All of the tax cut promises, starting at $250,000, are now down to $120,000 according to Gov Bill Richardson. They will have to be paid for somehow. Guess how?

About what hasn’t he lied? From the Aunt in Boston, to illicit campaign contributions (from the Aunt no less) he has evaded the truth with the help of the dying MSM.

He’ll be after your savings, IRA’s, then higher taxes on income so that those who wish not to work, the idle poor, can live like the working class.

The end result: the money and power winds up in Washington and everyone else are kulaks getting what ever the state decides one may have.

Here’s the yet to be Socially Engineered kiddies.

They’ll just have to learn he’s spreading the wealth!

GM Has $15.5 Billion Loss on U.S. Sales Drop, Leases

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) — General Motors Corp., the largest U.S. automaker, reported a second-quarter loss of $15.5 billion because of plunging U.S. sales and the declining value of truck leases.
The deficit of $27.33 a share marks GM’s fourth straight quarterly loss and compares with a profit of $891 million, or $1.56, a year earlier. Excluding costs GM considers one-time, the per-share loss was 4 times bigger than analysts projected. Labor strikes contributed to a $9.9 billion drop in North American revenue, and sales worldwide tumbled 18 percent to $38.2 billion. [snip]

Big Oil rapes the Public

Exxon Mobil reported today its best quarterly profit in history…[],,,Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) reacted in remarks prepared for a Senate floor speech:

“Today there is some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that oil is at $123 a barrel and working people are paying $4 for a gallon of gas, and this coming winter residents of the Northeast could be paying over $5 for a gallon of heating oil. But there is some good news. Today, the CEOs of Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips are celebrating. They’re feeling pretty good. And, they have good reason to feel that way. [snip]

Senator Sanders made no mention of giving GM any windfall loss tax rebate.
Rather curious that he thinks in that way, isn’t it?

Another thing Senator, the animal rights faction here at NER
want to know why you are wearing a lamb pelt on your head.

Now that the Chosen One has flitted about the Holy Land, managed to upset most of the inhabitants, and is heading to Germany to instruct them on proper social principles, the question which needs answering is, “Will Obama detour to Bulgaria to instruct his Socialist comrades on the error of their taxing ways?”

Obama considers himself the “Leader of the‘Free World” pre-ordination. Therefore, by divine right he must travel to straying socialist countries and correct their governmental missteps.

Thankfully, one member of the MSM dutifully enumerated Bulgaria’s miscues for us to fathom.

They listed the delinquencies, the rationale for those reshuffles, the results of repositioning and the dangers to Socialism accruing from those alterations.

I expect Obama to thoroughly chide the malefactors and wag the Holy Digit under their collectivist nose. Will he force the issue by fiat of “More Taxes or More Tanks!”
Here are the insufferable changes.

[snip]
“The situation was getting desperate in Bulgaria. We were losing our population and our best workers. They were leaving for Western Europe to find jobs and the No.1 form of foreign capital came from remittances.” All that began to change when the corporate tax was cut to 10% in 2007 and the personal income tax to 10% in January of this year. “We told the politicians that it was symbolically important for Bulgaria to have the lowest flat tax. We were surrounded by flat tax countries, we wanted to be the nation most friendly to capital and business.”

[snip]
“These countries understand that the flat tax is the key to their prosperity — even the former communists.” Only stultified political tactics — certainly not clear thinking — explains why somebody like Barack Obama could be running on a platform of making America’s tax rates among the highest in the world when other nations are proving the competitive advantages of flatter tax systems.

Difficult to figure out isn’t it.

A friend emailed this to me:

Stepping back in history, Obama clears up some problems and puts his Hussein on the document. A historical painter from ACORN collective put brush to canvas to capture the moment.

This is more tidy than that unwieldy organ we suffer under daily, isn’t it.

Some people get all the attention. I call this affirmative action.

SUBPOENA BLITZ PUTS HEAT ON AL

June 19, 2008 — The probe into the Rev. Al Sharpton’s finances intensified this week, with the IRS sending out a flurry of subpoenas to his most generous corporate donors, The Post has learned. [snip]

As of 2006, the most recent year that financial documents for the group are publicly available, it owed $1.9 million in payroll taxes and penalties. [snip]

Sharpton threatened boycotts or protests against corporations while simultaneously soliciting donations and sponsorships of NAN events, The Post detailed.

