.

Reader: Do the Math Before You Vote and Choice is Clear

Middletown woman says the only fiscally responsible position is to vote to support the Republican platform.

 

To the Editor:

The Democratic platform is more government. The Republican platform traditionally is less government. So let's do the math to see which platform makes fiscal sense.

Hire a public employee for $100,000. Government pays the $100,000 (plus benefits). Employee pays federal income taxes of $28,000. Net cost to the government in simple terms: $72,000 (plus those costly benefits)

Move that job to the private sector. Private employer pays $100,000 (plus benefits). Employee pays federal income taxes of $28,000. Net cost to the government in simple terms: $0. Net gain to the government in simple terms: $28,000

Taxes are more complex than this, but the concept is clear. Government jobs cost more than they bring in. Thus the government can only sustain so many jobs before it runs out of money. For the government to survive the private sector job market must be larger than the government by at least 3 times.

If 47 percent of the population is receiving some kind of government check, then the country is not bringing in sufficient taxes to offset the outlay of public subsidies (entitlements, etc.).

This simple math doesn't account for so much more federal overhead like the cost of all those government buildings, supplies, regulations, the military, CIA, FBI, prisons, the bribery handouts to countries that hate us, supporting the UN, building roads and bridges and dams and public parks.

For America to survive, it must tighten its fiscal belt. The only fiscally responsible position is to vote to support the Republican platform.

Joan Liska, Middletown

Pro Death September 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Smart woman
John Q. Public September 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM
You get a "B-" in math, but an "F" in history. We enjoyed incredible economic prosperity under Clinton. George Bush drove us into the greatest economic collapse of our time. Isn't it sad that you must resort to ignoring history and making up numbers to support your candidate?
Gary September 23, 2012 at 01:18 PM
Where do you get that 47% of the population receives some sort of government check? That simply is not true. We have public employees to do things that we need but that the private sector would be inadequate or unwilling to supply. When the private sector is hired to perform these necessary jobs and services, that money is still coming from tax payers so I do not see where the savings come from unless the government simply stops providing roads, schools, domestic and foreign security, etc. A well-ordered society that invests in itself and provides safety-nets to its hard working citizens and that allows social mobility costs money and requires rules to function. The trend over the last thirty years has been toward supply-side trickle-down policies and deregulation. Not only has that effect been non-stimulative but the wealthy have gotten wealthier and the formerly well-to-do have gotten worse off. Responsible adults can put away the hyperbole, look to the facts and make responsible decisions. One such responsible decision would be to allow the Bush tax-cuts to expire for people making over $250k a year so we can pay down our debts. We need to address the fact that the capital gains tax is much lower than the tax on regular income and address the carried interest exemption. We need to beef up tax incentives for reinvestment in American businesses and workers which is only achieved when there is a reasonable tax burden for leverage. That's why I'm a Democrat.
Darrell Lucas September 23, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Anyone who receives Social Security and Medicare – both considered an earned entitlement since Americans pay for them – the percentage of Americans receiving money from the government hits 37 percent. Joan you make and excellent case for ending the bush tax cuts and cutting back on the ballooned defense spending. Bravo!
wyatt September 23, 2012 at 11:39 PM
@John Q: You get the "F" in history my friend. It was under Clinton that home ownership somehow became a "Right" and the banks were directed by the Banking Commission (if they wanted favorable treatment from the Fed) to make sub-prime loans available to people who could not possibly repay them when the balloon payment or increase in interest rates rolled around a few years later. Barney Frank and our own amoral twit, Chris Dodd, arranged most of this. George Bush did try to reign this in two years before the banking crisis. He was obviously unsuccessful.
William Wilson September 24, 2012 at 05:11 AM
raising taxes during a decline as we are in now will push us over the edge. Now sure how you don't understand that. We need to cut spending levels to the mid 2000's and get people back to work. Without people working the taxes won't come in no matter how much you raise them. It is not a tax problem but a spending problem.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something