A Cynical Look On Loaning to the Government

California is at it again--raising taxes that is.
Or are they?

What they're really doing is raising their income withholding rate--by an incredible 10%.
"Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less." - Latimes
Which is interesting, because a forced loan without interest seems to be much more of a tax and much less of a loan.
I don't know about you, but when I give out a loan I expect to make a decent rate back on it.
In addition to Californians not getting their money on time, the money withheld will also take a hit from inflation--whatever percentage the dollar is devalued the year that the money is withheld--while the government holds it. This year that percentage is quite a substantial amount.
Because no interest is given during this period, the holdings are indeed a tax. The tax on this sum can can be calculated by taking into account inflation and the potential that the money would have earned if it were actually loaned at interest, or invested elsewhere.(It would have to be something you were actually going to do with the money)
In any event, when California officials mean that they are holding onto the taxpayer money, they really mean that they are "spending it all as fast as they can in a desperate attempt to turn around budget deficits"
Unfortunately, spending your way out of deficits has never worked very well for the United States. It's exactly like trying to fill a hole, by digging at the bottom of the hole. It just doesn't make any sense. The only way California is ever going to fix it's financial problems is by cutting spending--something California has never been very good at.
As it stands, the good news is that the withholdings will probably go away after the state fixes its deficit problem. The bad news is that the state will probably never fix its deficit problem.
The withholdings tax doesn't look like it's going anywhere, and it will probably increase again for Californians in the future.

What am I going to do about it? My job is to complain about things, not to fix them.
I do have one suggestion for Californians though: move to Florida, where companies are allowed to pay employees a little more of what they earn.

Src: Cbs2
Src: Latimes

A Cynical Look On Government Tea Continued

The biggest Tax day Tea Party was not unexpectedly at The Alamo.
Perhaps the only news reporter I can stand from Fox news, Glen Beck, gave a rousing speech that he posted on his website, and which ran on Fox News. (The only station that really even covered it)

A Cynical Look On Government Tea

No, not in the literal sense--symbolically.
On April 15th, 2009 there will take place a "National Tax Day Tea Party"
The primary goals are to protest wasteful government spending in all of its forms, including bailouts, and of course the fact that the government is dramatically raising taxes in order to do so.

A Cynical Look will give various updates on the National Tax Day Tea Party which is set to start taking place in a few hours from now.

Don't Tread On Me
Undoubtedly the Gadsden flag will be seen widely, so I would like to explain what it is in this post.

The idea for the flag was actually inspired by a political cartoon drawn by Benjamin Franklin that may be familiar.

The individual pieces of the snake were representative of the colonies at the time. The general idea was that if all of the colonies did not come work together during the French Indian wars to face their threat, they would die.

Later on the Gadsden was all over the place-- on money, uniform buttons, and flags.


In December 1775, "An American Guesser" anonymously wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal:
Many scholars now agree that this is actually Benjamin Franklin explaining the Gadsden symbol.
(Copies of this letter can be found all over the internet-- and now here also)
"I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, 'Don't tread on me.' As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America."
This anonymous writer, having "nothing to do with public affairs" and "in order to divert an idle hour," speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America.
First, it occurred to him that "the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America."
The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and "may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance." Furthermore,
"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her."
Finally,
"I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. ...
"'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living."
Franklin, of course, is also known for opposing the use of an eagle -- "a bird of bad moral character" -- as a national symbol.

A Cynical Look On Stimulus Packages

Some numbers run by FY707:

The bottom number is the combined amount that Taxpayers WILL get.
Essentially, this is a spreadsheet that shows us exactly how much money each American could have gotten if it weren't lost in all kinds of "legislation" or spent on all kinds of things that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. In theory, each American could have gotten at least twice as much as they will in total.

A Cynical Look at the GOP

Today I'm changing gears fast enough to destroy every transmission in a hundred mile radius. For today, all you who think I'm a conservative Republican are in for a surprise. Today, I'm taking a cynical look at the current state of the GOP. From what McCain and Palin have shown recently, there's plenty to be cynical about, and it would be remiss of me to ignore such easy pickings.

The cynicism starts with a look at the failed presidential candidate John McCain. Now while this election year would be tough for any republican, with Bush dragging any ticket down into the abyss regardless of who is on said ticket, McCain's spectacular failure is still most impressive. McCain, a self-proclaimed maverick, managed not only to bore, but also to make some of the most disastrous campaign decisions of any era. McCain's consistent dismissal of his own party will now likely hurt him, for you can call your friend an idiot only if you win. McCain's surprisingly poor campaign also managed to seem technologically inept compared to his opponent. No one can forget his amazing quote, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." Perhaps McCain couldn't have won regardless of what he did, but after he managed to make his poor campaign look worse, he had no chance.

The past is the past, however, and the future of the Republican party looks much better. If, of course, you're looking at a different Republican party. The one I'm looking at looks doomed. What kind of party looks towards a politician who couldn't be bothered to find out what the Bush doctrine was, who reportedly didn't know Africa was a continent, and who believes foreign policy experience can be gained from living near another country? A doomed party, that's what kind of party does that. While some find Republicans to be the better of two evils, the current state of the party must be causing reconsideration of that stand. Even the rats abandon a sinking ship, and the GOP certainly looks to be going down.

The GOP, perhaps, is doomed by the poor policy choices they've made. For tax cuts, which invariably are spun as "tax cuts for the wealthy," have lost popularity faster than Pet Rocks. For an uninhibited market is oft considered to be a massive problem. For simply being in the same political party as Bush. The GOP is looking bad right now, and a cynical conclusion is that this is just the start of the storm.
As always, if I've missed anything, am blatantly wrong, or seem to have a bias of some kind, feel free to leave a comment.

