Thursday, August 13, 2009


Please read this. It is an editorial (in, you guessed it, the WSJ) about the displacement of government costs and how this displacement affects democracy. If 40% of the cost is put on 1% of the people, yet 100% of the people have the right to vote on the spenders, we will have a problem. The rich are one of the most vulnerable minorities in a democracy and are currently being painted as criminals for their success.

Another fascinating line from the op-ed is describing payroll withholdings as "anesthetizing". It is so true. If you had to write a check to Uncle Sam 4 times a year for THOUSANDS of dollars, do you think we would have as many people saying "Well...I don't know...I guess government sponsored health car is a good idea" or "Let's stimulate the economy!" or "I think my House representative is Tony Blair, but I forget what district I'm in." Heck no.


  1. I'll go back to the link and read the article, but two thoughts won't wait.

    1) most vulnerable? maybe pick another word. the *vulnerable* are the homeless and children whose parent cannot provide food and an apartment safe from infestations and gunshots.

    2) Elections need to be held on April 15. The payroll tax deduction absolutely 100% masks what taxpayers are consious about.

  2. “the rich, whom I define as families in the top 1% of income” passive included, or earned?

    Personal taxes = income tax? What about regressive taxes like real estate, sales taxes, garbage and water taxes. And what about capped taxes like medicare and SSI? They are huge.

    I thoroughly agree with the check writing for tax payments 4x annually. But the author could have gotten there without all the smoke and mirrors. He has a very valid point.

  3. I think vulnerable is an apt word. Vulnerabilities change by context. I surely wouldn't disagree that the homeless are vulnerable, but the question is "What are they vulnerable to?"