by J. Christoph Amberger
Half-fat cheddar cheese, bran flakes, camembert, sugar-coated puffed wheat, instant oatmeal, reduced-calorie mayonnaise, multi-grain hoop cereal, half-fat crème fraîche, take-out chicken nuggets, waffle fries, Greek yogurt, ham, sausages, bacon rashers, low-fat spreads, peanuts, cashew nuts, pistachio-nuts, peanut butter, raisins, sultanas, currants, low-fat potato chips, olive oil, butter, pizza, hamburgers, tomato ketchup, chocolate, brown sauce, cola and lemonade.
What are, among many others, foods banned from advertising during children’s TV by the British government.
We’re ecstatic that British children will no longer be tempted by unconscionable pushers of raisins, olive oil, and Greek sheep-milk yogurt as they spend their days watching unintelligible British children shows and extraterrestrial British soaps. In fact, we’re looking at Britain as a shining example of what we can look forward to in the States as the political pendulums swing back toward increased government meddling in the daily lives of its constituents.-- When Bill Clinton lived in the White House, he claimed that he signed his income tax forms “with a big smile on his face.” This was supposed to let people know just how much he loved contributing his fair share to the big U.S. Treasury pie, who’d then use his tax dollars to fund government cheese and Midnight basketball leagues.
I think Clinton’s smirk was more about the old boxer shorts he had donated -- and wrote off his taxes as a charitable donation, at four bucks a pop if memory serves right.
Now, things are different. These days, the IRS would require even Bubba to document that his underpants were in top condition when he donated them. And we don’t have a Democrat in the White House -- yet.
But we might as well. As I’m writing, Congress is convening in its new constellation. In the first hundred hours after the opening bell, Democrats have vowed to whip through a slew of bills. There’s just a presidential veto and a few wobbly votes in the senate that could keep them from it. And the Republican minority appears just as aimless and meandering as a Madonna movie script.
Now, granted, some bills sound perfectly reasonable, such as freeing up more Federal funds for research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans. Others aim at tightening ethics rules for lawmakers. (Personally, I savor the irony of just who exactly is promising to clean up whom here.)
But of course there are others that are supposed to give us a little taste of what’s ahead. Raising the minimum wage is on the top of the agenda. And who could argue with a bit of “reverse” corporate welfare? Of course, raising labor cost on the nickel of the American small business owner will be inevitably followed by populist tirades against American jobs being outsourced to China and India by evil capitalists.
Next in line, no matter if you take a gander at the playbook of 2004 presidential runner-up John Edwards or that of new media darling Barak Obama, is recycling the age-old liberal agenda -- bad ideas that have never ever worked for anyone who’s ever tried them... like taxing capital to create new jobs and the old standby, punishing work and ambition, saving and investing through higher tax rates.
The good news is that this will create thousands of rich and super-rich Americans in the next couple of years. Too bad that will happen mostly by redefining who’s rich: With an annual income of $80k or $100k, you, too, may be among the super rich before the decade’s over -- a veritable Pelosi Plutocrat.
Too bad, too, that this is going to affect a demographic that at this point in time is in dire need of building up their own capital to pay for retirement and healthcare: People who are forced to fork over more of their money to bankroll government social engineering programs typically have less money to invest to build capital.
That’s not quite without intention, I guess. The more people depend on government monies, the more will vote for people who promise them government monies.
But this is actually not a bad time to pick sides. To me, it boils down to two options: You can either throw in your lot with the collectivist revival, and keep your fingers crossed that there will still be enough ambitious hard-working Americans around eager to pay your retirement and health bills from their taxes, or you can use your new-year financial spring cleaning to plot out a course toward building up your own capital that would allow you to live the way you want -- without having to clamor for government handouts.
In the coming months, we plan to add to our daily and weekly financial coverage by partnering with our sister companies, Sovereign Society and International Living, to bring you proven and legal strategies to diversify your assets (both domestically and internationally), use tax havens and buy international real estate in view of streamlining your tax obligations and quality of life options.
After all, there’s nothing reactionary about that. Au contraire: Some of the top Democrats have already made sure that their own fortunes are not only big enough to afford them a cozy lifestyle but that their tax burden is not unduly high.
We figure that what’s good for minimizing the tax obligations of the Kennedy, the Heinz-Kerry, and the Soros fortunes will also serve you well as you work toward financial independence. And that’s what we at TaipanFinancialNews.com are all about.