Ponderstorm My Brainstorm on Life & Politics

I’m tired of hearing Democrats say we should raise taxes on the rich or the rich should never receive a tax cut. To make matters even more frustrating, they often state this sentiment as if there’s something evil about being rich. Here are three things to consider before embracing the “tax the rich” notion.

1. Only people who earn more money than they need can afford to hire others.

Excessively taxing the rich kills the economy. Have you ever seen somebody barely scraping a living from paycheck to paycheck start a business and hire employees? Can poor people offer health insurance plans and pay benefits? Of course not. They don’t have any extra money to risk or invest. Excessive taxation of the rich takes their investment capital away which harms the economy.

2. The rich enlarge the economy by their consumption.

Let me illustrate this point by an example. Following the 1993 Clinton tax increase a large surcharge on the sale of new luxury yachts was imposed. That luxury tax almost put the the American yacht construction industry out of business. Who builds the yachts? The rich? Of course not. So guess who was laid off when nobody was buying yachts? The lower class yacht construction workers suffered for that tax (and from the government’s point of view it raised almost no revenue because domestic yacht sales dried up).

3. Who decides what qualifies as rich and how much to confiscate?

Taxing the rich is a Marxist income redistribution scheme. It punishes work, risk and capitalism. It deprives poeple of their individual freedoms and personal property rights. In a free society government has no right to decide who needs how much money and what amount they get to keep.

In conclusion, excessive taxation of the rich is like killing Read More…

Posted under 60 Seconds, Economy, Government

Remember this simple fact whenever a political candidate or government official tells you he or she will give you something: Government does not have anything to give that it does not first take from somebody else.

It’s an axiomatic truth that our government cannot give us anything unless it first takes it from somebody else. In order for government to own something, it has to take money (taxes) or property (via a legal provision known as eminent domain) from citizens. Once taken, it is then considered “government property.”

Simply put, government extracts resources from producers (ex: income tax, corporate taxes) and spenders (ex: sales tax) to fill the public treasury. That is necessary and proper for legitimate government functions authorized by the Constitution and provided for by law. However, some political candidates and government officials have the audacity to go beyond that and say they’re going to give us something out of the public treasury. That’s such a lie! It’s not theirs to give. Even a tax cut is not giving us something — it’s simply taking less of something that was ours to start with.

The bottom line: It’s our money that they’re spending in Washington! The same is true for our state capitol, city hall, county courthouse, school district or whatever level of government. Think about this next time you vote.

Posted under 60 Seconds, Taxes

Recently somebody suggested that Presidential preferences are like this: “The ‘right’ wants a President they can have a beer with. The ‘left’ just wants someone really smarter than them.” My reply was something like the following:

I think its deeper than the “beer and smarts” analogy suggested above. The right wants to know confidently that their key principles (the “3 pillars” of free markets, national security and social conservatism) are held at a core level by the President and they (the President) won’t waver on them. They don’t care much about physical appearance, TV image, speaking ability, etc. as long as these core principles are not abandoned. Delegation as a leadership style is fine and a “hands off” approach by government preferred for most issues. In a nutshell, government is not to do much more than safeguard these principles and protect us from evil nations.

The left, on the other hand, wants somebody who feels their pain and is smart enough to fix everything that is wrong. That means somebody with an Ivy League education is preferred since only they are smart enough to hold such power. They must look good on TV and be respected by other players on the world stage so they don’t embarrass us. They also have to speak well to soothe us and make us feel comfortable after convincing us that they feel our pain and want to help us enjoy life.  Image and perception are everything as long as the economy is good and we are safe from all harms including natural disasters like hurricanes and dirty water. Risks are to be eliminated and the federal government is the ultimate safety net for everybody. Everybody should be equally happy.

I know that’s a light-hearted, broad-brushed view of things; however, I feel it does point out many core differences between liberals and conservatives. What do you think?

Posted under 60 Seconds, Politics

The death penalty exists to put a tangible value on life and punish murderers. It is a social contract: If you kill an innocent person then you are not worthy of living. In effect, your actions in committing murder forfeit your life. Period.

Enforcement is the responsibility of the state. Who but the state can enforce such a social contract? We surely don’t want the family or mobs taking justice into their own hands. Thus it becomes the state’s responsibility to enforce the value of life by removing those who broke that contract and committed murder.

What about deterrent? With the death penalty the goal of deterrent is this: the one who murdered once will not be allowed to murder again. Simply put, he is deterred since he will not live another day to murder again.

Posted under 60 Seconds