Anti American left

There you go again

The Democrats are proposing a new tax (what else is new?) and are lying about who will pay it. (again) They are claiming that billionaires are using this magic method to avoid paying capital gains taxes. What is the magic method?

They don’t pay capital gains tax until they actually have capital gains to tax.

When you buy an asset and sell it for more than you paid, the difference is called a capital gain. There are two types of capital gains: long term, and short term. A short term capital gain is one where the asset was held for less than a year. Short term gains are taxed the same as income. A long term capital gain is for an asset held longer than a year, and is taxed at a lower rate than is ordinary income.

As anyone who has ever bought and sold anything should know, the value of anything you own will fluctuate with the market. If I own a classic car, say a 1965 Mustang, it could have a “value” that changes from year to year. That value is purely theoretical until I actually sell it. If I look up my car and see the profit I could make on that car, that profit is called an unrealized gain, and it only exists on paper. Once I sell and actually make money on the car, it becomes a realized gain.

What the Democrats want to do, is tax people on the unrealized gains that they have on assets that they own. They claim that people who own assets that have increased in value, but haven’t paid capital gains taxes on, is some kind tax dodge. They are ignoring the fact that an asset may be worth less one year than it was the year before. They are also trying to claim that only billionaires do this.

“No nurse or firefighter or teacher in America can play those games,” said Wyden. “They pay their taxes with every paycheck and are rightfully outraged when they read about the wealthiest few paying so little while they are working hard to make ends meet.”

This is the big lie. My wife bought the house we live in twelve years ago. The purchase price was about half what Zillow says it is worth now. If we were to sell it, the profit would be a capital gain. The democrat proposal would have us pay taxes on that “profit” every year- even if we didn’t sell. The fact that we don’t do that now isn’t some dodge that only billionaires use- every homeowner in America is going to get hit by this proposed tax.

By Divemedic, ago

Your kids are property of the State

The left believes that your children belong to the state. Parents, according to them, are not permitted to decide what is best for their children. This quote from the article sums it up:

When it comes to society’s interest in protecting children, the legal precedent is unambiguous: The rights of their parents come second.

With this in mind, how long will it be before the state decides what job they will perform, whether or not your child will receive a sex change operation, and whether or not they even get to live with you?

Doctors who want to sit there and tell parents that they know best need to remember thalidomide, or the fact that a study by Johns Hopkins University estimates that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States, killing more than 250,000 people a year.

They want to vaccinate and mask your children over your objections. They cite the health of your children, even though only 470 US children have died of COVID in the past 20 months, according to the CDC’s own data. In fact, fewer children died last year than in previous years.

This isn’t unusual. Approximately 188 children a year die from the flu.

None of that matters to the state. If you are reading this blog and don’t yet understand that the left considers us all to be the property of the state, I don’t know that you ever will get it.

All I know is that THIS video from Gunfreezone boils my blood. This is what the left wants for your children. This is my red line in the sand. I will kill to defend my children and my grandchildren.

By Divemedic, ago

Why is it my responsibility?

Amanda Rinehart is a mother in Pennsylvania who left her job to care for her 8 year old child. She complains that her child is too young to receive a vaccine, so she has to keep her child out of school until there is a vaccine for children. For that reason, the US taxpayer should continue to pay for her to not go to work, according to her. In all, she has received more than $37,000 from the government since she quit working, if you only count unemployment, the free money for having a kid, and the COVID stimulus money.

On the other hand, only 39 percent of the US public paid Federal taxes last year. I was one of them. While a large part of the US population was sitting at home for the past year, not doing anything, I was working, investing, and providing the money for her to sit on her ass and complain that she isn’t getting enough of MY money.

I would argue that Ms. Reinhart isn’t losing HER unemployment. She is merely losing her ability to suck even more of my money out of my wallet, and the wallets of my fellow taxpayers.

You will note that there is absolutely no mention of a Mr. Rinehart. Where is the father of this child? How am I responsible to provide for his child, yet he is not?

The people on the left will say that I am greedy because I don’t want to help her. I have no problem helping the poor, as long as they are attempting to help themselves. I don’t see how it is greedy for me to want to keep my money for my own use, yet not greedy for this woman to demand access to my money with the only claim to it being that she couldn’t keep her legs closed.

