Like it when people speak in code?
Read this story about one “Tucker Max”
I’m talking about when people use the word “access”
Not to rag on Tucker Max any, I don’t really read him but may start. He recently tried to give half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood as both a tax dodge, and a publicity stunt. A little effort at repairing his bad rep with the ladies at the cost of nothing to him. Give the money to PP, or to the Fed govt. Not like either needs it.
Ever think about shoplifting? Consider a big huge Walmart or Target Superstore. Each time somebody steals a blu-ray player, the overall operating costs of that store goes up by a little tiny amount. Well, by the price of a blu-ray player. When broken out into the overall pricing of the goods on their shelves, everything goes up by just a tiny bit. Maybe even only a fraction of a penny here and there. But the paying customers pay those prices. Ie, they’re not stealing. So some tiny fraction of each of your purchases, pretty much anywhere, is really paying for theft. YOU are buying the items that other people stole.
It’s the same with taxes. Each time someone gets a reduction, a write-off, everybody else pays a little more. (Well, if we had a balanced budget). Why do we give so many deductions? When somebody gives money to charity and then claims it on their taxes, aren’t they really deciding for me what the government funds? Shouldn’t elected officials be making those decisions?
I know a lot of you are thinking, what a hard nosed bastard. If we don’t let people deduct charitable contributions from their earned incomes at tax time, nobody would give to charity (except evidently me). But really, we have a budget deficit of some 1.5T$. Can we really afford ANY deductions by anybody?
But this post i titled “shoplifting AND code”. So on to my next point.
People who can’t say what they mean. Who have to speak in code. Who have to use coverterms for what they are really saying. Well, they just aren’t trying to do you any favors. When I hear people speaking in code, I automatically am suspicious of them and usually reject whatever they are selling immediately.
Let us talk about the word “access”. Dictionary says: “the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speak with, or use; admittance”
In the Tucker Max article, people say a lot about PP. And how women are going to have their access to reproductive services reduced, or eliminated… blah blah. That’s about where I quit listening to them and start wondering why they are speaking in code.
Really? Their access will be denied? They will no longer be able to near or approach to those services? Why, yes they will. They can get in their cars and drive to whichever office, service provides those services and get those same services. The only thing that really changes is who pays for them. So there is the code. “Access” equals “payment for, by others”.
And to expand a little, the people speaking out of the sides of their mouths CAN’T tell you what they really mean. Else it would be rejected wholesale by the public.
1. Don’t perform this action. This group of people would lose “access” to thing.
2. Don’t perform this action. You would no longer have to pay for that action and the people receiving the benefit of that action would have to pay for it themselves, and would therefore would no longer get the benefit of that action from you for nothing.
Think about this way. If you want to “deny access” to movie theaters from people in wheelchairs, you do not make them pay for it. You remove the ramps and purposely put in steps everywhere. Crass I know, but it highlights the ridiculousness of the use of the word “access”.
When people give money away as a tax write off, it is NOT a win win win win situation. Taxpayers lose.
I’m all for charity. Be a man. Give the money away.
Tucker Max should have given the money away AND paid his taxes.