Today’s subject's a confluence of several recent topics, indicating trends I believe have been developing in the background for quite some time now. It also concerns, one of my hot button issues: Taxes
A headline on Fox News.com states: Teed off: Golf star Phil Mickelson may bolt California over taxes. It then goes on “For golf legend Phil Mickelson, the low 60s makes for a great score on the links — and a lousy tax rate in his home state of California.”
According to Fox, “Mickelson said ‘drastic changes’ are ahead for him due to federal and California state tax increases that have pushed his tax rate to what he figures adds up to “62, 63 percent.”
He went on that he’d talk more about his plans, including perhaps moving out of California or even retiring altogether, “before his hometown Farmers Insurance Open, the San Diego-area event that begins Thursday at Torrey Pines.”
"It's been an interesting off-season," Mickelson, 42, said Sunday after the final round of the Humana Challenge. "And I'm going to have to make some drastic changes. I'm not going to jump the gun and do it right away, but I will be making some drastic changes."
Mickelson, earned roughly $60 million in 2012, thus the tax increase amounts to more than $1.8 million.
Phil’s announcement is, I think, quite similar to actor Gerard Depardieu whom I mentioned several weeks ago because he renounced his French citizenship and moved to Russia after the French government tried to raise already high taxes on the rich.
So, if you take these two examples of high-earners and add their relocation plans to those who’ve already quietly left California and places like France in droves due to governmental efforts toward socialization, I believe the growing trend toward anti-tax migration is well underway.
However, as I sit here typing about the obvious reactions of the financially successful, incredibly dense politicians not only don’t see how they’re shooting themselves in the foot tax-wise, they keep reloading their own guns to do it again and again. Because a blurb also on Fox News says “Senate Democrats plan to draft a budget blueprint that calls for significantly higher taxes on the wealthy, oil and gas companies and corporations doing business overseas, reopening a battle over taxes Republicans had hoped to lay to rest with the “fiscal cliff.”
And then Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post adds that “For nearly four years, Senate leaders have ducked their legal duty to craft a comprehensive budget framework. Now, however, Democrats see the budget process as “a great opportunity” to pursue additional tax increases — and to create a fast-track process to push them through the Senate, Senator Charles E. Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Following that, Susan Jones of cnsnews.com notes that on Friday, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," asked Nancy Pelosi if the "revenue side" of the fiscal cliff is finished, which in Democrat code means higher taxes.
Pelosi replied, "We're talking about looking at the tax code, putting everything on the table from the standpoint of closing loopholes - and we know that we can do that - special subsidies for big oil, for example, $38 billion right there. But again, not to take things in isolation, just to say, OK, well, how much more revenue can we get as we go forward?"
She then went on to say that "I mean, the president had said originally he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue. He took it down to $1.2 as a compromise. In this legislation (fiscal cliff) we had $620 billion, very significant, high-end tax - changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent. But that is not enough on the revenue side."
Now, bringing all the preceding verbiage together, what I continue to see is a steady, perhaps even growing, Democrat focus on stripping the “wealthy” of assets in any way they can for redistribution which is an ideal that’s never worked and never will.
But aside from the fallacies of their fiscal shortsightedness, what’s even more confounding is that while evidence mounts higher right under their noses that not only are they on the wrong track, the train’s are deciding to either run someplace else or stop altogether. And that’s why, as I’ve been predicting for some time now, Democrat leaders are soon going to be heading the longest line of worthless deadbeats the world’s ever seen, because all the producers have had enough and are packing to leave town.
And, in closing, I guess that’s why, according to a new poll, Jeffrey M. Jones, of Gallup politics via Drudge writes that, “President Barack Obama averaged 49.1% job approval during his first term in office, among the lowest for post-World War II presidents. Only Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had lower job approval averages.”
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment