Posts Tagged ‘taxes’

Why Trump’s 1995 Tax Return should mean NOTHING to you

Posted by Troy on 3rd October 2016 in Current Events, Political

The New York Times has reported select pages of Trump’s 1995 tax return showing about a billion dollar loss.  They suspect that he may not have paid taxes for the next twenty years because of this.  Well, that’s interesting since they have no idea what his income was in that time frame.  A little background: I am a CPA and have been for 15 years.  I graduated Summa Cum Laude with degrees in accounting and finance with many economic courses under my belt as well as reading economic books in my spare time.  Now, I will tell you why all this is meaningless crap.

1 – The thing they are talking about is called a Net Operating Loss.  It isn’t some sort of loophole.  It’s a very fair mechanism in the tax code.  Essentially: You have a business.  For the first five years of the business, you have losses.  In year six, you have income.  You are allowed to deduct those prior year losses against the current year income.  This is TOTALLY Fair.  Let’s say that in this six year period, you lost $10,000 in years 1-5.  Since you have no other income items, you had no taxable income and paid $0 in taxes for the first five years.  You then make $110,000 in year six.  You are allowed to deduct the $50,000 you missed out on, leaving $60,000 in taxable income.  Compare that with someone that MADE $10,000 in years 1-6.  In both cases, the average income for the six year period would be $10,000.  If you didn’t allow some sort of carryover, then you would have taxed the first person on $110,000 and you would have taxed the second person on $60,000 even though they made the same amount of money in that period.  How is that fair?  It’s not.  Not to mention that GE, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, the New York Times, and untold number of other Democrat darlings have used the carryover provisions.

2 – Paying taxes is NOT patriotic.  This country was founded upon the premise that NONE of us wanna pay taxes.  Yeah, that’s a little bit of a stretch.  It was more taxation without representation, but still.  No one wants to pay taxes.  If you did not use the existing tax laws to keep as much of your OWN money as possible, you’d just be stupid.  Taxes is not the same as charity.

3 – As far as Trump losing a billion dollars in a year, I seriously doubt he did.  The tax code does not allow you to take passive losses (losses on businesses that you didn’t really participate in on a day to day basis–I’m over simplifying, please other CPAs, do not respond with pedantic responses).  Instead, these loses carry over to offset passive income in later years.  If you never have passive income, then these losses can be fully realized in the year you dispose of the business.  This is to avoid what was known in the early eighties as a tax shelter.  This is where people would buy into a business that would generate “tax” losses but wouldn’t actually generate true, cash losses.  This is coupled with an At Risk limitation so that the total loss you can take is only that which you put into the business.  Prior to these two rules, you had people investing in “businesses” which they did not really participate in and took losses far in excess of what they actually could lose if the whole thing tanked.  So what has really happened is that he had 10-20 years of losses carrying over, he disposed of the business, and he has this huge loss.  No big mystery.  No giant “loophole.”  Nothing really to see here.

4 – Even if Trump released his taxes, it would mean nothing anyway.  Trump is 70 years old.  He has beautiful houses, his personal plane, and a bunch of other stuff.  So, here’s the thing… how much money does he need at 70?  Now that he has most everything he needs to be happy, why would he need a lot of income?  He has the ability to control how much his income is.  If he doesn’t need a lot of money, why would he pay himself a large salary or cut himself dividends and face double taxation?  He wouldn’t.  He would keep the money inside the corporations.  So, he can control his income.  He has several corporations which would file their own tax returns and not report anything on his Form 1040.  As far as charity goes, he may opt to pay charitable donations out of his foundation or his corporations, which would be more beneficial to the corporations than to him.

5 – Hillary is trying to make a big deal about his billion dollar loss (as I’ve explained above).  Did you know that she lost $6 billion dollars as Secretary of State?  Unaccounted for.  Just lost.  Of course, you can say that $6 billion isn’t much to the State Department, but a billion dollars is a LOT to an individual.  You’d be right…but the key difference is that the billion Trump lost was HIS to lose.  The $6 billion that she lost was OURS.  If you’re an honorable person, you would much rather lose your own money instead of someone else’s.

