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.
4/25/2011
Getting rid of tax envy II
In the previous blog entry, I wrote about the people who want high earners to pay higher taxes. I alluded to that kind of thought as tax envy - that the low earners want the high earners to pay up more.
Here are some things that will never fly: total confiscation of income above a certain level (communist!); national income taxes (regressive!), flat taxes (super regressive!) and value added taxes (double secret super regressive!) Income redistribution raises a lot of hackles, and sometimes ends up being entirely circular, defeating the purpose (i.e. the money taken from the high earners goes to the low earners as some form of "social justice" payment, and the government charges sin taxes, paid by the poor earners, and spirits it back to the government).
Rob Sama has a fantastic outline of what he'd do with the current tax code, but I have some ideas to eliminate (or at least reduce) tax envy is as follows.
1. Keep the progressive tax structure, but adjust the tax rates and broaden the income levels they fall under. The rates would be as follows:
- 5% absolute minimum tax (deducted from any refunds; explained below)
- 10% (income $15,600 and under)
- 20% ($15,601 to $78,000)
- 30% ($78,001 to $390,000)
- 40% ($390,001 to $1,560,000)
- 50% ($1,560,001 and above).
For head of the household, multiply by 1.25; for married filing jointly, multiply by 1.5.
Also, $15,600 is the minimum wage per year if you work 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year, not including holidays. If the minimum wage increases or decreases, the structure also increases.
2. Everyone who works pays something - no ducking the IRS. I would propose an absolute minimum tax of 5% for people who have $100 or less in taxable income - and it's deducted from your refund. If you earned $20,000 in a year and had no tax liability, yet you had $3,000 withheld, the IRS will take $150 from your refund, leaving you with $2,850. If you earned $100,000 in a year and had a tax liabillity of $50, and had $15,000 withheld for the year, your absolute minimum tax would be $5,000 and would be deducted from your refund of $15,000, leaving you with $10,000.
The people who claim zero tax liability at both ends of the earning spectrum is part of the reason for tax envy, and curing that is as simple making sure no one escapes the IRS.
3. Change the Alternative Minimum Tax into the Alternative Income Tax, with a flat rate of 55%. However, unlike the current alternative minimum tax, which has rates of 26% and 28%, filers can choose to this higher tax, but there would be no exceptions, deductions or deferments allowed. The AIT would be applied to gross income, including income, stocks, bonds, investments, and other items. This would give those who truly want to give more a chance, but at a steeper rate.
Example: You've earned $1 million in a year. You decide to file the AIT instead of paying at 35%. You pay the government $550,000.
These ideas might not satisfy everyone, but it's a start.
Here are some things that will never fly: total confiscation of income above a certain level (communist!); national income taxes (regressive!), flat taxes (super regressive!) and value added taxes (double secret super regressive!) Income redistribution raises a lot of hackles, and sometimes ends up being entirely circular, defeating the purpose (i.e. the money taken from the high earners goes to the low earners as some form of "social justice" payment, and the government charges sin taxes, paid by the poor earners, and spirits it back to the government).
Rob Sama has a fantastic outline of what he'd do with the current tax code, but I have some ideas to eliminate (or at least reduce) tax envy is as follows.
1. Keep the progressive tax structure, but adjust the tax rates and broaden the income levels they fall under. The rates would be as follows:
- 5% absolute minimum tax (deducted from any refunds; explained below)
- 10% (income $15,600 and under)
- 20% ($15,601 to $78,000)
- 30% ($78,001 to $390,000)
- 40% ($390,001 to $1,560,000)
- 50% ($1,560,001 and above).
For head of the household, multiply by 1.25; for married filing jointly, multiply by 1.5.
Also, $15,600 is the minimum wage per year if you work 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year, not including holidays. If the minimum wage increases or decreases, the structure also increases.
2. Everyone who works pays something - no ducking the IRS. I would propose an absolute minimum tax of 5% for people who have $100 or less in taxable income - and it's deducted from your refund. If you earned $20,000 in a year and had no tax liability, yet you had $3,000 withheld, the IRS will take $150 from your refund, leaving you with $2,850. If you earned $100,000 in a year and had a tax liabillity of $50, and had $15,000 withheld for the year, your absolute minimum tax would be $5,000 and would be deducted from your refund of $15,000, leaving you with $10,000.
The people who claim zero tax liability at both ends of the earning spectrum is part of the reason for tax envy, and curing that is as simple making sure no one escapes the IRS.
