More VoteVets BS campaign ad
Vote Vets is running this ad against Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania to prop up his adversary, Joe Sestak, in the race for the Senate formerly occupied by Arlen Specter;
Sounds pretty bad, huh? Well, TSO sends this from FactCheck.org;
VoteVets.org Action Fund, a left-leaning veterans group, is up with an ad that claims Republican Pat Toomey supports letting Wall Street executives keep “every penny of their bonuses.” It’s true that he opposed a bill that would have imposed a 90 percent tax on bonuses for executives at bailed-out banks. But that’s not the same as letting executives keep “every penny,” since normal tax rates still apply.
Well, that and it was a 90% tax – I don’t think anyone should get taxed on money they got legally so that they can only get 10% of the payment. No one. What kind of precedent would that set? It was just thirty years ago that we got rid of 70% marginal tax rates. And they were already liable for 35% in income taxes anyway – that’s not attractive either. So the “every penny” BS is an attempt by VoteVets to mislead.
And like I said in October, where were they when Murtha was threatening to cut out existing bonuses?
Oh, I’m not particularly happy about seeing veterans complaining that they didn’t get a bonus for combat. Are we that mercenary now?
Category: None
I didn’t care for the bonus either. I also never put in for the stop/loss payments, because frankly, I don’t think I deserve them. I should have applied and then donated to a charity I suppose, but the whole thing seems ridiculous to me anyway. I joined up knowing full well I would be stop-lossed, since my enlistment was for 1 year, and we have 1 year in country, not even counting the train-up and the redeploy time.
A brief note on the subject of the vastly-higher income tax rates of the past: It’s a lie of omission. People often bring up the 70-90% tax rates of the middle of last century as evidence that our economy can handle absurdly high taxes without damage. What they leave out is that the literal tax rates (theoretical, on the books rates) and the effective tax rates (taxes paid divided by taxable income) were vastly different. The levels of deductions, often as business expenses, from the time is staggering, making the effective tax rates actually comparable or, quite often, lower than the effective tax rates today. Much of the deductions and loopholes that kept the effective tax rates down in the past have been closed today (yeah, even with the lefties constant whining about the eeeevil rich finding loopholes to avoid paying Their Fair Share™; just goes to show there’s no such thing as enough to satisfy the libs), which would make a return to the higher literal tax rates disastrous.
I cannot believe anyone is insane enough to think anything higher than fifty percent is ever a fair tax.
Even 50% seems exhorbitant to me.
I would think anyone claiming to be of a Christian persuasion would be up in arms over any Gov’t requests for more than 10% of you income.
What’s the old saying? ‘My God only requires 10% of me, why should my Government require more?’
So predictable.