Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The First Line is the Best

... and I mean best. You'll see what I mean in this quote from California legislatress Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa).
Well, there is this mantra out there - "live within our means" - and while that sounds really nice . . . and it sounds really responsible, it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control . . . We have just given away huge corporate subsidies in February; we have given away other tax reductions over many, many years; we've created tax loopholes; in good times, we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. . . . So "live within our means" doesn't mean anything. The fact is, we have a state with a population that have [sic] needs that we have a moral obligation to provide.
Emphasis mine. This is the argument that goes on inside every marriage where money is a problem and one of the two can't control their spending. Need Want triumphs over means.

In lieu of a divorce from our legislature, some Californians are opting for a trial separation. I wonder why?
(F)or the fourth year in a row, a survey of 543 CEO's found that California's toxic combination of high taxes and intrusive regulations made it the worst place in the nation to do business.
Maybe if we nag, harass and abuse our employers and taxpayers a little more, they'll give us more money to spend.

Update: That quote from Noreen sounds like it was dialogue lifted from the last third of Atlas Shrugged.

Who is John Galt?


Jeff Burton said...

Please also note the implicit assumption, which is now part of the governing class's collective subconscious: everything belongs to the government, and what is not taken in taxes is a "give-away".

K T Cat said...

Outstanding point, Jeff. I had missed that.

Secular Apostate said...

Jeff is right. So I'm for the Reverse Tax. I plan to apply for a patent today. Here's how it works:

Your paycheck gets sent to the government. At the end of the year, anything they haven't spent is returned in the form of a "refund" (except in the case of California, which will issue IOUs).

The Reverse Tax instantly solves the inherent inequities in tax law, and the government can easily fix income disparities by simply making every "refund" equal.

I estimate a savings of 4.276 X 10^67 squintillion dollars by eliminating the middleman (i.e., the IRS). The savings realized by the Reverse Tax will instantly pay for free Group Euthanasia for all citizens upon their 65th birthday, after their productive years are over and they no longer contribute to the Greater Good. The terminally ill will be permitted to apply for Early Euthanasia if they feel their illness might, at some future point, preclude gainful employment.

So what's not to love?

K T Cat said...

Secular, you have shown yourself to be a Hater of the Earth once more.

You didn't mention carbon offsets or grinding the euthanized into fertilizer for the plants.