Eric Garner And Taxes

Screen Shot 2014-12-04 at 3.16.41 PM

Eric Garner, the 43-year-old asthmatic black-marketeer who, for selling untaxed cigarettes, was choked to death by police, and whose death was ruled a homicide, exposes the rotten core not only of law enforcement run amok but also, just as significantly, of government laws, regulations, and taxation, and its unintended consequences.

Eric Garner was selling a (for now) perfectly legal product — cigarettes — and he was selling them as singles (or “loosies,” as they’re called). Why was he selling them?

“Because New York officials inflict on their long-suffering subjects the highest cigarette tax in the country at at $4.35 per pack, plus another $1.50 levied in the city itself. It’s not a popular tax, with smuggled smokes making up 60.9 percent of the market. So the powers that be unleash the cops to enhance revenue by tracking down shipments of smuggled cigarettes and, on occasion, putting the occasional small-time street vendor in an illegal chokehold.

Which is to say, Eric Garner was murdered for the purposes of revenue enhancement.”

(Link)

It will be fascinating to see how the Religion of Leftism, which worships at the shrine of taxation and bureaucracy, reacts to monstrous injustice.

Graphic video:





Five Blood Boiling Facts About Taxes You Did Not Know

But first from the “How-Unbelievably-Stupid-Is-Harry-Reid?” files:




Now, then:

5. Among the bureaucrats who want to raise your taxes, only 5 percent think their own taxes are too low.

This poll conducted by Gallup shows that “57 percent of Republicans responded that their own taxes were too high. Fifty-eight percent of Independents agreed, while only 37 percent of Democrats said the amount they paid in taxes was too high. Shockingly, given the Democratic Party’s steadfast belief that tax rates should always be higher, only 5 percent of Democrats felt that their own taxes were too low.”

There’s nothing I like more than being lectured about “income equality” by a wealthy bureaucrat, whose income you and I help pay, who, in turn, does not himself want to pay more in taxes.

4. Here’s a breakdown of where each of your taxed dollar goes:

  • Social Security, Unemployment and Labor – 33.24 cents
  • Medicare and Health – 24.54 cents
  • Military – 17.1 cents
  • Interest on Debt – 6 cents
  • Transportation – 4.1 cents
  • Veterans Benefits – 3.7 cents
  • Food and Agriculture – 3.5 cents
  • Education – 1.8 cents
  • Government – 1.8 cents
  • Housing and Community – 1.5 cents
  • International Affairs – .9 cents
  • Energy and Environment – .9 cents
  • Science – .9 cents


3. About half of the cost of paying for Obamacare comes from new taxes.

2. The money that’s being forcibly taken from you isn’t even close to enough: Taxes are $2.3 trillion. Government spending is $3.6 trillion.

“You’re only seeing about two-thirds of the full cost of government services. Really. The rest is being put on the national credit card.

“The tax bill is a lie every year. We’ve only paid our bills in full on April 15 five times in the last fifty years. The last president to balance the books every year he was in office? Calvin Coolidge — back in the 1920s. How pathetic is that?

“Deficits are just future taxes. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, ‘Tax Freedom Day’ falls on April 17 this year — but ‘Deficit Day,’ which includes the full bill, won’t come for another month.

“Taxes — to steal from Albert Einstein — should be as low as possible, but no lower. Stop lying to me” (source).

1. The politicians and bureaucrats whose paychecks you finance through your labor — well, over 300,000 of them are tax cheaters.

From Senator Tom Coburn’s investigation:

In 2011, the IRS found nearly 312,000 federal employees and retirees were delinquent on their federal income taxes, owing a total of $3.5 billion in unpaid federal income taxes. This represented an 11.5 percent increase in the number of federal employees failing to pay their taxes, and a 2.9 percent increase in the total taxes owed the Treasury by these public servants.



Happy Tax Day.





Brutal Beclowning: MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer To GOP Congressman: “Do You Have A Degree In Economics?”

This is hilarious.

Contessa Brewer, who does not have a degree in economics or common sense, beclowned herself horribly when she was grilling Alabama Representative Mo Brooks on the debt issue and tried feebly to discredit his qualifications for by asking:

“Do you have a degree in economics?”

Can you guess the answer? Watch:

Quoting Ed Morrissey

Brooks actually has three degrees: political science, economics, and law. As a lawyer, Brooks would have been experienced enough not to make Brewer’s mistake in a cross-examination, which is to ask a question without first knowing the answer. Not only that, but Brewer was being flat-out rude as well as foolish; MSNBC invited Brooks to appear to get his perspective on the issues. If their hosts respond by belittling them (whether it backfires or not), what does that say about MSNBC, its management, and the kind of invitations they make?

Since Brewer made an issue out of having an economics degree before engaging in economics debates, she must have a doctorate in the subject herself, right? Not exactly. According to her Wikipedia entry, Brewer has a baccalaureate in broadcast journalism (magna cum laude). Apparently they didn’t teach interviewing skills at Syracuse, or logic either, as a requisite for the degree.

That’s the price you pay for partisan politics, I guess.


Usain Bolts — From Britain’s New Tax Law

This is what happens when you treat other people’s money as if it’s your own to do with what you please:

London 2012 Olympics: Usain Bolt set to shun Britain over punitive tax rules

Organisers of next month’s Aviva London Grand Prix at Crystal Palace had hoped to stage the first 100 metres head-to-head of the season between Bolt, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell but the triple Olympic champion is set to shun the meeting because it would expose him to a huge tax bill.

Unless the tax rules are relaxed, athletics administrators fear British fans will be denied the chance to see the sport’s biggest star in action again until he returns to the capital in two years’ time to defend his Olympic titles.

“I wouldn’t be optimistic about seeing Bolt compete on British soil this year and there is a strong chance he won’t be back until 2012,” said an insider close to the negotiations with the Jamaican.

Since April, foreign sports stars competing in Britain are liable for a top rate of income tax of 50 per cent but, controversially, the tax is charged not just on the money they earn in Britain but on a proportion of their worldwide sponsorship income.

(Link)

Usain Bolt is not the only one with good sense. Today’s headline in the UK Telegraph reads:

Usain Bolt’s Tax Dash From UK Causes Alarm For Ryder Cup Organisers

The article continues:

The European Tour, which stages the Ryder Cup in partnership with the United States Professional Golfers’ Association, is among a number of governing bodies concerned that the Inland Revenue’s policy of taxing overseas sports stars in the UK on their global endorsement income is undermining their ability to stage top-quality events.

Also lobbying for a change in the law is UK Athletics, the London Marathon and the All England Club, which has concerns that the tax issue has reduced the quality of the field at Wimbledon warm-up events, including Queen’s. The sports this week requested a meeting with sports minister Hugh Robertson to discuss the issue.

…Other sportsmen understood to have avoided UK events, in part because of the tax issue, include Roger Federer, who has never played at Queen’s, and Sergio Garcia, who is thought to require a top-three finish at this week’s Open to avoid losing money on his week in Scotland.

The European Tour will tell the Government that the tax measures disproportionately affect overseas golfers and are a major reason why UK tournaments, including the Welsh Open played over the Celtic Manor course that will host the Ryder Cup, attract fewer overseas stars.

(Link)

All of which serves to illustrate nicely, once again, that there are producers of wealth and there are plunderers of wealth, and government, by definition, can only ever be the latter.