BloggeRhythms

Since today’s April 15th, the following story’s quite relevant. It illustrates that aside from the burden of taxes themselves, the costs of simply complying is astronomical. Which is further proof of how the self-serving bureaucracy cares not at all about how it inhibits the nation’s financial growth and economic stability.  

 

Douglas Kellogg on ntu.org/foundation, titled his article: “It's Tax-plicated: Complexity Rising with Obamacare Burden”

 

Mr. Kellogg writes, “This year’s new analysis of tax complexity from National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) found some startling lead figures: a $234 billion cost to the economy due to 6.1 billion lost hours of productivity and $32 billion spent out-of-pocket to comply with America’s insanely complicated tax system.”

 

“Since 2010, tax complexity costs have remained sky-high, at well over $200 billion each year. From fiscal year 2005 to 2013, the Treasury's paperwork burden rose from 6.4 billion hours to 7 billion hours never making up less than 74 percent of the burden imposed by all government agencies combined.

 

“While last year’s (covering 2013) totals actually trended downward compared to the previous year (2012), there was little reason to believe that was the beginning of a trend toward continued relief.

 

“In fact, given the burdens that Obamacare was/and is continuing to add, and to a lesser extent those from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), there was good reason to think last year was an anomaly.

 

“NTUF’s latest study clearly shows that to be the case, as the cost of complexity has spiked upward since last year’s analysis by nearly $10 billion.”

 

Which leads to the natural conclusion that if the nation went to a flat tax, most of the $200 billion wasted on compliance would likely wind up being pumped back into the stagnant economy. However, that would never get past the lobbies comprised of tax attorneys and huge political donations made by accounting firms. 

 

But, then again, considering the shape the IRS is currently in, if no one paid at all they'd probably never know it. 

 

As far as Bill Clinton’s wife’s daily update is concerned, Emily Schultheis, of nationaljournal.com headlined a story: “Reporters Outnumber Voters as Hillary Clinton Opens Campaign in Iowa"

 

Ms. Schultheis begins: “Hillary Clinton may have been speaking to just 22 people here at her Iowa kickoff event, but the now-official 2016 candidate was looking far beyond the voters in the room when she outlined in the clearest terms yet the rationale for her campaign.”

 

Bill’s wife went on to tell the throng of 22 attendees about the “four areas of focus for her campaign: building the economy up "tomorrow, not yesterday," strengthening families and communities, fixing the country's "dysfunctional political system"—including getting "unaccountable" money out of the system—and protecting Americans from external threats.”

 

The first target, “building the economy up tomorrow, not yesterday,” doesn’t even make sense, because “yesterday’s” economy is history and therefore, by definition, already over and done with. But, what should be remembered by the voting public is that the past eight years of economic stagnation have been the result of anti-business, anti-growth, Democrat philosophy, which Bill’s wife is a major part of.

 

In regard to “strengthening families and communities,” her husband should be the model of what to avoid regarding infidelity and togetherness, along with his photograph surrounded by a red circle with a line crossed through it.

 

As far as “dysfunctional political system” is concerned, the role models representing the causes should without doubt include Harry Reed, the president, and certainly herself. Unless she believes that mistakes like Benghazi, personal email systems for cabinet officials, and avoiding requests for information from congressional committees are part of proper governance.  

 

And finally, we come to the whopper. Getting “unaccountable" money out of the system—and protecting Americans from external threats.” Because if this isn't the very height of hypocrisy, for someone taking fistfuls of cash from any entity willing to pay her, including Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman, then it would certainly be very hard to know what is.

 

Topping off the morning, is this excerpt from an article by Tina Daunt in hollywoodreporter.com: “Hillary Clinton's Sunday announcement that she will seek the presidency in 2016 is not getting Hollywood's universal applause, as her most fervent supporters predicted.

 

“As the first female candidate and a partner in a political marriage that has close and long-standing ties across the entertainment industry, Clinton enjoys the support from key Hollywood fundraisers. But her backing is hardly unanimous, and some of what she has is softer than it may appear because industry liberals regard her as a party centrist.”

 

A reader, Pat443, posted the following comment: “So the wealthy, over-privileged, gated community bubble-dwellers of Hollywood don't think even Hillary Clinton is far enough to the left. Not surprising: only the truly rich can afford socialism. Instead of trying to curse the rest of the nation with your political idiocy, why don't you just stick to electing far-left nutjobs to your state government and enjoy the ensuing lack of drinking water? Out here in the real world, where people don't get paid for their looks, those of us who actually have to work for our pay would like to be able to keep a little of it for a change.”

 

If Pat443 was a liberal, his/her? comment would be right on somebody else’s money.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios