Tag: taxes

California taxpayer raid: “Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan…”

(h/t: Instapundit) California’s come up with another way to ensure that when the state finally crashes, it’s really going to crash:

California to withhold a bigger chunk of paychecks
The amount goes up 10% on Sunday as Sacramento borrows from taxpayers. Technically, it’s not an income tax increase: You’ll get the money back eventually.

Reporting from Los Angeles and Sacramento – Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners — holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

Technically, it’s not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers’ annual tax bills won’t change.

If I ever become a convert to Objectivism, it’ll be because of California: that state seems determined to ignore the elementary fiscal rule of Don’t spend money that you don’t have, you idjits. I realize that this sounds like a simplistic solution to what is a very complicated problem, but so is Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. Except that in this case it’s more like Robbing Peter and Paul while telling them that they’ll be getting the money back.  Unless they need to make the robbing permanent.  Which they probably will, because they got away with it in the first place, right?

I admit that this is harder to memorize.

Moe Lane

PS: Another bit of elementary fiscal wisdom: It is absurd to think that you can transfer 1.8 billion in funding from things that generate wealth (business) to things that consume it (government) without it having an effect on the larger economy. I mention this because said wisdom has unaccountably eluded everybody defending this policy as being not being all that bad.

PPS: Hey, do you know that a top Californian state official – Lt. Governor John Garamendi – is actually within the reach of at least one CD’s worth of voters?  He is, he is.  If you live in CA-10, by all means: show your disapproval by voting for David Harmer on Tuesday.

Crossposted to RedState.

Want a job with the White House? Try Monster.com!

…well, not quite yet, but give them time:

Obama administration works with headhunters to fill out key positions

The Obama administration has been working with some of the nation’s top headhunters to recruit candidates to join the executive branch.

Administration officials have privately expressed frustration that they are struggling to hire talented personnel for key slots across the federal government, noting President Obama’s tough restrictions on lobbyists working for him.

Over the last several months, Obama’s transition team and administration have had informal communications with major recruiters, including Korn/Ferry International, Russell Reynolds Associates and Heidrick & Struggles.

I suppose that I could really be mocking about this, but I shan’t. This is actually excellent news: after all, I presume that the companies listed above do credit checks of potential hires. It’ll be delightful to get some executive branch appointees who actually pay their taxes.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Even voters in Hollywood notice the tax problem.

Joy McCann (Little Miss Attila) links to John McCann (Write Enough) (must be one of those coincidences) on why there are Tea Parties going on everywhere:

Taxes are particularly unfair in Hollywood. You may hardly work for years – ahem! – then sell something for a big score. The government taxes you at the highest rate, as if you’d been sweeping in the long green the whole time.

Considering that you’re taxed pretty much on every transaction plus state, local and federal taxes, in addition to tax on interest, property, phone/Internet and capital gains taxes, I can only assert we’re gagging in taxes. Having worked for the federal government, I can assure you its not being spent wisely. Just spent.

…and before you say; I do believe that he does in fact vote accordingly. So there’s that.

Moe Lane

PS: Joy, like so many others – including myself! – would also like to know where her cut is:

I myeslf would like to join Wendy (and Jane H. herself, of course) in asking, “where the hell is my money?” As long as I’m a lobbyist, I’d love to be getting paid for it. My God: I wish we were Astroturf.

Alas, the Left is projecting again: we don’t have a Media Matters that can saturate the ‘net with C-list blogging. People like my unworthy self are instead forced to point to the donate button on the sidebar and make meaningful coughing noises, instead…

Crossposted to RedState.

The difference between ‘libertarian’ and ‘liberal,’ courtesy of Harry Reid.

Taxation is completely voluntary in America. Harry Reid says so.

[Libertarian]: “Voluntary taxation” = You can choose whether or not to participate in the tax system.

[Liberal]: “Voluntary taxation” = You calculate and send in your taxes, instead of your employer. And, oh, yes, you don’t have to pay taxes on a house if you don’t want to own one.

Watching an example of the former explain the definition to an example of the latter – and watching the liberal completely reject the definition without even remotely understanding it – in the following video will no doubt amuse you. Or make you want to throw a brick through the screen. Or both.


Continue reading The difference between ‘libertarian’ and ‘liberal,’ courtesy of Harry Reid.