3. Change the Alternative Minimum Tax into the Alternative Income Tax, with a flat rate of 55%. However, unlike the current alternative minimum tax, which has rates of 26% and 28%, filers can choose to this higher tax, but there would be no exceptions, deductions or deferments allowed. The AIT would be applied to gross income, including income, stocks, bonds, investments, and other items. This would give those who truly want to give more a chance, but at a steeper rate.
Example: You've earned $1 million in a year. You decide to file the AIT instead of paying at 35%. You pay the government $550,000.
These ideas might not satisfy everyone, but it's a start.
Getting rid of tax envy
I write this blog for free. Gratis. I get no income from it, and the only value I put on it is that people can read it.
Whenever I hear grumblings and sniffs that the higher earners* should be taxed more, and supporting propaganda such as "X% of higher earners pay Y% of all tax while Z% of low earners pay nothing," "The zillionaires should have their earnings (taxed heavily, confiscated above a certain level)," and "the fair tax/flat tax/Richard Simmons Shake Your Left Leg and Rub Your Tummy tax is regressive to the poor, the blind, and David Letterman", there is one word that sticks out like a sore thumb: Envy.
Envy is a powerful thing. Little wonder why the lower classes cast a huge green eye at the upper classes, and wish they were taxed to the stratosphere.
But there's a problem with punishing the high earners with punitive taxes, even though in the past, it was acceptable to have an income tax rate of 90% during WWII and a 70% rate in the 1960s and people were just as prosperous. The problem is that when there's a disincentive in place to earn money, the ambition to avoid that tax will go up exponentially. Whether it's plowing it into investments, putting it into an overseas tax shelter, or giving it away to charity, the high earners will find every which way but loose to avoid having that money snared by the IRS. And, when the high income earner gets fired, laid off or their business heads overseas, that narcotic tax income that the IRS has enjoyed evaporates - usually because the business itself cannot sustain handing over a high corporate tax rate plus salaries, so the jobs are either eliminated to save money or are sent overseas to countries where the tax rates are far lower and the employment rules aren't as strict.
The lower earners lose also, because to paraphrase John Scarne, Old Man Tax Collector will find a way to get their money, and it's as high or higher than the upper tax bracket of 35%. The lower earners think they pay no income tax, but they pay high taxes on cigarettes (45-70% effective), gasoline (10%), cell phone bills (12-20%), excise taxes, sin taxes, and many others. So while it's great to get all that money IRS withheld in your paycheck due to tax credits, all it takes is a sick kid or a major car repair (or a missed rent payment) to wipe that refund out in a jiffy. Meanwhile, even though the high earner is paying 75% to the government in income tax, they have the ability to save good chunks of their income and can live comfortably, whereas the low income earners are forced to live paycheck to paycheck while paying a ton in hidden taxes.
Ironically, when the lower income earners move up and make comfortable salaries, the revenge fantasies go away. They don't care if the guy across the street has four BMWs and just returned from a 60 day cruise around the world; so long as the mortgage is paid and the credit cards are current, that's all that matters. Even the former higher earners, when they lose their job and find a new one that pays less, get the ever-vigilant eye of the IRS off their backs because they've gone down two or three brackets. Sure, you're not earning as much as you did, but so long as the mortgage is paid and the credit cards are current, that's all that matters.
In my next entry, some ideas to reduce tax envy.
* Rather than using "the rich" as a pejorative term, "high earner" is a little more accurate to me because I'm not putting a random dollar amount on how "rich" a person can be.
Whenever I hear grumblings and sniffs that the higher earners* should be taxed more, and supporting propaganda such as "X% of higher earners pay Y% of all tax while Z% of low earners pay nothing," "The zillionaires should have their earnings (taxed heavily, confiscated above a certain level)," and "the fair tax/flat tax/Richard Simmons Shake Your Left Leg and Rub Your Tummy tax is regressive to the poor, the blind, and David Letterman", there is one word that sticks out like a sore thumb: Envy.
Envy is a powerful thing. Little wonder why the lower classes cast a huge green eye at the upper classes, and wish they were taxed to the stratosphere.
But there's a problem with punishing the high earners with punitive taxes, even though in the past, it was acceptable to have an income tax rate of 90% during WWII and a 70% rate in the 1960s and people were just as prosperous. The problem is that when there's a disincentive in place to earn money, the ambition to avoid that tax will go up exponentially. Whether it's plowing it into investments, putting it into an overseas tax shelter, or giving it away to charity, the high earners will find every which way but loose to avoid having that money snared by the IRS. And, when the high income earner gets fired, laid off or their business heads overseas, that narcotic tax income that the IRS has enjoyed evaporates - usually because the business itself cannot sustain handing over a high corporate tax rate plus salaries, so the jobs are either eliminated to save money or are sent overseas to countries where the tax rates are far lower and the employment rules aren't as strict.