6 – Hillary wants to point out that Trump is a bad business man because he would have done better if he had just put his money into a mutual fund.  Well that’s great!  Of course, that’s true of most everything.  Let’s assume a normal distribution.  So, half the businesses beat the market and half don’t.  Well, obviously, the smart thing to do would be to have the ones on the lower 50% quit and invest their money in the other 50%.  Great!  So now, assuming that there’s a normal distribution, this means that half of the businesses are losers and half are winners, so they should sell off and buy into the winning 50%, and so on and so on…until there is only one business left.  The true winner!  Yes, the true winner.  We should all be invested in that one entity.  Except for the fact that this CANNOT happen.  Industries go up and down.  Companies go up and down.  We need all different players and companies and businesses and industries competing and operating and innovating.  When this happens, then you have the beauty of a diversified portfolio.  Some industries will underperform on returns, but they may have more players or less risk or less costs to enter the market.  A producer of corn will not have the same profit margin of Apple computers.  Why?  Because anyone can plant corn (more or less).  You have start up costs, market risk, supply and demand, and other factors.  Basically, it is called economics.  Half the industries would not make the “beat the market” test.  Boo hoo.  Figure it out.

7 – Hillary likes to point out Trump’s failures.  Well, he’s started hundreds of ventures, and a small portion of these went bankrupt.  It’s a fun game for Hillary to play because she has nothing which can compare.  She’s never started any business.  So, let’s look at it this way: What laws has she sponsored?  I’d be shocked if you could name any.  How any of those had a net positive effect of the bottom line?  Even if you wanna say that profit isn’t a motive in politics…how many of her policies actually solved a problem, let alone were cost effective?  How any of her initiatives as Secretary of State were successful?  Basically NONE.  But yeah…let’s talk about Trump Steaks and not four dead Americans in Benghazi.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Tyranny of Fairness

Posted by Troy on 1st October 2012 in Current Events, Political

I love the quote by C.S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

I speak at length in 2084 about how “fairness” is used for the justification of our own enslavement.  After all, who can be against fairness?  This is the tact the Left uses to take away our rights.  It is always about fairness.  Imagine all that you can justify with fairness!  Reparations.  Global initiatives for feeding the world’s children, helping the disabled, etc.  Surrendering our Freedom of Speech in deference to the wishes of others’ feelings.  Confiscation of wealth.  I could list even more extreme examples, but these are real world, ongoing battles that we face.  However, as Oliver Wendell Holmes points out (and I find him odious), fairness is merely a matter of opinion.

Let’s take a look at the tax rates.  Obama wants to raise taxes on “the rich” (an arbitrary definition, but whatever).  He claims they should pay their fair share.  Okay, well, let me take a few examples then.

1)  Wouldn’t it be fair if we all paid one rate?  Imagine if four people went out to lunch.  They ordered one dish and shared equally.  Based on the assumption that government spending is supposed to be for the general welfare, they should all benefit equally.  As such, they should take the cost, divide it by four, and that’s the amount each person owes.  What would be fairer?

Okay, so you say that it’s not fair because the poorer at the table can’t afford “their share.”  What about:

2)  We take account of people’s incomes at the table.  On a given day, John makes $100 a day, Jack makes $95 a day, Jill makes $85 a day, and June only makes $40 a day.  The tab is $40.  Under this scenario, We would first take $5 from John, bringing him to the same as Jack.  We would then take $10 which would bring them back to Jill’s level.  Then we would take $5 from each of those to pay the rest of the bill, and June would eat for free.  At the end, their net worth would be $80 for John, Jack, and Jill and $40 for June.  Isn’t this fair?  To each according to his needs and from each according to his ability?    Of course, this is pure socialism, is it not?  I think that everyone would also agree that basing a tax structure on this would lead to pure economic destruction.  If this were the case, why would John, Jack, and Jill bother earning any more than June?  As everyone became slackers, everyone suffers.

3)  I will just mention it…we could do the same as scenario 2, but instead even out everyone’s income first and then take an equal amount from each.  This would be communism.  No one (with half a brain) would admit that they are for this as it is so obviously wrong.  However, there are plenty that are for this.  Basically, this crowd believes that any difference in income is purely due to the accident of birth, the outcome of luck, and the end result of a corrupt system that seeks to oppress certain groups.  Again, why would ANYBODY work hard under this method of taxation and wealth redistribution, but what could possibly be fairer than everyone sharing everything equally?

4)  Everyone buys their own meal and pays what that costs.  June orders the nachos and cheese appetizer for her lunch, and John orders the steak.  Jack wishes to save money to buy some beer later and also gets the nachos to save money even though he could afford steak if he wanted it.  From each according to that they choose.  That’s hella-fair, right?  We could make that argument.

