When I bought three MegaMillions tickets before everyone and his relatives gummed up the machines on Friday, I got more and more aggravated at people - not because of the size of the jackpot, but at the cavalier attitudes of people who had never played the lottery before, thinking they were going to be the ones with the winning ticket.
Outraged Liberal brings up a great question: why are people so willing to avoid taxes, but when a lottery offers a huge jackpot, people have no qualms in paying hundreds of dollars in tickets?
Purely for the entertainment value, lotteries are far easier and far less painless way to pay taxes (which lotteries really and truly are) than writing a check to either the IRS or the Massachusetts Department of Revenue every month - especially those who pay that 5.85% optional tax. Conversely, the lure of winning the jackpot prize is designed by the states to extract as much money from the starry-eyed hopeful as possible, while certain taxes can be avoided by not doing the prescribed activity that activates those taxes.
That's also why some people blindly overpay their taxes intentionally - to get
as big a refund as possible from the government. That parallels when people pay the
lottery so much without paying attention to the odds - to win the biggest jackpot they can. A smarter thing to do is make sure the playing field is equal. When people pay their taxes, the goal should be to have a refund as close to zero as possible, meaning your withholdings to the government is equal to what the government is expecting from you (you've had $2,000, they calculate you owe $2,010, you overpaid by $10). The same thing applies to lotteries: forget the jackpot and try to break even. If you play $10, winning $10 is optimal; anything extra is just gravy.
3/10/2012
"[R]edistributing wealth — to the wealthy"
Somewhere, critics of the electric car are not merely smiling broadly, they're laughing out loud, because they know that a sucker with too much money and guilt on their hands will front $107,000 for a new "green" toy, that later on turns out to be a huge brick.
It's circular thinking once again - take high taxes from the rich with a wink and a nod, give to the poor through entitlements, retake the entitlements from the poor through high gasoline and food prices, and return that money to the rich through guilt-soothing gimmicks such as $100K+ electric cars, affirmation of wacky utopian theories, and the simple fact that these guilt-riddled aristocrats will have no problem donating to their favorite politician's re-election campaigns, all the while bleating like goats that they're the so-called "99%."
The serfs and commoners will be left to fend for themselves - they get ground by the millstones of de facto taxation and inflation. That is, until the serfs and commoners discover what breaks millstones are chisels, mallets, and hammers - something that was done in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down.
It's circular thinking once again - take high taxes from the rich with a wink and a nod, give to the poor through entitlements, retake the entitlements from the poor through high gasoline and food prices, and return that money to the rich through guilt-soothing gimmicks such as $100K+ electric cars, affirmation of wacky utopian theories, and the simple fact that these guilt-riddled aristocrats will have no problem donating to their favorite politician's re-election campaigns, all the while bleating like goats that they're the so-called "99%."
The serfs and commoners will be left to fend for themselves - they get ground by the millstones of de facto taxation and inflation. That is, until the serfs and commoners discover what breaks millstones are chisels, mallets, and hammers - something that was done in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down.
3/05/2012
The GM Edsel? Not quite, but close
Jon Keller comes out with an interesting take on why the public - save some really die-hard greenies with some money to burn - won't buy a $40,000 electric plug-in automobile.
The Volt is not the modern-day Edsel by a longshot, but even though electricity is cheap and plentiful and we can plug in any other device to recharge without a second thought, the thoughts of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere without any power - say, a busy highway - scares people. That's what also killed the GM EV-1 - not the fact that it didn't emit noxious fumes, but the prospect of finding a plug where there wasn't one and running out of battery power.
Furthermore, where there are far more fuel-efficient vehicles out there for a fraction of the price of a Volt, it's little wonder why, even with a $7,500 energy credit, why people are hesitant to buy them. Sure, buying gas would be expensive, but it would certainly beat having to call AAA for a charge back home. However, those that can afford the $32,500 are likely more affluent and can afford to buy a Volt (or a Leaf or even a Honda Prius). The Volt is a niche car, a novelty for the smug, something you show your friends in the hopes they get jealous because they're driving around in their less fancy car.
It was the same thing with calculators in the '70s - even the most basic calculator cost $100, which in today's dollars would be around $600 - but now that calculators are mass produced, that same $100 can buy a calculator with far better power and functions - I had a TI-85 that I used for fifteen years - and a basic calculator can be had for under a dollar in some places, thanks to cheaper costs in technology and the ability to mass produce. It also explains why when in the '90s, 2GB of flash memory cost over $100; now a thumb drive with the same amount can be had for less than $10 - again, thanks to mass production.
If the car companies can mass-produce electric vehicles, you will then see the price of an electric vehicle decrease appreciably. Then you'll have the $15,000 electric car that can charge from no battery power to 100% in 2 hours, run 250 miles on a single charge, and have the MPG equivalent of 150. It isn't here yet, but give it time and it will be.
The Volt is not the modern-day Edsel by a longshot, but even though electricity is cheap and plentiful and we can plug in any other device to recharge without a second thought, the thoughts of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere without any power - say, a busy highway - scares people. That's what also killed the GM EV-1 - not the fact that it didn't emit noxious fumes, but the prospect of finding a plug where there wasn't one and running out of battery power.
Furthermore, where there are far more fuel-efficient vehicles out there for a fraction of the price of a Volt, it's little wonder why, even with a $7,500 energy credit, why people are hesitant to buy them. Sure, buying gas would be expensive, but it would certainly beat having to call AAA for a charge back home. However, those that can afford the $32,500 are likely more affluent and can afford to buy a Volt (or a Leaf or even a Honda Prius). The Volt is a niche car, a novelty for the smug, something you show your friends in the hopes they get jealous because they're driving around in their less fancy car.
It was the same thing with calculators in the '70s - even the most basic calculator cost $100, which in today's dollars would be around $600 - but now that calculators are mass produced, that same $100 can buy a calculator with far better power and functions - I had a TI-85 that I used for fifteen years - and a basic calculator can be had for under a dollar in some places, thanks to cheaper costs in technology and the ability to mass produce. It also explains why when in the '90s, 2GB of flash memory cost over $100; now a thumb drive with the same amount can be had for less than $10 - again, thanks to mass production.
If the car companies can mass-produce electric vehicles, you will then see the price of an electric vehicle decrease appreciably. Then you'll have the $15,000 electric car that can charge from no battery power to 100% in 2 hours, run 250 miles on a single charge, and have the MPG equivalent of 150. It isn't here yet, but give it time and it will be.
2/11/2012
Why BBC and PBS are "worlds apart"
Imagine for a moment that you could have the best show on American television. It's critically acclaimed, has a giant fan following, and the network wants to have several spinoffs.
The catch? You have to pay $600 a year for the privilege. If you don't pay this $600 a year, the TV Enforcement Police will come and take you to jail.
Sounds silly, right? Not if you're in Britain. An "As You Were Saying" column in the Saturday Boston Herald breathlessly extols the "fresh and innovative" programming of the BBC over the "stuffy, predictable" PBS. Britons pay $230 a year for a TV license, which is a mandatory tax which is paid to the British government and is considered a criminal offense to try to evade it.
Unlike Britain, however, Americans have the luxury of not paying a TV tax to fund PBS, as PBS is already funded by taxpayers - partly by the government and partly by viewer donations through fundraising drives. The programming might be a little less than the BBC offers, but it's still good programming nonetheless.
Furthermore, the BBC has had its share of controversies and criticisms - thanks to its left-leaning political bias. Britons may not mind forking over $8 billion a year for improved programming, but when that money is used to promote political agendas from its directors and viewers that some Britons don't believe in, then it's no wonder Britons are not too keen on paying an excise tax just to watch TV.
If PBS were to take the licensing tax route, The Corporation for Public Television - PBS's parent - could demand that everyone pay for their network programming through a TV tax. In some respects the programming might improve, but at the expense of having the political opinions of the CPB overshadowing the next Office or Doctor Who. It would also result in many viewers and non-viewers going up in arms against paying for something they don't need, want, or use - which is the reason why PBS doesn't have a big a budget as BBC and must engage in such tactics as selling $20 DVD's for $240 and to have Sesame Street characters plead that they'll be joining Mr. Hooper in Heaven if PBS doesn't get funding.
The commercial and cable networks self-sustain through advertising and cable fees; they can cancel shows when they are not bringing in viewers, even if they are "critically acclaimed" and are much better than the various permutations of lowest-common-denominator TV, designed to give people their 15 minutes of fame before disposing them. PBS does broadcast commercials to a point, but even so, some upper-class viewers would immediately object to having McDonald's ads mixed in with Dora the Explorer, or ads for various drugs sponsoring This Old House.
If the intent of the writer was to promote a TV tax to fund PBS, he might want to read up on why the American Revolution got its roots - from the tax on tea.
The catch? You have to pay $600 a year for the privilege. If you don't pay this $600 a year, the TV Enforcement Police will come and take you to jail.
Sounds silly, right? Not if you're in Britain. An "As You Were Saying" column in the Saturday Boston Herald breathlessly extols the "fresh and innovative" programming of the BBC over the "stuffy, predictable" PBS. Britons pay $230 a year for a TV license, which is a mandatory tax which is paid to the British government and is considered a criminal offense to try to evade it.
Unlike Britain, however, Americans have the luxury of not paying a TV tax to fund PBS, as PBS is already funded by taxpayers - partly by the government and partly by viewer donations through fundraising drives. The programming might be a little less than the BBC offers, but it's still good programming nonetheless.
Furthermore, the BBC has had its share of controversies and criticisms - thanks to its left-leaning political bias. Britons may not mind forking over $8 billion a year for improved programming, but when that money is used to promote political agendas from its directors and viewers that some Britons don't believe in, then it's no wonder Britons are not too keen on paying an excise tax just to watch TV.
If PBS were to take the licensing tax route, The Corporation for Public Television - PBS's parent - could demand that everyone pay for their network programming through a TV tax. In some respects the programming might improve, but at the expense of having the political opinions of the CPB overshadowing the next Office or Doctor Who. It would also result in many viewers and non-viewers going up in arms against paying for something they don't need, want, or use - which is the reason why PBS doesn't have a big a budget as BBC and must engage in such tactics as selling $20 DVD's for $240 and to have Sesame Street characters plead that they'll be joining Mr. Hooper in Heaven if PBS doesn't get funding.
The commercial and cable networks self-sustain through advertising and cable fees; they can cancel shows when they are not bringing in viewers, even if they are "critically acclaimed" and are much better than the various permutations of lowest-common-denominator TV, designed to give people their 15 minutes of fame before disposing them. PBS does broadcast commercials to a point, but even so, some upper-class viewers would immediately object to having McDonald's ads mixed in with Dora the Explorer, or ads for various drugs sponsoring This Old House.
If the intent of the writer was to promote a TV tax to fund PBS, he might want to read up on why the American Revolution got its roots - from the tax on tea.
1/06/2012
Making memories - the last day in Hyde Park
I was going to "plead the Fifth" of why I left Hyde Park, but now
that I'm here in West Roxbury, I feel that I should tell you why I (and
my mother) left.
After thirty-six years, Hyde Park just wasn't the same anymore. When people who lived here long ago remark that it looks like a ghost town, with hardly any vibrancy and reason to linger, it's time to go. If residents (and the police) think you're more an interloper than a resident, you know the neighborhood you grew up in isn't yours anymore. Hyde Park is still a bedroom community, but over the years there's a stark, unspoken line divided by the overcrowded, only-line-in-town Route 32 buses and the infrequent, expensive, yet designed-for-the-suburban-resident Commuter Rail.
After two days of moving back and forth between the old and new houses (I was tired, nay, exhausted, from hauling in boxes after boxes after boxes of stuff - and in significant pain), yesterday was the final day I would be at the old house, just to clean up the last things there. My brother came to see the house for the last time before he went back to his apartment in Roslindale.
While my mother cleaned out the house on Summer Street, I volunteered to walk to Central Hardware in Cleary Square to get new keys for the new house. Mainly, the walk was a way to clear my head, escape from all the stress of the move and the leave, and have a moment to myself other than constantly load and unload things out of boxes.
During my youth, I had walked to Cleary Square to get food, pizza, sundries, etc. All the old stores had gone, replaced by tacky stores and many empty storefronts. Even the bus stop, which for many years had conveniently been placed in front of what had been Mama Mia's and Van's, had been moved to in front of Most Precious Blood, which is now a charter school.
I got my keys, and walked back to Tedeschi's for a New York Post and some lottery tickets. I walked down Summer Street for the final time, like I had done many times late at night coming home from the Stoughton train. I came up the stairs for the last time as my mother finally cleaned everything up so the new tenant could move in.
After I turned in my keys and we locked the door for the last time, we visited my grandfather, and by then I knew the end was coming. When we had our last family Thanksgiving at Summer Street, I felt no emotion other than elation. This time, I beginning to choke up. Not cry like a banshee, but have that hefty, lump-in-the-throat feeling with stinging in the eyes. I quickly walked back to the car once we were done.
We got in the car, drove through the potholes of Parrott St for the last time, and then we were gone. Only the ghosts of memories past - good and bad - remained behind.
