Monthly Archives: January 2012

How Obama is Lying About “Fair Taxes” on the Rich

jesus libertarianOf all of the political insanity that comes from DC, nothing is more dishonest and wrong than the notion that millionaires are “getting away” with a low tax rate or that they aren’t paying their “fair share”. The rich pay a much, much higher tax rate than the middle class.

Of course, Obama isn’t campaigning with economic facts, because dishonesty has always been the politician’s best political weapon. This eternal law of politics has always been true and always will be true. That’s why politicians have built a reputation for dishonesty — it’s in their self-interest to lie.

For example, Barack Obama just a few days ago explained that the rich weren’t paying much in taxes, pointing out that Romney was only taxed at “14%”, and then pointed out how this was evidence that we need to increase taxes on the rich — presumably referring to the “Buffett Rule”. He then explained:

“If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

Aside from the fact that no one should have a third of their income stolen from them — not the rich, the middle class or the poor — the president is surrounded by enough tax experts to know that he’s essentially lying to the American people. He’s betting on the fact that Americans will be too ignorant of economics to have any idea why the rich aren’t really being taxed at 15%.

Double Taxation: How the Rich are Taxed at over 50%

It’s called “double taxation” — even though it should probably be called triple taxation. The low tax rate that millionaires get is from income from capital gains and dividends. Essentially all of that comes from investments like the stock market — in other words, corporations or privately owned businesses.

The rich are paying more like 50-75%. The reason is simple… there are more than one layer of taxes to most of the “low-tax rate” incomes of the rich. Here’s what they are:

  • Corporate Taxes. The corporate tax rate for most corporations is roughly 35%.
  • Dividend Taxes. The dividend tax is 15%. This is from dividends already taxed at the corporate level.
  • Death Taxes. The death tax is roughly 45%. The poor don’t get a death tax.

In other words, if a man owns a company that made some profit, he starts with 100%. After corporate taxes, he’s left with 65%. After dividend taxes, he’s left with 55.25%.

If you want to get even more realistic, don’t forget about what happens to money that isn’t spent… after the death tax, his estate is then left with roughly 25% of what he earned. That’s insanity.

Note that this is just the federal tax. State income taxes, local sales taxes, property taxes, fees, and paying accountants and CPAs all chisel even more from the incomes of everyone.

Of course, there are plenty of tax breaks — but the middle class also qualifies for tax breaks, and most of the poor don’t even pay income taxes after everything is said and done. But overall, the rich are paying a far higher rate.

Fair Share? BS. They Aren’t After “Fair” Anything.

Barack Obama isn’t trying to increase taxes on the rich to help the poor, because he couldn’t care less. Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity when he made $1,200,000 between 2000 and 2004. Less than 1%. Heck, most people in the middle class give more than that amount and they’re certainly not making hundreds of thousands per year.

Obama is like most leftists. He doesn’t give a damn about helping others. His actions show it. He’s all about increasing the size of government control over people’s lives. If liberty is good, then Obama is evil — for the exact same reasons liberty is good.

It’s not about fairness. If it was, they’d be trying to make the tax code equal — not different for different incomes or professions. If the tax code was equal, then the rich would pay more in proportion to how much more they make — that’s fairness. And leftists hate that idea.

Why This is Evil

This is evil for several reasons, each just as bad as the others — and each just as important during our current economy. Here they are:

  • Lying to Americans. The president knows what “double taxation” is. It’s one of the most basic principles that tax attorneys and accountants have to study. Anyone who understands economics knows that dividends and capital gains are taxed lower for a reason — they shouldn’t be taxed twice at all. Yet the president still lies to the American people for the sake of class warfare.
  • Unequal Under the Law. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law to everyone — and that includes the rich. That people find it difficult to care about protecting the constitutional rights of someone because they happen to be wealthy is a great sign of what’s wrong with society. This isn’t envy — it’s just plain resentment, and that’s even worse than envy.
  • Destroying the Productive. Steve Jobs did more for the world than Barack Obama could ever do, and he did it in business and innovation, not politics. That’s why he was in the 1%. Obama and the other rich politicians? Almost all of them are rich because they’re leaching off the rest of society. That’s why politicians who support large governments often support harvesting the rich on the alter of statism.
  • Hurting the Economy. Raising taxes anytime is a horrible idea. Raising them during a bad economy is close to treason. It’ll hurt everyone, because less money will be in the economy. When the government taxes, it wastes — which means it takes huge portions of the money and essentially burns it. Sometimes literally blowing up property in other countries. Government is waste, by nature.

