RANT: Keeping people in poverty

Friday, January 7, 2011


The ObamaCare Fraud
The law will penalize doctors to pay patients and penalize patients to pay doctors.
Shikha Dalmia | December 31, 2010

*** begin quote ***

When the government hands out subsidies, it will use a household’s income in the previous year as the basis for guessing what the household is qualified to get in the current year. But if the household’s income grows midyear, the subsidy recapture provision will require it to repay anywhere from $600 to $3,500, compared to the $450 that the law originally called for.

This will make it very hazardous for poor working families to get ahead. In the original law, the loss of subsidy with rising income already meant absurdly high effective marginal tax rates—the implicit tax on every additional dollar of income earned. How high? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon puts them at 229 percent for families of four who increase their earnings by an amount equal to 5 percent of the federal poverty level or $1,100. In other words, a family that added this amount to an income of $44,700 would actually see its total income fall by $1,419 due to the loss of subsidies.

*** end quote ***

Yeah, I’m sure glad how these politicians and bureaucrats “care” for the poor!

Who needs a plantation, overseers, and the problems. Just trap the serfs in poverty and make it impossible for the poor to improve their situation. Where’s Robin Hood, Zorro, or V (for Vendetta; not the aliens on ABC) when you need them.

And, of course, we’ll need more bureaucrats to administer these programs.


# # # # #

RANT: “benefits” make serfs of us all

Tuesday, September 7, 2010


Something for Nothing
by Walter E. Williams

*** begin quote ***

Nonwage benefits turn out to be good for the employee because, for the most part, he pays no taxes on them. In other words, if the employer paid the worker the cash value of, say, health insurance as wages, the worker would have to pay income taxes on it and then go out and buy health insurance.

*** end quote ***

My take on it is that this was a Faustian deal with the devil.

Early recipients did benefit. Later ones didn’t. So we can’t talk about the “worker” since there are differences over time in the population so labeled.

The mere monetary gain from a tax free “benefit” is far outweighed by the inability to keep those “benefits” when out of work. And, one has to wonder about all the bankruptcies caused by the loss of benefits. All from not be able to buy medical insurance on the open market that would be portable. Without FDR’s wage and price controls, and the bizarre court decision saying it wasn’t income, we’d be buying “health insurance” like we do life, car, or homeowners. We’d have entities like credit unions to amalgamate risks into pools.


And, we’d have freedom and liberty from politicians and bureaucrats!

# # # # #

%d bloggers like this: