Unlicensed Bicycles?

Topeka police are warning local bicycle owners they could face up to $76 in fines and court costs if they're caught pedaling unlicensed bikes.

and

The city ordinance has been in effect at least since 1973. Licenses are free and available at the city's fire stations.

Sorry but bike licenses just strikes me as asinine. The licenses are currently free but if the police have stepped up enforcement that would indicate a renewed interest in the bike licenses. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that this might be a revenue source for the city. First raise awareness by enforcing the law on bike licenses and then once you get enough demand, start charging for them with the rational being that so many are needed, you can't afford to give them away for free anymore. To me this looks like a backdoor tax effort. I would be interested in the statistics on how many stolen bikes have been recovered as a result of the licenses.

Evil Rich

It is even worst than what I noted in A New York State of Mind in that the tax burden on the top 1% of wage earners now exceeds that of bottom 95%. IRS data shows that in 2007 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. That is just disgraceful!

The numbers break down as follows:

• The top 1% paid 40.4% of all federal taxes for 2007.
• Adding in the next 4% for a total of the top 5% comes to 60.6% of all federal taxes for 2007.
• The top 50% of tax payers account for 97.11% of the 2007 federal taxes paid.
• The bottom 50% paid 2.89%.

It is even worst than this. Not only are the bottom 50% of tax payers only paying 2.89% of federal taxes but a large number of them are actually getting federal welfare checks in the form of tax refunds for monies they did not pay in the first place.

I would bet dollars to donuts that this information is not reported by any of the major news networks (Fox excluded). This just does not fit in with the mime of evil, selfish rich.

Taxing "Highs"

From the July 16, 2009 "Best of the Web Today" an article in the Sacramento Bee reports:

California could see a nearly $1.4 billion per year increase in state revenues were it to legalize marijuana, the state Board of Equalization says in an analysis of pending legislation to to [sic] do that.

The bill (Assembly Bill 390) by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is still awaiting its first committee hearing and is likely not to be considered until next year. It would impose not only sales taxes but a $50 per ounce fee on marijuana sales, which would be licensed by the state much as alcoholic beverages are regulated. . . .

"We can no longer afford to keep our heads in the sand when it comes to marijuana," Ammiano said in a statement.

It would be quite the turn of events if the draconian drug laws currently in place in this country are finally removed, not through strong citizen action but as a result of governments at all levels looking for novel ways to address revenue shortfalls.

This would actually benefit the governments in multiple ways. First there would be the additional tax revenue from sales tax and tax stamps but also a reduction in the cost of catching, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users. The government would continue their war on sellers except now it would be under the guise of tax enforcement not drug enforcement so it is unknown if there would be any savings in that area.

A New York state of mind

As noted in Power Line:

The New York Post reports that congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul would create a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for New York's top earners. Myron Magnet also focuses on New York in an article on "The obsolete New York model." Magnet notes:

It's worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren't rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn't voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property--theft--and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate. What would they make, then, of today's New York City, where 1.2 percent of the taxpayers--40,000 households--pay 50 percent of the income taxes, and half the households pay no income tax at all? If the tax code ensures that those who pay the bulk of the taxes are always a minority of those who vote for the legislature that imposes the taxes, isn't that taxation without representation? Isn't it also the tyranny of the majority that the Founders tried to prevent?

It is nice that they are now getting worried about New York but is this not what has been going on at the federal level for years? The majority of income taxes are paid by the top few percent of wage earners? The top 1% of wage earners pay 39.89% of all income tax. The top 5% pay 60.14%. Get that! 5% of the wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 2.99%, that is right, not EVEN 3%. The majority have NO stake in trying to control entitlements because they are currently getting a nearly (if not actually) free ride.

Just a coincidence I tell ya...

Second story down...

Monongalia won't curb 1,531 percent tax hike

MORGANTOWN - The Monongalia County Commission says they've found nothing wrong with a property owner's 1,531 percent tax increase. Morgantown property owner Jim Jones filed a complaint with the commission because his property taxes increased from $285.90 to $4,663.44 after he refused to sell his property to Chief Deputy Assessor Bill Perry. County Assessor Rodney Pyles says the property was reclassified as part of a routine audit, resulting in a tax hike, but Jones says it was retaliation. Jones says he may appeal to the Monongalia County Circuit Court

Yep, nothing to see here. It was simply a coincidence, that is our story and we are sticking to it!

Explaining the tax system to the average Democrat

Here is a rather simple and straight forward explanation of our current tax system that is clear enough for even the average Democrat to understand. If after reading this, you still think that the evil rich don’t pay enough in taxes, you have spent far too much time NOT using your brains.

I wish I could take credit for this but I found it in the comments section of this blog entry.

Davies, Professor of Accounting & Chair, Division of Accounting and Business Law The University of South Dakota

What is there about this simple illustration that some don't understand? And, why do they use such inflammatory rhetoric to pit those getting the free lunch against those who are paying for it?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". "That's true!" shouted the seventh man," why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities, and many US voters, cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

So much for evil corporate profits...

In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

Bet you won't hear Hillary talking about that at one of her campain stops.

Of taxes and politicians

Well, yet another study that shows tax rates are down across the board but not down as much for the upper tax payers. Don't expect to hear or see this on the news though and don't expect any of the democratic candidates for President to change their tunes. Why let reality or the truth get in the way of a good campaign sound bite? They will continue to push the "need" for more taxes on the "evil rich". You know, those folks that are already carrying much of this country's tax burden.