Category Archives: taxes

Fwd: Denmark-cost of Social liberalism & Islam

Salute the Danish Flag – It’s a Symbol of Western Freedom

 By Susan MacAllen

 

In 1978-1979, I was living and studying in  Denmark ..
But in 1978 – even in  Copenhagen , one didn’t see Muslim immigrants.

The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism, one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 – a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of  Europe  saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arr ival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious.

Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of  Denmark ‘s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam a s incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The  New York  Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in  Denmark  would explode In the article they reported:

‘Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.’ ‘Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

”Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population.

A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.’ ‘Forced marriag es – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem’

‘Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark ‘s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of  Denmark  in 40 years will be Muslim.’

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws.

An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the  US  : some Muslims in  Denmark  who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while20others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark , a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to  Sweden  – before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001,  Denmark  elected the most conservative government in some 70 years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered Immigration. Today  Denmark  has the strictest immigration policies in  Europe  . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of ‘racism’ by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes.. You must pass a test on  Denmark ‘s history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in  Denmark  for 7 years before applying for citizenship.. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into  Denmark  , you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy any more to move your friends and family to  Denmark  with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in  Copenhagen  . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in  Denmark  , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t..

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly o f the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. ‘We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,’ he said..
 

A large thorn in the side of  Denmark  ‘s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, ‘The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,’ Hvilshøj says, ‘There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.’ And on Musl im immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, ‘In my view,  Denmark  should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.’

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen , stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.&n bsp;

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether  Denmark  survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims and illegal Hispanics amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history. We would do well to look to  Denmark , and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

McCain v. Obama: Partisan differences on economy (CNNMoney.com)

Saturday June 7, 8:47 am ET
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer

 

Barack Obama’s emergence as the presumptive Democratic nominee on Tuesday sets the stage for a sharp partisan debate over the issue weighing most heavily on voters: the economy.Over the past several months, as concern grew about the nation’s struggling economy, few major differences surfaced between the proposals of Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.But that’s not the case between Obama and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. The two senators part company on taxes, health care, entitlement benefits and other key economic issues that the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will need to tackle.

At the root of their differences: their views on tax policy and the roles of government and the markets in achieving economic and social goals.

Changing taxes

In the name of economic growth, McCain says he would keep the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 in place and reduce the corporate tax rate.

He has also said that he’d eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and would introduce an alternative two-rate income tax code that would be simpler than the regular one. Taxpayers, he said, could choose which code to use.

Tax expert and Yale professor Michael Graetz doubts it will be simpler for taxpayers to have to figure out their tax liability twice to see which code they prefer to file under. “But if the option is sufficiently appealing, you can phase out the old system,” he said.

Obama has pledged to keep the tax cuts in place for everyone except those making roughly $250,000 and up. He also has pledged to cut taxes further for the middle class.

“The tax code has been written on behalf of the well-connected,” he said in April during a debate in Philadelphia. “Our trade laws have – the same thing has happened. And part of how we’re going to be able to deliver on middle-class tax relief is to change how business is done in Washington.”

“He seems more focused on redistribution of the tax burden,” Graetz said.

Obama has also indicated he would raise the capital gains tax to somewhere between 20% and 28%. Graetz doesn’t think he’d raise it much above 20%. “The truth is you can’t go above 25% without losing a lot of money. People won’t sell,” he said.

Fixing Social Security

When it comes to shoring up Social Security’s long-term shortfall, McCain has said he’d prefer to cut benefits than raise taxes, but he recognizes there will need to be bipartisan consensus.

McCain has expressed support for individual investment accounts as a way to augment Social Security benefits. But his campaign has indicated he no longer favors diverting payroll taxes from Social Security to fund those accounts.

Obama has said he opposes individual accounts and doesn’t favor increasing the retirement age or cutting benefits. But he has called for increasing the amount of payroll tax that very high-income workers pay by subjecting more of their income to the payroll tax.