5)  The progressive tax system could also be considered fair.  Under this scenario, June might only pick up 10% of the bill, and the other three will pick up 30% each because they feel bad for June, basically.  That’s pretty fair, right?  I should think that the progressive tax rate structure, which is what we have, is arguably the most fair.  However, I will discuss this further below.

Okay, so now you see that all of these could be argued to be fair, correct?  I would think 65% or better of all Americans would think that a progressive tax rate structure should be the fairest of all tax systems based upon our concept of a federal government who’s powers have been expanded far beyond what the Constitution enumerates and is expect to provide more services than the Constitution allows.  So, then we come up to what is fair here?  My personal take is that nobody should pay more than 50% of their income in tax.  Once you cross that threshold, you are working for other people’s benefit and are a slave.  Obama wants to increase the tax rates form 36% to 39% so the rich can pay their fair share.  Nice…but what if I told you that most economists agree that 33% is the rate at which revenues are maximized to the government?  So we are going to raise the rates and get less money because it’s fair?  Should the government be in the business of fairness, or should be they in the business of ensuring the proper functioning of government?  I should like to see a cap at the federal rate of 33%, and, if more revenue is needed, the federal government will have to expand the income range that rate applies to, including more people into that rate.  This would end the Obama class war (read the Communist Manifesto).

Right now, I am reading We the Living.  It really amazes me how the Democratic party today sounds so similar to the Communists in that novel.  I was also struck by how similar they sound to the Communist Manifesto.  These are dangerous times ahead.  I predict that, should Obama and the Democrats take 2012, we will see higher taxes.  This, coupled with the effects of Obamacare, will lead to an economic meltdown in 2014 through 2016.  This is why the Army is preparing for civil unrest in 2016.

We have a choice.  If you vote Obama, you get what you deserve.  Past that, I will reserve my right to say, “I told you so.”  Sadly, even if Romney wins, the catastrophe may not be avoided if Obamacare still stands.  That thing is a wrecking ball waiting to kill businesses.  If you own a business, talk to your CPA.  If you don’t own a business, talk to your bosses about how Obamacare will affect where you work.  Remember, if your employer tanks, so do you.  If everyone you work with is out of work, you will have to compete with all of them to find new jobs.  Unfortunately, with all the businesses going under, there will be a shortage of jobs.  With less jobs, there’s less disposable income.  With less disposable income, there’s less demand for goods and services.  And, as such, more places will have to fire people or lay them off or even go out of business as well.

Dark times…

Long Live the Constitution!

Fair Share of Taxes

Posted by Troy on 28th August 2012 in Current Events, Political

“Fair” is always a matter of opinion.  However, here’s a good question for you.  If we could adopt one of two tax policies, which one would it be?

1) All taxes are paid by corporations and the top 25% of income households or

2) Corporations and the top 1%’ers are literally exempt from taxation.

Most everyone would say #1.  However, what if the results of the tax policies are as follows:

1) We have 9.2% unemployment and revenues to the Federal government drops by 10% or

2) We have 4% unemployment and revenues to the Federal government actually increases 20%?

This is the debate.  The Democrats demand fairness in the tax code.  Remember, Obama said in 2008 that he didn’t care that getting rid of the 15% capital gains rate would actually hurt the economy and lower revenues to the government.  He doesn’t care because that is what is “fair.”  Of course, this is a very childlike position, isn’t it?  Meanwhile, the Republicans want to decrease the corporate income tax and keep rates low for the top tier earners because they think that it will increase jobs, the economy, and revenues to the government.

I’m going to break it down to ya: the government cannot LEVEL the economy.  They cannot take money from the rich and give to the poor without hurting the economy and killing jobs.  Meanwhile, the capitalist approach will not LEVEL the economy.  No, it can increase the number of people that have jobs.  There may be 5 hamburger flippers in a town as opposed to 2, but they will still probably earn about the same because the value we put upon the hamburger is still the same: a meal is a meal.

Long Live the Constitution!

Reid: Today’s McCarthy – Romney Has Paid His Taxes

Posted by Troy on 6th August 2012 in Current Events, Political

McCarthy ruined many people’s lives by claiming that he had evidence that they were Communist.  In many cases, the public jumped on board and presumed this person’s guilt because they could not prove that they WEREN’T a communist.  In some cases, they wouldn’t even try.  Now, Senator Reid is trying the same tactic.  I don’t believe that someone has told him that Romney hasn’t paid his taxes.  Of course, Pelosi came to his aid by saying, “What he said was true!  Someone did tell him that!”  What the hell is that?  Really?  Is that all you have?  Honestly, the fact that they used that as a defense leads me to believe they are lying.  If they thought they were telling the truth, they would stand by the statement.