After thirty-six years, Hyde Park just wasn't the same anymore. When people who lived here long ago remark that it looks like a ghost town, with hardly any vibrancy and reason to linger, it's time to go. If residents (and the police) think you're more an interloper than a resident, you know the neighborhood you grew up in isn't yours anymore. Hyde Park is still a bedroom community, but over the years there's a stark, unspoken line divided by the overcrowded, only-line-in-town Route 32 buses and the infrequent, expensive, yet designed-for-the-suburban-resident Commuter Rail.
After two days of moving back and forth between the old and new houses (I was tired, nay, exhausted, from hauling in boxes after boxes after boxes of stuff - and in significant pain), yesterday was the final day I would be at the old house, just to clean up the last things there. My brother came to see the house for the last time before he went back to his apartment in Roslindale.
While my mother cleaned out the house on Summer Street, I volunteered to walk to Central Hardware in Cleary Square to get new keys for the new house. Mainly, the walk was a way to clear my head, escape from all the stress of the move and the leave, and have a moment to myself other than constantly load and unload things out of boxes.
During my youth, I had walked to Cleary Square to get food, pizza, sundries, etc. All the old stores had gone, replaced by tacky stores and many empty storefronts. Even the bus stop, which for many years had conveniently been placed in front of what had been Mama Mia's and Van's, had been moved to in front of Most Precious Blood, which is now a charter school.
I got my keys, and walked back to Tedeschi's for a New York Post and some lottery tickets. I walked down Summer Street for the final time, like I had done many times late at night coming home from the Stoughton train. I came up the stairs for the last time as my mother finally cleaned everything up so the new tenant could move in.
After I turned in my keys and we locked the door for the last time, we visited my grandfather, and by then I knew the end was coming. When we had our last family Thanksgiving at Summer Street, I felt no emotion other than elation. This time, I beginning to choke up. Not cry like a banshee, but have that hefty, lump-in-the-throat feeling with stinging in the eyes. I quickly walked back to the car once we were done.
We got in the car, drove through the potholes of Parrott St for the last time, and then we were gone. Only the ghosts of memories past - good and bad - remained behind.
10/19/2011
Student loans = wage slavery
Here's a story for Hub Blog in regard to student loans:
When I began paying off my undergraduate loans in 1995 (one year after I graduated from college and about six months after I dropped out of grad school), I paid about $355 a month.
Now, $355 doesn't seem like much, but when you're earning $8-$9 in temp jobs; get laid off (and disinvited from the company Christmas Party) on a job that paid $7.50 an hour, and have to live at your parents' home for several years - meaning no starting a family, no apartment, no discretionary money, no parties, no real vacations, no transportation, no 401(k) contributions - $355 is HUGE.
Thankfully for me, I was hired at a company (where I have celebrated my 15th anniversary), and I took advantage of that. $255 of that money was in MEFA loans, split up into four coupons. The other $100 a month was Sallie Mae. The MEFA loans were forgiven in 2005 thanks to the bonds being paid off; and then the Sallie Mae loans were paid off in February 2008.
I wholeheartedly agree: the student loan complex all but encourages wage slavery - where every single dime someone earns is endorsed to the loan company for decades. When a student loan payment is the same amount as a rent payment (at least in Boston), and graduates are only making enough to have pocket change as discretionary income, it's time to thoroughly investigate who's making a mint off of graduates.
Quite an expensive keg party - one that might be paid off when you're ready to retire.
When I began paying off my undergraduate loans in 1995 (one year after I graduated from college and about six months after I dropped out of grad school), I paid about $355 a month.
Now, $355 doesn't seem like much, but when you're earning $8-$9 in temp jobs; get laid off (and disinvited from the company Christmas Party) on a job that paid $7.50 an hour, and have to live at your parents' home for several years - meaning no starting a family, no apartment, no discretionary money, no parties, no real vacations, no transportation, no 401(k) contributions - $355 is HUGE.
Thankfully for me, I was hired at a company (where I have celebrated my 15th anniversary), and I took advantage of that. $255 of that money was in MEFA loans, split up into four coupons. The other $100 a month was Sallie Mae. The MEFA loans were forgiven in 2005 thanks to the bonds being paid off; and then the Sallie Mae loans were paid off in February 2008.
I wholeheartedly agree: the student loan complex all but encourages wage slavery - where every single dime someone earns is endorsed to the loan company for decades. When a student loan payment is the same amount as a rent payment (at least in Boston), and graduates are only making enough to have pocket change as discretionary income, it's time to thoroughly investigate who's making a mint off of graduates.
Quite an expensive keg party - one that might be paid off when you're ready to retire.
