So A Republican and a Democrat Walked Out of a Bar

“A Republican and a Democrat walked out of a bar after a drinking session and came across a homeless person begging outside the door. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican’s pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars.

Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats!”

I am always amazed at Kool-Aid drinking liberals when I get into a discussion with them. These liberals (Democrats), of course, love to paint conservatives (Republicans) as the heartless capitalists who are greedy, and are even stupid bible-thumpers who desperately “cling to their guns and religion” (oh, and a bunch of racists too). Of course in contrast to the vilified conservatives, the liberals project themselves as the compassionate socialists who are fair, intelligent and tolerant folks who are champions of social justice and social responsibility. It’s a classic good versus evil picture. But are the liberal projections and their conservative bashings true? Let’s assess some of the common lines of thinking these paragons of virtue peddle to the public.

Let’s start with “economic and social justice”. This is very popular with hyper liberals especially those identified with the Occupy movement. They love to simply account economic and social injustice to “greed”. The “evil one percenters”…. they are so greedy! They don’t need all that millions and billions that they have and if they can only share their fortune to the rest of the ninety nine percenters, no one will be suffering. The liberal hero, President Obama, summed up his take on the conservative ideals in his 2008 convention speech in Denver. He said that his then opponent, John McCain:

“…subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

In Washington, they call this the “Ownership Society,” but what it really means is that you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you’re on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You’re on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You are on your own.”

For President Obama, the promise of America is:

“…the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.”

Bravo! What a speech! Left-wing MSNBC political commentator Chris Matthews even felt a thrill going up his leg as Obama spoke. However while Obama makes such great speeches of generosity and responsibility towards our “brothers and sisters”, it’s funny that he doesn’t even help his brother, George Obama, who is living in Third World poverty. Heck, why couldn’t he have given his illegal immigrant Aunt Zeituni a hand-out from his own pocket? Instead, his Aunt Zeituni shamelessly and happily lived in taxpayer-subsidized housing. I suppose for Democrats like Obama, very much like the joke at the beginning of this article, their idea of supporting the “needy” is through welfare and using other people’s money. But never mind the hypocrisy. Let’s just grant (for now) that this “redistribution of wealth” mantra that the liberals are promoting equates to being “just” or “fair”.

In 2009, George Mason University student Alyssa Cordova asked her fellow students to support her petition for her school to redistribute grade point averages (GPA) to those who are not high academic achievers. The idea was that the top people in the University don’t need the extra grades so in the spirit of fairness and equality, the university should allocate the excess points of the top students to those who are failing. Alyssa reasoned that it’s not the fault of the people who have poor grades because they may be struggling and working just to get by. The response to Alyssa’s petition was awesome! Some students said:

“Why would you take points away from people who earned it? People who worked for their grades should be allowed to keep them!”

Now here’s Alyssa’s question – Why would it be okay to take from people who earn their money (through increased taxation) but not from people who earn their grades? See, this is the epic fail for the liberal dolts. Socialism, which they love to put on a pedestal, does not spell justice at all! Justice is seen from respecting property and freedom. Isn’t it interesting that liberals are all for “spreading the wealth” except when it’s their own?

Now speaking of taxes, here’s another one that liberals love to say. They claim that the rich do not pay their “fair share” of taxes. Really?!

In 2009, the top 1% earners shouldered 37% of all federal income taxes. As we can see from the data from the Internal Revenue Service, this shows that around 1.4 million people (who belong to the top 1% earners) a larger tax load than a combined 138 million people. If we look at the IRS data again, we see that the bottom 50% of total earners pay just about 2% of all federal income taxes. How on Earth are the rich not paying their “fair share” when in fact they are already paying most of the federal income taxes? The rich folks whom the liberals love to vilify create jobs. It is as if wealth creation is such a bad thing! But it is really mind-boggling how the liberal dolts seem to fail to see that when wealth is created, there are more benefits! The “rich” people invest, start businesses, and create jobs! But for liberals, for some reason this is all about “greed”. They love to shout “People before profits!” Yet it is because of profits that people are better off! Jobs are created… innovative products are produced… these are some of the fruits of capitalism. Instead of thanking the job creators and making the conditions conducive to businesses such as keeping the taxes low, the Democrats would rather penalize success by taxing the rich at punitive levels so that they can sustain their Big Government spending that encourages a sense of entitlement amongst the leeching and mooching liberal brats. The Democrats would rather have people hooked on government because they know that government programs spell more dependence and this is their tried and tested formula for ensuring that they keep the power. Of course the liberal Kool-Aid drinkers are more than happy to be the useful idiots.

Now, I’m sure a lot of you have heard more of the usual shouts of the left. However, there was one babble that caught me by surprise. Recently I had a debate with a liberal who supported her justification of increased taxation using Judeo-Christian values, again appealing to the spirit of being one’s “brother’s keeper”. I shared with her my objections to high taxes. I live in California which is one of the highest taxed States in America but I also still have to pay my taxes in Canada (yeah… talk about taxation without representation!). Now keep in mind that (socialist) Canada has significantly higher taxes than in America so I hope you understand why I seem to be so against increased taxation – it does hurt a lot! Anyway, I was told by this religious liberal that 28% (income tax in California) is not an absolute altruism so I was being painted as some selfish person who does not have any compassion towards the needy. Well, first of all I wish I only pay 28% in taxes but my case is around 40% (again, it is because I have to pay Canadian taxes too). I wish I were a Warren Buffet or a Bill Gates but I’m just a regular schmoe getting taxed close to half of what I earn. But even if I am only taxed at 28%, why should I necessarily find that rate acceptable or just? Everyone has different situations in life and if this liberal dolt thinks that 28% is good or reasonable enough why is everyone else mandated to adopt her value judgment? If liberals feel that it is perfectly reasonable to pay more taxes to support the needy then no one is stopping them from paying more taxes out of their own accord! Why should my own take on how much I should give to help the needy be dictated by other people’s values? Oh but no… get this… it apparently is “Unchristian” to be such a cheap-o. It’s funny, not only am I surprised to encounter a religious liberal (as most liberals I know have atheist or anti-theist inclinations), I am amazed how she seems to live her passion on this “spreading the wealth” issue out of the teachings of Judeo-Christianity. In I Samuel 8:7-17, it says:

The LORD answered Samuel, “Comply with the people’s request—everything they ask of you—because they haven’t rejected you. No, they’ve rejected me as king over them. They are doing to you only what they’ve been doing to met from the day I brought them out of Egypt to this very minute, abandoning me and worshipping other gods.

“So comply with their request, but give them a clear warning, telling them how the king will rule over them and operate.” Then Samuel explained everything the LORD had said to the people who were asking for a king.

“This is how the king will rule over you and operate,” Samuel said:

“He will take your sons, and will use them for his chariots and his cavalry and as runners for his chariot. He will use them as his commanders of troops of one thousand and troops of fifty, or to do his plowing and his harvesting, or to make his weapons or parts for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, or bakers. He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves and give them to his servants. He will give one-tenth of your grain and your vineyards to his officials and servants. He will take your male and female servants, along with the best of your cattle and donkeys, and make them do his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and then you yourselves will become his slaves!

Samuel warned the people of Israel how they will be treated by the king they are seeking to rule over them instead of God. The king would be taking 10% through taxation and this amount is equal to God’s tax requirement. The 10% tax by kings have been used as a measuring stick to determine whether one lives under tyranny. The idea is that man should not equal or exceed God’s tax requirements. So for this religious liberal I was discussing with, 28% taxation (or perhaps even more) conforms to Judeo-Christian teachings? Gee, since when did Obama become more authoritative than God for Judeo-Christians?

So it seems to me that for liberals, despite how highly they think of themselves, it is more about control. They seem to have this feeling of manifest destiny to regulate and ration everyone’s earnings because they think they are holier than thou! Oh good lord!

print

29 Comments on “So A Republican and a Democrat Walked Out of a Bar”

  1. As an American I thank you for this article. Bravo!!!!! And to numbnuts Fishball, well what can I say that has not already been said about him. As Fishball is a mindless liberal I hope he takes the Democrats advice and always uses birth control. He surely does not need to contaminate the Gene Pool. Too bad his Mommy didn’t use birth control.

        1. Hi Daido Katsumi! You are correct. The Democrats seem to be giving too much credit to Obama when in fact the success had a lot to do with Dubya’s anti-terrorist policies and efforts. Thanks for reading!

        1. Yeah…. fishball’s idol, Noynoy Aquino, is basically an Obama copycat (he also played the “Hope and Change” mantra). It is no wonder why fishball likes Obama too. Obama and Noynoy are basically the same Kool-Aid flavors. 🙂 Thanks for reading, Gogs!