By Divemedic, ago

We are all responsible for safety

Delta Air Lines plans to charge workers who refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccination an extra $200 per month for their health care insurance. The average Delta employee hospitalized for COVID-19 has cost the company $50,000, CEO Ed Bastian said in a memo to employees released by the airline, so this is intended to have the unvaccinated workers pay for that cost.

Why stop there? We could institute a social credit score, like China has. Like private credit scores, a person’s social score can move up and down depending on their behavior. The exact methodology would be a secret, like credit scores. Still, some examples of infractions would include bad driving, smoking in non-smoking zones, buying too many video games, not being vaccinated, and posting fake news online.

The system can be used for individual people, but also for companies and government organizations. The message is clear: be a responsible citizen, or pay extra.

Like having bad credit, a below average score would mean paying more for meals, cell phone service, or insurance. A score that drops further would mean slow internet, a ban on travel, the inability to get a hotel room, or restrictions on what kind of car you can buy.

Of course, those with the lowest scores would be required to attend courses on being a responsible citizen. To eliminate distractions while also preventing unsocial people from affecting those around them, these classes would be taught at a government owned boarding school. To ensure that everyone could afford it, clothing, meals, and lodging would be entirely at government expense for those attending this school.

Doesn’t that sound nice? The world could use a little kindness, equality, and social responsibility, and the government can make sure we all get that while also making us safe from the poor behavior and decisions of others.

By Divemedic, ago

Not race

We are constantly told how we should allow immigrants illegally crossing our southern border into the nation, and opposition to that makes one a racist.

The administration is not so accommodating when it comes to Cubans, who are being sent back where they came from.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Cubans tend to vote against Democrats’ failed Communist policies.

By Divemedic, ago

Fair taxes?

Read this article, and laugh with me. They claim that what makes a tax fair is people pay in proportion to the amount of use they get out of roads.

The gas tax was fair because it was based on a simple principle: user pays, user benefits. Before the gas tax, all taxpayers paid for the upkeep of roads and building new ones. But this was particularly unfair to the poorest people who could not afford a car.

They go on to then admit that the tax isn’t about revenue- it’s about punishing the rich.

Originally introduced as a fair way for automobile drivers to pay for the upkeep of the roads they use, it has become less fair as rich people buy hybrid and electric vehicles.

They go on and on about those people who aren’t poor.

This unfairness is compounded by the fact that hybrid or electric vehicle (EV) owners are likely to be well-educated, young, and comparatively well-off. A study by TrueCar.com, for example, found that the average owner of a Ford Focus Electric had a household income of $199,000 a year. The people who are paying the most for road upkeep are more likely to be less well-educated, older, and poorer than the hybrid/EV owners.

So poor people don’t benefit from roads? Obama claimed that business owners “didn’t build that” because all of society made business possible because infrastructure is paid for by all. Doesn’t that also mean that everyone is responsible to pay for that infrastructure?

Since electric cars do just as much damage to roads as gas-powered cars, we will still need to spend just as much on maintaining roads in a world with electric cars as we do today. Also, as long as most of the electricity is still coming from fossil fuels, we should want the tax to discourage driving in general.

Nope- just more communism sneaking into our political landscape.

By Divemedic, ago

Dysfunction?

The Washington Post says that the eviction moratorium is displaying the failure of the system in this country for renting houses.

When a property owner rents the property that he owns to another, he is doing so because he wants to make money. It doesn’t matter if that property is a saw, a car, or even a home. The owner buys the property and lets the renter use that property for an amount of time in exchange for money. It’s just that simple. Let’s look at a residential rental.

  • The property owner offers to rent a home to someone. This is called the offer.
  • The renter signs an agreement, agreeing to pay money (or sometimes other commodities) in exchange for living there. This is the acceptance.
  • The renter pays the money, the owner lets the tenant live there. Consideration.

What happens when the renter lives there, but doesn’t pay? The property owner loses money and must get the renter to move out so that he can rent it to someone who will actually pay. Any property owner would rather collect the money he is owed than evict, because eviction is an expensive thing to do.

The Post claims that the trials are unfair because the property owner wins the majority of the time. I don’t see how that is a problem. If the tenant signed the lease, lived in the rental property, and didn’t pay, there are very few defenses that would let him continue to live there for free.

The Post wants the US to declare that housing is a human right. So if it is a right, who is to provide it? The only answer is the complete elimination of private property in this country.

Communism.

By Divemedic, ago