you keep all of it.
THAT society would go a long way towards rewarding work.
The point I tried to make is that if you have enough Heathers in society (and we do), maybe the notion that the "rich" have earned it is simply WRONG.
Somebody at some point earned the wealth. The fact that some people are parasitic to that wealth, or have access to it by virtue of being favored by its owner, doesn't change things.
100% inheritance tax with the existing $10,000 per year transfer limit.
"The government owns everything". That's a model I categorically reject.
""The government owns everything". That's a model I categorically reject."
---------
OK, give dead people full control over their money.
By the way, while I'm at it, copyrights should cease to exist with the author's death. Extending copyrights past the author's death simply enriches parasites. And why do we want to enrich parasites? Someone please explain that to me.
Giving dead people full control over their money WOULD drive a spike in Ouiji Board sales, I suspect.
Nothing would tickle the democrats more pink than to confiscate all our money, and give back each person the amount they feel an individual needs to get by. They holler about equality and fairness, but it's really about control.
Do you have an axe to grind with wealthy people, jg? I'm just wondering. Many do. I will admit, Paris Hilton is famous for being famous, and for giving head on you tube. That's about it. But as far as taking away her 300 million inheritance and giving everyone a buck, what would that do - besides sticking it to Paris?
Looking at what home computers have done for the world, I have no problem with Gates or Jobs, or IBM, et al. Look at how many multi-millionaires Microsoft has created as well. With enough foresight, you'd be one of those too. I'm mad at Gates because Windows (any release) could, and should, be so much better than it is. But I'll take the returns.
Anyway, I submit that if you were independently wealthy, you would not feel as you do.
"Do you have an axe to grind with wealthy people, jg?"
--------
I think with regard to the ones who haven't earned it, yes. And their number really is legion.
Flipping it around, do you have any respect for Heather Mills? Lots and lots of (mostly) women do, and I think that society mis-attributes its respect and admiration to the wrong things.
"Anyway, I submit that if you were independently wealthy, you would not feel as you do."
-------
So you've already got me "typed" as a fast-food employee or the guy who comes in to fix the Xerox machine or something?
I'm not sure exactly where the wealth line is for "independently wealthy" but I know it's something that chicks really seem to want (although women in London only seem to want "solvent" men, which is probably an improvement). So it must be defined somewhere.
LOL
I have paid little attention to Mills, except for the fact she seems to have tried to shaft McCartney, an individual the whole world knows, and hums his songs daily.
McCartney is so isolated by his wealth and world renown, he was easily taken, looking through glasses made of loneliness. Those close to him tried to warn him. It's only lonely at the top. Misery loves company.
I fail to see a big difference between Mills and an unwed mother who has another kid to get more money out of the government. When one can make more money on welfare than working a minimum wage job, it's a no brainer for many. The answer is not to raise minimum wage, but to lower the rewards of welfare for those who are able to work. But I'll accept minimum wage increases, if they lower welfare payout amounts. They want to raise both, and continue to do so. At everyone's expense. Honestly, does that make sense?
Here's another example of almost an anti-correlation between work and compensation in society:
A guy named Ed McMahon, who is likely familiar to older people here, was almost evicted from his house because he couldn't make the mortgage payments. He is out of money, poor, and was nearly homeless.
Now this guy made tens of millions, maybe 100 million, from work. I have wondered if saying "HIII-OOOHHHHH" every night on the Johnny Carson show is worth that kind of money, but I guess that's a topic for another day.
In any case, who really spent that money? His wife, who has an out-of-control shopping habit. She dropped almost that entire amount on herself.
That's another example of how one person works and another person gains the benefit. Effectively, the money was transferred to her.
Why? And if she got a divorce, the money would be transferred by COURT ORDER. Again: Why? Why does society have any interest at all in enriching parasites?
By the way, I am beginning to lose sight of what I thought you were driving at. What are you driving at, anyway?
"What are you driving at, anyway?"
---------
Kind of a random, diffused displeasure with the state of overall things. A general unease with a non-specific malaise. I guess; I'm not really sure myself.
Does that help to clarify?
Well, I can certainly identify with it, for sure.
By the way, while I'm at it, copyrights should cease to exist with the author's death
I concur. The current rule is effectively unlimited copyright, which was never intended by the framers.
I don't think either of you mean that plagiarism should be allowed, do you?
Perhaps no money need change hands after the authors' or writers' deaths, but credit should always be given where it's due, don't you think?
I thought there was a fifty year cap after a writer's death, on copyrights. Am I wrong there?
Or am I really dense, and you are speaking of exclusivity of the rights to publish ones works after x amount of time? Be kind, I'm on my first cup of coffee.