Of course, the question then becomes: Why won’t Romney release his tax returns which will prove that he paid his taxes?  Of course, filing your taxes is not the same as paying your taxes.  If he didn’t file his taxes, he would be in jail.  If he filed and didn’t pay, there would be liens on his assets, and there would be a public record of these liens.  As such, he has filed his taxes, and he has paid them.  Still, why doesn’t he release his taxes?

I am a tax accountant.  I’ll tell you why he doesn’t want to do that.  The fact of the matter is that there is a ton of personal information in a tax return.  You can see where he works, the investments he has made, his medical records, and his charitable givings.  Every little detail that is in those returns could become another weapon.  The attacks would be ceaseless, so why do it?  Imagine if someone asked you for your e-mail password or internet history to prove some minor point.  Even if you had done nothing wrong, you probably wouldn’t want to give someone that information without due cause.

I’m not really sure why we have all this push about Romney being too rich.  Generally, being rich is a sign of intelligence, craftiness, networking, and other skills which would translate well to the office of President.  The Romneys are no more out of touch with America than the Obamas.  In fact, given the fact that Michelle Obama proudly proclaimed TWICE “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country!” I can assume that their world view is vastly different than most of us.  I, for one, am damn proud to be an American.  I would rather be poor in America than rich in China any day.  Should we just put someone in the office who is Middle Class?  Why don’t we seek the most average joe and put him in there then?  Because it’s a stupid idea?  Yeah, that’s probably right.

Again, anyone demanding the release of Romney’s taxes should also demand the release of Obama’s school records.  No one remembers him from Columbia.  No one ever had a class with the dude.  It’s all very weird.  I’d love to see his records, and I would really love to read his thesis.  Perhaps it was entitled, “How I will change America from Capitalism to Socialism if I become President.”

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama On Taxes

Posted by Troy on 9th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama declares that we have a divide on how wealth is created.  He claims the Republicans believe wealth is created at the top and trickles down.  The Democrats believe that wealth is created by the middle class.  His solution to wealth creation?  Tax the rich.

How will that increase wealth?  How will that increase our middle class?

The only way I can see that this will increase the middle class is to drag some of the upper class down into the middle class.  Brilliant!  We’ll take all the money from the rich until they are in the middle class and then give it to the poor to get them up to middle class, and then we’ll all be in the middle class!

Well, until in a few years when the poor had pissed away all the freebies and are back into their original position and there are no more rich to tax…a minor issue.

Fact:  The only thing that creates wealth is character and a stable environment (hard work, work ethic, frugality (etc) and an economy in which you can predict the forces arrayed against you and plan accordingly–if you can’t do this, you will not risk starting businesses etc).

Fact: The rich will never make more people rich.  Becoming rich (or even middle class) demands that that person work hard and study hard and try to attain these goals.

Fact:  The reason the rich get richer and the middle class and poor do not is because a rising economy does not raise all boats.  If you own a business and the economy improves, you might open a second store.  This doubles your income.  Does it double the wages of your workers too?  Absolutely not, but it does double the number of people employed.  The reason for this is that the underlying jobs still have the same value to society.  If you flipped burgers in the 1950′s, that job has the same value in 2012.  A burger is a burger.  You do not get 10% raises because no one is willing to pay $50 for a hamburger day after day.

Fact:  There is little that the government can do to help the economy.  The only thing they can do is keep operating costs/start up costs low by keeping just the basic and most important regulations and keeping these rules easy to follow.  They have to provide a stable environment based on taxes, crime, regulations, and other factors.

Fact:  There is no way for raising taxes to actually improve the economy.  The math will not add up.  Taking money out of the economy will never improve the situation.  The bare minimum taxes should be levied.  These taxes should be paid only to pay for the legitimate powers of government.  If you were to take out the welfare spending, retirement spending, and all the discretionary spending, we would not have a deficit.  We would be the financial superpower of the world, unchallenged.  Now we are empowering China and enslaving ourselves.

Fact:  Plot a graph of the poverty rate and all welfare spending.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “If you make poverty easy, you’ll have more of it.”

