Countdown

16 February, 2009

Do they think we are stupid? Or just selfish?

In a recent line of advertisements paid for by the Teachers' Union, they say we need to fix the way the Peoples Republic of New York taxes it's citizens.

In a way, they are right.

But the way they want to go about doing it, is all wrong.

They say that in order to save our schools, libraries and hospitals, we need to tax the rich at a 'more fair' higher rate. To take a line from the commercial, "Donald Trump's chauffeur pays the same higher rate as Trump does."

This is absolutely the wrong way to go. But as blue as this state is, it is likely what is going to happen.

And as a result, more jobs and people are going to leave and move back to the United States.

It seems that there is a 3 way race to see who can be the most socialistic and hardest on its most successful citizens between NY, California and Washington DC.

The fairest way to go is for everyone to pay the same rate. I'm no math major, but it seems to me that if there is a flat rate tax, the person that makes a million dollars will pay more in taxes than someone who works for minimum wage.

But socialists don't think that way. They think in percentages, not in actual dollars. It makes for a better sound-bite. It makes it seem like those evil conservatives are being unfair to the less fortunate.

It's time to call a spade a spade.

It's compare dollars to dollars.

It's time to share the burden equally.

Throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Take a look at the 2008 Yankees. They had by far, the highest payroll in baseball, and didn't make the playoffs. By comparison, take a look at the Tampa Bay Rays. The entire payroll of the team is less than the Yankee's 3rd baseman, and yet, the lowly Rays were the American League's representative in the World Series. It takes smart money, not more money.

Historically, when tax rates were lowered, the municipalities actually took in more money.

The answer is less government, not more. Ronald Regan said the 8 scariest words you could here are "I'm from the government, I'm here to help."


04 February, 2009

So close, yet so far away.


Today, Comrade Obama declared that executives of companies that receive bailout money from the government should have their salaries capped at $500,000. He wants to take the air out of the so-called 'golden parachute'.

I appreciate wanting to make sure the money is going to companies that want to return to profitability, but this isn't the way to do it.

In fact, I think this is the sort of move that will make matters worse.

Would you take a job that you knew that your salary was capped, and would not go higher? I wouldn't. I'd be more likely to take a job at a company that doesn't have such restrictions.

This will scare away the talented, innovative people from the job. The people that can make a difference are going to take jobs at other firms that don't limit compensation. Perhaps, they will even go overseas.

And when they run out of qualified candidates, they go for what's left.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to give bloated pay checks to people who won't fix the problem, or to the ones that caused the problem in the first place, but there has to be a better way to do it.

How about having more of a floating pay grade. A sort of pay for performance system. I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure the smart people that decide those sorts of things can figure something out.

That way, the most qualified people will be motivated to take a job at a 'bailed out' company because they will work their butts off to make them better because when the company succeeds, they will be adequately compensated for it.

The answer lays with less government restriction, not more.

There was an error in this gadget