Marco Rubio introduces bill to eliminate tax on Olympic medals and honoraria

Apparently, the federal government feels that U.S. Olympic champions “didn’t do it by themselves”, and as such, has decided that the government is entitled to 35% of their honoraria and the value of the metal in the winning medals.  The Washington Times reported that Marco Rubio has introduced legislation to right that indignity.

“We can all agree that these Olympians who dedicate their lives to athletic excellence should not be punished when they achieve it,” Rubio said.

But when you think about it, our Olympic athletes really did do it by themselves.   These athletes get no financial support from the government at any level, instead, to fund their training, they have to get part time jobs, fundraisers, the odd stipend from the USOC, endorsements from sports related companies, and the prizes from the USOC if they win a medal.  Other countries directly support their athletes, such as China, or indirectly, through lottery money in countries such as Great Britain and South Africa.  But the U.S.?  Nada.  Zip.  It should be noted that the International Olympic Committee has restrictive bans on “unofficial” sponsors, i.e. those that have not paid tribute to the IOC, including many that are the sole support for many of our athletes.  I wonder if the Chinese will be forced to take the name CHINA off their competition uniforms, since they are the sole sponsors of their athletes?

Now the other side of the coin is that we can produce such outstanding athletes without the aid of the government, but it does put them at a decided disadvantage compared to most other countries.

It is unimaginable that the IRS taxes the meager winnings of these athletes, particularly given that they are representatives of the country in what is arguably one of the most spectacular international competitions in the world.  The U.S. benefits in prestige and bolsters patriotism in the process, and these athletes ask nothing of the country.  Apparently, the feeling isn’t mutual.

Rubio’s bill should pass the Congress unanimously.  The government will have plenty of opportunities to tax any future income from endorsements and other employment.

Is it really too much to ask?


Obama’s vision for the next 4 years: tax and spend tax and spend

As a conservatarian and I find this chunk of video from Barack Obama’s campaign in Ohio yesterday simply chilling. You’ll just have to decide for yourself. Read more

State of Connecticut Not Better after Tax Hikes

I am amazed that the lights are still on here in the great state of Connecticut.  What even amazes me more is that this state after the largest tax increase in history by the Malloy Administration has still resulted in a deficit. Read more

The federal government should tax medical care

That’s the recommendation from the Institute of Medicine, an “influential federal advisory body” that “played a key role” in Obamacare.  According to the Institute, the money raised from this tax would be used to fund public health services concentrating on “preventive care”. Read more

Hey you Coupon Clippers… Look over there it’s the TAX MAN!

As we all know Govenor Malloy is really trying his best to balance the Connecticut state budget. I completely agree that this budget needs to be repaired. We all know how our govenor would like to do it, by raising taxes and even introducing some new ones in the budget. Like going after coupon clippers? Sad, but true. Read more

To Tax Or Not To Tax

Frequent caller and loyal listener Helen read a poem, written by her 17 year old son, that I thought did a better job of summing of the problem in Washington than Congress does understanding it. If our representatives had any guts they would read it too. But my guess is our local reps will just stick their fingers in their ears like children. After all, we’re all just a bunch of gap toothed, PBR swillin’, alt country music listening, bible thumping, gun toting, dweebs. What do we know. Enjoy!

To tax or not to tax, THAT is the question.

Whether ’tis better to suffer the slings of large government, of debt unleashed,

Or whether ’tis better to let citizens go uninsured?

Is it better to shoulder a healthcare plan of epic proportions?

And to assume that cost, into our debt and into our taxes?

Or is it better to not redefine healthcare, at lower cost of money,

But at higher cost of civilian pride?

Should we give this power to the government?

Or should we fight to keep it away?

O government ! You come with tidings of freedom and joy,

Yet are flawed by s system of taxation ! !

Is it better to suffer these pains, that they may protect us ? Our rights? Our freedoms?

Or ’tis better to reject? To refuse? To not feed the system?

Is it better for us to be taxed?

Or to be taxed to make it better for us?


Massachusetts Health Care … the nightmare to come. Update: Rationing

Update: Make sure you check the update below. Rationing!

