Punishing the married, college graduate for her success
After reading 1776 [David McCullough, 2005], I've been thinking a lot about taxes--how they are used for many things other than raising revenue for the common good--like the so-called sin taxes and luxury taxes and success taxes. Charlie Rangel's latest proposal is just one example, but the Brits were doing it to the colonists back in the 1760s too. The economic system in those days was called "mercantile." After repealing the Stamp Acts because the Americans raised such a fuss, they came up with some minor taxes, for the sole purpose of showing them who was the boss, so they wouldn't get too cocky. Edmund Burke in the House of Commons, with a passionate, long-winded 18th century speech, essentially said, "Are we crazy? Why are we killing our golden goose (obviously a very loose paraphrase)?"So a letter that appeared in the Nov. 3 WSJ written by Steve Walde is instructive. Why, he asks, is our government punishing people who went to college and married each other? Well, Steve, that's the "close-the-gap" mentality of most Democrats, but a lot of RINO's think along those lines, too. First tax parents/workers and force them to send their kids to government schools, then add in some regulations that will assure that female students soon outnumber the male students, and if they meet a future spouse and marry, since that's what young people with common interests do, tax the graduates even more. It's only fair, the liberals reason, because they are more successful than the people who didn't go to school, didn't get married (but had babies) and pay very low taxes.
- What's happened is that women entered the workforce and in the past few decades educated women have had their incomes match or even exceed that of men. Educated and upper income people have a tendency to marry one another. And because lower-income people are less likely to be married than upper-income individuals, the statistics are skewed even more. To have an honest discussion on this subject you first have to start out with honest statistics.
Posts
1 comment:
I recall before the 2004 Presidential election too, that the lefty blogs and even folks on TV were trying to say that if Bush was reelected that he would start the draft again. It was never even attempted.
Then as soon as the Democrats won majorities in both houses, the illustrious (not) Mr. Wrangel immediately tried to pass legislation to bring the draft back to make it "fair" to the poor and minorities. Typical.
The whole class warfare thing is a big part of the left's shtick, and it's especially true when they're talking taxes.
Post a Comment