Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
This Week's "Your Turn" Radio Lineup

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

 

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute - An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance - Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste - 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Marlo Lewis…[more]

June 17, 2019 • 12:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Dems' Dangerous Ideas on Fighting Inequality Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, January 30 2019
You could actually call Warren's scheme a hate tax...

Leftist Democrats eyeing the White House in 2020 are plotting new ways to confiscate Americans' hard-earned money and give it away. Claiming economic inequality is a national crisis, they want to take money from those they say have too much.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is pushing a wealth tax. Never mind that it's unprecedented and unconstitutional.

Warren says it would target only the richest one-tenth of a percent of the country. Maybe it will  at first. When the federal income tax was imposed a century ago, it initially hit less than 1 percent of the country. Now half the nation pays it. So when you hear the words "wealth" tax, watch your wallet.

Warren and like-minded leftists say it's immoral to allow people to accumulate riches when others are needy. But when Warren is asked how she would use the money raised by a wealth tax, she insists the point is "basic fairness."

Translation: These Dems' tax schemes are more about punishing the "rich" than helping the poor.

You could actually call Warren's scheme a hate tax, because like a hate crime, it targets a specific segment of the population  people these Dems say should not be allowed to be so rich.

If these leftist politicians cared about the poor, they'd beef up educational opportunities and job training, and break the teachers' unions corrupt protection of failing public schools. That's wiser than confiscating and redistributing wealth. Knowledge doesn't have to be taken from one person to be given to another.

A child in poverty whose parent has a high school degree or better has a 70 percent shot at rising out of poverty, according to Brookings Institution data. If a parent is a college grad, the chances increase to 84 percent. Education beats handouts when it comes to escaping poverty.

Tell that to presidential aspirant Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who wants Uncle Sam to give nest eggs to poor kids. Booker would open a $1,000 savings account for every child born in the United States, courtesy of taxpayers. After that, kids in the poorest families would get up to $2,000 added each year. Other kids would get much less or zip.

What a slap in the face to parents who save to give their own children a nest egg. Who wants to pay taxes to bankroll someone else's kid?

Booker brags his plan would help equalize the races. The average black child would end up with almost $30,000 at age 18, the average white kid only half that.

Booker's plan also defies common sense. It doesn't even limit the use of the money to education. Handing over tens of thousands of dollars to a teenager to buy a home or take a stab at investing is nuts.

Better to supply a kid that age with a first job. Twenty years ago, over half of teens ages 16 to 19 worked. Now only one-third do, according to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta.

Meanwhile, as more Dems enter the presidential race, the competition to stick it to the rich and spread the wealth heats up. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is pushing monthly cash payments from Uncle Sam to the middle class. This is blatant vote buying.

Think you're going to be on the receiving end of these Robin Hood schemes? Think again. If Warren's wealth tax hits only the uber-rich, it would only rake in $2.75 trillion over a decade, according to the University of California economists who devised her plan. Yet Warren's backing a list of social programs  including government-run health care for all, free college, student loan forgiveness and a guaranteed jobs programs  with a tab of $42.5 trillion, 15 times what taxing the uber-rich would produce.

The Dems' share-the-wealth schemes will end up fleecing millions more people, not just who Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., misleadingly calls the "tippy-tops."

A wealth tax is a lot more intrusive than submitting a W-2. Warren predicts more IRS agents will be needed. They'll have to value your home, your cars, furniture and jewelry.

Fair warning to hardworking, successful people. You're in the Dems' confiscation crosshairs.


Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Where in the U.S. Constitution is the requirement for a decennial census?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Privacy expectations should not be lost just because digital and electronic information is transferred through wires or enters a remote server (the Cloud). If the government searched an individual's mail or home, it would need a warrant first. This same standard should apply to all property, including electronic data. But 48 of 50 states are failing to protect private data from government intrusion…[more]
 
 
—Anna Parsons, ALEC Center for Innovation and Technology
— Anna Parsons, ALEC Center for Innovation and Technology
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the 2020 U.S. Census add a multi-part question regarding U.S. citizenship, including specifically whether the respondent is or is not a U.S. citizen?