Thursday, May 14, 2009

A Tax on Both Your Houses

Smokers, drinkers to carry tax burden?

First, they came for the smokers, but I didn't smoke, so I didn't say anything. Then they came for the drinkers, but I don't drink, so I cheered them on. Next they came for the folks who like red meat and potato chips, but I figured I could use a diet anyways. Finally, they came for me....

One thing the Leftist thrives on is class warfare. They find it easy to point to an oil company that is making money, and raise the hue and cry that making profits is bad, and we should tax their "windfall", taking what is considered "excessive" profits. This said, however, just how much profit as a percentage of revenues are these companies making? According to this article from CNN Money:
But there's a problem with that theory. Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

So who else do you target? Well, what else is smelly and annoying to many people? Smokers of course! You can scream and yell about the health risks, and the extra cost. But while you're at it, why not tax folks that eat/drink unhealthy foods? Even better, why not make people take a body fat percentage once a month and tax them based on their percentage above the "norm"?

Heck, where do you stop?

No comments:

Current Quote

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." – Thomas Jefferson