GOP tax plan is a tax increase

I just got off the phone with my CPA. The GOP tax plan is going to cost me tens of thousands more in taxes for tax year 2018. Let me explain how I understand this:

Most businesses are small businesses. Small businesses like LLC's, Schedule C corporations, and the like are called "pass through entities" and the IRS treats them as though they do not exist, for tax purposes. In other words, whatever income that your business has is your income.

Larger companies tend to be corporations. Those are considered to be corporate persons, meaning that their income is considered separate from the owners of the company, the stockholders.

(I am simplifying this to make it easy to understand, please don't flame me.)

As a part of the tax code changes, the GOP plan calls for doubling the standard deduction, and then eliminating nearly all other deductions, including the individual exemption, and itemized deductions like attorney's fees, paid accountant fees, deductions for mechanics who buy their own tools, security guards buying their own weapons, etc.

Because of this, pass through entities and individuals will lose out when they can no longer deduct the cost of carrying out their livelihoods, but corporations can still deduct those expenses from profits as a cost of doing business, AND the corporate rate is reduced. This is one time that the liberals are correct: this is a huge handout for corporate welfare, one that benefits the corporate taxpayer while screwing the small businessman.

Registration ----> Confiscation

Registration always leads to confiscation.

Hawaii, though, maintains an electronic database of both firearm purchasers, who must complete both the federal ATF and a state permit application, and medical marijuana patients. That allowed the Honolulu police to cross-check and compile a list of MMJ patients in the state’s firearms registry.

Be careful what you wish for

Lawyers are now claiming that the police use of bodycams is a threat to human rights. The problem here is that the used to use camera footage to find minor differences betewen police reports and camera footage to claim police were lying. Now that the police have the footage available, they are writing the reports based on the footage, increasing accuracy.

I think that the report reflecting what actually happened is a good thing, unless you are an unscrupulous lawyer who seeks to free your client, no matter what the truth may be. It makes me laugh that the same people who screamed for police body cams so they could get to the truth are now screaming about how unfair the truth is.

Freebies

Imagine that you told people that, if they break into your home, you will let them stay there, provide free food, free housing, and provide free college for their children. How many people would break into your home?

That is what is happening in California. Read this article, and see what is happening for yourself. The article is intended to make us feel sorry for the illegal immigrants and their anchor babies, but this is what it really means:

A family with no skills, no education, and no money illegally immigrates into the US, and then has 4 anchor babies, with all medical expenses paid for on the government dime. Since the 4 kids are all citizens, the family now gets welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, free cell phones, and free college educations. 

The college alone costs $27,000 a year, for a total cost to the US taxpayer of $432,000 for all four kids. In all, a rough calculation shows that this family has cost the US taxpayer more than $2 million in assistance since the illegal immigrant parents arrived here roughly 30 years ago. 

The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the enthusiastic support of Paul, or in this case, Pedro.

Get a gun safe

A high school kid committed suicide at his school after stealing a Glock 26 from a family friend while spending the night. The guns were locked up by those cheesy cable gun locks that are mandated by law in at least two states, and also inside of a soft sided case.

A determined adult (for all intents, a 17 year old is as competent and resourceful at defeating cable locks as any adult) can bypass these locks in just a few minutes, especially if he has stolen the gun and is trying to beat the lock in the privacy of his own home.

I have a gun safe. That safe is bolted to the floor. That safe has a switch on the inside that is connected to my home automation system. As soon as the safe is opened, it sends a text message to my phone and if I am not home, sets off the burglar alarm.

Every firearm in my home that is not under my physical control is unloaded and placed in the safe. Anyone who wants to gain access to one of my firearms will have to enter my house without setting off my alarm, and then force open the safe without setting off the alarm. This is as secure a system as I can imagine making, within reason.

Secure your firearms. Don't let an unauthorized person gain access to them. Gun safes are cheap. A decent one costs less than $600. Why would you invest thousands in firearms, and not be willing to spend $600 to protect them from theft?

