Category: Taxes and Theft

Uh… What About Us Folks?

Politics, Subsidies, Taxes and Theft

FFS, I’m getting sick of this kind of bullshit.

The Trump administration is ramping up its America First Global Health Strategy in its latest efforts to ditch the traditional USAID model by delivering billions in aid directly to several countries in Africa.

Under the new model so far, which bypasses the propping up of the “NGO industrial complex,” the United States has signed six memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with six African countries totaling over $4 billion in direct U.S. investment matched by over $1.6 billion from signatory countries.

I have a better idea.  Instead of “investing” $4 billion in Africa, how about sending that kind of support to, oh, I dunno, our failing healthcare system right here in the U.S. of A.?

And by “system”, I don’t mean pharmaceutical companies or hospitals, either.  I’m talking about pumping up Medicare or Medicaid — you know, people who may actually have voted for the current Administration in last year’s elections?

If you want me to be really blunt, here’s what I really mean.

Most American voters do not give a flying fuck about Africa, and Africa’s health problems.  We Americans pay taxes, and we expect to see some kind of return from our government on those taxes in the form of civic improvements right here in the United States, not in shithole African countries that hate us, support our enemies like China, Iran and Russia, and live in a squalor of their own making.

Did I already mention that aid to Africa is the equivalent of pouring (taxpayer) dollars into a bottomless pit where it ends up filling the bank accounts of corrupt government officials?  I did?  Oh yeah, and note the date on which I said it.

I don’t care that $4 billion dollars is going to be spent “more efficiently” or whatever:  I want that $4 billion to be spent in the United States, and not in fucking Africa.  To repeat:  it’s our money, taken from us at gunpoint, and if it’s going to be spent, we should be the beneficiaries and not some fly-bitten cesspit-dwellers in a hellhole of their own making.

Or — and here’s another thought — you (that is, the Trump Administration) can take less of our hard-earned money away from us, thus taking away our need for government “assistance” in the first place.

If I recall correctly, reducing our tax burden was one of the signature promises of the Republicans last year prior to the elections.  Well, so far I’ve seen precious little of that activity taking place;  and sending our tax money to Africa does not improve my mood any.

I know, it’s a lot more complicated than that, there are all sorts of policy implications and socio-political goals etc. etc. etc.

Here’s what I’ve learned.  It’s always less complicated than it’s made out to be, and there is always a simpler solution than the one proposed.

I’m always hearing from DOGE (remember them?) how much money they’re supposedly “saving” us.  Well, it doesn’t seem like all these spending cutbacks are doing us — the taxpayers — much good, because the average American is still living in a shit-show of financial uncertainty and hardship.

So instead of some high-falutin’ pronouncement of “America First Global Health Strategy”, allow me to suggest that you just drop the “Global” part.  “America First Health Strategy” has a far better ring to it.

Keep our tax money at home, and reduce the amounts we have to pay.  It really is that simple, you fucking thieves and morons.

Just Camouflage

Taxes and Theft

You may recall that the loathsome former NYfC Mayor Bloomberg once declared war on super-sized drinks in that poxy city because people were getting too fat from the drinking thereof, or something.  So as an actual ban would essentially be unenforceable, he slapped a consumption tax on them.

How nice:  promote health while raking in the dollars.  (I’m sure the latter had no bearing on his action, of course. [eyecross] )

I was reminded of this when I read that the equally-loathsome British Labourite Wes Streeting has slapped a tax on sugary drinks.  (Okay, he just extended and raised the “temporary” tax on food on this particular category, but the effect is the same.)

The oily little shit then made this nauseating statement:

“This government will not look away as children get unhealthier,” the Health Secretary told the Commons.

Makes you want to give him a swift slap, dunnit?

And as with Bloomberg, the poison is in the details, as the tax may raise as much as £45million a year or more for the Treasury.

What about all those obese children?

Whitehall’s own estimates suggest it will only trim 0.3kcal off the daily intake of 5 to 10 year olds and 0.4kcal off 11 to 18 year olds.

Well, there ya go, then.

