Redstate

Posted at 10:25pm on Jun. 18, 2008 Quote Of The Day

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Commenting on Obama's tax raising plans, Paul Krugman writes: "[I]t would push tax rates on some high-income Americans back to the levels of the 1970s." For those of you unfamiliar with Krugman, he meant that as a compliment.

--Conn Carroll.

Posted at 2:21am on Jun. 12, 2008 Who's "Rich" These Days?

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Raising taxes is an unpopular enterprise, so in order to pull it off, one has to engage in more than a bit of class warfare. One has to talk about "raising taxes just for the rich" or some other such nonsense in order to sell the tax hike--this despite the fact that the rich actually pay a huge share of the taxes in this country and that the more such class envy we see in efforts to sell tax hikes, the more Atlas may shrug.

All of this is a prelude to a discussion of Barack Obama's tax policy, which as Stephen Moore points out, should induce more than a little consternation on the part of readers and voters:

Barack Obama has been on a class-warfare tirade since he locked up the nomination, accusing John McCain of defending Bush tax cuts for "the rich." "For eight long years," he said Monday in a speech laying out his economic agenda, "our president sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs."

Hmmm. Anybody even dimly acquainted with the record, especially President Bush's vast expansion of Medicare, might doubt the factual basis of such a statement. Never mind. Mr. Obama and the Congressional Democrats promise to sock it to "rich" taxpayers next year to pay for "middle class tax cuts" as well as some $300 billion in new spending. But there's a problem: They won't tell us exactly who the rich are.

In various tax proposals Mr. Obama has set the definition of rich at levels of $100,000, $200,000 and $250,000 in annual income. He has vowed, for example, to erase the Bush tax cuts not only for those who make more than $250,000, but to end the cap on Social Security taxes, which amounts to a tax hike on anyone who makes more than $100,000 in income. More recently, Austan Goolsbee, an Obama economic adviser, told me the new cap might be set at $200,000.

All of this has caused some heartburn among certain Democrats in high cost-of-living states. New York Rep. Joseph Crowley says a couple with earnings of $100,000 could be "a police officer and nurse." "In New York City," he adds, "they'd be struggling."

You know, at some point, someone should really call the Obama campaign on all of this. They have no idea what "rich" means. The standards keep shifting and the Obama tax plan will hit "rich" people who don't qualify as being wealthy under any meaningful definition of the term. The economic damage this scattershot policy will do will be massive, of course.

But fear not! There are certain "rich" people who actually are rich in every sense of the term and who will do quite well in an Obama Administration. Read the rest of the Moore article to find out who they are. And here's a hint: There shall be no "windfall profits tax" on them.

Posted in Barack Obama | Economy | Tax Policy — Comments (1)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:22pm on May 12, 2008 Your Tax Dollars at Work: Energy Subsidies

By Vladimir

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

That's a link to a Wall Street Journal editorial that is guaranteed to make the top of frequent poster moderich's head explode.

It is a look at how much energy we're getting for our subsidy dollar. An exhaustive look, by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy.

Posted in alternative energy | Energy | Tax Policy — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:37pm on Mar. 1, 2008 In Praise Of Tax Havens

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Yes, yes, I know; tax havens are a resource for the rich and a terribly unethical way of getting out of paying taxes, which we should all actually enjoy because giving lots and lots of our hard earned income to the State is the most delightful activity imagined by the human mind. Or something like that, according to the conventional talking points we are all supposed to spout in Pavlovian fashion.

Dan Mitchell--that fiendish, mischievous heretic--offers a different view, one that is likely to wreck the next bien pensant cocktail party if a guest there actually has the nerve to speak well of Mitchell's writings:

The German government's purchase of data stolen from a Liechtenstein bank has reinvigorated longstanding debates about privacy, law enforcement and international relations. Much of the fallout has followed predictable patterns. Some argue that Germany's richest citizens should be brought to justice for failing to comply with the tax laws, while others point out that it is unseemly for a nation to spy on a peaceful neighbor.

The conflict between Germany and Liechtenstein also has triggered a broader debate about tax competition and the role of so-called tax havens. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is trying to use the imbroglio to resuscitate its initiative against tax competition. Willem Buiter, a professor at the London School of Economics, is using the issue to push an even more radical agenda: the forcible annexation -- by nations like Austria and France, under some unknown authority -- of jurisdictions such as Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco.

At best, these crusades against tax havens are misguided. At worst, they are an effort to create a tax cartel for the benefit of high-tax nations. This OPEC for politicians would mean higher tax rates for everyone and bigger government.

Wealthy tax evaders may not be sympathetic figures, especially to those of us who meekly comply with the law. But low-tax jurisdictions serve a valuable role in the world economy. Simply stated, they keep other governments honest. Globalization makes it easier for labor and capital to cross national borders, forcing governments to improve tax policy to keep the geese with the golden eggs from flying away.

The chutzpah! How dare Mitchell actually interfere with the sacred and holy mission of the exceedingly zealous tax collector with something as nettlesome, annoying, inconvenient and absurd as actual facts? How dare he seek to overturn the conventional wisdom? How could he be so unkind? After all, the State is your friend. Surely, you can give it your money.

We'd all better be careful. If the kind of critical thinking exercised by Mitchell catches on, we might end up actually implementing intelligent policies.

And boy, won't the Heavens fall when that happens.

Posted in Economy | Putting Tax Collectors Out Of Work | Tax Havens | Tax Policy — Comments (15)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:40pm on Dec. 21, 2007 From The Department Of Self-Inflicted Defeats

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Smart move, IRS!

Posted at 12:21am on Dec. 19, 2007 The Next Time Someone Bemoans "Tax Cuts For The Rich . . ."

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Show them this. And this. Then ask them why it is that we still have people willing to perpetrate class warfare regarding this issue.