A Cynical Look on Universal Healthcare Part 4

Now I'm sure that there are still people unaware of how Universal Health Care can negatively impact them. They may be unaffected, through some strange coincidence, by the problems already outlined. No one, however, is unaffected by the cost of health care.

In a socialistic health care system, those who go to the doctor less are more heavily penalized, proportionally, than those who go to the doctor more. In a socialistic health care system with progressive taxes the rich are heavily penalized for having money, unless they go to the doctor, at current American tax rates, 36% more than those who live on the streets. Obviously, those living on the streets have more medical issues than those who can afford balanced diets and preventive medicines. Thus the rich, as a whole, would be paying a much larger fee per doctor or hospital visit than those who literally do nothing. (Who actually profit from visiting the doctor, for health care is worth more than nothing, and they would pay nothing to get it.)

The rich deserve to pay more, you may say. If that is your thought, I obviously cannot dissuade you from it. However, the rich also tend to desire their money's worth from what they spend money on. Alienating the people providing the money that allows programs to run may not be a good idea. Remember, you can add a lot of weight to the rich man's back, but one straw too many and he's gone forever.

However, the rich alone cannot provide enough money for everyone. Especially with the super rich simply hiring more lawyers, and finding more loopholes to stash their vast incomes away in. Thus, everyone pays more to the government for their health care regardless of how often they use it. Make it through a full year without any illnesses? Good for you, you pay the same as Sniffly Bobby, the coworker who was sick 167 days this past year. If you find that fair, I would love to hear your explanation in the comments.

Related Reading:
Article: Paying The Price For Drugs In Europe
Article: Entitlement programs eating up U.S. budget

Economic Implications of Health Care:
A Free Market for Health Care
Nationalized Health Care Will Cut Costs? It Just ain't so!

A Cynical Look on Welfare

Welfare, a system where money is given to the needy, is a valiant effort to help those in need. It is, unfortunately, an impossible system. For who decides whether the homeless veteran or single mother is more needy? The government, of course! While nearly everyone can agree that some situations offer impossible choices, the government is always there to provide solutions. Horrible misguided solutions that often create a problem bigger than the original one, but solutions nonetheless. Now that the purpose and reason of existence for welfare have been outlined in a manner quick and brutal enough to make Genghis Khan wince, I'll outline the problems that make welfare worse than no help at all.

Welfare encourages continuing to receive money for doing nothing. Why work for minimum wage when you can get a comparable amount of money for doing absolutely nothing? Why try to climb the corporate ladder when that would take work? Why advance yourself when the government is making sure you'll be fine either way? The answer to all of these questions vary depending on who you ask, but the fact that they are serious questions at all is the problem with welfare. Not to mention the drain welfare puts on the government and economy, nor the fact that it's a step towards socialism.

Welfare encourages complacency. It's a well intentioned misguided program. The people who can work obviously shouldn't be on welfare, yet there are literally millions of people on welfare at any given time. The myth that single mothers are the majority of people on welfare, is, of course, false. The fact is that many people from every race and parenting statistic can be found on welfare, and obviously not all of them are unable to work. Those unable to work should be aided, those capable of working shouldn't be. Why reward laziness with your tax dollars?

A Cynical Look on Taxes

Well, now Obama has been elected, and the super rich can look forward to paying more for doing their jobs well. Obviously success should be punished, and failure should be rewarded. Of course here in America, we can justify it by claiming, as most progressive tax supporters do, that the rich "get more from the government." Everyone knows that the government provides those private schools, security guards, lawyers, electricity, water, and employees. Since obviously this isn't true, why should being a success be punished?
This is America, where the competent few are outmatched by the incompetent many. Welcome to a representative republic, everyone. Don't be more successful than everyone else, or they'll simply vote to give your success to them.

A Brief Cynical Look at the Economic Condition After the Election

Remember remember the 5th of November...

Today I will focus on the immediate economic implications of the election.
To the surprise of many Obama supporters, and especially to the media which seemed to ignore the connection, the DOW closed 486.01 lower to rest at 9,139.27. Influenced almost entirely by the election, which is evidenced by the inactivity of the past couple days leading up to the election, the market lost an entire 5.05% of it's value.

Oddly enough, even many Eco-friendly businesses that would benefit from an Obama presidency in the form of subsidies took a dive in stock price:

Evergreen Solar, Inc. NYSE: ESLR 4.39 -.90(-17.01%)

SunPower Corporation NYSE: SPWRA 32.99 -17.51(-34.67%)

Solarfun Power Holdings Co., Ltd. (ADR) NYSE: SOLF 7.36 -1.59(-17.77%)



Based on simple economic principals, it would make sense that the market did not like Obama winning the election.

-Raising Taxes In general,harms the Economy.(As agreed on by at least 95% of Economists)

-Capital Gains Tax (It was shown during the Clinton Administration, when the capital gains tax was lowered, that the Capital gains tax has such an impact on how much people invest that when this tax is raised the government actually takes in LESS money. So in addition to harming the economy, the government takes in less in tax revenues: A lose, lose situation)

-Income Tax (Biggest Increments on the Highest Tax brackets)
-Dividend Tax
-Inheritance Tax (I hope you weren't hoping of leaving anything for your family)

Although some liberal media would like to tell you differently, Obama is in favor of the largest tax increases in history since the birth of the income tax. The capital gains tax, income tax, dividend tax, and the inheritance tax are all on his agenda for large hikes. In addition, he would like to propose a few taxes we never had before:
-Extra taxes on any home over 2400 Sq ft.
-New gasoline taxes (this will make gas more expensive)
-New taxes on other natural resource consumption (Heating, Electricity, ect.)
-New taxes on retirement accounts
-Social Medicare Taxes

Based on this, we can cynically conclude that the stock market is in for hard times.