The Baucus plan and the Waxman Murphy plan, both will tax you if you don’t have health insurance. But as we pointed out right here it’s so much more than that. You will be taxed even if you have coverage, IF, it’s not up to government standards. Remember, you read it here first?

Then of course, there was the obligatory Obama “it’s not a tax.”

Steve brought this to my attention very early in the morning (thanks Steve) and I read it on the show. From Friday night’s on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal. It’s the story of Wendy Williams and it is not pretty.

My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren’t old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.

Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.

My husband’s response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn’t imposed our health-care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined (“taxed” was the word the letter used).

We’ve spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We always intended to be self-sufficient. We’ve paid off the mortgage on our home, don’t carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable energy projects. I’m 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not wealthy, but we aren’t a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws?

Make sure you read the whole thing here. It’s a tax, it will force you out of your current plan and into one of theirs, or as the Democrats remind us … into a “better” plan. Their plan.

Update: It’s a tax …. and there will be rationing. (From Sister Toldjah via H/T – Instapundit via Ed Morrissey). My goodness … health care in the Commonwealth is coming unglued. I bet you folks in the Bay State sure are glad you have universally distructive insurance … hmmmmmm? How’s it looking now? Hmmmmmm? It’s ok … Connecticut’s just a few miles away, for now.

The state’s ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price for patients: Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers.

and then there is this:

Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine last month, staff writer Dr. Robert Steinbrook said the state commission failed to address the choice issue head-on. Global payments would save money only if networks “limited the volume of services, and denied certain requests from patients and providers,’’ among other measures, he wrote. “Since patient choice is such a sensitive issue, the commission waffled.’’

But Sarah Iselin, head of the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy and cochair of the payment commission, said the panel understood the importance of addressing the effect of its recommendations on patient choice, but “felt these issues could be figured out’’ later by a board that would be created to oversee the transition to a new payment system.

You know .. later. After it’s law, later. Once we have you, later. Get it? Just pass the bill damn-it.

Mass health care has been well documented on this blog … here and here. Costs are soaring (up 42%), and it’s all happened since the Bay State decided to introduce universal mandatory health care or else. Well the citizens bought into it because their premiums were soaring. They bought into access to everything for all. They believed the politicians and now the politicians are surprised they’re what, using it?

So now you Bay Staters, your premiums are soaring … and your access will be limited. Perfect, don’t you think?

Here’s an Idea…Tax Soda!

Once again universal health care rears its ugly head.  Previously, we’ve been primarily concerned with the crummy health care system that will swallow us all when Obama and Congress jam their plans down our throats.  But, there is another side to this program.  How do we pay for it?

Most households first figure out what they can pay for, and then decide what to the spend their money on.  In the White House things are different.  First they figure out what they want to spend money on, then they decide how you will pay for it.  So, for weeks we’ve been hearing things like, well, we need to increase taxes on the rich to pay for health care.  As it has become abundantly clear that a tax increase on the rich couldn’t hope to pay for national health care, Congress is becoming more inventive.

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

But, ssh, don’t tell anyone.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

Those in favor of the tax on soda cite statistics that purport to show that consuming “sugary” drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes, illness, and, well, the list goes on.  To those folks, a tax on soda is perfect.  Not only will it raise money to pay for universal health care, but it will teach people not to consume soda because it is unhealthy.  But, a closer analysis shows that the claims of these “do-gooders” is, shall we say, somewhat flawed.  The early estimate of the cost of the health care plan is $1.2 trillion, and a three cent tax on a 12 ounce serving of a “sugary” drink will raise only $24 billion over the next four years, unless, of course, people stop drinking soda because it is, well, unhealthy.

Forgetting, for the moment, that it is my decision (not Obama’s, not Congress’s) whether to drink soda or not, does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

Judd Gregg on Punitive Taxes and National Bankruptcy

From CNN’s Sunday show with John King. It’s NH Senator Judd Gregg. Snow asks Gregg to respond to the AIG special bonus tax passed overwhelmingly by the Democrat Congress. A slippery slope. Read more