Disenfranchised

There is a bit of a scandal involving a politician who is running for office, with several women who are accusing him of sexual impropriety from forty years ago. There are those in Congress who claim that they will remove him from office if he is elected.

The left is trying to convince the American people that President Trump needs to be impeached. They claim that, should the Democrats reestablish a majority in Congress during the midterm elections, they will impeach the President.

What is happening here is the disenfranchising of the voters. They are saying that the voters are not smart enough to elect their own representatives and, since they are obviously smarter and better than you, they will select your leaders for you. (Not a mistake there- the same who view you as unqualified to vote also view your elected representatives as your leader.)

If Congress is to simply impeach anyone with whom they disagree, then why vote at all? Why not simply let Congress choose? The fall of this nation continues.

Another attack

You will remember that last year I was attacked in my classroom for taking away a student's cell phone for texting in class, after being ordered to do so by the principal of the school.

My wife, who teaches at an entirely different school, was also recently attacked by a student. The incident was the culmination of a series of events over a three day period:

1 The student entered class while chewing gum, and was told to throw it away. The student displayed an attitude, and an argument ensued. Rather than write a formal discipline referral, my wife asked administrators to have an informal talk with the student.

2 The next day, the student AGAIN entered the class chewing gum. After being told to spit it out, she claimed that she "forgot" about the no gum rule.

3 The next day, the student came in wearing a hoodie with the hood up. When she was told that this was against the school's uniform policy, the student argued and called my wife, her teacher, a "fucking bitch."

My wife wrote her a discipline referral. After leaving the office from receiving her suspension, she immediately walked down the hall to my wife's classroom and attempted to physically attack her. The only thing that prevented the completion of the attack was the vice-principal, the school's police officer, and the superintendent of the school were next door for a meeting. They locked my wife and her students in their classroom for safety, and immediately escorted the student off campus with a trespass warning not to return.

Less than an hour later, the student and her mother called my wife in her classroom, threatened her, and stated that she was a "races" or something. My wife was so concerned that they were going to be waiting for her after school, coupled with the fact that she is disarmed by law, that she had the school's police officer escort her to her car.

I would say that we would be extra vigilant over the next few days, but I honestly cannot think of any precautions we could be taking that we already don't: We have a burglar alarm, security/landscape lighting (both visible and infrared), and security cameras, and we are armed everywhere that we legally can be.

Not likely

The Boston Globe recently wrote an anti-gun screed, disguised as news. I wanted to take a minute to examine the article and its claims.

It uses Australia as an example:

Some feared resistance. Howard, at one point, wore a bulletproof vest during a speech to a group of gun rights supporters. But the buyback went forward peacefully, and it claimed an estimated one-fifth of Australia’s gun stock — one of the largest gun confiscations in modern history.

One fifth? So the confiscation was ineffective more than 80% of the time? What now?

Since passage of the law, the country hasn’t seen a single mass shooting — defined as a killing of five or more people, not including the gunman.

In order to make that claim work, they have to do a bit of gymnastics. First, they exclude all killings not committed with a gun. Next, they exclude all killings where less than 5 people, exclusive of the killer himself, were killed. Then, they exclude all cases where no one was arrested (usually because the killer himself was killed.)

A study by researchers at Australian National University and Wilfrid Laurier University found a 59 percent drop in the firearm homicide rate and a 65 percent decline in the firearm suicide rate in the decade after the law was introduced. And while critics have noted the firearm death rate was already declining before passage of the legislation, the data show it dropped twice as fast afterward.

Another lie. The murder rate actually went UP after the confiscation, and then went down, and back up again, with the homicide rate in Australia only being down 5% overall. So where do the anti gun folks get their "fact" about a 50% reduction? From 1915 to 1996, about 30% of homicides in Australia were committed by people wielding firearms. From 1996 onwards, that has fallen to about 15%. So what we have seen is a 50% reduction in percentage of homicides that were committed by FIREARMS, but overall rate of all homicides has remained unchanged.

