One-Liner: Corporations won’t “Go Galt”

March 13, 2009 by William K. Wolfrum

While I find it endlessly amusing that those like Michelle Malkin are talking about “Going John Galt,” here’s one minor hiccup in their plan – corporations won’t. It’s not the only problem with their plan, but it’s a pretty big one. Don’t expect to see Coca-Cola knocking back production because they have to pay 4% more in easily avoidable taxes.

–WKW

Save

Filed Under One-Liners, Politics
Tagged:

Comments

6 Responses to “One-Liner: Corporations won’t “Go Galt””

dgun on March 13th, 2009 7:03 pm

The problem with going Galt is the math. Generally speaking, people of wealth prefer more money to less. Paying more taxes on greater income is going to be a net gain over paying less tax on less income.

And this idea that everyone responsible for creating jobs in this country is wealthy is nonsense.

According to the 1997 report of the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s 17 million small, non-farm businesses constituted 99.7 per cent of all employers, employed 52 percent of private workforce and accounted for 51 percent of the nation’s sales. Small business-dominated industries provided 11.1 million new jobs between 1994 and 1998, virtually all of the new jobs created during that time period. Small businesses are most likely to generate jobs for young workers, older workers and women, provide 67 percent of first jobs and produce 55 percent of innovations.

Source
hugh.c.mcbride on March 14th, 2009 12:41 pm

Sorry, dgun, you may fool yer librul friends with yer fancy book-learnin’ & yer arithmetical tricks, but I learned the real true truth the other day from Victoria “So Far Ahead of the Curve I ‘Went Galt’ By Disappearing from Public View 15 Years Ago” Jackson:

Working more = Earning more = Paying More Taxes = Communism = Godlessness = Cats & Dogs Living Together = Half-Breed Muslins Running Wild = Robot Sex = Congressmen Wearing Diapers with Prostitutes = Stalin’s Reanimated Corpse Rising From The Grave & Closing Guantanamo Bay

At least, that is, ’til Texas President Chucky Norris returns us to fiscal sanity via the flat tax, of course.
dgun on March 14th, 2009 8:34 pm

Care to elaborate on this “Robot Sex” you speak of, Mr. Hugh? Will this in any way involve sexy Halle Berry androids?

* Please say yes *
William K. Wolfrum on March 15th, 2009 4:48 am

Nothing produces sparks like robot sex.

thankyoo.thankyoooverymuch.
hugh.c.mcbride on March 15th, 2009 11:18 am

dgun: thanks so much for muddling through my whole comment, & for focusing on the obvious “money quote” — here’s where I got that particular politico-linguistic gem (from a March 7, 2009 post on BoingBoing):

At an anti-gay marriage rally Tuesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, David Gibbs III, the Christian fundamentalist lawyer who fought to keep brain-damaged Terry Schiavo on life support in 2005, publicly expressed his deep-seated fear of machine love. From the News & Observer:

(Gibbs) told rally participants gay marriage would “open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina.

“Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?” Gibbs asked. “Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots.”
dgun on March 16th, 2009 6:36 am

Wow. And I thought you were just dropping a reference to a Futurama episode.