Someone once said that about 87.4 percent of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.
I suspect that figure is very close to the percentage of people who believe those statistics to be drop-dead accurate as soon as they hear them. So, let’s all sit down with a cup of coffee and bust some of those numbers wide open.
First: Thursday, the Census Bureau announced that one in seven Americans are now living in poverty. We’re told this is the highest number in a half-century. Nonsense. First of all, the average American described as “living in poverty” by our government has a standard of living better than that of the average European.
Not the average poor European — the average European. How can this be? It all goes back to the definition. When President Lyndon Johnson was looking to expand our government welfare programs, he instructed that a definition of “living in poverty” be established that would best promote the expansion of government.
The solution? Measure one factor: income. Nothing more.
This means that you can have $1 million in a checking account, own three million-dollar homes free and clear, and drive your Rolls Royce to your private hangar at the airport to board your private jet for a quick trip to Paris and still be officially defined as living in poverty. Why? No income. You’re just living off your assets. You’re poor.
This, then, is why we’re seeing an increase in the poverty figures. If you’re out of work you have no income. Snap! You’re living in poverty. It doesn’t matter what your net worth actually is. You’re one of the poor, poor, pitiful poor.
Now, let’s talk taxes. That seems to be the topic of the week, since The Community Organizer is absolutely insistent on raising income taxes on America’s jobs providers: our men and women who own small businesses. Do you remember Warren Buffett talking about how terribly unfair it is that his income is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary? How can this not arouse a sense of absolute outrage in the people? This guy is one of the richest people in the world, and his secretary’s income is taxed at a higher rate than his? The comment actually came at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2007. “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies for that matter.”
There’s a numbers con here. Can you spot it? Well, don’t feel alone. The vast majority of the media class couldn’t find it either; or if they did, they decided you had no need to know. I’m going to spill the beans here and then seek the shelter of a witness protection program. It’s this simple:
● Buffett’s receptionist pays income taxes.
● Warren Buffett pays capital gains taxes.
See how easy this is? All you really have to do is think a bit ... but sadly that’s a skill not taught all that well in our government schools. Buffett is an investor. He doesn’t pay income taxes on his investment returns; he pays capital gains taxes at the current 15 percent rate. Give Barack Obama his way and it will rise to 20 percent. Now we assume that Warren is paying his receptionist fairly well, so at a minimum her tax rate — her income tax rate — is around 25 percent. What is Buffett proposing? Does he want us to tax all investment income as earned income? Yeah, that would really boost our economy. No, his goal was to obfuscate and confuse the issue so that he could be a good Democrat soldier pushing the cause of higher taxes on the high achievers.
Lesson: If you want to know when a politician is lying, look for numbers to come out of his mouth, and then place your bets. You’ll have the money you need to escape to Costa Rica in no time.
Listen to Neal Boortz live from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. weekdays on AM 750 and now 95.5FM News/Talk WSB.
His column appears every Saturday. For more Boortz, go to boortz.com
About the Author
Featured