What I really love is all the contortions necessary to make all this happen:

The change will affect packaged milkshakes and coffees, but not drinks made in cafes and restaurants.

The exemption for milk-based drinks will be replaced with a ‘lactose allowance’ to account for the natural sugars in the milk component of the drinks.

I’m thinking that HMG could save a lot more than £45million a year by just firing all the goblins involved in implementing and enforcing all these tax minutiae, but no doubt that might be seen as too simplistic.

Whether control freaks like Bloomberg or unctuous figures like Streeting, they’re all just bastards.

Stopping The Tax Tide

Taxes and Theft, Trumpism, UN and other scum

Last week I ranted about this “Global Emissions Tax” nonsense emanating from the U.N., and it is with great glee that I see that God-Emperor (not King) Trump has nipped that issue in the bud:

A global tax on shipping emissions won’t take effect after pressure from the Trump administration to abandon the climate activist-fueled proposal.  

The International Maritime Organization had been set to vote on Friday on adopting a global carbon tax aimed at pushing the shipping industry to stop using fossil fuels. But that vote did not happen after President Donald Trump on Thursday called for other countries to oppose the tax, saying that the United States would not “tolerate” or “adhere” to the measure. 

From what I can understand, Trump threatened the voting nations with stuff like trade embargoes and tariffs if they voted in support of the thing, whereupon they said “Yes, Massa”  and did what he told them to do.

However, let’s not crack open the champagne just yet:

Instead, the International Maritime Organization, an agency of the United Nations that regulates shipping, moved Friday to postpone the vote on the tax for a year. 

“Now you have one year, you will continue to work on several aspects of these amendments,” said Arsenio Dominguez, the secretary general of the International Maritime Organization. “You have one year to negotiate and talk and come to consensus.”

So next year, it’ll come up for a vote again, and again we’re going to have to rap their nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

I have a simple suggestion to end this thing, forever.  Tell the United Nations that if they ever try to impose a global tax system on the world (and on us, of course), this action will automatically trigger the United States’s immediate withdrawal from the UN, and the expulsion of the UN organization in toto  from the United States.

Then get Congress to pass a law to enable the action.  Shouldn’t be that difficult, even with the expected opposition from federal judges.

Message to the UN:  We don’t do taxes.

End of story.

Theft In Pursuit Of An Agenda

Taxes and Theft, UN and other scum

The redoubtable Stephen Moore brings to light this little bit of internationalist skulduggery,:

Later this week the United Nations will hold a vote on a multibillion-dollar climate change tax targeted squarely at American industry.

This resolution before the International Maritime Organization will impose a carbon tax on cargo and cruise ships that carry $20 trillion of merchandise over international waters.

The resolution is intended to advance the very “net zero” carbon emissions standard that has knee-capped European economies for years and that American voters have rejected.

This international tax that would be applied to American vessels and as such is a dangerous precedent-setting assault on U.S. sovereignty.

As with all great crimes, the first question is “cui bono” ?  And to nobody’s surprise, the answer is:

Worst of all, if the resolution passes, it will require the retirement of older ships and enable a multibillion-dollar wealth transfer to China — which has come to dominate ship building in recent years.

China strongly supports the tax scheme — even though, ironically, no nation has emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than it has. Yet WE are getting socked with a tax that indirectly pays for their pollution.

Needless to say, the U.S. will have no truck with this nonsense — at least, the current generation of U.S. leaders won’t:

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have jointly stated that America “will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or our businesses.”

They call the financial impact on the U.S. of this global carbon tax “disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”

So fine.  But given that in the United Nations, there are seventeen likely “yes” votes to our single “no” vote, how are we to combat this nonsense?  As usual, Moore has the answer:

To prevent this sinister tax, the White House should announce a set of retaliation measures.

This could include a dollar-for-dollar reduction in U.S. payments to NATO, the U.N., IMF and World Bank. No foreign money should be directed to any nation that votes for this assault on American ships.

And as the old (paraphrased) saying goes:  “They may have passed this law;  now let them enforce it.”

