jump to navigation

In which I actually tilt at Rachel Lucas April 12, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Death and Dying, Family, Leviathan, Politics.
trackback

Rachel is capital P Pissed OFF because of her tax bill.  And I cannot say that I blame her.  $11K is one helluva chunk of change to fork out at the end of the tax season.  I should like to know why her rate is so high, as I get the impression that being self-employed has something to do with it . . .and that smells.  Why are small-businessmen taking it in the shorts?

But, as Rachel is wont to do , when she gets pissed, she rants and has a tendency to do some carpet f-bombing.

Are you on welfare? FUCK YOU.

Do you have children you can’t provide everything for all by your widdle self? FUCK YOU.

Are you on unemployment because you just can’t find a job that’s good enough for ya? You don’t want to work at McDonald’s temporarily because you have a college degree? FUCK YOU.

Are you hoping for a bail-out because you’re too stupid to buy a house you can afford? FUCK YOU.

Are you a federal employee who has anything to do with making the government inefficient, bloated, and more costly than necessary? FUCK YOU.

Let’s cut the crap: Do you take any money from the federal government for any purpose due to your own poor decision-making? FUH-HUH-HUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL.

Seriously. I hate those people and everything they represent. They’re the worst kind of parasites, sucking vortexes of need and stupidity, and I am genuinely enraged that I spend a huge chunk of my life working for those people. They take and take, never giving SHIT back, and you know what the actual worst part is? We put up with it!

Ahem.

Well then.

I placed in bold those items that I suspect that she would be on me like stink on cheese for engaging in.

Welfare?  My family receives state medical benefits.  I do not.  But as I am head of the household, I guess I have to say that “I” benefit from them.

And I have seven children.  Since that then results in a sizable tax benefit, then I guess I also get to receive the “F” bomb for this as well.

The last bold paragraph comes about because I -apparently- benefit from the earlier two.

I italicized the one paragraph because I used to work in public schools.  Got the hell out when I found the ridiculous interpretation of the 1st Amendment too much to stomach.  This, combined with the union mentality that provided tenure to the most experienced and generally, most disillusioned teachers, thereby both affirming and entrenching the Peter Principle to a nauseating degree, I got the hell out of the there and into private education.

While I sympathize with her anger and laugh at her language, I have to disagree that everyone who may be benefiting from government “largesse” -even if it is by receiving lower tax bills- is somehow becoming an automatic leech on the rest of society.

Truth in advertising:  I receive government “benefits” of health care for my kids, and lower tax bills due to having children and due to the fact that I am “buying” my own home.   And not with a bleeping subprime mortgage, either.  Those Ponzi schemes were a) not heavily advertised here in Washington, and b) seemed too damned good to be true; and I see that my reasons for being distrusting of such loans has been proven all-too-correct these past few months.

Now, I am not going to defend the welfare.  It is there, my kids need coverage, I cannot get them coverage and feed them at the same time.  Does that mean I cannot take care of them adequately?  By Rachel’s definition, perhaps.  But then, Rachel’s definition presents a pernicious threat to society that I’ll get to in a minute.  If the state withdrew the welfare, I would suck it up and pay as needed.  I would not complain to Olympia or DC.

But in advocating for that absolute flat tax rate with no deductions, common taxpayers such as me will get hit, and hit hard, with long-term consequences that would in the end damage the Republic.  They are:

  1. Lower home ownership rates, which would exacerbate the already-widening gulf between rich and poor as landlords get more and young families get hosed.
  2. The birth rate would drop.  Take a look at modern Italy or recent France or England to see the dangers to a culture associated with a declining birth rate.  The decay of the Republic is to follow, as the burden of caring for an increasingly aging populace falls more and more on those childless remainders.
  3. Those that WOULD still be having kids in Rachel’s universe would be the wealthy.  Assuming they actually procreate, this then results in an increasingly elitist society, with only the wealthy actually able to afford the birthing and rearing of children.  Francic Galton might have liked this concept.  We should not.

Re: #1.  Home ownership, despite the beating it has taken in recent months due to irresponsible lenders and borrowers, is still one of the most reliable means of savings left to us.  But much of what makes that manageable for many middle class citizens is the tax break on interest paid that then makes the large payments workable.  Take away that tax break, and either the housing market collapses further, or, as I said above, marginal families are forced to rent, the rich get richer, and personal savings rates decline even further than they already have.

Re: #2:  Res ipsa loquitur.

Re: #3:  Children are considered by a healthy society not only as valuable gifts, but by their government as future producers.  My wife and I spend a helluva lot of resources on our children, both time and money, with the idea that they be successful adults.  Now, do I rear them so that the State can have productive workers.

Oh, HELL no.

But, the State wisely (for once) views these children as investments for the future.  To tax parents when they are (in some ways) literally killing themselves to rear decent future workers is not only bad policy, but counterproductive.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I did not have these kids so that I could get a break from Uncle Sam.  Hell, at the time I didn’t even KNOW about the break.  But you may bet that many parents not so hot on the idea of having kids -such as Rachel Lucas- would swear off of them forever if they realized that Uncle Sam was in effect going to soak them for having kids.

I’m telling you:  That tax benefit helps the entire country.  And as the country becomes more and more fixated on the idea that procreation and orgasm are mutually exclusive goals, that break becomes even more important.

Cynical?  Yeah, I know.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. David N. Scott - April 14, 2008

Meh. It also seems to assume that anyone who benefits from the government will never stop. The gov helped pay for my wife’s childbirth but once she was able to work again we paid it back and then some tax-wise…

I also can’t imagine someone going to work at McDonalds when they could get more from unemployment. THe whole of unemployment is so you can make it to interviews, etc, and it would be an awfully big sacrifice on the Principle of the Thing. ‘Sorry, honey, I’d rather work for $5 an hour and not have groceries than be a Drag On Society!’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: