A while back, on April 30, 2011, I wrote a post titled, “The New Politboro”. In it, I compared the propaganda and total media control of the Obama Administration to the rise of Lenin and the Soviet Politboro. Little did I know how right I was.
Word came out last night that Income Tax Rates are going to exceed 50% in California, Hawaii, and New York City!
The word came out through a paper written by Gerald T. Prante & Austin John, both of Lynchburg College, School of Business and Economics,Top Marginal Effective Tax Rates by State and by Source of Income, 2012 Tax Law vs. 2013 Scheduled Tax Law. The Abstract (Summary) states that
This paper compares state-by-state estimates of the top marginal effective tax rates (METRs) on wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, and business income for tax year 2012 to the rates scheduled for 2013 under scheduled law. Scheduled tax law for 2013 assumes the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the new PPACA taxes. Overall, the average top METR on wage income is scheduled to increase by approximately six percentage points (41.8 percent to 47.8 perent), while taxes on dividends would increase the greatest (19.0 percent to 47.9 percent). The top METRs on wages, dividends, interest, and partnership/sole proprietor income would exceed 50 percent in California, Hawaii, and New York City.
However, it’s not the uber-rich, that will be hurt.
Ironically the new taxes will have relatively little effect on the detested Romney uber-class, who derive most of their income from capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate. They also have access to all manner of offshore dodges. Nor will it have much impact on Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires, or the Hollywood moguls and urban land speculators who constitute the Democratic Party’s “good rich,” and enjoy many of the same privileges as their wealthy conservative counterparts.
The people whose wallets will be drained in the new war on “the rich” are high-earning, but hardly plutocratic professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers, small business owners and the like. Once seen as the bastion of the middle class, and exemplars of upward mobility, these people are emerging as the modern day “kulaks,” the affluent peasants ruthlessly targeted by Stalin in the early 1930s.
The war against the kulaks (successful people, a class known in Russia, as the bourgeoisie) actually started before “Uncle Joe” Stalin.
kulak, (Russian: “fist”), in Russian and Soviet history, a wealthy or prosperous peasant, generally characterized as one who owned a relatively large farm and several head of cattle and horses and who was financially capable of employing hired labour and leasing land. Before the Russian Revolution of 1917, the kulaks were major figures in the peasant villages. They often lent money, provided mortgages, and played central roles in the villages’ social and administrative affairs.
During the War Communism period (1918–21), the Soviet government undermined the kulaks’ position by organizing committees of poor peasants to administer the villages and to supervise the requisitioning of grain from the richer peasants. But the introduction in 1921 of the New Economic Policy favoured the kulaks. Although the Soviet government considered the kulaks to be capitalists and, therefore, enemies of socialism, it adopted various incentives to encourage peasants to increase agricultural production and enrich themselves. The most successful peasants (less than 4 percent) became kulaks and assumed traditional roles in the village social structure, often rivaling the authority of the new Soviet officials in village affairs.
In 1927 the Soviet government began to shift its peasant policy by increasing the kulaks’ taxes and restricting their right to lease land; in 1929 it began a drive for rapid collectivization of agriculture. The kulaks vigorously opposed the efforts to force the peasants to give up their small privately owned farms and join large cooperative agricultural establishments. At the end of 1929 a campaign to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” (“dekulakization”) was launched by the government. By 1934, when approximately 75 percent of the farms in the Soviet Union had been collectivized, most kulaks—as well as millions of other peasants who had opposed collectivization—had been deported to remote regions of the Soviet Union or arrested and their land and property confiscated.
The similarities between the Bolshevik Revolution and rise of Lenin’s Soviet Union and Obama’s Economic Policy are frightening, aren’t they?
The aim of Obama’s drive to increase taxes on “the wealthy”, is actually nothing but a plan, inadvertent or well-thought-out, to “radically change” OUR country and create a new cradle-to-grave nanny state, or Politboro, and to overtax America’s successful citizens (i.e., the Job Creators), thereby, creating a new Proletariat Class, totally dependent on the state for its very existence.
Elections have consequences.
Please allow me to leave you with some quotes from Vladimir Lenin. Their relevancy is amazing.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
Sometimes – history needs a push.The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
The goal of socialism is communism.
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie (kulaks) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Until He comes,