Personally, Sharpton owes $931,397 in federal taxes and $365,558 in New York City taxes, according to an IRS lien.

Give him his day in court; just vet the jury well then sequester it for the duration.

NEXT, Jessie!

Most Harvard liberals wouldn’t blink before agreeing to raise property or personal income taxes 2.5%. It’s for the children. It’s for the cops and firefighters. It’s for the environment. But the Charles River bastion of liberalism isn’t thrilled with a proposal that would tax its endowment 2.5%:

“You’d be taxing success here,” Kevin Casey, Harvard’s associate vice president for government, community and public affairs complained in a quote that will soon be framed and hung in my office. “Over time, this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage, which would drastically hurt the Commonwealth.”

Where has Mr. Casey been? Our “progressive” tax system has been punishing the successful for decades. The more you earn, the more you pay. The only difference between Harvard and us is the university didn’t earn its investment foundation. It was given to them.

You’d think Harvard liberals would want to pay their fair share. It’s for the children, don’t you know.

If the Boston Globe describes the tax to as “how to strangle an economy”, then it must be a good idea. When did the fish-wrapper ever care about that? And why should these schools be “exempt” in the first place?

Mr. Lopez is the male, California version of an “override” mom. They can never get enough of your money to provide subsidized private school quality educations for their children. And when the hard times come for everyone, they’re quick to explain why that’s your problem and not theirs.

However, there are a few interesting things to note here:

I was sitting with Jeff Kelly, who moved into a costly fixer-upper last year just to be in the Ivanhoe neighborhood so he could avoid the cost of private school. He said he’ll pony up too, although on principle he’s conflicted.

Bet your last dollar that Jeff wouldn’t be “conflicted” about passing those costs onto his neighbors. “Override” moms myopically focus on their needs and never consider that other people are struggling to make ends meet too.

At nearby Micheltorena Street School, where more than 90% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, the principal told me that of course she can’t match that kind of parental support. She’s hoping that given the greater needs of her students, she’ll be spared harsh cuts. But like other principals, she doesn’t yet know how bad the news will be.

If we replaced the teachers at Micheltorena with PhD educated, highly committed faculty, do you think the educational outcomes would skyrocket? I’d argue no. They’re missing a key element that’s staring Mr. Lopez in the face—parental involvement. You can have the best teachers, facilities, athletics, etc, but it’ll go for not if parents abdicate their educational responsibilities.

Mr. Lopez’s active engagement is a huge difference maker in the quality of his child’s education. It isn’t strictly about squeezing more nickels out of his neighbors.

This doesn’t show a great track record of Progressive largess. True to form however, they talked about it so that’s what matters.
Take note that the Clinton’s filed an extension; this allows for “corrections” to the tale if she wins the nomination. If not, no more forms see the light of day! I wonder if the underwear deduction is there?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton released tax data Friday showing they earned $109 million over the last eight years, an ascent into the uppermost tier of American taxpayers…[snip]

The idea that charity begins at home seems to be the Clinton motto.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy. [snip

“Now don’t get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against rich people,” she said. “As a matter of fact, my husband, much to my surprise and his, has made a lot of money since he left the White House, by doing what he loves doing most — talking to people. But we didn’t ask for George Bush’s tax cuts. We didn’t want them, and we didn’t need them.”

But they made sure they took the deductions. Much akin to Warren Buffet belief Americans should pay more taxes. He didn’t write any extra checks either.
Like most Liberals, when it comes to action, the only part moving is the mouth.

Harry Reid, the master of doublespeak, finally says paying taxes is voluntary. I guess is sucks being you if you all ready filed for the year.

Here is the Dinge on video, in his own words explaining this wonderful news.

