May 22, 2013
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom :
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak:
Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
May 13, 2013
Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo: Why the giving of the document that would permanently change the world could only be done in desolation
David G. Savage:
Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross :
Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same?
With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May:
Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.:
How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
Jewish World Review
Dec. 13, 2010
/ 6 Teves, 5771
Our Greedy Government
Given that man invented money, shouldn't he understand it better?
Instead, how money works remains the biggest mystery this side of cancer or "American Idol" voting. We can't even get a consensus on a stupidly simple question: Should we raise taxes?
The obvious answer should be no. Who wants to raise taxes? Instead, Congress is at an impasse. Everyone is screaming. Half the experts warn if we don't raise taxes, the country will collapse, and the other half warn if we do raise taxes, the country will collapse.
Sorry. But for something that has been going on since the Bible, Mesopotamia, the Roman Empire and the American Revolution, shouldn't we be able to say whether taxes help or hurt? How much more experience do we need?
Taxes stimulate jobs. Taxes kill jobs. Taxes help small business. Taxes ruin small business. Taxes make things fair for the poor. Taxes falsely sustain the poor. Taxes let government function. Taxes let government malfunction.
Heck. We don't even know what to call the suckers. Pundits refer to "the Bush tax cuts." But even Bush's rates are higher than taxes once were, so how could they be "cuts?" And since they have been the norm for at least seven years, why aren't they called the "status quo?"
MONEY JUST DOESN'T GO THAT FAR
Let's be honest. When it comes to taxes, everyone has a theory. So here's mine. If you take 25 percent of a person's worth, you've taken enough. Especially if you're the government. If you can't make things work with that, it's your fault, not the people's.
The current debate suggests a near-40 percent tax rate is fairer for the richest citizens -- and "richest" means households earning more than $250,000 a year. People pushing this argument make two assumptions: 1) that this rate is somehow deserved because it once existed; and 2) that $250,000 makes you Bill Gates.
"Why should we give breaks to Wall Street tycoons who caused this economic crisis in the first place?" you heard people scream last week.
Well, for one thing, paying 35 percent in federal taxes -- the current highest rate -- is not really "a break." And every household earning $250,000 did not rape, pillage and plunder the economy.
Households earning $250,000 easily could be a midlevel business executive, a college professor and some investments. Comfortable? Yes. Oprah? No.
Take such a married couple, both working, with four kids out in a nice suburb. Say two kids are in college. The parents make too much for scholarships, so that could be two times $50,000 right there, or $100,000 in school bills. Mortgage? Let's be conservative: $2,000 a month. Property taxes? Let's say $10,000. Throw in insurances, car payments, food, utilities, gas. You're easily at $150,000 in costs before anyone has bought a movie ticket, let alone a yacht.
Now. At a 40 percent federal tax and a 5 percent state tax, and a 1 percent city tax -- typical to many areas in this country -- you only get to keep 54 percent of all you earn, or in this $250,000 example, just $135,000. Which means this couple is already $15,000 in the red -- while people label them "ultra-rich."
Yes, this is oversimplified. Yes, there are deductions. And yes, you can argue that not everyone has to send their kids to a good college, not everyone needs two cars, not everyone has to have a nice house. But then, what's everyone working for? Isn't that what the American Dream was once about? Should we set the bar at the lowest aspiration? Should we tilt a system to unemployment and benefits payments?
You all have heard how a tiny fraction of Americans pay more than half of all taxes. And how a big chunk of Americans pay no taxes at all. The only thing you honestly can conclude is that the system is broken.
Well, raising taxes (and that's what it is; stop calling it "eliminating cuts") can't be the only solution to a broken system. The focus should be on whoever is breaking it. Here's a hint: It isn't the wage earner.
Let the economists wrangle over models and theories. The finger ultimately points to the party taking the money, not the one giving it, and that means the government. And if the history of taxation proves anything, it's that there comes a point where people say to that government, "You're taking enough." Here's my theory:
We're already there.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on Mitch's column by clicking here.
© 2009, THE DETROIT FREE PRESS
DISTRIBUTED BY TMS, INC.
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
Ask Doctor K