I’m sick and tired about hearing how the wealthy americans are not paying their “fair share” in taxes.  The democrats keeping beating the drumb stating that if is the rich paid their “fair share” we could solve the debt crisis.

We all know that is a bunch of BS.  It would hardy solve anything.  I doubt it would bring in even 80% of the projected revenue.  Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that a static modeling doesn’t work in this case.  Raising taxes by 10% will not bring in an extra 10% of revenue.  The percentage is will bring in depends on things such as elasticity of demand and availability of substitutes.   Raising taxes on gasoline, a every inelastic item, by 10 percent will bring in additional revenue close to that, however it still will not hit the 10% mark, as some people will not purchase/purchase less gasoline.

Secondly, additional tax revenue brought in by a tax increase will also depend on where the current rate is.  The higher the current tax rate is, the less of an increase in revenue will be seen when the tax rate is raised.

So what is the point of all this?  We need to prove to the American people that these claims of raising taxes on the rich and importance of the Buffet rule are not problem solvers.  It may be time to call out the dems and agree to a few things.  Once the problem is not solved, we have better case to America, saying LOOK EVERYONE, these changes did nothing.  The real problem is the runaway spending and entitlement society.  Americans may need to see this before they finally “see the light”

I have 2 suggestions that would certainly gain support from democrats and those who want to soak the rich.

1  – The 1 millionaire rule – Anyone who makes a million dollars or more a year will pay 25% in federal taxes, no if ands or butts.  No deductions, no anything.  Obviously the millionare will still be able to put food on the table.  They won’t be suffering, but other Americans will be as a result of such rule.

2 – Investment income tax rule – You look at someone’s total income. If you make more than 50% of you income through investment income, that that part will not be taxed at 15%, it will be taxed at at the rate of your total income.  The rest of you income will then be taxed at 15%.  For example, lets say someone made 3 millions dollars, 2 million of it was from investment income, and the tax bracket for anyone making over a millions bucks is 30%.  As i understand it, i may be wrong, this individual would pay 15% on the 2 millions dollars, and up to 30% on the additional millions.  the left thinks this is un fair, blah blah blah.  However with this adjustment, since this individual made about 67& of his money thorough investments, the $2 millions would be taxed at up to 30%. while the 1 million would be taxed at 15%.

Both these ideas could surely pass congress and show America that the rich are paying their fare share.  Clearly as we all know, this wont solve the problem we are having. The additional revenue coming in won’t be much at all, and many Americans will suffer because of the lower level of investment & less money circulation in the economy.

The point is, sometimes we need to be shown why something isn’t a good idea, we cant just be told.  When i was a kid, i really wanted to order the blueberry pancakes at the diner.  My dad swore to me that i wouldn’t like them, and they weren’t real blueberries, it was just like a blueberry paste.  He didn’t let me get them. Next time we were at the diner, i again insisted on the pancakes.  He just shook his head and said FINE, get the pancakes.  I got the blueberry pancakes alright.  He was exactly right, they were nasty.  I could barely eat a piece of them.  He sat their with a smile on his face.  He still makes fun of me about those panckaes 20 years later.  But guess what….I had to find out for myself that what i thought i would like turned out terrible……

Maybe I have a different viewpoint than most other here because of the fact I have been born and raised in New York.  But here goes anyway.

I consider myself to be a ficon first and foremost.  I understand the benefits of fiscal conservatism.  I understand how burden regulations and high taxes can be a deadweight loss to society.  Both to producers and consumers.  I understand how businesses and capital are much more mobile today then they were 20 years ago, and will gravitate towards the area with the highest returns.  The thing is, it is easy for me to explain this to people.  I can make people understand what I am saying. I can easily draw a simple diagram.  I work for a County goverment, with all workers who are represented by a public employee union.  I have drawn them a simple supply and demand for labor graph.  i’ve shown them what happens when people are compensated above the market wage.  i have shown them how it leads to job shortages and inefficient levels of production.  In terms of being a “magnet,”  I can draw people to our side, and have done so.