To get back into balance, any plan will require pain with many companies bought out or going under. They made crippling decisions; now they are bottom feeder food in the chain. Most of the persons who want to bailout everyone, are not capitalists from the inception, they wish to nationalize all.
What we need is less credit, more saving and the buying philosophy of 100% down, no monthly payments. We shall get this one way or another, by choice or like a root canal without Novocain.
If the dollar continues to decline in value, all loans, IRA’s, 401(k) savings and investments will fall into the pit; the dollar will decline if the government continues to issue bonds with nothing to collateralize them.

In this bit of nonsense, anytime one sees Federal Government, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and/or US Treasuries substitute US taxpayers. Terminology is important.

How to Stop the Mortgage Crisis

The potential collapse of house prices, accompanied by widespread mortgage defaults, is a major threat to the American economy. A voluntary loan-substitution program could reduce the number of defaults and dampen the decline in house prices — without violating contracts, bailing out lenders or borrowers, or increasing government spending.

This is more doublespeak. We shall substitute a loan program that takes the heat off the lenders, but doesn’t bail out lenders by virtue of putting the load on the taxpayer who will take the heat off the lenders. Did that clear up how this works? Voila, no bailout. Clever!

The unprecedented combination of rapid house-price increases, high loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, and securitized mortgages has made the current housing-related risk greater than anything we have seen since the 1930s. [snip]

Experts forecast an additional 15% to 20% decline to correct the excessive rise. The real danger is that prices could fall substantially further if there are widespread defaults and foreclosures. [snip]

Rising unemployment during a downturn will force more homeowners to default, driving house prices lower. Since mortgages are generally “no recourse” loans, when there is a default the mortgage lender can only collect the value of the property. The lender does not have the right to seize other property (a car, a boat, money in the bank) or to put a lien on future wages. Thus, a homeowner with a mortgage that exceeds the value of his house has a strong incentive to default, even if he can afford to make the monthly payments.

Optimists note that homeowners with negative equity have generally been reluctant to default in past years. That was sensible when house prices were rising. But with house prices falling, defaulting on the mortgage is the rational thing to do. [snip]

Reviving the depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation would have the government use taxpayer money to pay off existing loans and become the largest mortgage lender in the country. This would require an enormous federal bureaucracy of appraisers and loan agents.

From where does that money come to pay the salaries and benefits of this massive federal bureaucracy of appraisers and loan agents?

If the government is to reduce significantly the number of future defaults, something fundamentally different is needed. Although there is no perfect plan, a program of federal mortgage-paydown loans to individuals, secured by future income rather than by a formal mortgage, could reduce the number of mortgages with high LTV ratios and cut future defaults.

Somehow, this program prevents unemployment too.

From above; Rising unemployment during a downturn will force more homeowners to default, driving house prices lower.

Here’s one way that such a program might work:
The federal government would lend each participant 20% of that individual’s current mortgage, with a 15-year payback period and an adjustable interest rate based on what the government pays on two-year Treasury debt (now just 1.6%). The loan proceeds would immediately reduce the borrower’s primary mortgage, cutting interest and principal payments by 20%. Participation in the program would be voluntary and participants could prepay the government loan at any time.

The legislation creating these loans would stipulate that the interest payments would be, like mortgage interest, tax deductible. Individuals who accept the government loan would be precluded from increasing the value of their existing mortgage debt. The legislation would also provide that the government must be repaid before any creditor other than the mortgage lenders. [snip]

Participation will therefore not be attractive to those whose mortgages that already exceed the value of their homes. But for the vast majority of other homeowners, the loan-substitution program would provide an attractive opportunity. [snip]

The government would fund these loans by issuing new two-year debt and rolling over the debt until the loans are fully repaid, thus eliminating any net cost to the government. The government loans would not add to the budget deficit or to the net debt of the nation. Gross government debt would rise by the amount of the new government lending, but this would be balanced by the asset value of those loans.

Already we know the house values are dropping and as this article states will fall more.

The current possibility of widespread defaults is a cloud over all mortgage-backed securities, and over credit markets generally. The uncertainty about the future value of such asset-backed loans has been a primary reason credit markets have become dysfunctional. And without a flow of credit, the economy cannot expand.