5/08/2011
Who gives a damn what they think of us? Osama bin Laden death edition
Maureen Dowd (via Hub Blog) is exactly right on the end results of Osama bin Laden being killed by United States Navy Seals, under the direction of President Barack Obama.
What says even more about OBL's death is that there's not only evil still in the world, but cowardice by hand-wringers and the tut-tutters are decrying this as "an unjustified killing." That OBL was in a wealthy suburb south of Islamabad, is a huge clue to OBL's own ego - he loved being a PR man as much as Public Enemy #1. Those who protected OBL - the wealthy, the government of Pakistan, NGOs with their own twisted versions of utopia - are equally guilty of giving OBL a haven, as he was likely their meal ticket to perpetuate and justify their own myths, to raise funds, or to simply be one of his propaganda points. Bringing OBL to trial, rather being buried undersea, would have generated far more publicity and fervor for him and his group than to satisfy the blatant ignorance of those who think celebrations are barbaric and medieval.
In fact, maybe this hue and cry is the upper classes of our world chagrined that the lower and middle classes took out one of their fellow travelers - an evil, bloodthirsty thug who ruled with an iron fist, just like the aristocrats of the past did. They dream of a day where they can rule without question, can execute people for even the slightest bit of disagreement, and take everything they can from those who are too weak to resist.
The myth of Che Guevara as the hero to the oppressed was smashed to bits once it was discovered he was a bloodythirsty murderer of epic proportions as he murdered anyone who got in his way. Like Osama bin Laden, he came from an aristocratic, upper-class background; he too was executed when he was caught.
We're going to celebrate the death of evil to the end of days - whether it's the arrogant politician who was arrested and jailed for lining his own pockets, the killer who gets hundreds of consecutive life terms plus a few more 99 year terms for good measure, the dictator who draws his last painful breath in his bed from cancer, the foaming-at-the-mouth agitator who gets caught with their pants down on something trivial, or the rogue banker who made the wrong bet and caused an economy to collapse.
A lot of countries praised the USA, but some said "We're glad OBL's gone, but terror still exists." That caution is completely acceptable, and is more out of wisdom than of fear. Celebrating and shouting "USA!" is also a catharsis of the horrors of September 11, not a sign of jingoism. And celebrate we should, until we're too hoarse to shout and too tired to lift our arms. Once the celebrations are through, it's a sign to move forward.
What says even more about OBL's death is that there's not only evil still in the world, but cowardice by hand-wringers and the tut-tutters are decrying this as "an unjustified killing." That OBL was in a wealthy suburb south of Islamabad, is a huge clue to OBL's own ego - he loved being a PR man as much as Public Enemy #1. Those who protected OBL - the wealthy, the government of Pakistan, NGOs with their own twisted versions of utopia - are equally guilty of giving OBL a haven, as he was likely their meal ticket to perpetuate and justify their own myths, to raise funds, or to simply be one of his propaganda points. Bringing OBL to trial, rather being buried undersea, would have generated far more publicity and fervor for him and his group than to satisfy the blatant ignorance of those who think celebrations are barbaric and medieval.
In fact, maybe this hue and cry is the upper classes of our world chagrined that the lower and middle classes took out one of their fellow travelers - an evil, bloodthirsty thug who ruled with an iron fist, just like the aristocrats of the past did. They dream of a day where they can rule without question, can execute people for even the slightest bit of disagreement, and take everything they can from those who are too weak to resist.
The myth of Che Guevara as the hero to the oppressed was smashed to bits once it was discovered he was a bloodythirsty murderer of epic proportions as he murdered anyone who got in his way. Like Osama bin Laden, he came from an aristocratic, upper-class background; he too was executed when he was caught.
We're going to celebrate the death of evil to the end of days - whether it's the arrogant politician who was arrested and jailed for lining his own pockets, the killer who gets hundreds of consecutive life terms plus a few more 99 year terms for good measure, the dictator who draws his last painful breath in his bed from cancer, the foaming-at-the-mouth agitator who gets caught with their pants down on something trivial, or the rogue banker who made the wrong bet and caused an economy to collapse.
A lot of countries praised the USA, but some said "We're glad OBL's gone, but terror still exists." That caution is completely acceptable, and is more out of wisdom than of fear. Celebrating and shouting "USA!" is also a catharsis of the horrors of September 11, not a sign of jingoism. And celebrate we should, until we're too hoarse to shout and too tired to lift our arms. Once the celebrations are through, it's a sign to move forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)