Thursday, December 16, 2010
Reduce Payroll Tax??? - Part Deux
Why is there so much discussion about the estate tax and the tax cut for those earning above $250K in the mainstream media but zero, zilch, nada about the 2% reduction in the payroll tax. Why in the f^%$ does everyone (anyone) want that???????????? Please, tell me what I'm missing!!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Reduce Payroll Tax???
As much as anyone else, I'd love to see an extra 2% in my paycheck every week. However, how can we ignore the lesson learned from the Bush tax cuts that "expire" this year. Letting them expire is interpreted as a tax "increase" by almost everyone. Why do we think the Social Security payroll tax reduction will be any different next year. Within a year, 4.2% will become the new "normal" and going back to 6.2% will be accompanied by cries of "tax increase".
How do we avoid this? Simply do NOT include the 2% payroll tax reduction in the tax package. What are these idiots in Washington thinking??
How do we avoid this? Simply do NOT include the 2% payroll tax reduction in the tax package. What are these idiots in Washington thinking??
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Cameras May Be Required For New Cars
While I fully support the need for the government to be involved in some important issues that we can't trust "free markets" to deal with in the best interest of the consumers, this one puts me firmly on the Libertarian/Conservative side.
Why do we need the government to require cameras in cars (adding $200/car) to keep us from backing over each other? Parents; what ever happened to knowing where your children are before you back up? Adults; when you're strolling through the parking lot at Walmart, be aware of what's going on around you. Look for tail lights, backup lights, engines running. They are likely to be backing out. Drivers; turn around and LOOK, don't rely on your mirrors as your only source of input. Back out SLOWLY so, if someone is back there, they have time to move out of the way.
We do not need government rules to protect us from having to be responsible for our actions. Because of the over zealous actions of government and lawyers, we are drifting farther and farther from personal responsibility to a world where nothing bad is supposed to happen and if it does, it must be someone else fault.
Why do we need the government to require cameras in cars (adding $200/car) to keep us from backing over each other? Parents; what ever happened to knowing where your children are before you back up? Adults; when you're strolling through the parking lot at Walmart, be aware of what's going on around you. Look for tail lights, backup lights, engines running. They are likely to be backing out. Drivers; turn around and LOOK, don't rely on your mirrors as your only source of input. Back out SLOWLY so, if someone is back there, they have time to move out of the way.
We do not need government rules to protect us from having to be responsible for our actions. Because of the over zealous actions of government and lawyers, we are drifting farther and farther from personal responsibility to a world where nothing bad is supposed to happen and if it does, it must be someone else fault.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Where Are The Conservatives Now?
Where are the Conservatives whining for liberty and freedom from oppressive government control when the government legislates against tainted food products. Shouldn't we be able to buy them if we want to? In a free market economy, we will simply choose not to buy food that makes us sick or kills us. We deserve to have the choice.
Similarly, why do we need the government dealing with issues like the loudness of advertisements relative to the program we are watching. If the suppliers of the content want to do it that way, we can use the "OFF" button to control the markets. If we refuse to watch any TV station that plays ads louder than the programming, they will stop doing it.
If we think the free market will give us what we want/need regarding health care, should it not provide what we need regarding food and TV? Why is there such outrage in the first case, and silence in the other two??
Similarly, why do we need the government dealing with issues like the loudness of advertisements relative to the program we are watching. If the suppliers of the content want to do it that way, we can use the "OFF" button to control the markets. If we refuse to watch any TV station that plays ads louder than the programming, they will stop doing it.
If we think the free market will give us what we want/need regarding health care, should it not provide what we need regarding food and TV? Why is there such outrage in the first case, and silence in the other two??
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)