  2. “Isn’t it interesting that liberals are all for “spreading the wealth” except when it’s their own?”

    I know this to be true. Conservatives have always been the most consistently generous folk.

    Finally, a demystifying look at Democrats today and the success-hating values they espouse.

    1. Thanks, sitting pretty! Yes, I read that somewhere too that statistically speaking, conservatives are more generous than liberals in general. There is this interesting article that compares the amount of charity given by Republican Mitt Romney vs. democratic stalwarts like the Obamas, and the Bidens. Romney gave 19.14% of his income to charity last year whereas Obama gave less than 1% of his (and his wife’s) income to charity last year. VP Biden and his wife Jill, gave an average of 0.3% of theirs from 2000-2010 and they upped their “generosity” to 1.4% of their income last year. So much for “spread the wealth”, huh? 🙂 hahaha Thanks for reading! (By the way, here’s the article on that… http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012712-599290-democrats-like-giving-money-from-others.htm )

  3. “Redistribute grade point averages (GPA) to those who are not high academic achievers” – Am I the only who thinks that this idea has the stink of Socialism? Also am I the only who thinks that this wretched proposal discourages initiative and dampens motivation on part of the students? Most people nowadays always want something for nothing…..

      1. Same also goes for welfare, while I approve of helping the less-fortunate the problem is that we make too dependent on handouts and the result is that their initiative to work to improve their life is basically nil.

        1. Hi Lord Chimera. There is this interesting investigative report by John Stossel that exposes how govt handouts and subsidies (including welfare) has been abused and has show how dependency on government retards progress. Mind you, though, that the report (in the later part) also shows how the rich abuses the system as well. Anyway, an interesting suggestion was to contribute to charity instead of through taxation so that the money will go to the real needy. Anyway, here’s the video… http://youtu.be/0OQjlzh279E

    1. That’s good, Hyden! The way I see it… it’s better to have an independent mind. Sometimes, I think political ideologies may fit better according to the prevailing conditions. There are times in America when Democratic principles are ideal but there are times when Republican ideals make sensible sense. Thanks for reading!

  4. I come back to GRP after a while and I find this. Ohhhhh boy, here we go.

    Before we begin, let me explain my situation.

    I am an American of Filipino descent living in Seattle. I am on welfare, making me quote-dependent-unquote. Your typical 99%er (our infamous “anarchists” label themselves as 0%ers. Seriously).

    Assuming you have not already formulated an opinion about the situation from the last three-ish sentences, let me continue to explain why I am actually “liberal.”

    Jobs (and therefore profits) are created not just when economic conditions are right (e.g. free market), but when there is an attractive enough infrastructure in place to accomodate them. Gordon’s Subic Bay had an attractive infrastructure, but not the right economic conditions.

    Conversely, America has the right economic conditions, but the infrastructure is literally crumbling under our feet. How does an investor expect to build factories when the trucks can barely navigate our crumbling roads? For all its “government control,” China isn’t just attractive because their workers work for a lot less.

    People call the “stimulus” one big handout. But where do people spend their handouts? Where do people buy stuff with their handouts? At businesses. And businesses profit from that. When they profit, more jobs are created.

    Hell, I work as a grocery store cashier. When people spend their “welfare” here, who gets the money? The grocery store! And that turns into the grocery store’s profit, which helps make jobs.

    Just ask Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist who helped start up our very own Amazon.com.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc

    Oh, but what about Obamacare and other social services that these biiiig baaad unions support? Yes, I do support universal healthcare. And it’s because an ounce of prevention, etc. When people can afford their prevention, that leaves more resources available for the people that need the cure. And when people stay well, they can work. When they work, profit is made, resulting in more jobs. This shouldn’t even have to be an employee benefit. When you tighten your belt just that much, you risk sacrificing a lot later on.

    And this especially goes for education too. Our public schools are failing, there’s no disagreeing on that. But rather than rebuild the education system that helped supply our still-top-notch universities, the Republicans propose Charter schools, some of which – and I’m not making this up – force women to take pregnancy tests.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/delhi-charter-school-in-l_n_1752756.html

    I could go on about how the Republican agenda toward women is blindingly similar to the Philippines’ anti-RH agenda, but that’s for another rant. All I will say is that I am pro-small-government in this case. If the people don’t want government intervening in their lives, then that should thus include the lives of the unborn, shouldn’t it?

    But back to the economy.

    You can point at Spain and Greece all you want, but you know what happened to Iceland? That country that was pretty much going bankrupt due to British finance? Well, they’re actually recovering quite nicely thanks to “excessive government control.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577396171007652042.html

    That rescue, in turn, weighed on the financial system. But unlike Ireland, for example, Iceland let its banks fail and made foreign creditors, not Icelandic taxpayers, largely responsible for covering losses.

    Iceland also imposed draconian capital controls—anathema to the European Union doctrine of open financial borders—that have warded off the terrifying capital and credit flights that hit Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and now test Spain and Italy.

    And instead of rushing into the sort of spending cuts that have ravaged Greece and Spain, Iceland delayed austerity. Initially, the country even increased social-welfare payments to its poorest citizens, whose continued spending helped cushion the economy.

    Finally, if you want evidence as to how this “government control” really helped America prosper, look at World War II up to the 50s and 60s. One big honking government stimulus with private industry (despite tax rates that are BLINDING compared to today’s), building all our highways that providing the industrial boost that was all topped with the cherry of a man on the moon. Not even all Romney’s generosity is a drop in the bucket when you count the effort involved.

    You could not have the Internet without ARPANET and Euro-government-funded CERN. You could not have today’s private space program without NASA inspiring it.

    I am a first-generation immigrant and I believe in the American Dream. I am working as hard as I fucking can and look forward to the day I get off this goddamned EBT card and be able to support my family. But it is not a surefire path, because you factor the other 325 million Americans in 50 states (and assorted territories) in different levels of power.

    Do not “cherry-pick” these forcible egalitarians. They may be misguided, but no more than those that say further burden on, shall I call it, the “spendy” classes will actually cause them to spend more on the economy, not just their bills.

    Yes, individually we can achieve. But we can’t get there without someone inspiring us, someone guiding us, someone helping us. America led because We The People worked to it.

    Each and every last one of us.

    1. Hi Frank! Are you the same Frank Augustine Manuel of the Filipino Freethinkers? Thanks for dropping by at GRP again! Your response was rather long so I’d like to just address the key points and avoid the cute sarcastic banter.

      On infrastructure, I do not know which part of Seattle you live in but I have lived in Seattle for 2 years as well (around the Bothell-Everett area) and I still frequently visit Seattle in my trips to my home in Vancouver (BC). I think you may be exaggerating about that “crumbling” bit. It’s not like the infrastructure in the Philippines where your description is probably more applicable. But in America? Come on! It’s not THAT bad. 🙂 hehehe The thing is, businesses are leaving America not really because of the “poor” infrastructure but for reasons such as proximity to customers and suppliers and faster growing markets abroad, lower wages in other countries, lower tax rates in other countries (or even simpler tax codes), better access to skilled labor, and less regulatory restrictions. This article, http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2012/03/06/why-companies-are-leaving-the-united-states-and-how-to-get-them-back/ , will give you an illuminating idea of the reasons. Infrastructure problem is not a big issue why companies are leaving.

      Now on the stimulus (and dole-outs). What you described basically explains Keynesian economics. The idea is that with the dole-out and having extra money given to people, folks will go out and buy consumer goods and services and this in turn will stimulate the economy. Businesses, likewise, who receive bailouts from the government, as the Keynesian idea would state, will use the cash handout to expand their businesses. But this idea, in the real world, did not work. The people who received the money either paid their debts or saved the money. The reason is simple. Not all the people are stupid enough to splurge away the free cash because they know times are tough and that because the free money won’t be coming in forever. In 2008 when the economy collapsed, the personal saving rate in the last quarter of 2008 was the highest in six years and spending on residential construction was down 22 percent over the past year. And the savings rate rose from 2.8 percent in November 2008 to 3.6 percent in December as the storm clouds grew grayer. This article will explain to you more why the Keynisian idea you (and Obama) subscribe to doesn’t work and why it didn’t work. (http://www.dickmorris.com/keynesian-fallacy/ )