To lower the risk of a downward spiral of house prices and to revive the frozen credit markets, the government must move quickly to reduce the potential number of mortgage defaults. A loan substitution program may be the best way to achieve that.

Yes, let us rush into this; the congress hasn’t done anything debilitating in a couple of weeks.

Creating a third world country

Conservation is good isn’t it! We can save the planet while joining hands skipping around a tree singing Kumbaya. Often we hear the enviros tell us how dire life for the “poor” is because we splurge on everything from toilet paper to gasoline. Conserve, conserve and more conservation, we are running out of everything. We are not running out of idiots though, that’s the embarrassment. We’re living in a PBS state.

Examination of how the poor really fare with the dreadfully emotional regulations of the barkheads is absolutely enlightening.

First, we must understand every business has a bottom line cost, for product, maintenance and repairs of infrastructure, salaries and then physical plant if different from infrastructure. Profits must figure into this, otherwise why bother producing anything. This is of course anathema to the Loony Left. For the examples, all numbers presume no increase is operating/repair costs, which really is ridiculous.

Let us start with your electrical provider. Generating power costs x (where x equals the bottom line). Determine billing by y (where y is the total class of purchasers). Individual cost of electricity then is x/y. (For the logic and math deficient I’ll apply figures where x=$100,000.00 and y=10,000, therefore power costs $10/customer)

If everyone conserves by reducing consumption by 10%, the electrical company pays only 90% of the monthly costs. To cover the bottom line, they increase billing to y+10% per billing period. So, 10% of $100,000= $10,000.00 divided by 10,000 customers= $1 each. Power now costs $11 per billing cycle.

This causes all who conserve to cut back again, another 9% leaving the monthly bill $10.01 per customer. The company then collects $100,100 to cover $110,000, a short fall of $9900.00. They raise rates by another 9% to cover the billing to $11.99 / customer/period. Conservation saved you how much? Will you conserve to pay the new cost? The next increase is 8%, which is a 24.65% increase over the entire period.

Prohibiting increases by legislative fiat produces a cutback of maintenance, upgrades and/or layoffs of personnel, which of course has many other ramifications; the maximum is living in the dark.

State mandated conservation on driving to cut down on air pollution, global warming or being the greenest fool enfolds the same stupidity.

Police, road and bridge repair, snow plowing etc. rely on sales taxes from fuel sales, vehicle sales tax, registration, fees, tickets and parking/tolls.

Suffice to say fewer gallons vended, cheaper cars purchased, less driving in general cuts into the tax base very quickly. Vermont is a perfect example of the simplemindedness of the conserve to save mentality.

A short numerical example augments discernment: Give an average of 15,000 driven miles per annum divided by a very generous 30MPG =500 gallons of gas x $0.20/gal sales tax=$100.00 to the state. There are approximately 516,631 cars, light trucks and motorcycles registered in the state. (Year 2000 figures) of which about half are trucks excluding farm vehicles. Gas sales tax revenues are about $51.7M/year. Cutting back driving by 25%, the state takes a $12.9M hit to the treasury. I’m leaving out the tourists, diesel fuel sales for trucks and farm machinery, sales tax on oil changes, and other maintenance.

What new taxes or maintenance diminutions transpire to make up the arrears? Charges go up to fill in the revenue insufficiency or things start breaking. Who is going to patrol the byways, fill potholes or repair bridges? The state could make the Big Dig look good!

Try these examples with water, telephone or public transportation.

Who pays the cost?

The poor downtrodden proles for whom the Left professes to care wind up paying for the increases. When taxes on top of self-induced rising costs become onerous, the middle class and well to do move, leaving the “least fortunate” footing the bill. Moreover, pay they will for the basic infrastructure has to exist or the state goes away. I cannot picture the elected elite taking responsibility for the debacle. It must be the poor not paying their fair share. Who’s left?

Far be it from me to advocate excess consumption, I cannot afford it. However, belief in conservation as the road to Xanadu, has to be the product of a drug addled mind. The Teletubbies make more sense.