The cold heartless truth is that we can solve a lot of problems by just ending all welfare spending.  You say we don’t have workers willing to pick fruit?  Offer them the choice: pick fruit or starve.  I bet most people will pick fruit.  Starvation is the oldest and best motivator for human behavior.  Return welfare to the churches and the communities.  They do it better than the government and hold the recipient accountable (in which the government seem to have little ability or inclination to do).

Every single problem we have comes down to a breakdown of American character.  In particular, this breakdown has been greatly accelerated by the breakdown of the American family.

Perhaps I will write a blog on the breakdown of the American family, but that is a long and complicated topic.

Long Live the Constitution!

How much of your money should you be allowed to keep?

Posted by Troy on 17th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

Anti-tax pundits always pose this question to pro-tax pundits.  The in variable answer is a bunch of stammering and a failure to take a concrete stance by using such platitudes as “fair share,” etc.  This is due to a couple of reasons.  The first is the phrasing of the question.  What we often forget is that we earned the money that we pay into the system.  By bringing the question in this way, it points out that tax “revenues” is really a form of wealth confiscation which was earned by someone else.  This is a minor point, however.  Everybody (even anti-tax pundits) will say that some taxes are necessary in order to keep the roads paved and the military going and the like.  Really, the problem is the second issue.  Setting a limit would do one of two things: either they will have to make themselves into hypocrites when they call for even higher taxes to pay for even more government spending or they will have to quote a tax rate that would cause any sane person to choke (much like Will Smith did when he learned of the 75% tax rate in France).  I, however, have moral courage, and I will actually give you an actual number: No one should have to pay more than 50% of their income as taxes.  Ideally, this would include city, state, Federal, payroll, property, sales, and other taxes.  However, this would be an accounting nightmare for many people since taxes like property and sales taxes are variable based upon the person’s spending decisions.  As such, let’s just limit it to income taxes.  The effect of this would be that the Federal tax rate would be set by taking 50% and subtracting the largest marginal combined city/state tax rate.  If additional revenues are needed, the top bracket could only be expanded to include more people.

The reason for my limit is simple:  Anything over 50%, and you are officially working more for someone else than yourself.  This makes you a slave.  Imagine that you plant a garden.  When it comes time to harvest, someone comes and takes 60% of what you picked and gave it to someone else who did nothing to grow the garden.  You would be pissed.  You could have canned the goods for later.  You could have given it to friends or family.  Instead, it was given to someone who did nothing to earn it, and you didn’t have a say in where it went.

As far as the Buffett Rule goes, know this: If we let capital gains rates disappear, the economy is going to CRASH.  Also, history has shown that lower capital gains rates increase tax revenues.  This was pointed out to Obama in 2008 in a debate against Hillary, and he responded that he didn’t care because having a higher rate was about fairness, not revenue.  His words, not mine.

Long Live the Constitution!

State of the Union Speech

Posted by Troy on 24th January 2012 in Current Events, Political

Where do I begin?

For starters, his concepts about American manufacturing, American energy, and American Values.

Unless he wants to do away with the minimum wage, we are not going to have a lot of manufacturing jobs.  I suppose he could set out some prohibitive tariffs, but I doubt he has the guts, and it’s debatable as to the wisdom of that move.  He just shut down the Keystone pipeline and hasn’t allowed American companies to drill for oil, so he really loses a lot of credibility on this issue.  I suppose that he could say that he is very pro-American GREEN energy, which is not cost effective right now.  The fact of the matter is, if you agree that there’s a finite amount of oil in the world and we should be researching new energy to be ahead of the curve, then you should be for pumping as much crude as we can and use the profits to fund these projects so that we will use up the supply of a soon to be obsolete energy source.  As to American values, Obama’s perspective of American values runs counter to most of American.  Hell, his wife once commented that America was a “downright mean country.”  She also said that “for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of [her] country.”  Inferring Barrack’s beliefs should be fairly easy…he did marry her after all.

The President discussed everyone paying their fair share.  Here’s a quick question, what is a fair share?  How much of your own money should you be allowed to keep?  How fair is it for someone to take money from you and give it directly to another person for their own PERSONAL welfare?  The government is supposed to provide for the common welfare.  Do you know how taxes were supposed to be levied?  The Constitution said that the government could only take taxes directly from the states based on their share of the nation’s population.  It also only allowed for money to be in gold and silver.  Here’s a question, if the federal government only used gold and silver, was only responsible for those activities mandated by the Constitution, and could only tax based on the original schematics, would we be in this mess?  That’s Ron Paul’s point entirely.