However, in my opinion, it doesn’t work that way for many social issues.  Personally, i’m very much pro-life, and while i’m not in favor of gay marriage, I don’t have a problem with civil unions.  The point i’m making is, how can you draw people to be anti-gay marriage or pro-life.  I think people have those feelings not based on facts, but on how they feel inside.  This isn’t an attack on the magnet theory, but i don’t think it can be applied to all areas of conservatism.

There was a very intersting link on the website that brought us to the Gallup website, with a breakdown on Politically ideology by state.  Mississippi was the most conservative state, with 50% of the population identified themselves as conservatives.  But most of you already know that, as you have probably looked at it already.

A lot of what we already know was shown from this survey.  The number of conservatives in this country is about double the number of “liberals.”  The rest of the population falls into the “moderate” category.  So why do we have so many darn democrats in office?  Well, for one reason, a think a lot of so called “moderates” are just plain old democrats.  I would like the see the breakdown of party registration of all these moderates.  Maybe these people think that just because they are against socialized medicine or driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, that they are level headed moderates.  Likely, most of them still believe that rich americans don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes and that the major reason for outsourcing is corporate greed.  Besides that, I think there is another reason that many democrats continue to get elected, with massive “moderate” support.  It’s because, for some reason or another, they actually buy into the idea that these democrats are moderates or centrists, or even “conservative democrats.”  I could probably count on two hands how many true centrists there are in congress. 

I tired of people referring to Giffords, Shuler, Altmire, Matheson, Chandler and the rest of the bunch as moderates.  They aren’t.  But they continue to win in republican dominated districts.  Do their constituents actually look into their records?  It could be that the self identified moderates are just politically lazy.

Still though, its good to see the number of self identified conservatives twice as high as the number of self identified liberals.  Considering that so many democrats have to twist their records in an attempt to portray themselves as moderates or centrists speaks to the truth that America truely is a right of center country.  It’s just too bad so many people don’t do their homework before they go to the ballot box. If the self identified moderates actully looked and saw the myth of a congressional moderate, conservatives would have close to 2 – 1 margins in the house and senate……..

I’ve been a reader of Red State for a long time, but this is my first Diary Entry.  Please forgive me if it is not up to par.

In the past year or so, we have seen a purging of so called Rinos from the republican party.  We all know this.  I’ve seen many people who advocate the idea of kicking out the so called Rinos in favor of real conservative republicans.  The biggest question I have, is what exactly constitues a RINO?  Is it a republican that we feel is not conservative enough, or is it literally a republican who votes like a democrat?  The difference between to two is in my opinion, stark.  As a recent Economics major graduate, I like to look at actual data to form my conclusions.

SNOWE, COLLINS, and BROWN:  According to the American Conservative Union, in 2010, both Maine Senators scored a 64 out of 100.  Scott Brown scored a 74.  All 3 of these senators voted more conservatively than every single democratic Senator.  The most conservative democratic senators where Ben Nelson (48) and Blance Lincoln (46).  So…do Brown, Collins and Snowe actually vote like democrats….I don’t think so.  They vote like Republican Centrists.  Are they as conservative as we would like, absolutely not.  Does it matter that they are republicans is blue states, so we should cut them a little slack, I’m not sure.  I don’t know if they qualify as RINOs or not.  I guess it depends on your interpretation of the acronym.

Mike Castle – R.I.N.O.  No doubt about it.  According to the A.C.U., Castles 2010 rating was a extremely dissapointing 38.  Several democrats voted more conservatively or as conservatively as Castle did (Bright, Marshall, Minick, Boren, McIntyre).  Many other democrats can awfully close to 38.  So, we can clearly say that Castle is literally a RINO.  When he first lost the primary to O’donnell, I was a little concerned.  However, having Castle as a potential swing vote/comprimise maker is a scary thought. 

So, is there a difference between the Snowes and the Castles?  I think there is a clear difference.  Any comments?