What he hasn’t clarified yet is whether or not their Social Security benefits would also go up as a result of paying more into the system.

Curing health care

When it comes to reforming health care, McCain would rely more on individual efforts and market forces to drive down costs. Obama would rely more on government and establish health insurance mandates for companies and individuals to make coverage more affordable.

McCain’s plan would not require anyone to have insurance, but he would change the tax incentives for getting it.

Currently, most people get their insurance through their employer. Companies pay 70% to 85% of the premiums, and workers don’t have to pay income tax on that subsidy. Under McCain’s plan, workers would pay income tax on that subsidy but would also receive a tax credit (a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their tax bills) worth $5,000 for family coverage and $2,500 for single coverage.

The rationale: Under the current system, people have no incentive to be cost-conscious about their health care, and a limited tax break will give all parties – workers, insurers and doctors – a reason to keep costs down. Converting the tax-free income subsidy to a tax credit also allows those who buy insurance on their own to get a tax break. Currently, they get none.

McCain would also let individuals buy insurance plans across state lines to further boost competition in pricing.

For the uninsured, he would create a state-level Guaranteed Access Plan that could receive federal funds and provide subsidies to low-income Americans.

Obama would make coverage mandatory for children, and he would create a National Health Insurance Exchange of public and private plans for the uninsured, for those who aren’t eligible for other public programs and for small businesses. All plans would have to meet standards in terms of benefits, quality and efficiency.

Obama would keep the tax-free subsidy for those covered at work. But he would also create a federal subsidy – based on income – for people who don’t qualify for government plans such as Medicaid.

Obama would require all employers to offer a plan or contribute money to employee’s health costs. Companies that do neither would be required to contribute a percentage of payroll to the health exchange.

(Here’s a more in-depth look at how their health care plans differ and what critics of both candidates’ proposals say.)

Helping homeowners

It’s not clear what role the next president will have in shaping the government’s response to the foreclosure crisis, because it’s unclear what the housing situation will be and what Congress will have accomplished by Jan. 20, 2009.

Each candidate, however, has expressed views on what lawmakers and lenders should do.

Although initially opposed to additional government aid in the mortgage mess, McCain has joined Obama in supporting the idea of the Federal Housing Administration backing loans that lenders have written down to affordable levels for borrowers.

But the plans they support differ somewhat.

Obama backs a proposal from House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would require borrowers to share equity with the FHA when they sell or refinance their home. (Here’s how the plan would work.)

McCain has proposed the “HOME Plan,” which blends elements of the Frank/Dodd plan with proposals from the Bush administration and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Under McCain’s proposal, if a borrower sells his with a gain, the lender and the federal government each would receive a portion of the equity.

Beyond more help from the FHA, Obama has called for a $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund to help victims of mortgage fraud sell their homes or modify their loans so they can avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy.

McCain has called for the creation of a Department of Justice task force to investigate mortgage crimes involving lending and securitizing home loans.

Getting a grip on energy

As gas prices climbed toward $4 a gallon this spring, McCain supported a summertime gas tax holiday, which he proposed paying for by using money from the Highway Trust fund.

Obama opposed such a tax break, contending it would not amount to significant savings for drivers nor help lower gas prices.

To combat the rising price of oil, McCain has also called on the government to temporarily suspend buying oil for the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Both candidates are calling for less reliance on oil as a fuel staple and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Obama and McCain support some form of a cap-and-trade system, whereby companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide in a market-based auction.

Obama has also proposed investing $150 billion over 10 years to promote alternative energy and conservation.

(Here’s a closer look at McCain’s and Obama’s energy proposals.)

Keeping spending in check

When it comes to addressing the federal budget deficit, McCain’s preferred solution is cutting government spending. He has called for a one-year freeze on discretionary spending to assess which programs should stay and which should go. He has also said he would demand that Congress eliminate earmarks.

