Wednesday, December 3, 2008

A Tax Holiday and a Guest Post

I'll be brief on this, as I'm going to be working out a longer (and more coherent (and less obscene)) version of this for posting over at Conservative Convictions, which is the third best source of conservative though I can find on the Internet (Heritage.org being number two, and me in my egomania bing number one). Thus, this will be a stub and I may clarify from any comments I get here:

Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas has proposed taking the final $350 billion of the infamous bipartisan travesty known as the Dastardly Bastardly Bailout and using it to give all Americans a tax holiday for two months, rather than allowing corporations who fucked up to nestle into the bosom of the Washington pig to grab a big BBQ nipple and start the sucking. Considering the money has already been allocated to waste, I can think of no better use for this than to eliminate the taxes of the people who are forced to put up with the daily pocketbook rape that is the current tax system.

Now I'm aware that this is not a solution, but only a short-term economic boost. In a sense, it's similar to those asinine vote-buying stimulus checks that the Bush and Obama teams seem to like. However, there are three things that occurred to me:

First, it's not a government shell game. To quote the press release: "According to American Solutions, a conservative think tank founded by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Americans pay $101.6 billion per month in personal income tax and $65.6 billion per month in FICA tax. Under Gohmert's proposed plan, all of these taxes would not be paid during January and February of 2009, and the money would stay in the hands of American taxpayers - the ones who best know where economic stimulus should be targeted."

Second, it's not a
wealth transfer. The stimulus vote-buying checks were directed to people who didn't have lots of disposable income. The last transfer I received from Washington didn't go into lots of cool toys. It went to keep me financially functional and allowed me to get back to financial functionality. So I surspect a lot of those checks went to catch up bills, or just pay for gas.

Third, the holiday eliminates all taxes on a paycheck. This means anyone who earns a check gets the full amount of their paycheck. For me, that's minimal. For those who earn a whole lot more, that's a whole lot of disposable income just waiting to be pumped into the economy. Or perhaps it can be applied to clean up some of the debt mess. Either way, giving people their whole paycheck for a couple of months would cheaply do what all the bullshit bailouts and shitass stimulus plans will never do because the government couldn't manage its way out of a wet paper bag with a high pressure piss hose, much less a financial situation that's trying to rival the Great Depression just in time to make the Obama camp wonder what they did to deserve this.

Plus, after two months of boosted pay, the government has to reimpose those taxes, thus pissing off everyone who got used to not paying income tax. And that (surprise, surprise, surprise) is one of the selling points of my beloved FairTax. It gets easier to talk about it when people realize how much the government takes now.

So I think contacting some Congressmen is in order.

21 comments:

Jennifer said...

Now that the damage has been done with that dumbass bailout....I think Congressman Gohmert's suggestion is a darn good one! I certainly wouldn't mind a few extra dollars right about now. At least somebody is thinking about the tax payers for once. I may have to sit down due to the shock of it, though!

Jennifer said...

Oh, I am looking forward to your post over at CC!

TAO said...

I would rather they apply the money to the debt...cuts a penny off the interest we are paying...

Patrick M said...

Jennifer: I'll try to get past the procrastination that always delays me... later.

Tao: That's even less likely to happen, as they got the $350 billion by adding to the debt. They'd just find a way to lose half of it on the way.

Arthurstone said...

Hmmmmmm.

Nary a peep about the $16B per month for two wars. That total is currently $576B. With interest (remember this is on our credit card) and 'overhead' ( veteran medical, training , etc.) the total may reach $3Trillion.

But in the 'conservative' view of govt. there's always plenty of money for expanding & maintaining empire.

Right?

Bullfrog said...

I can tell you exactly what I would do if I had a tax holiday: I would finally replace my broken-down tube TV with a nice HD LCD and the same goes for my recently non-functional home theater. Would that...? Yes, I believe that would be considered economic stimuli!

Patrick M said...

Arthur: Nope. Two reasons:

1. The military (and the wars they fight) are a legitimate function of government, as opposed to embracing socialism by buying into companies and giving them cash. The questions of this particular conflict aside, I'm not going to stand in the way of our military getting the job done. Would you have raised the same issue with WWII?

2. Concerning this war in particular, I have my questions. But one result of it (including the domestic measures) is that we have done damage to the enemies who attacked us, and they have no attacked us since 9/11. If it costs $576 billion to protect us, it's a pittance compared to the lives that are saved If I were to worry about anything in the war, it's the cost of lives (which, if you want that number, is past the 4,000 mark).

Besides, half a trillion is relatively small compared to the $3+ trillion we've committed to businesses that fucked up. And yes, the cost is that high.

So a measure that is (debatably) to protect our nation that has cost us a fraction of a socialist move by the imperial government really doesn't show up on my radar.

Bullfrog: The tax holiday for me wouldn't mean too much (as I don't pay income tax on my check anyway, just the other junk). I'd probably just upgrade my DVD player. But the effects it would have (as your plans indicate) would be great for the economy, and would, of course, lead to the FairTax.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"So I think contacting some Congressmen is in order."

A noble effort I'll give you that. However, let's not forget the idiocy in looking for resolutions from those who are at the core of the problem in the first place.

A much more sensible course of action would be to forego the call and simply remove them from public office in any way you can.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Additionally, with respect to the wars, you are aware are you not Arthur that the defense spending currently accounts for roughly 20% of the Federal Budget?