The President is a Liar

Of course, this leads us to an important question… why is the president lying to us? Simple. He’s trying to change the focus from being about fixing the economy to making it about economic class warfare. He doesn’t stand a chance if we judge him on the basis of the economy, because he’s made it worse.

  • Unemployment is higher than when he took office.
  • Regulations are higher than when he took office.
  • Taxes are higher than when he took office.
  • Spending is through the roof since he took office.
  • Debt is astronomical.
  • Our credit rating is shot.

You know how Bush was horrible for the economy? That’s why Obama is worse, because everything Bush did, Obama has done worse. If you hated Bush, you should feel the same way about Obama.

The facts are clear: Barack Obama is a failed president. He has failed to do what he promised for the economy.

And that’s why the president is making up fake statistics about the rich. He’s lying about the economy for political gain — just like politicians have always done and will always do. Hope and change? Give me a break. I want lower spending and taxes — I don’t care if it’s easy to chant at a political rally or not.

It’s election season. If you’re tired of Obama lying to the American people, click the “share” button below. It’ll help us and hurt him — and it doesn’t get much better than that.

What is Capitalism?

capitalism For over a century, leftists have used the word “capitalism” as a type of curse word, the cause of all economic ills. “Oh, well that’s capitalism for you”, they’ll mutter when they read a story that involves anything economically negative. They see “capitalism” as a system where the rich wage war on the poor, or where corporations use the government to trample the rights of minorities and the defenseless.

Of course, they’re dead wrong. And sadly, because they misunderstand what capitalism is, their “solution” to the problem is essentially more of exactly what causes the problems in the first place — theft, the violation of rights, and people waging economic war on each other.

In the end, the only economic system that prevents unjust wars, the nanny state, and promotes liberty at all is the system of capitalism. It’s not just a good system — it’s the only moral system.

When we talk about “capitalism”, we mean something very different than what the socialists try to imply:

Capitalism is an economic and political system that is based on protecting the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. By extension, this means enforcing contracts and banning all fraud.

In such a system, the use of capital almost instantly arises. People will trade out of self-interest, and “money” makes trade infinitely easier. Because of the prevalence of capital, the label “capitalism” was born.

Capitalism does not include any violation of the rights of the rich or the poor. The bailouts weren’t capitalism. Obamacare isn’t capitalism. Agribusiness being paid to not grow crops isn’t capitalism. Oil subsidies aren’t capitalism. Anti-small-business regulations aren’t capitalism.

Those are part of a very different economic system — corporatism. That system — the system of corporatism — is where the government is used to give “special privileges” to corporations and the rich. This is absolutely not capitalism. It’s corruption, a violation of the rights of the people, and should be instantly ceased.

Where Socialists and Capitalists Should Agree:

Capitalism doesn’t allow for theft — whether it’s the rich robbing the poor or the poor robbing the rich. It doesn’t allow for corporations to be bailed out with tax money. It doesn’t allow for so-called “welfare” programs funded out of the pockets of the middle class and rich.

We capitalists hate corporatism just as much as the socialists. We hate theft by anybody — rich or poor. We hate corruption by anybody — rich or poor. We hate it when corporations use the government to manipulate the law to punish small business. We hate it when corporations are at the receiving end of laws that violate liberty, like the insurance companies which benefit from forced insurance under Obamacare.

Because of this, there are plenty of topics where capitalists and socialists and moderates should be on the same page: ending corporate subsidies, ending all bailouts, ending the Federal Reserve, ending fractional-reserve banking, ending legally enforced monopolies, as well as dozens of other topics.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Perfect capitalism will obviously never be perfectly achieved. There will always be something wrong — we’re talking about politics after all. But that doesn’t mean that the blame lies with capitalism — that means the blame lies with not having capitalism.

It’s vital that people understand what capitalism is, and understand that the problem with Wall Street isn’t economic liberty — it’s not that theft is banned. It’s that theft is going on — only for the rich and the businesses.