      With regards to ObamaCare (Affordable Care Act or ACA), well no one is questioning the value of good health, Frank. The issue is how the ACA was designed! See, the ACA requires businesses with 50 or more full-time workers to pay for their workers’ insurance or else they will face fines. So in essence the ACA is designed to discourage job creation because it increases the cost of business. Now because the ACA has a cut-off number of 50, for a small business it would have a discouraging effect of expansion. Why not just keep the staff up to 49 so that you won’t have to pay for the insurance? By the way, I work for a $6 Billion a year revenue company and last month our company slashed 300 people in one division alone (we have around 19 divisions for different types of market products) because of cost cutting measure largely in preparation for the cost increase coming because of ObamaCare. If big companies such as ours are cutting cost (by laying off people) because of ObamaCare, what do you think the smaller businesses will be doing? Here’s another big issue with the law. ObamaCare does not apply to illegal immigrants and this means that illegal immigrants are not mandated to buy insurance (as per the individual mandate of the law) and they are not to be penalized if they do not buy health insurance. The problem is that under Federal laws, hospitals are forbidden to refuse to admit and treat people (including illegals) for emergency health needs. So illegal immigrants will still get health care without having to pay for it and the citizens (and legal immigrants) are the ones to foot the bill for the illegals.

      Now I’m sure you’ve read before that 46 million people in America don’t have healthcare insurance. That’s a huge number indeed. It suggests that roughly 1 out of 6 Americans do not have access to healthcare. I know… shockingly immoral, eh? (http://www.philly.com/philly/health/HealthDay665899_20120619_More_Than_46_Million_Americans_Uninsured_in_2011__Report.html ) However, according to the Congressional Budget Office statistics, out of the 46 million:

      – 9 million of the uninsured are NOT American citizens
      – 12 million are Americans and are eligible for government assistance but they choose not to avail of the government assistance (for their own reasons)
      – 17 million of the uninsured folks have household incomes of above $50K. (See not all uninsured are the poor needy saps.)
      So we started off with 46 million, then we take away 9 million of the foreign nationals and illegals, then deduct 12 million legals who are eligible for the assistance but chose not to avail of it. Then on top of that subtract the 17 million folks making more than $50K who choose not to buy insurance. So in reality, we really just have around 8 million Americans without coverage because they are too poor to purchase insurance but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. These are the folks who fall through the cracks. But instead of focusing on those citizens and legal immigrants who fall through the cracks, ObamaCare puts the burden on the taxpayers for the entire 46 million instead of just the 8.

      So it’s really not about conservatives not putting value on health, per se. It is really about the injustice Obama’s ACA entails! I certainly don’t want to pay for the healthcare of someone I don’t know who chose to enter the country illegally or chose for him/herself not to buy health insurance.

      As for education, yes the US quality of public education is falling and there are lots of reasons for it. One of the reasons is that the current system does not foster a culture of competency and accountability on the educators. Under the teachers’ unions, incompetent teachers are coddled because they do not go through stringent assessments. Look at the Chicago strike right now. One of the demands of the public school teachers there on top of the pay raise they want (by the way, they already make an average of $71K a year), is that they refuse to be subjected to evaluation from standardized test scores. They also do not like how they are assessed through school rankings. So how can the teachers’ performance be assessed, then? Another reason for the failure is that because the public school system is a government monopoly. In monopolies, there aren’t much incentive to compete. The idea of “charter schools” or even the “voucher system” in education that the GOP is proposing is designed to promote competition and reward success. Government can still fund education but the idea is for the government to fund the competent schools and educators. Anyway, Deborah Kenny explains the benefits of “charter schools” and John Stossel gave a very interesting investigative report on the deteriorating conditions of the public school system and a look at how to effectively improve the system (which a lot of the GOP folks support). Here are the articles… http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303703004577472422188140892.html and http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

      With regards to Iceland “capital controls”, well I think it pays to look at facts other than Krugman, Frank. As the Center for Geo Economic Studies show and argue, Iceland’s success was based on massive devaluation of its currency (improving its country’s trade competitiveness). http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2010/07/12/iceland/ . In fact, they argue the magnitude of economic miracle that Krugman tells of Iceland is an illusion. http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2012/07/02/postcrisis/ .

      With regards to the successes in the 50s or after WW2, these were made possible not because of mainly government stimulus but because of the effects of the reconversion. During WW2, businesses were conscripted by the government to produce products that would support the war effort. But after the war, businesses converted back to producing civilian goods. The huge government budget deficit from the war years and the depression years disappeared resulting in the huge positive turn-around in the federal budget. Here’s a good article explaining the 1950s and 1960s phenomenon and why we cannot go back to the sky high taxes of the glorious 50s in our current time. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/

      With regards to government funding of stuff like ARPANET and NASA, well no one in the GOP is proposing to totally cut government funding for R&D. The problem is how they choose to spend money on the most feasible R&D and how they are getting into the business of picking winners and losers. As this HuffPo article argues, when government starts to place a bet on companies (e.g. Solyndra) this attracts corruption. Both Republicans and the Democrats have records of giving government funding to their friends (or cronies) and it isn’t mainly because of a very promising and feasible product but because of crony-capitalism and influence of special interest groups.

