by

Taxes! I got an uncle living in Taxes…

Prosecutor: Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes.

Chico: Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes.

Prosecutor: No, I’m talking about taxes – money, dollars!

Chico: That’s-a where he lives! Dollars, Taxes! (from Duck Soup)

It’s tax day and Americans all over are complaining even though we have the lowest taxes of any industrialized country. Of course, they could be even lower for many of us if we just had a good, progressive tax system.

We’re the richest country on earth but yet our government is quite poor and in debt. Partially this is due to George W. Bush, who (a) started a war, (b) created a prescription drug plan and (c) cut taxes on the very wealthy without making any provisions for paying for any of these things.

The obvious solution when one is in debt is to increase one’s income. And, in fact, raising taxes on the very wealthy is supported by a majority of Americans. The problem is that the very wealthy have a lot more power than the majority of Americans.

Back in the old days after WWII and before Reagan handed the country over to the wealthy, we did great things. We built highways, created the internet and went to the moon — and these investments helped our economy and made us even richer. Now our infrastructure is falling apart (literally, bridges are collapsing with traffic going over them) and our science program is dead.

If we could just go back to the tax levels set by that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower, we would create jobs, pay down the debt, and improve our standard of living.

The ultra rich though have managed to convince people that if you tax them fairly, it will hurt us because they are the “job creators.” This ignores all facts completely — we’ve had historically low taxes on these people for many years and no jobs have magically appeared.

One thing some people don’t understand is how progressive tax works. When you hear that the top tax rate under Eisenhower was 94% you think, “Wow! Millionaires only got to keep 6% of their income?” I know that’s what I used to think, especially after hearing George Harrison complain in Taxman: “If 5% appears too small, be thankful I don’t take it all.”

But that’s not how it works. You pay a certain percentage up to a specific amount. For instance, our current tax rates look something like this:

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350, plus
40% on taxable income over $400,000

If you earn more than $400,000, it doesn’t mean the government gets 40% of your $400,000. It means they get 10% of your income under $8,700 and then 15% on your income between $8,700 and $35,350, and so on. The highest rate is only for whatever income you have over $400,000. That’s how we were able to have tax rates in the 90% range on the very very wealthy without bankrupting them (while at the same time providing for budget surpluses).

Do I wish my taxes were lower? Of course. For those of us not earning a six figure salary, tax time can really hurt. One way we could fix that is by going back to the system that we know works, where the absolute richest pay a higher percentage.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Wasting taxpayer money to fight sex you don’t like

Tea Party favorite Ken Cuccinelli is the Attorney General from my home state of Virginia. You know, the person who is the top attorney in the state. The guy to go to when you have a question about the Constitution. The expert on the law.

Oh, wait, did I say “tea party favorite”? Never mind. All bets are off once you say those words.

Kenny Boy has decided to spend taxpayer money fighting for an anti-sodomy law in Virginia, to prohibit all sex except vaginal intercourse. As anyone who is a lawyer knows, all such laws were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case ten years ago.

The Constitution has never stood in the way of these people before, though, especially when it comes to icky sex things such as oral sex, gay sex, abortions, or other personal choices having to do with one’s own body. These prudes want to make sure no one does anything that they personally don’t like. (As an aside, have you noticed how almost all of the loudest anti-sex protesters later turn out to be closeted themselves, doing the very things they rant about?)

Fortunately, the very conservative 4th district federal court ruled unanimously that the law was what it was. Surprise, Ken!

This guy is now running for Governor of a state that is becoming bluer by the day. Let’s hope he loses and Virginia remains for lovers.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

NRA + Terrorists = BFFs!

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

Is that the NRA talking? No, it’s from an al Qaeda video, telling its members how easy it is to get a gun in America.

Yep. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Edit: Link to the video doesn’t seem to be working. Here’s a few links that may help:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/06/new-al-qaeda-video-instructs-us-muslims-buy-guns-start-killing-people/38484/

Al Qaeda video resurfaces urging radicals to buy guns in U.S.

http://www.wptz.com/news/politics/Al-Qaeda-video-resurfaces-on-U-S-guns/-/8869804/19720374/-/76dd91/-/index.html

Editorial cartoon of the day

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Top 5 reasons to get rid of the Electoral College

1. It will make every vote count. I grew up in Virginia which, at the time, was reliably Republican. My vote meant little in the Presidential race. Then I moved to Massachusetts and later New York where my Republican friends’ votes were meaningless.

That’s ridiculous. With the winner-take-all elections we have now, people who are in the minority party in their states have no real reason to come out and vote.ElectoralCollege-638x370

By having a popular vote for the President, every vote will count. Democrats in Utah and Republicans in Hawaii won’t feel their votes are wasted.

2. It will force candidates to campaign everywhere. Right now, there are states that rarely see a political campaign, where the candidate visits only to raise money and then disappears. The candidates also pay an inordinate amount of attention to whatever issues are important to those states that are in play, even if those issues would hurt the rest of the country. (Admittedly, some of that will still go on with our current primary system.)

Getting rid of the electoral college means a vote is a vote, no matter where it is. A vote in Idaho is meaningless to a Democratic candidate now, but it would be worth just as much as one in a swing state if we get rid of the electoral college.

3. It will help get people in those non-swing states involved. It should increase voter participation, and even help the local economy.

4. It will get rid of “red states” and “blue states.” This concept does nothing to help political discourse, and only divides us more.

5. It will make it clear that the President represents the people, not the states. And, more importantly, all the people, not just the ones in the states that elected him.

Right now, a President can lose the election and still win. That has happened three times in our history, most recently when Gore got more popular votes than Bush yet Bush won the electoral college. We ended up with a guy a majority of Americans voted against. How is that democracy? That’s winning by a loophole. And it could easily happen again.

(EDIT:  Be sure to read the very extensive debate on this topic in the comments!)

(EDIT #2:  Obviously, this was written before the 2016 election, so now we have two examples of a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the election within a period of 16 years.)

(EDIT #3:  If you’re really interested in this topic, I dedicated an entire chapter to it in my book HOW TO ARGUE THE CONSTITUTION WITH A CONSERVATIVE.)

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

If God were allowed in our schools, there would never be a problem ever

If there’s one argument that really bugs me, it’s that one. “Our children aren’t allowed to read the Bible in school or pray! No wonder people who are not in the school come in and shoot them!”

Besides being absolutely wrong — you are allowed to pray in school and bring your Bible. You can even have Bible study groups after school and everything. What you can’t do is force everyone else to do it, too — this argument doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. What, if the kids had been forced to pray, then the gunman would have gone somewhere else? Should I point out the number of shootings that have taken place in churches?

Or maybe they are saying that God is so petty that he allows innocent children to be killed to make a point?

You want religion in schools, go to a private school. You want your country to support a religion? Maybe you should try one of those countries the Taliban runs.