BR549:
Copyright and attribution of the true author are two separate issues.
I can put a Steven King novel on a Web site and attribute it to Steven King all day long, but I am violating his copyright by reproducing it, and if I had a Web site that was making money off it, I would probably be sued.
Conversely, if I take a play by Shakespeare and publish it as my own work, I am NOT violating a copyright (because it has long since expired), but I AM plagiarizing work.
Two separate issues.
Copyright is about CONTROL of your own work (i.e. where it is reproduced etc.).
Plagiarism is about who the real author is.
Then I agree with the 50 year cap, if that is what currently stands. If I have a work that is successful, and is able to continue to bring in the bucks after I am dead, I would like for my own children to be able to capitalize on that, in and for their lifetimes. Why not? Rather them than someone who does not know me, and is just trying to capitalize on my work because he can. If it continues to sell, someone sees it as beneficial enough to cough up some dough. If it is up to me who continues to make money off my work, my kids win out over anyone else. For their life time. That is my personal view on the subject, unless I am missing your entire point.
Dang, jg...how can you bear to go through life as bitter and jealous as you seem to be?
Heather Mills is in no way illustrative of prosperity in America.
To understand how wealth is built, and where it comes from, and whom we're REALLY talking about, read "The Millionaire Next Door," by Stanley and Danko.
Can't you just feel the bitterness and envy burning through the screen?
If some guy gets a radically new idea for cold fusion and then implements the idea in practice, gets a patent on it, and then makes a billion, all while tremendously contributing to society in the process, I would have the feeling that no amount of money would be enough for him. I would think that's great, and also great for society.
On the other hand, I don't understand why a government would promote, e.g. through its courts, parasitism. Why are big chunks of money transferred from earners to leeches (for instance in divorces)? I don't understand why people who have done nothing for their money are almost worshipped in some cases. Ivanna Trump was worshipped by many women.
As far as the relative number of parasites goes, all I can say is: Look around. And do so without any preconceived notions.
Well,jg - I'd say that you should quit giving a crap about how much anyone else has.
You should care how much you have, or don't have. And if you don't like it, get off your ass and do something about it.
There are 24 hours in a day. We all have the same amount of hours, no matter who we are. It all depends on what we do with those hours, eh?
Too funny ...
I assert that the government shouldn't be assisting parasites, and the responses disparage me as a person. In other words, no counterargument, but a real dislike for what I have said for some reason.
I seem to have unwittingly walked right into the parasite advocacy faction.
Here's an example:
A person is mugged and robbed by another person. The latter is caught and has to appear in court along with the former, who is the witness (victim).
The judge gives a long rambling speech about equality in society, about how the mugger did not have equal chances growing up and that we are all responsible as wards for others, and then orders the VICTIM to turn over another $100 as compensation to the MUGGER (who also gets to keep the mugged amount). This is to balance out the unequal social positions of the mugger and victim.
Now some people see this and ask: "Why on earth is the government promoting this policy through its courts?". Others answer: "You just shutup, yur stoopid. Don't worry about what other people do".
And yes, many aspects of this analogy fit my assertions about parasites. Parasites even sometimes used fraud to obtain their ends (instead of the direct force of mugging).
The government promotes parasites. It rewards parasites who can bring about a certain situation or legal status.
I'm asking: Why? Why are parasites rewarded by the government?
Do you truly want someone else to answer that question for you, instead of getting to the bottom of it yourself? Parasite!
Use some of your own 24 hours to find the answer you seek. Then compile and copyright your work.
JG, are you serious? Have you forgotten that just because a woman doesn't work outside the home, she still works and her hours are longer than 9-5?
Is a woman's work inside the home not as valuable as outside the home? Raising children, planning and cooking (or working with staff to plan and cook) meals, managing staff, paying bills, handling the day-to-day activities that keep a house, especially on the level of the Trumps, running in a clean and orderly fashion, appearing at social functions after a long day of taking care of a sick child only to go home and continue taking care of the child through the night, bearing children, maintaining a home, handling all the errands and chores that help make your husband look good, etc. Is that worth nothing? Yes, you get to shop and go on vacation, but you really have no money of your own, no salary, no benefits outside those your husband grants you, so why should you not be entitled to compensation during the years that you worked as a wife, mother and homemaker/manager? Or do you consider a woman who works in the home a parasite? If so, then you need to check your values.
As for the mugger and victim scenario, all you need to do is read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to understand how that works and why it is becoming de rigueur in American society.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
視訊美女彩虹視訊交友網彩虹視訊交友網情色視訊交友情色視訊交友546視訊聊天室85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院一葉晴貼影片區546視訊聊天室一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室13060免費
Post a Comment
<< Home