I'm a 31-year old conservative blogger. I write on many subjects including but not limited to: illegal immigration, health care reform, taxes, etc. It is imperative that Americans are kept well-informed on the issues, and I'll strive to keep you informed. I've have my work linked by major sites like HotAir, Newsbusters, and EyeblastTV. Contact Nate at ndgc.dx@gmail.com
Here comes more tax hikes and not just for the top 5% of Americans:
The IRS is weighing a proposal to deem one-quarter of employees' use of work cellphones as personal use and therefore subject to tax as a fringe benefit.
The proposal is one of several options the IRS put forward this week on the tax treatment of employer-provided cellphones. Current law already requires that the value of those cellphone services be included in a worker's gross income, unless the employee keeps detailed records showing that the cellphone is used for work only.
I'm not sure of the exact number of people that have cell phones through their work, but I would imagine that it would be at the very least hundreds of thousands and probably more than likely millions of working Americans nationwide.
When will the media call out Obama for raising taxes on the lower 95%? He already raised taxes on cigarettes. Talks have begun to raise taxes on "non-healthy" foods, aka fat tax, and on all energy carbon emissions.Where will they stop? Democrats seem to be content to keep raising taxes on anything and anyone in order to pay for their extravagant entitlement programs.
House Democrats seem determined to taking our money away from us one way or another:
Officials say top Democrats in the House are circulating health care proposals that would require individuals to purchase insurance if they can afford it and slap an unspecified financial penalty on those who refuse.
The Democrats want to tell us what to do with our money, and if we do not comply with their demands they will fine us until we do. That is called extortion. Tony Soprano would be proud of what the Democrats are proposing.
Purchasing insurance is always a good idea for anyone. However, it is not the government's place to force us to do what is best.
Not only do they want to force us to buy insurance, but they also want to tax the health benefits that they are forcing us to purchase:
These officials — both Democrats and others briefed — also say top lawmakers in the House are considering imposing a new tax on certain health insurance benefits as one of numerous options to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured. No details are available, and these officials stressed that no final decisions have been made.
This a huge extortion racket. The government might force Americans to buy insurance and, then, turn around and tax those benefits to pay for insurance for those who don't make enough for the government to tax into submission.
If this passes, it would be a huge intrusion into our lives and invasion of our individual rights.
Apparently, Bill Gates, an avid Obama supporter didn't quite expect for this kind of change, or he doesn't feel like shared sacrifice through overtaxation is patriotic:
Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”
This is just one of the huge problems that come with raising taxes. If you raise taxes, people will move away to avoid them. Therefore, whatever extra income that might result from the companies that stay will be negated by those that look for greener pastures.
In addition, the community will also lose jobs. That will lower the taxes received through sales taxes, personal income, and property taxes. Therefore, if you add the extra income from taxes minus lost taxes from lost jobs, sales, personal income, and property taxes, you will have a net loss of tax income not increase.
The first went after cigarettes. Now, they're going after other things that they deem bad for us so they have to tax out the wazoo. This time they're thinking about adding more taxes on the soft drink market in the middle of a recession to punish overweight people into eating better:
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
This will further hurt the economy in a time that it needs help not hinderence.
On Friday, Newt said that the climate bill is trying to push through will "punish the American people" by creating higher energy costs and threatening jobs.
"This bill is an energy tax," Gingrich said. "An energy tax punishes senior citizens, it punishes rural Americans, if you use electricity it punishes you. This bill will increase your cost of living and may kill your job."
Henry Waxman chastises Newt Gingrich for trying to "scare" people into rejecting the massive cap and trade tax.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that is writing the bill, shot back that Gingrich was resorting to "the old scare tactics" designed to undermine any congressional effort to address the problem.
"When American people hear the statements (Gingrich) have made today, they get scared, which I think is exactly what is intended," a visibly angry Waxman told Gingrich, a potential presidential contender in 2012 and a leading voice of the GOP.
Henry Waxman needs to practice what he preaches. When Waxman talks about minimizing the release of greenhouse gases, he, along with the Goracle, constantly warning that if we don't pass this bill quickly, we "irreversible" harm will come to the world. Gore has implied before that the global "warming" will "bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."
No, scare tactics there. Chicken Little was subtle compared to the Goracle.
While Waxman is a bit more subtle with his predictions, the underlying meaning is the same.
"The EPA announcement confirms what science has told us - global warming pollution poses a grave threat to the nation's public health and welfare.
"Grave threat"? He is trying to scare people into accepting the huge new energy taxes so that he can force companies to drastically change and emit less gases.
However, drastic, immediate change is always very costly. It can be two to three times more expensive than if they took a little more time to gradually change. In this economic climate, the massive extra costs it would take to comply would devastate most businesses.
Global warming isn't even a proven fact. Even though, they pretend that it is. Many scientists doubt or don't believe that climate change exists. Recent evidence shows that global cooling not warming is happening. Should we be mortgaging our future for a unproven theory?
Updated: Watching this video update, I noticed how obvious it is that Waxman is scared to let Gingrich talk. He won't let Newt get in a word in edgewise. Why?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) throws leaves reality claiming that cap and trade won't hurt the uneasy US economy:
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Wednesday claims by critics that controlling greenhouse gases will undermine the economy ignore the financial benefits of shifting to cleaner energy that does not contribute to global warming.
Waxman, opening a hearing on climate legislation, said critics argue that there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and clean energy. But he said "that is a false choice" and that the nation's economic future and clean energy -- in his words -- "are inextricably intertwined." Waxman's bill would cut emissions by 80 percent.
That just isn't true. Democrats have been running with John Reilly's claim from Politifact that the quote of $3128 price tag for each family for that the Republicans have been quoting is false. However, the expert that said that the GOP was "just wrong" has since debunked his own claim:
During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade's cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be "$800 per household", he wrote. "I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others)."
While $800 is significantly more than Reilly's original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama's middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
The Weekly Standard article above goes into great detail to explain their findings.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), former Energy Committe Chairman, even admitted today that cap and trade isn't just a tax, but it's also a big one. It'll drive the energy prices through the roof.
If a little-known but influential alliance of state politicians, large retailers, and tax collectors have their way, the days of tax-free Internet shopping may be nearly over.
A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a "loophole" that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.
The final legislation is expected to be introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who have championed similar proposals in the past.
What happened to my taxes not being raised?
I guess that promise went out the window whenever Obama took the oath of office.
Is this really the best time to be raising any kind of sales taxes?
No!
Should this "loophole" be filled? Perhaps, but this is not the time. Our economy is down, and we don't need to do anything that might throw a monkeywrench into its recovery. They should get back to this when the economy is back on the right track.
Of course, they will probably try to fast track it through underneath the radar while the Democrats have a heavy advantage.
In addition, the article points out how complicated and confusing this new sales tax code would probably be. That'll dampen consumer internet spending.
People use the internet to shop for it's easy and convenient. If the new sales tax will be as confusing and complicating as they think it will be, it'll cause a sharp decline in internet sales. Many small businesses rely on the internet for much of their business. This could severly hurt them and possibly bankrupt them especially in the middle of a recession. That would lead to more layoffs and higher unemployment.
Sen. Enzi is usually a conservative guy for the most part. I'm not sure what he's thinking. We need to all give Sen. Enzi and Rep. Delahunt a call or an email to let them know that they should wait on this until we get the country's wheels back on.