Then the paper goes on to suggest that it is time for a mandatory buyback confiscation, where the police collect the firearms in US circulation in exchange for $500 or so.

Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

That presumes that there are only 310 million firearms in private hands, according to the article. I think this number if FAR, FAR too low. There have been almost 275 million NICS checks in the past 20 years alone. Are we to believe that the number of firearms sold in the US from 1900 to 1998 is only 35 million, when Americans are busy buying 27 million firearms and 10-12 BILLION rounds of ammunition a year. That is more ammunition than  was used by the entire US military during each year of World War 2, when the average was just over 10 billion rounds a year. Some bloggers think that the true number of firearms in private hands is over 600 million.

The second presumption is that Americans will give up these guns without a single fight. While it is true that many will, others will simply ignore such an order, and will soon be selling firearms for many times the $500 fee paid by the government for turning in their guns. Even the threat of a new assault weapons ban several years ago saw people paying $900 for stripped AR-15 lower. Do you think that all of those people would pay that kind of money, simply to turn them in a couple of months later for a fraction of that amount in return?

When it doesn't work, what then? How many cops will want to go door to door in order to take them? How many cops and citizens will die as a result? Even if only 1 in 10,000 gun owners are willing to shoot it out, that means there could potentially be 60,000 active shootouts during this door kicking. Are you willing to see hundreds of thousands of dead cops and citizens, all for little gain?

So, to answer the overall question of The Boston Globe's article:

Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?

I don't think so. Such a law would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Americans possess FAR more than the 310 million firearms that the left wants you to think are out there. Should such a law come to pass anyway, it would look like the second American Civil War.

Florida CCW numbers

Last July, Florida had one CCW permit holder for every 10.1 adults, which was, at the time, an all time high.
It's time to take a look at this again. As of October 31, 2017, there were 15,022,247 adults residing in the state of Florida. Those 15 million adults hold 1,812,542 concealed weapons permits. That is one permit for every 8.2 adults, another all time high.
The MSM still claims that gun ownership rates are declining.

Gun show loophole

We hear from anti-gun groups how the "gun show loophole" allows "unlicensed dealers" to sell guns to criminals without background checks. That, as this case demonstrates, is a bald faced lie:

A Janesville man accused of selling hundreds of firearms, at least one of which was later seized from a felon, was indicted this week in federal court on charges of selling firearms without a license.
Gary Schroeder, 65, sold firearms at gun shows in Janesville, Delavan, Fort Atkinson and other area cities from at least April 2014 to at least January 2017, recording sales exceeding $200,000, according to court documents.

Criminals running the country

The UK has made it a crime for a person to use force in defense of themselves. This is the end result: the criminals are running the country.

A 17-year-old girl was sexually assaulted three times in the span of an hour as she walked home from a night out in London, police said. 

Revolution day?

The leftist groups claiming to be against fascism have been committing violent acts for over a year. One sect of this movement has declared today, November 4th, 2017 to be the day that the revolution begins. Their stated goal is the overthrow of the legitimately elected President of the US and the disenfranchisement of half of the nation.

Popular press is claiming that this is all a hoax, because the group making the threat is "Refuse Fascism" and the main group that has been protesting is "Antifa."

Call it what you want- I have been watching the violence for over a year. These nutbags on the left are getting out of hand. It is long past time for the police to rein in these domestic terrorists.

Sometimes, the process is the punishment

We are frequently told that we should let the justice system work, and since we each are entitled to due process, things will work out for the best. What about times when the process itself IS the punishment?