The solution to our economic ills isn’t to change who’s stealing from who. It’s to stop the theft for absolutely everybody. There’s only one way out of the economic insanity we’re in: to move toward the economic protection of life, liberty, and property — for absolutely everyone, rich and poor alike.

As Ayn Rand explained:

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group mayinitiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.”

That’s it. That’s the definition of capitalism. If you agree with us that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to steal anymore than anyone else is allowed to steal, then make sure to sign up for our newsletter and click the “share” button below.

The Biblical Case for a Libertarian Government

jesus libertarianOne of the great tragedies of history is how many “followers” of Jesus Christ have all but rejected his peaceful teachings for a violent religion that bears no resemblance to His real teachings.

Wars have been fought in the name of the Prince of Peace. Women have been burned at the stake in the name of the God of Love. With shrieks of “sinner”, prostitutes have been locked in cages in the name of Christ — who wiped away the tears of the prostitute.

This article is a fairly short introduction to the political implications of the philosophy of Jesus Christ. Some will be economic, and some social — but all will be about the rights of others, the initiation of force, and the proper role of governing authorities.

The emphasis of this article will be on “conservative” views of government — the notion that the government can outlaw activities simply because those activities are sin. Later, I’ll publish an article that explicitly covers “leftist” Christian beliefs — the idea that the government should have strong welfare programs to “care” for the poor.

Peace, Violence, and Jesus Christ

Jesus taught a lifestyle of non-violence, peaceful “tolerance”, and a lifestyle based on love and mercy. When I say “tolerance”, I don’t mean verbally — I mean physically. Christ constantly spoke out about what was evil. He discussed and condemned sin repeatedly — especially the sin of the religious conservatives of the day, the Pharisees.

Jesus taught a remarkable philosophy at the time — that of peace. He explicitly said in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Most commentators, including Spurgeon, agree with this on a literal and figurative level. A Christian should be a maker of peace. Of course, being a peace-maker doesn’t mean peace will occur — after all, Jesus died a violent death, and promised that His followers would endure hatred and violence from tyrants.

Self-Defense and Justified Violence

Jesus is often used as an example of pacifism because He allowed the government to kill Him. The idea that this justifies pacifism is absurd, because Jesus explicitely explained that He didn’t fight because He was on earth for the purpose of dying for the world — He had to allow them to kill him.

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Jesus allowed them to kill Him because the establishment of the His kingdom required that He die and rise again three days later. This was part of the plan. His reasoning was not that violence in self-defense is bad — but completely about context.

He literally said: “If it were, my servants would fight.” In other words, when discussing earthly matters, violence absolutely can be justified, even by peacemaker.

There is literally only one example of Jesus using violence on anyone while He was on earth. That example is when He entered the Temple Courts, and saw that there were people in the temple buying and selling and “stealing” by using improper weights and measurements. Jesus’ response was ferocious. He pulled out a whip, and drove them out of the temple, flipping tables, and dumping the money-changers posessions onto the ground. He said:

“‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

I can’t imagine a more basic example of proper violence than this. Jesus wasn’t just anyone — He was the Son of God, and this was His house. Even then, the only violence done was on those who were literally robbers. Jesus used violence on thieves while they were in the act. And He was the Great Peacemaker.

Some falsely believe that the Bible teaches pacifism because of the “turn the other cheek” comment. In the culture at the time, a slap was an insult. It was like being flipped off now. And no, violence against someone who flips you off in traffic isn’t justified.

Jesus and the State

Some believe that the government has different rules than “individuals”, because the government is given the authority of the sword to punish the wicked. This is true — government absolutely should punish thieves, killers, cheats, and force people to fulfill their contracts.

But does “punish the wicked” mean “punish people for any sin”? Absolutely not. Jesus repeatedly explains that if you judge others, you’ll be judged on the same level — only for all of eternity. Here’s a powerful example of how Jesus intervened to stop the conservatives from using violence on a sinner:

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

A Christian response to a sinner isn’t to pick up a stone. It’s not to organize as a “government” and threaten violence on the sinner. No — the reason is simple. By the standard we’ll judge, we’ll also be judged. Punishing someone only because of sin means we’ll also be punished for that sin — only for all of eternity.

