Friday, October 12, 2007

More Glaring Omissions

I woke up screaming this morning because of a glaring omission in the post below. I failed to mention that Hillary once took $2.00 tax deductions for giving Bill's used underwear to charity.

That would have been the perfect factoid to illustrate that people claim all possible tax deductions which are worth the hassle, regardless of their political inclinations, or love of Big Govt.

I don't know why I should expect to gain a readership for these mad ravings while making that kind of mistake.

The Whited Sepulchre regrets the error.

2 comments:

Ashton Rogers said...

Brilliant, 10% would be a wonderful idea. Will it happen? Probably not, but I can dream. I only hope that if we did start paying less taxes to the government that the money would be used better. Of course, with the wealthy losing their tax shelter they would be paying out more where the middle class would be paying less. Would this be enough to make up the difference.

Although I would like to keep more of my money (who wouldn't), I ask this: Would people really mind paying the high taxes that they do if the money that was being taken from them was being used to improve our way of life. Even though I know that some of it really does go to education and fixing pot holes, I'm rarely able to look out my window and see our tax dollars at work.

It seems like all of the money just goes towards creating new tax laws designed to make more money.

And about feeling guilty that you don't give more. Don't. It's about giving as much as you are able to, not the dollar amount. Enough charity work gets done at Marco as it is. Just being a part of that organization should be a free ride in to heaven on merit alone.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

aAshton,
Thanks for your comment, sir.
Here's what will be fun to watch....at what income percentages will they put these massive "progressive" increases? The wealthy people are already paying a mega % of the load already....the standard Pareto formula where 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes, to use a phrase that was thrown around my place of employment recently. I can envision a new breed of taxation loopholes rising out of the ashes of the old. They're already talking about leaving in the standard deductions for dependents (as if people who can't afford kids need encouragement to have more) and mortgage interest (as if people who don't have much money need encouragement to borrow....)
Anyway, I don't think any of this will ever happen. Rahm E. is just trying to get some traction.
And thanks for recognizing the charitable nature of my employer. Lord knows they try.