Care to take a gander at what percentage of the Federal Budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and all of the other Illegitimate Governmental Functions?

I would urge you to check out those figures and percentages and when you've done as much, then I think it fair we can engage in a discussion about government spending (legitimate and or otherwise).

Patrick M said...

Soaptastic One: Well, considering I did just vote mine back into office (Jim Jordan, if you want to know) and he appears to be a good conservative (he voted against the bailout, for example), I'm still willing to support him. I did my duty and told my sister to vote against her idiot rep (the bastard John Boehner himself). My focus is on getting rid of our GOP senator, George Voinobitch. But that's 2010.

So an e-mail to Jordan was in order.

Gayle said...

I agree with you, Donald. Your beloved FairTax sounds like a good plan to me.

If we could somehow ship common sense to Congress in a box, I would gladly pay for the shipping fee.

Arthurstone said...

WWII??

A better comparison would be the Spanish/American War. That was another case of military adventurism launched for political rather than security reasons.

Still, WWII gov't called for tax increases and sold bonds to finance the effort. The draft was instituted. A nationwide commitment to defend the nation and its interests against powerful foes.

This regime put the tab on a credit card and put much of the war effort out to 'bid'. There are more mercenaries (oops, 'contractors') in Iraq than US military. Sacrifice? Outside of the troops and their families the rest of us have been encouraged to go shopping.

Oh. And another difference might be the fact we invaded a country who had not attacked us nor provided any sort of threat.

But back to the legitimate role of government. It's role is what we say it is.

And the clock isn't going back on the graduated income tax, social security, educational initiatives, transportation and infrastructure investments, medical and a host of programs the citizens desire.

Sorry.

Patrick M said...

Gayle: Donald? What am I, a duck? :)

(damn you Walt Disney)

Arthur: I'll leave the war debate in the past, because there's something you're vastly more wrong about.

But back to the legitimate role of government. It's role is what we say it is.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

You have heard about this quaint little document called the Constitution, haven't you?

Well, in that document is the foundation and structure of the government. It provides us with strict limitations on the power and scope of the federal government and its role. It provides us with a system by which we can amend it. And it does allow for some leeway and interpretation in how we implement it.

What we are NOT is a democracy, where the majority decides, on the turn of party control, what the government can and cannot do.

Now the dickwits that currently control Washington (the political class) have forgotten this, aided by the justices of the Supreme Court who have, in many cases, inbred themselves too often with the political class and have allowed, and actively assisted in, the rewriting of the Constitution without amendment.

All the problems with the economy and foreign policy can be traced back to this central problem. And until we figure that out, we'll slowly approach stagnation, until we become merely another fallen world power.

Mike's America said...

Patrick: I see you are keeping moonbat Arthur fed and happy!

You know why this idea of a tax holiday won't work?

Dems never want the people to see how much they are taking. Even though it's printed on their paychecks, if they actually had the money in their hand they might think twice about ever letting government take more and more and more.

Unfortunately, the people as a whole have no representation in Washington which is solely responsive to organized pressure groups.

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

That's right up there with the "stimulous" checks that millions and millions of Americans got. Fat lot of good that did. Put the money to better use.

Robert said...

Since you are going to write this over at our place, I am going to reserve comment here....lol. Sorry, no need to steal my OWN thunder, right?

I will say that there are a couple of salient points that I can't wait to address.

THank you for the kind words....

Patrick M said...

Mike: I just convert them back to just screaming libs, that's why. I can handle libs, unlike some people.

I know the holiday won't see the light of the House floor (not with the Democrats in charge). But at this time, with conservatism so out of fashion inside the beltway, we might as well push on full-bore for anything that can really make conservatism different.

Not that I want to go radical, but conservatism needs to do just that to wake up the peoples.

PCC: You have a better idea on what to do with the rest of the DBB than letting the individual who earned it keep it?

Robert: I sent the post to Jenn last night (Thursday). I found I focused less on the holiday because, as Mike pointed out above, it's dead in the water with the current crop of inbreds, I mean congressmorons. But it, along with my subsequent dive into the FairTax, both follow basic conservative principles.

THAT'S why it's important.

Toad734 said...

I'd sign up for not paying taxes for two months. Of course, you kind of have to have income in order to pay taxes and with the Bush economy in full swing, I have very little income right now so the benefits to me would probably be negligible.

Patrick M said...

Toad: I figured it would be $80 for me each month. I'll take it.

BTW, want some cheese with that whine?

Arthurstone said...

Mikes America...

Love it or leave it.

Right Mike?

Merry Christmas to you.

I'd post the sentiment on your blog but you'd delete it.

Cheers!

Oh and Patrick typed:

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Let me be more specific. Through our elected representatives in congress. Through our justice system. Through the elected executive we revisit and work to accommodate our desired changes within (occasionally) the framework of the Constitution.Of course if you're someone like GWB you tend to make it up as you go (secretly of course) but the theory still holds.

Now I know how much you enjoy tossing off 'dickwad', typing!!!!!!!, using CAPS and wallowing in righteous indignation at the drop of a thought but "the authors of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation."

Right?

Patrick M said...

Arthur: Yeah, it's called "amending the Constitution" and too many people (Democrat AND (sorry, caps got stuck again) Republican) have forgotten that.