My additional solution would be for the United States to leave the U.N. altogether, cease its funding thereof, and kick these assholes out of Manhattan for good.  Let them play their little reindeer games all they want, just in someone else’s backyard and with their own money.  See how long that little internationalist dream lasts.

Scum & Villains

Rights, Taxes and Theft

Given the state concerned, one has to wonder what John and Sam Adams (not to mention John Hancock) would have thought of this piece of theft and anti-Constitutional skulduggery (brought to my attention by Reader Mike L., who is inexplicably resident* in said state):

A Beacon Hill committee met on Monday to discuss a proposed excise tax on firearms and ammunition, aimed at enhancing public safety in Massachusetts.

The proposed bill, introduced by western Massachusetts Representative Mindy Domb, seeks to increase the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, with the revenue directed to a Public Health and Safety Fund. This fund would support community-based research, public health interventions, and services for gun violence survivors and victims’ families.

“Tragic gun deaths and catastrophic gun injuries cost the great state of Massachusetts an astounding 3.5 billion dollars each year, of which 85.4 million dollars is paid by taxpayers,” said a testifier, Matthew Nugent, during the hearing.

The proposed excise tax is set at 4.75% of the wholesale value of each firearm and individual round of ammunition. If implemented, Massachusetts would join states like California and Colorado in using gun tax revenue for violence prevention and support services.

Now I’m not proposing — what does the Left call it?  oh yeah — direct action (a.k.a. violence) should be brought to bear against the people who are supporting this un-Constitutional and illegal theft.

All I’m saying is that Sam Adams (he — and  brother  cousin John both — of Sons of Liberty fame) would by now be firing up the tar barrels and plucking a few geese, and yea even preparing a few firebrands to be tossed into some houses.  Because if they were prepared to go all fire, tar & feathers on people over a tax on paper, imagine how they’d feel about a tax on guns.

But this is modern-day Massachusetts, not the pre-Revolutionary state where the whole thing started over taxes.

More’s the pity.

*Mike, my longtime Friend & Reader:  GTFO, willya?

Easy Fix

Gummint, Taxes and Theft

So there’s this little back-and-forth between various IRS employees:

A deep state Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official has been attacking President Donald Trump’s agenda after one of her colleagues was ousted for allegedly targeting conservatives.

IRS Appeals Officer Niki Wilkinson commented on a LinkedIn post and claimed Republicans were “fear mongering” when it came to the work of the IRS official whom the Daily Caller on Wednesday identified as Holly Paz.

“Wilkinson made the remarks in a comment on conservative activist Chuck Flint’s post about Holly Paz, a former IRS official who served as a deputy to Lois Lerner. Lerner was head of the IRS division responsible for the Tea Party targeting scandal during the Obama administration,” the report said.

Flint is the president of the Alliance for IRS Accountability. He was quoted in his post as saying, “Paz’s Biden-era pass-through unit is now bludgeoning conservative businesses with fines and must be disbanded. Commissioner Long is flexing his muscles on the IRS Deep State and sending a signal to rogue bureaucrats by placing Paz on leave.”

In response, Wilkinson said, “Such a farce! Interesting how Senators outside the IRS are fear mongering and falsely describing the work. They have no idea what Examiners found in those audits, which in fact exposed fraud or noncompliance in the passthrough area as for years the IRS didn’t effectively audit them — there was a history of ‘no changes’ because Examiners didn’t have the skill or the time to do the work. And Paz was not diving charge of this unit, but rather it was one of many under her umbrella as the LB&I Comm’r.”

Yeah, whatever.  As there are all these claims and counter-claims refuting each other, it’s impossible to divine the truth from the smoke.

I have a modest (Alexandrine) suggestion for a solution:  close down the fucking IRS altogether and fire all IRS employees, to be replaced at some later stage by a minuscule group of newcomers (previous employment at the IRS being an immediate disqualifier).

I don’t actually care what replaces it — 5% national sales tax, [your suggestion here] — but just get rid of these meddling, intrusive bureaucrats who seem to think they own your income when in fact it’s your money and not theirs to control.

Burn down the whole village, not to save it but to save us.