I was sickened by Obama’s positive spin on some very dangerous acts.  He wants to do away with the filibuster.  Why?  Because it stops the Leftist agenda.  The fact of the matter is that his ideas are terrible, and that is why he needs a super-majority to win.  Of course, he wants the Dream Act passed immediately so that he can get the Latino vote.  Finally, there’s the takeover of the internet–all to control the information we see.  2084 isn’t too far away.

In another matter, what is with all the executive orders?  How can he wave a pen and make the military run on green energy?  How is he funding it without Congressional approval?  For that matter, when the hell is the Congress going to pass a budget?  Am I the only one that’s sick and tired of not having a budget?

Dear Lord, how many countries are we at war with or about to be at war with?  A thought occurred to me today…if the Founding Fathers could see how we were today, how would they feel about the constant state of war we find ourselves in?  I seriously doubt they would approve of us going to war without Congressional approval.  The fact of the matter is, none of these conflicts are popular enough with the American people where Congressmen would dare vote for a war.  This is why we’ve decided not to have the Constitution get in the way.  And here again, this is Ron Paul’s point.  I just wish he was better at projecting it.  Sadly, I think we are probably lock into some sort of conflict in Iran.  At least we are trying to use sanctions instead of military might (although they are typically ineffective).  As Sun Tzu said, it is best to deal with your enemies first by influence and the last resort is to invade them.

The last point I want to make is this: What is the deal with the lighting?  What, were they going for the “rays of light through a cloud”/God smiling upon Obama?  The only thing missing was a choir singing.  Bah!

Long Live the Constitution!

999 Plan

Posted by Troy on 13th October 2011 in Current Events, Political

The 999 Plan is under attack right now.  Personally, I don’t think that it’s worth talking about.  I don’t believe that any tax schematic will replace the current Code.  There are too many special interests involved.  Also, I think that introducing a sales tax is a bad idea.  First, I don’t think it would be Constitutional (which doesn’t seem to matter anymore).  The Constitution only allows a tax to be given to the states and must be based on population.  That is to say, if the Government needed to collect 50 billion dollars, they have to say, okay, states, you have to pay 50 billion dollars.  California, you have a tenth the population, so you owe us 10 billion dollars.  That’s why we had to pass the 16th Amendment to have an income tax.  Second, a sales tax hits everyone indiscriminately.   This means that the poor will have to actually pay taxes, and there is no way politicians are going to pass that.  There could be work-arounds, but doing work-arounds invites fraud.

I say we judge Cain on the whole package and not worry quite so much about the 999 Plan.  Even so, Art Laffer (the father of supply-side economics) loves the plan, and that’s a pretty good endorsement.

Long Live the Constitution!

Moody’s Downgrades America’s Debt

Posted by Troy on 25th July 2011 in Current Events, Political

Everyone is worried that Moody’s will downgrade America’s debt if we do not raise the debt limit.  I would like to point out that this is ridiculous.  Imagine if you went in to get a loan and you already had three mortgages on your house.  The debt officer tells you that you that he can’t give you a loan because you’re becoming a bad credit risk.  Do you think that his opinion is going to improve because you come back and tell him you just got a new credit cards?

Moody’s downgrades based upon the entity’s ability to pay.  Right now, we have run-away spending, and Moody is beginning to doubt we can do that.  If they read you the entire report, Moody says that in order to not downgrade our debt, we would have to raise the debt ceiling AND put into place spending cuts and systematic reforms.  Lets see if we can get Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Long Live the Constitution!

Taxes to steal freedom – Taxes on Ammo

Posted by Troy on 20th July 2011 in Current Events

I have always said that we do not have to worry so much about gun bans.  What we need to worry about (at least initially) are exorbitant taxes on ammo.  And here we are!  One nice thing about it, it is easily reversible. 

This will be utterly ineffective on crime.  Do they think gangbangers buy 100 rounds and target practice to hone their skills?  They are shooting at under ten feet away, usually.  They don’t care about accuracy.  As long as they can afford a clip worth, they’re cool.  Also, don’t you think that bootleggers will just go to an ammo friendly state and sell the ammo for a profit in Baltimore?  This isn’t about crime.  It’s about control.

Long Live the Constitution!