Saturday, January 12, 2008

Today's News...

The Truth About Income Taxes

One thing you will constantly hear from liberals is that the rich people in America don't pay their fair share of income taxes while the middle class and "working poor" shoulder a larger share of the tax burden in our country.

In the 2008 presidential race, the Democrats are promising to repeal the "Bush tax cuts for the rich". What they are referring to are the cuts in the rate of income taxes that occurred during President Bush's first administration, which appeared to reduce the amount of tax paid by the richest Americans.

Income taxes are taxes that individuals pay to the government based on the money (income) that they earn, whether from a job or from the profits of their business. It may also include income from pensions, social security, interest earned on investments, and other income sources.

But how much do the richest of Americans pay in taxes compared to the average person? Are the liberals and Democrats right, or are they using class envy to gain political power?

The truth is that the richest 1% of Americans pay more than 39.38% of the total income taxes, even though they only earn 18% of the income. Since President Bush took office, the top 1% of earners have gone from paying 37.42% to 39.38%, carrying more of the tax burden than ever.

In fact, the top 50% of income earners actually pay 96.93% of the total income tax burden in our country. (Click here to see the charts from the IRS)

That means that the bottom 50% pay only 3.7% of the total income tax burden.

Since the poor pay no income taxes*, why do liberals lie about it to the people?

First of all, they know that it's human nature for people who have less to be jealous of those who have more. Whether it's a nicer skateboard or a bigger house or a new car, children and adults usually want bigger or better things and can become jealous of people who have those bigger and better things.

The same thing happens with money. People with less money are often jealous of people with more money. Because they make less money, they feel that people who they consider rich should pay more money than them in taxes.

After all, if the rich have so much money, they can afford to give more of it to the government, right?

This kind of taxation, where the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay in taxes, is called progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is one of the foundations of communism, socialism and Marxism.

Unfortunately, our American economic system has been infected with this kind of Marxism: progressive taxation, the welfare system, food stamp programs, Social Security and Medicare; and now the liberals are proposing some form of universal health care, which is socialized medicine.

People who are successful through hard work and smart money management are punished by having more of their money confiscated by the government (taxes), while those who don't work and don't achieve are rewarded with government freebies at the expense of those who do.

The true power of government is it's ability to take people's money away from them and give it to someone who will vote for them. Liberals use this power to buy the votes of the poor, who are essentially voting themselves government benefits when they put liberals and Democrats in public office.

Only by educating the public and using the power of the vote can we reverse this trend.

First, people need to learn that by hard work, smart money management, and better education, they can achieve financial success without the help of government.

Next, we need to make sure that conservative political candidates who understand and promote the free market, individual liberty and responsibility, and smaller, less intrusive government get our support and votes.

* Even though the poorest people may have income tax deductions from their paychecks during the year, the Earned Income Credit and other credits gives them that money and more back during tax season, which amounts to welfare.

If you liked this article, there are more like it on conservativekids.net

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

SWAT Team Invades Home, Seizes Boy for Medical Treatment

Comment: The story below is a good example of what happens when government violates it's constitutional limits. In most states, child welfare agencies have authority that is unconstitutional. Child welfare agencies do not have to meet the constitutional requirements of "probable cause" and are allowed to violate the "unreasonable searches and seizures" clause of the 4th Amendment. You'll also notice that the father of the family is described as a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" by the Sheriff, as if that's a bad thing.

original story on World Net Daily
Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family's home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.

The boy's parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy's father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.

Someone, apparently the unidentified paramedic, called police, the sheriff's office and social services, eventually providing Leoniak with a report that generated the magistrate's court order to the sheriff's office for the SWAT team assault on the family's home in a mobile home development outside of Glenwood Springs, the father, Tom Shiflett, told WND.

WND calls and e-mails to Garfield County Social Services were not returned, and Leoniak, who earlier served as a water court clerk/referee, also was not available.

Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, did call back, and told WND he ordered his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded.

"I was given a court order by the magistrate to seize the child, and arrange for medical evaluation, and that's what we did," he said.

According to friends of the family, Tom Shiflett, who has 10 children including six still at home, and served with paramedics in Vietnam, was monitoring his son's condition himself.

The paramedic and magistrate, however, ruled that that wasn't adequate, and dispatched the officers to take the boy, John, to a hospital, where a doctor evaluated him and released him immediately.

read the rest of the story here...