Does this mean we can’t judge at all? Of course not. But it means that the standard for when to intervene can’t be something we’ve all done. For example, “you violated the law of God” misses the point that ALL have violated the law of God. As it’s written in James 2:

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”

So what should the standard be for violence? Why is it justified to flip the tables of thieves, to attack those in our house, to defend one’s home, to fight killers — but not to kill an adulteress?

The answer is simple: the standard for legitimate violence isn’t just “they sinned”. It’s “they violated the rights of others”. This is a specific type of sin — but the reason we can use violence isn’t because it’s sin. It’s because it’s self-defense. The motivation and context is completely different.

We’re commanded to be good stewards and defend the innocent.

This is in essentially every book of the Bible in some form. Self-defense — and the defense of others — is the entire motivation behind the violence. No one has the authority to beat up someone randomly. And that person has a right — or even an obligation — to fight back.

That means violence in response to theft, murder, fraud — these aren’t wrong, but are actually a biblical obligation all good men have to the innocent.

Punishing sexual sin just because it’s sin? That’s something no one can morally do, as Christ even plainly showed us.

Some sins should be illegal, but not just because they’re sins. They should be illegal if they make non-consenting victims — anything else is just sin, and violence isn’t justified for the reasons explained above.

The idea that the government should be huge in order to punish all sinners for sin or to steal from the rich to give to the poor is absurd. It’s not Christian. It’s based on a theology never once taught by Christ. It is literally rejected by Him over and over.

What does this mean? For those who understand liberty, it means just that — Christ’s philosophy leads to liberty. Only in self-defense and the defense of others is violence justified. That means no massive state. That means no forced taxation — for example, no income taxes. That means no outlawing sin.

The political philosophy of Jesus Christ is this: peace, property, and liberty.

Obamacare: There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

The following was written by Sam Paul, a student at New Saint Andrews College. If you wish to write something for this website, click here.

____________________________________

Last year, President Obama passed his landmark health-care reform law—a watered down piece of legislation that he had been fighting for since the beginning of his presidency. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the most expansive social legislation enacted in decades (Stoleberg, New York Times), and from the beginning, it was doomed to fail simply because it promised the impossible.

For example, its first selling point was a promise to provide health care to 95% of Americans. The White House overview page explained that, “It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 32 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more. Under the plan, 95% of Americans will be insured.”

At the same time, the legislation promised to reduce our budget deficit. From the same source: “It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next ten years – and more than $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.”

Together, these two goals are impossible to achieve without a massive increase in costs for Americans. And 2011 has brought the legislation down to earth. Even since 2009, the Republicans in both the House and Senate didn’t believe that the act could be passed and accomplish its goals without “billions in taxpayer subsidies by the third decade, when the [retirement] claims would be spiking.” (Chaddock, Christian Science Monitor) “Had the whole bill been subject to the accounting and actuarial review that the CLASS Act was, it would not have survived either.” (Sen. Judd Gregg, R, New Hampshire)

You can’t promise both to reduce the budget deficit, which is measured by taking the total amount of government spending and then subtracting the amount of incoming government revenue, and at the same time promise more government-paid for benefits for 32 million citizens. You can’t reduce, or even maintain, the deficit if you increase spending.

Why? President Obama’s health care legislation is a prime example of the truth behind a basic economic principle: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Time and Resources: Our Two Limitations

The reality of the situation is, that constituent-gathering trigger terms such as “free healthcare” or “free education” don’t have the potential to be true. The funding for the programs inevitably come from somewhere, whether it’s from taxpayers, foreign lenders, or the Federal Reserve’s freshly printed money supply (The price for which we will pay later.). The price of a program hasn’t been eliminated, but merely shifted from one particular group to an alternate group—or from the present generation to a future generation.

Our ability to pursue what we want and need is limited by both time and resources. We’d all love luxury boats, beachfront property, a vacation in the Swiss Alps, and the ability to speak a foreign language. The sky is the limit as to what we desire. What we actually attain is limited only by time and resources.

As consumers, the cost of goods helps us balance our desire for a product against the desire for other products that we could purchase instead.

Producers face costs as well. The use of lumber, steel and sheet rock to build a new house divert resources away from the production of another good, such as a school or hospital.

And of course, this applies to our time management as well. The time spent on entertainment or relaxation is time not spent reading the educational and worthwhile articles found at the Capitalism Institute.

Copyright Capitalism Institute, 2011-present.