======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
I’ve been into trashy older women for as long as I can remember. I don’t know where this little wrinkle in my personality came from, but I’m sure Freud would tell me some creepy older lady probably had a few too many Spritzers one night and went rooting around in my diaper when I was an infant. That may or may not be true, but all I know is that I have deep infatuation with older women. They can do almost anything, and to put it mildly, it will “pique my interest.” I could stiffen up watching an elderly woman shatter her hip on an icy driveway. However, for the first time in my life, I found something that an older woman did to be absolutely repugnant.
The story involves my friend Brian’s mom. She’s a dusty old time-fighter with a colossal set of man-mades, a shitter you can still bounce a quarter off, and she looks like she she’s into things that would make Gyp Rossetti blush. To me, she is perfect in every way – or at least I thought she was until I came across her Facebook page last night.
I didn’t know she was on Facebook until I saw her pop up in the “People You May Know” section. When I saw her, I immediately reached for the Pez dispenser full of Viagra that I keep next to my computer, but I quickly discarded the porn roids, as my hammer was already at the point where it could cut stone. To say that I spent the next 45 minutes “creeping” on her page would be a gross understatement. What I did was probably illegal in at least 17 states, and definitely Guam. Unfortunately, my session was abruptly cut short when I saw something that made my pulsating rod shrivel up like a slug that has just been doused with a bucket of salt.
The woman of my dreams had ‘liked’ an NPR article about how the President of France is pushing for a 75% tax on millionaires in his country. I don’t know if it was the NPR, the progressive taxation, or a combination of the two, but my gadget instantly went from midnight to six. The mood was killed, so I begrudgingly pulled up my Dungarees, put away the Fleshlight, and untied the lamp cord from around my neck. There would be no ejaculatory spurt on this night.
I was pretty demoralized as I climbed into bed, so I was hoping to fall asleep quickly, but I was still awake after two hours of tossing and turning. I couldn’t understand how a woman like Brian’s mom could actually like NPR, especially that article. She never struck me as that type of person. What else was she into? Spoken word poetry slams and fair trade coffee? Gross.
After hour number three of lying wide awake, I finally caved and decided to read the article that was the source of my deflated dreams. What I read blew my effing mind.
I don’t know about you guys, but I spend most of my days cruising rest area parking lots soliciting Sudafed-addicted prostitutes, so I don’t have a whole lot of time to keep up with world events. Much to my surprise, socialism has been making a bit of a comeback in the Western Hemisphere as of late. Apparently those grape-stomping surrender pussies across the pond recently elected a socialist as the President of their second-tier country. Now, when I say socialist, I mean a legit socialist. I had no idea they still made those. The guy – and I use that term loosely – is a member of the French Socialist Party and he was elected on a class warfare platform.
Well, shortly after this pinko was elected, he started to institute tax policies that would make the top federal income tax rate 75% on every Euro earned over 1 million. Keep in mind – that is just the “federal” rate. Like the United States, France has many layers of taxation, including state, local, sales, property, estate, etc. These other layers of taxation must be paid out of the remaining 25% that is left over after the 75% hit. Therefore, when it’s all said and done, the 75% tax rate is essentially a cap on income. Every Euro earned over 1 million will be chewed up by taxes at some level. As a result, some of France’s high earners have complained of an overall effective tax rate as high as 85-90%.
Think about that for a minute. If you work a regular 8-5 workday, and you pay an 85-90% tax rate, that means that you work from 8-4 every day just to pay off your debt to the government. After that, you get to keep what you earn from 4-5.
Memo to the Frogs: now might be a good time for you all to dust off those guillotines and start lopping off your leaders’ heads again.
The French Supreme Court ended up invalidating the law on a technicality late in 2012, but the French President just announced that he intends to tweak the law and push it through again. This is what the NPR article that Brian’s mom ‘liked’ was all about. Bitch.
At this point you are probably wondering why you should give a shit about the French tax code, but just hang with me because this is where it starts to hit a little closer to home.
As I continued reading, I was shocked to find out that the most jaw-dropping part of the article wasn’t the absurdly high tax rate itself. It was the justification that the President gave for the tax rate, or I should say, the lack therof. The tax has nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with class warfare. Here is how the Economist summed up the French President’s motivations for the tax:
“Well, it’s quite interesting because he’s been very clear that he doesn’t expect to raise almost any revenue at all from the tax rate. He says what he wants to do is impose a sort of morality on high earners and on what he calls indecent wages. So he’s really trying to kind of curve, I suppose, excess, and make sure that big bosses, big bankers, and those who are going to be in this sort of an earning bracket will reward themselves with the sort of salaries that people don’t find outrageous. And that’s what he’s after. It’s not about revenue.”
Hmmmmm, that rationale sounds strangely familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh, I know – how about from our fearless class-warrior-in-chief here at home.
During the 2008 Democratic primary debates between Barry and that dude Hank Clinton, Charles Gibson pointed out to Obama that when Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush dropped the capital gains tax rates, the tax revenues actually increased. When the capital gains tax rates increased during the 1980’s, the revenues actually decreased. Obama did not deny this point, so Gibson asked Obama why he wanted to raise the tax rates when doing so would result in lower tax revenues. Barry said that “fairness” was the reason that he intended to raise the capital gains tax rate, and then went into a class-warfare rant against the “rich” not paying their “fair share.”
But Gibson didn’t let Obama off that easy. He pressed him and pointed out that over 100 million people had money invested and they would be affected by the higher rates, not just the “rich.” Again, Obama went back to that nebulous term “fairness” and escaped without answering the question.
Fast forward four years and Obama was still singing the same old tune. In the run up to the 2012 presidential election, Obama’s central campaign theme was that the “rich” weren’t “paying their fair share,” even though the top 10% paid 70% of all income taxes while nearly half of Americans paid no income tax at all. To correct this glaring inequity, Obama offered up his signature plan of the 2012 campaign – the Buffet Plan.
As you recall, the Buffet Plan called for a minimum level of taxation on all “millionaires and billionaires.” This was Obama’s number one plan to resolve our trillion-dollar deficits. Well, it fell a little short. But like the French President’s proposal, the Buffet Plan had almost nothing to do with raising revenue, and everything to do with class warfare.
The CBO analyzed the Buffet Plan and said that it would raise – wait for it – 4 billion per year. Now, I don’t mean to go all Adam Smith on you guys, but when you’re running annual deficits that are in excess of 1 trillion dollars, 4 billion is, ummm, not very much. You would have to collect that tax for 250 years just to fund one year of deficit spending. The Buffet Plan is like putting a band-aid on a shotgun wound to the sternum, or taking a few Flinstones Chewables after ringing out one of Jenny Gump’s super-absorbency Kotex pads down your throat. It does nothing.
So why did Obama spend nearly all of 2012 talking about the Buffet Plan if it wasn’t going to do anything to help put our fiscal house in order? Why is the President of France making it his number one issue to pass a punitive tax code that won’t put any money into the government coffers? Because it pays off politically.
To the Left, taxation is no longer about securing revenue to pay for the services that we all use. No, taxation is now about “social justice.” To them, it is the government’s obligation to ensure equality of results, not equality of opportunity. The Left believes it is the moral responsibility of the government to take as much as they can from “the rich” and redistribute it to those they deem more deserving. To the left, your paycheck is public property, because “at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.” You take home what they allow you to take home, not what you earn – and if you object to that, then you are a racist, homophobic, sexist bigot who bullies sick children in arm crutches.