----- Original Message -----
From: Len Cranford
To: craig schommer ; ryder smith
; jb_campbell@yahoo.com
; patrick henry ; James
Wickstrom ; darkmoon@darkmoon.me ; tommy ; Bill Conlin ; gvwyatt@gmail.com
; pseudoskylax@gmail.com
; executioner@dreadwilliam.com
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 12:05 PM
Subject: Denninger; Just Walk Away America
{BUT !!! THAT`S what those heavy
Obama-Care penalties are for !!!! - To catch YOU "refuseniks".
Ain`t dat illegal ly`in Nigga somt`n else! He`s too optimistic here; Obama
Care is an Extortion TRAP that will get MORE Expensive. L.}
One
reading of the midterm election wave is that voters have concluded that President
Obama’s answer to falling incomes and slow growth — higher taxes on the rich
and more redistribution—is tapped out. These policies have been up and running
for six long years but the middle class is no better off as a result.
On
taxes, Mr. Obama often claims that the rich don’t pay their “fair share,” yet
the most affluent one-fifth of taxpayers on average supplied 68.7% of federal
revenue for 2011. That’s according to the Congressional Budget Office, which
last week updated its statistics on the U.S. distribution of income and taxes
for 2011 and preliminary calculations for last year.
Many years ago I turned down a
"promotion and raise" because I was on the cusp of an income bracket
and would be forced into the next one by the change, along with losing
deductions due to a threshold change. The result was that I would
actually take home less pay on-balance, despite having more
responsibility (and presumably, being expected to work harder and longer -- it
was an exempt position.)There have always been "small" impacts like this in the tax code, but they're pretty rare -- and what's worse, you need to understand quite well what you pay and why -- and what you take home. Most people don't track it closely enough to recognize where the thresholds are, even though you usually have a year or more to get it figured out in a given position before such a promotion and raise might be offered.
In other words, you can (and should) always know where you are in this regard -- and how much of a raise or change in income with a job shift you need to make it worth it. That's the only way you can act logically, and turn down uneconomic "opportunities."
Today huge percentages of the working people in this country can actually raisetheir standard of living by working less.
How?
Obamacare.
If you make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level you qualify for subsidies. If you make less than 250% of the poverty level you also qualify for deductible, out-of-pocket and copayment subsidies!
Here's the bottom line: For a single person of middle age these adjustments for a single person can easily add up to $6,000 a year or more! For a married couple or family it is typically double that or more!
How much harder do you have to work as a single person to make $30,000 than $20,000? How much harder do you have to work as a family to make $50,000 rather than $30,000? This is the question because you will get to keep little or nothing of the additional income when you count the subsidy phase-outs -- and you have to -- plus the increased FICA, Medicare and income tax exposure.
In short it's not worth it in my opinion if you only keep a quarter (or even less) of that next marginal dollar. You work for the entire dollar but get little of the benefit; the rest is stolen and given to the medical and pharmaceutical monopolists and their minions.
But more to the point you have three choices when you look at all of the injustices and outrages being served up with your tax money on a daily basis:
- Gunwalking
(Fast-n-Furious) to Mexican Drug gangs that have
murdered over 300 Mexicans and at least one American.
- Blatant
and outrageous forgeries ("Robosigning") used to steal thousands of homes from Americans.
- Refusal
to prosecute frauds spanning hundreds of billions of
dollars across the
financial industry, all of which were charged to you via QE and deficit spending.
- Refusal
to prosecute blatant perjury on multiple occasions (IRS
Lernergate, NSAGate/Clapper, etc.)
- Enabling
and furthering both the college loan and cost bubble (screwing young
people by the millions) and the medical and pharmaceutical
monopolists (screwing everyone else.)
- Intentional destruction of middle-class
jobs to transfer them to illegal invaders by forcing
businesses to either provide health care or pay a $3,000 fine -- but
exempting the illegal invaders Obama just shielded from deportation, and
employers from fines and jail for employing them, from said mandate.
As citizens you have three choices, really, when you get down to it.
- Do
something illegal in an attempt to reduce or stop it. There
are a whole host of possible actions you could take but of course you are
effectively sacrificing at least your freedom (and quite possibly your
life) when undertaking such an action.
- Do
something (or many somethings) that are legal to make these acts less
sustainable and/or stop them. There are things you can do in that vein;
one of them is to intentionally reduce your income to a level
where you qualify for Obamacare subsidies and pay few federal taxes.
You may sacrifice your monetary standard of living by doing
this but you gain non-monetary standard of living; you work less and thus
have more time to devote to things you enjoy.
- CONSENT.
Don't kid yourself -- if you make a maximum effort (or
indeed anyeffort
beyond the minimum required to sustain yourself and your family) and
thus fund these
acts you have not only consented you are advocating the acts
that your money is buying!
I know you'll make excuses today -- but that's exactly what they are: excuses.
Let's cut that crap out. If you're going to choose to fund, consent and approve of the acts of your government then do it proudly, loudly and with your head held high.
And if not?
Then choose one of the other options -- hopefully selected from the legal options available to you -- of which there are many.
But before you try to say that you're not going to choose and this doesn't count as approval of the acts of our government let me point out that Rush (the band, not the radio host) said many years ago: If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!