Not everyone pays all these taxes in every state; some states tax unprepared food, others like New Hampshire tax the scenic view you have from your property. To insult you further all tax, at some level, your view of the coffin lid. Politicians will look you in the eye and tell you most of these aren’t taxes, they’re fees for allowing you to exist.
This list is by no means definitive. Many more state and local “fees” are in place, limited only by the imagination of the “Elected Elite.”
I’m using $1000.00 as monthly earnings for ease of math and understanding. Also, I’m using Vermont as the basis for other taxes, which may or may not have the same rates OR even be collected where you reside. All is computed as single, no exemptions, 0 dependents

Federal Income Tax: @ 15% of gross adjusted = $150.00 X 12 = $1800.00

State Income Tax: decoupled from the Federal when Bush’s tax cuts took place. $434.00

Federal Medicare Tax: @ $1.36% of gross =$13.60 X 12 = $163.20

Social Security Tax (FICA): 15.7% of gross = $157.00 X 12 = $1884.00

The fact that the employer is paying your other half means he isn’t giving that to you in wages. You still pay it.

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA): Average $1.00 to $3.00 per month $1.75 X 12 = $21.00

Workers Compensation Tax: $25.00 X 12 = $300.00

Property Tax: My town = $1.43 per $100.00 evaluation $200,000 =$2860

Renters as well as homeowners pay this. Seriously, do you think the landlord pays your share?
Phone Fees and taxes land Line:

Federal Subscriber line charge $6.40 X 12 = $76.80

Federal Universal Service fee $0.65 X 12 = $7.80

Vermont Universal Service fund $0.24 X 12 = $2.88

Vermont State tax $1.13 X 12 = $13.56

Federal Excise tax $0.59 X 12 = $7.08

Phone Fees and taxes Cell phone:

Federal Universal Service fee $2.01 X 12 = $24.12

Vermont State tax $13.18 X 12 = $38.16

Vermont Universal Service fund $0.67 X 12 = $8.04

Regulatory Program Fee $0.96 X 12 = $11.52

Utility Taxes: $100/month electric bill 4.5% =$4.50 X 12 = $54.00

Vermont residences do not pay sales tax on energy used, they do pay an Energy Efficiency Charge, between 4.5 and 5%, funds the statewide Energy Efficiency Utility
Gasoline Tax: $0.42 cents/gal Federal and State(some states add their tax as a percentage of the per gal charge) Thought this ruling is of interest. The state will have no untaxed gasoline in cars.

At 20 MPG, 100 miles =$2.10 X 15,000 miles/year = $315.00
Vehicle License Registration Tax: for pleasure /year $60.00

Rooms and Meals Tax: Eat out once a week

$30.00 dinner for two = $2.70 = $140.40

9% on everything from coffee to the motel room. Add up all those lattes and bagels for more tax, tip optional
Here’s the annual total of those taxes I can actually figure. You need to add the sales, use and other taxes as you believe you pay them:

TOTAL: $8161.56

Your income: $12,000.00

Percentage of income paid in taxes/year: 68% of Gross

With all this the Congress wants to let the “cuts” expire and raise taxes on “only the wealthy.” Aren’t you glad to be only poor.
Extras:
Sales Tax: Charged on everything except unprepared food and first $110 of clothing, State rate is 6% with some towns adding 1% to that.
Service Charge Tax: Same rates at Sales tax. Placed on services like medical, dental, construction etc. 6% with some towns adding 1% to that.
Use tax: Buy a item out of state for $100.00, pay the sales tax there, bring it into Vermont and pay 6% use tax here.
Marriage License Tax: to make legal what you are doing now, $15.00.
Excise Taxes: Federal taxes on things like tires for the car $3.00/tire added on to the cost, don’t forget the sales tax.
The following taxes you pay when you use any middleman for work, selling or buying, shipping:
Building Permit Tax; A variable fee based on the cost of the project, gets you a piece of paper with writing on it allowing you to alter your own property.
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA
Road UsageTax
Accounts Receivable Tax
CDL license Tax
Inventory Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Food License Tax
Corporate Income Tax:
Luxury Taxes
Real Estate Tax
Personal Property Tax
Cigarette Tax
Dog License Tax
Hunting License Tax
Fishing License Tax
Liquor Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Inheritance Tax
Well Permit Tax