Obama too has said he wants to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks to levels no greater than they were in 2001 and reinstating so-called pay-go rules. Under pay-go, lawmakers may not pass any spending measures or tax cuts with paying for them by making cuts to other programs or raise an equal amount of money.

Despite the candidates’ promises, experts are skeptical that either candidates’ economic proposals when taken as a whole could be fiscally sound.

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Records: Al Sharpton owes millions in back taxes (CNN.com)

  • Story Highlights
  • Al Sharpton, business entities owe millions of dollars in overdue taxes, AP reports
  • Sharpton’s lawyer, nonprofit group dispute size of debt
  • Sharpton says U.S. government is trying to intimidate him

NEW YORK (AP) — Big corporations give him money. Presidential candidates seek his endorsement. He has influential friends in Congress and the governor’s mansion.

tawana brawley

The Rev. Al Sharpton has emerged over the past decade as perhaps the nation’s most prominent civil rights leader, a status that was demonstrated again this week when he led protests against police brutality that briefly shut down six of Manhattan’s major bridges and tunnels.

But he still carries baggage from his early days as a fire-breathing agitator: Government records obtained by The Associated Press indicate that Sharpton and his business entities owe nearly $1.5 million in overdue taxes and associated penalties.

Now the U.S. attorney is investigating his nonprofit group, an inquiry that an undeterred Sharpton brushes off as the kind of annoyance that civil rights figures have come to expect from the government…

 

Al Sharpton Tax Evasion (CNN)

Vote John McCain – And Donate Now!

My Friends,
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular – the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their will through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who will clearly and completely adhere to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
I am proud to have played a role in the appointment and confirmation of two great Supreme Court justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito I need your support now so that as your president I can nominate judges like Justices Roberts and Alito. Judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust. Judges who take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives. Judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
My friends, the future of our country and of the Supreme Court is at stake in this election. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected – both voted against confirming Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito – they will appoint activist judges. They will appoint judges who legislate from the bench.
I’m sure I don’t have to remind you how important even one vote on the Supreme Court can be. Issues concerning states’ rights, abortion, affirmative action, the Second Amendment and religious freedom have all been decided by a very slim 5-4 margin.
America needs a leader who recognizes that the people and the states should decide what’s best, not the courts. In order to be that leader, I need your financial support immediately.
Please follow this link to make an immediate donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 – any amount up to the legal limit of $4,600.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
John McCain
P.S. To date, my Democrat opponents have raised almost $450 million in their efforts to win the White House. Both Senators Clinton and Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both Senators Clinton and Obama will nominate liberal, activist judges. As your president, I will ensure that the Supreme Court protects our values. Please follow this link right away to make your donation of any amount, up to the legal limit of $4,600. Every contribution, no matter how big or small, is crucial to our efforts. Thank you.

Wesley Snipes Sentenced to 36 Months-Long Prison Term By FL Judge (WSJ Lawblog)

This just in: Actor Wesley Snipes was sentenced earlier today to 36 months in prison by a Florida judge. Snipes was convicted in February on three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file tax returns, though he was acquitted on two larger felony counts. Here’s an account from the Orlando Sentinel. Click here, here and here for earlier posts on the Passenger 57 star and his tax troubles.
According to the Sentinel, defense lawyers reportedly submitted 39 pages of testimonials on behalf of the movie star — a list that included not only show-business figures but also high-school friends, acquaintances and employees, including his tailor and driver.
Defense lawyers had urged Snipes receive probation. Federal prosecutors had asked for three years.

 

See post and comments

McCain’s Tax Forms Available (Townhall.com blogs)

Friday, April 18, 2008
McCain’s Tax Forms Available
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 12:13 PM
You can take a looksee here.

Here’s the basics:

-McCain earned more than $760,000 in 2006 and 2007 combined—$45,000 of that comes from Social Security.
-He paid $157,000 in taxes
-He donated about $340,000 to charity.

His millionaire heiress wife’s forms are not included because the McCains file separate returns. It’s speculated Cindy McCain is worth $100 million.