Mathematical Impossibilities

You have to admit that Democrats are sometimes clever. Having constructed an income tax system where half of Americans pay no income tax, they then demand that any reform of the tax code not disproportionately affect lower income earners -- i.e. those that are not paying any income tax today.  It's mathematically impossible to devise a tax reform without that group of people paying more (i.e. something) in tax.

But there is another impossibility that they refuse to confront. It is also mathematically impossible to have any semblance of  budget balance unless you either a) drastically reduce spending or b) increase taxes on those paying little or nothing now. There are simply not enough Rich People to sustain the massive federal spending machine. There aren't in Greece. There aren't in the rest of Europe. And there aren't even in the United States.

Speaking of Fairness

Below (from IRS reports) is the historical percentage of the US population not represented on a taxable federal return. Is it really fair to have half the population paying nothing in income tax?


1985        15%
1990        27%
2000        34%
2005        40%
2009        50%

This means that when the federal government proposes spending more of the taxpayers' money, half the population is shrugging their shoulders and saying, "won't cost me anything." Why is that considered fair?

AMT Repeats

In 2007, the state of Maryland instituted a "millionaire tax" surcharge (in Maryland, a millionaire is someone who earns more than $500,000). The state said it would raise $330MM in additional revenue (which the legislature promptly spent). According to the Maryland Public Policy Institute the tax raised $120MM, instead of $330MM, and the government, as usual, is flabbergasted that this result repeats itself every time it's tried.
The President is proposing a new alternative minimum tax on millionaires (Obama thinks you're a millionaire if you earn $250,000). What do you think the odds are of that tax raising anywhere near the revenue he claims it will? And what do you think the odds are of that tax ensnaring millions of taxpayers in the future just like the current AMT did?

Disability Pays

The number of people getting Social Security disability payments has increased dramatically over the last three years. Do you think this is because work has suddenly become more dangerous?



Or do you think it might be that not working is becoming increasingly lucrative?

One Way to Reduce The Unemployment Rate

The administration is crowing about today's reduction in the unemployment rate to 8.3%. Most of you outside Washington probably know that a fraction has both a numerator and a denominator. In the case of calculating the unemployment rate, you divide the number of unemployed by those who are actually seeking work. The unemployment rate can fall if more people find jobs. That would be a good thing. Or it can fall if more people give up and drop out of the workforce. In the latest report 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! The civilian labor force has now dropped to a 30 year low. Apparently the current administration is counting on the fact that much of the country never learned how fractions are calculated. Maybe that's one reason why they're not able to find work?