      I’m sorry to hear that you are on welfare, Frank. I can only sympathize with the ordeal you must be going through. I have been unemployed too in the past (I was a victim of a massive layoffs in 2004) but I guess I was lucky to have landed another job quickly. I’ll tell you what… why don’t you send me a private message and perhaps I can hook you up with my contacts in the Seattle area for a job, especially if you are in the Biotech/Life Sciences industry. If you are open to moving here to California, perhaps I can help too as I have built a good network of friends in the industry here as well. In fact I can hook you up with a few recruiters as many of them are still trying to entice me to consider the job opportunities their clients are offering.

      Anyway, it’s not about “cherry-picking” for the sake of denigrating the “needy”. My objection is really against the whole idea of socialism and other shades of collectivism. I used to be more liberal especially when I was still in Canada. But after some time I realized the flaws of the system and its principles. The way I see it, if you are in your productive years and if you have ambitions in life then socialism isn’t the best and most rewarding condition for you. But if you are a retiree or if you are content with having just the basic needs to survive then socialism may work and you may find it perfectly just.

      No one is denying that roads, bridges and other infrastructures were made possible by the contributions of everyone in one form or another. But as Romney said, “If you get the honor roll, I’ll congratulate you, not the bus driver who got you to school”.

      Thanks for reading and do PM me so I can see if I can help you out with a job. Regards!

  5. I take your neoliberal argments with grains of salt. Particularly when privatized education even in “charter schools” are not exactly the best way to move forward. See: finnish example on education

  6. The differences between the two political group are superficial, e.g., issues concerning gender, immigration, religion, etc. Essentially, both are sides of the same coin which relies heavily on the military to prop up the petro-dollar and on an economy based primarily on consumer spending and heavy borrowing.

  7. I don’t really know that much about taxation in the US or other countries, so forgive me if my comment doesn’t directly relate to your post. Rather, let me tell you how it is in the Philippines as far as taxes are concerned.

    As Filipino who earns wages, a large part of my income goes to taxes even before I lay my hads on it — even after all the tax deductions (married, two dependents, etc).

    My gross pay is 50,000 Philippine pesos and I have about 10,000 pesos a month in taxes!

    My take home pay, after other mandatory deductions (Pag-Ibig Fund, SSS, and Philhealth — all useless to me), is 38,000 Philippine pesos.

    My husband’s wages are slightly higher, at 60,000 pesos a month and he pays around 13,000 pesos a month in income tax. His take home pay after all mandatory deductions is 45,000 Philippine pesos a month.

    But even with out combined incomes, we’re still barely making ends meet.

    Some of our relatives who earn far less than we do chide us, saying that if we just chose to live in either my parents’ compound or my husbands’ parents’ compound, we wouldn’t have needed to take out a home loan and amortize it at around 29,000 a month. (Our total home loan is around 1.9 Million)

    They also tell us to enroll our children at a less expensive school (both our kids go to Ateneo Grade school).

    Our other large expenses include amortization for a car as well as a number of insurance policies.

    At the end of every month, we hardly have anything left.

    Sure, we could save so much money if we didn’t pay for all these things, but, My God! My husband and I didn’t go to college as well as take up multiple masters degrees just to live with our parents, have our kids study at some so-so school, commute to work using public transport, etcetera. We don’t work so hard just to live like paupers.

    If only we didn’t have to pay so much in taxes, perhaps we could have money to invest in a small business like a catering service or event organizing — enabling us to earn more as well as generate employment.

    Anyway, it sickens us… really sickens us to think that corporations here in the Philippines actually get away with tax evasion.

    Publicly available records of Cosmetique Asia (makers of Silka Papaya skin whitening soap) actually show that they’ve been rigging their Net Income and Cost of Sales. The effect is that out of almost a billion pesos in sales, they only paid 15 million pesos in taxes!

    http://silka-papaya-tax-evader.blogspot.com/2012/12/product-sales-monitoring-firm-says.html

    Clearly, while salaried employees are paying 20 percent or more in taxes, greedy corporations like Cosmetic Asia are paying just 15%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.