A woman in Lakeland, Florida was recently arrested for driving under the influence. The thing is, she was riding a horse. What will happen to her over the next few months is the process that we are told to allow to take its course:

Her drivers license will be immediately suspended upon her arrest, and the police will physically confiscate her license. She will be allowed to drive for 10 days, using her DUI citation as a license. After that, she will have to get a lawyer to appeal the suspension. This will mean that, since she cannot drive to work, she will either have to get a ride to work, or will lose her job.
Her auto insurance will immediately be canceled.
Since she no longer has car insurance, her tags will be cancelled.
She will have to bond out. This will mean paying a bondsman $500 or more for a bail bond.
30 days after her arrest, she will be arraigned, and will likely plead not guilty.
60 days after her arrest, her lawyer will receive all of the information on her charges: police reports, witness statements, etc.) from the state of Florida.  The case is reset for a hearing to take place in another 30-60 days.
Day 90-120, calendar call is when you let the judge know how the case will resolve.  It may be set for trial, a pretrial motion to suppress or motion in limine, or for a plea agreement.
Day 120-180, Preparing for a trial and/or motion hearings takes substantially more time for the lawyer to prepare.  A motion to suppress the stop, motion in limine or other motion will be held before the trial.  A DUI jury trial will be in front of 6 jurors and possibly 2 alternates.  A negotiated plea agreement (or if an agreement cannot be reached with the state) or a plea straight up to the judge will be held.

After all of this, the charges will likely be unsuccessful. You see, the state of Florida defines DUI as operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. A vehicle is defined as a device that can be used or be drawn to transport persons (or property) on a highway. A horse is not a device. Here is what a Florida attorney has to say on the matter.

In this case, the woman has a lengthy criminal history. That, however does not mean that she is not entitled to justice. She will likely have to pay thousands in legal fees, which she likely cannot afford. She will have to pay a sizable bond amount. Months from her life will be lost.

All because she was arrested by police officers who were misapplying the law. Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.

Failure in victim selection process

Orlando Police said an attempted robber approached a Loomis armored van driver from behind as he was servicing the gas station's ATM and sprayed him in the face with pepper spray. Despite feeling the effects of the pepper spray, the driver was able to draw his weapon and fire a shot, hitting the armed robber in the chest. The suspect is in critical but stable condition and will be charged with robbery with a weapon once he's released from the hospital.

Free healthcare for all? Not exactly.

In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service has decided that people who smoke or who are obsese will be restricted from some health services. In support of this policy, they claim that people who smoke or are obese increase health costs, and to rein in these costs, it is important to use the power of government to change their behavior “for the public good.”
The health service is using body mass index (BMI) as the metric: Those with a body mass index over 40 must reduce the number by 15% over that time period, and those with a BMI over 30 are given a target of 10%. I have never agreed with using BMI for anything. To get an idea of why I feel this way, let’s use some professional athletes to illustrate why BMI is not an accurate measurement of obesity:
This is a link to the roster of the Tampa Bay Lightning, a professional hockey team made up of athletes from all over the world, most of whom are also on their country's Olympic team. They are provided, as part of the team, with a full time nutritionist, the best medical care available, and they each work out 6-8 hours a day. In other words, they are in the 99.9th percentile of health.

At 5’ 10” and 190 pounds, Gabriel Dumont, is considered to be overweight with a BMI of 27.3. Just 19 more pounds from his weight as a professional athlete, and he would be considered too fat to receive medical care. No wonder the UK says that 63% of adults are obese! How many of us have a professional nutritionist, and work out at a professional level for the 8 hours a day required to maintain the physique of a professional athlete? Even with all of that, he is STILL considered to be overweight.
Run the BMI numbers for the rest of the team, and you will see that they are ALL overweight by the BMI standard. Consider Cedrick Pauquette, who at 6’1” and 198 pounds comes in with a BMI of 26.1. Does he look overweight to you?

The truth is this: Health care is not an unlimited resource. In some way, it MUST be rationed. In a free market system, this is done with supply and demand. In the UK, this is being done by a faceless group of bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies. Either way, there will be people who will get care because of who they know or how much money they have. 

For example, Liam Fox 

and Eric Pickles 

are both Members of Parliament. Do you really think that they will not have access to healthcare? 

Don’t let anyone tell you that it is better to have government healthcare. In any system, some will have to do without. Don’t think that some people having access because of money or privilege will change of the government is put in charge. The only thing that will change is that, once the government is in charge, they will take your freedom by holding you hostage under penalty of losing your healthcare.