The lower earners lose also, because to paraphrase John Scarne, Old Man Tax Collector will find a way to get their money, and it's as high or higher than the upper tax bracket of 35%. The lower earners think they pay no income tax, but they pay high taxes on cigarettes (45-70% effective), gasoline (10%), cell phone bills (12-20%), excise taxes, sin taxes, and many others. So while it's great to get all that money IRS withheld in your paycheck due to tax credits, all it takes is a sick kid or a major car repair (or a missed rent payment) to wipe that refund out in a jiffy. Meanwhile, even though the high earner is paying 75% to the government in income tax, they have the ability to save good chunks of their income and can live comfortably, whereas the low income earners are forced to live paycheck to paycheck while paying a ton in hidden taxes.
Ironically, when the lower income earners move up and make comfortable salaries, the revenge fantasies go away. They don't care if the guy across the street has four BMWs and just returned from a 60 day cruise around the world; so long as the mortgage is paid and the credit cards are current, that's all that matters. Even the former higher earners, when they lose their job and find a new one that pays less, get the ever-vigilant eye of the IRS off their backs because they've gone down two or three brackets. Sure, you're not earning as much as you did, but so long as the mortgage is paid and the credit cards are current, that's all that matters.
In my next entry, some ideas to reduce tax envy.
* Rather than using "the rich" as a pejorative term, "high earner" is a little more accurate to me because I'm not putting a random dollar amount on how "rich" a person can be.
3/15/2011
Watching the Ten Percenters
I'm responding to this excellent Herald article by Hillary Chabot as a long-time lottery player.
I've cashed tickets at the Lottery offices for years. Until 2004, I got the full amount of my winnings, and since then I've paid my 5% cut to the state. (Quit laughing back there if you're thinking I'm financing Deval Patrick's junkets. OK, maybe a nice lunch at a London restaurant.) If you have nothing to hide and you won a substantial amount of money, you would go and cash in the ticket...
...unless you owed child support, back taxes, parking tickets, and the like. Not only do you get the 5% haircut from the state (or, if you're over $5,000, an additional 25% to the IRS), whatever you owe to the Department of Revenue gets taken. For instance, if you owe $100,000 to the state for child support and you win $250,000, all you get left is $87,500, as $75,000 is sent to the DOR and IRS for taxes and the $100,000 is sent to the ex who has been demanding payment. Even if you win as little as $600, whatever you're in arrears gets reduced by your winnings. If you owe $100,000 and you win $600 - sorry, no check for you, but you get your bill reduced to $99,400.
Enter the professional ticket casher, or the "ten percenter." What a ten percenter will do is cash the ticket for you in his own name, take 10% for themselves, and then give the rest to the winner. The result: the tax/child support cheat still owes money, but keeps his winnings out of the radar of the DOR and the IRS
If you're not in trouble and you still want to remain anonymous (or have relatives or collectors dial you night and day because they discovered your suddenly fattened bank account) a blind trust established by a lawyer would be better than giving it to a ten percenter. That way, the lawyer can come forward and claim the prize in the interest of the trust; the members of that trust remain anonymous (well, except for those under 18).
So what to do about this loophole that's costing the DOR millions in back taxes and child support?
Appeal to the ten percenters to turn against the ninety percenters. A back stabbing move? Sure, but if the ten percenter knows that the cheat won't give them their 10%, nothing lubricates the skids more than a ten percenter entrapping his boss.
Here's how it would go: a tax cheat owes $50,000 in child support and $25,000 in back taxes. The tax cheat wins $100,000 in Mass Cash. His $70,000 net will be seized if he turns in the ticket, so he gives it to the ten percenter with a promise of giving him $10,000. The ten percenter knows the tax cheat has screwed him in the past, so he works with the DOR and cashes in the ticket for the cheat.
The catch: the $70,000 check the ten percenter receives gets deposited into a traceable DOR account, who is also monitoring the amount of money given to the tax cheat. When the tax cheat discovers DOR and IRS agents at his door and arrests him for child support and tax evasion, he also will find out all of his assets are seized too, thanks to the help of the ten percenter. The $60,000 that the tax cheat tried to evade gets applied to his outstanding liens, and the ten percenter still gets his 10% of the original winnings - plus 10% interest on what the cheat originally owed, which is $7,500. A fairly nice bonus.
The program, which I would call "Operation Dime Time," would help the DOR get lost cash from their evaders through the work of the ten percenters, who would also get rewarded for their assistance. The ten percenters themselves would shed their image as mules for tax and child support cheats. Even better - children who have been suffering due to the selfishness of their parents would get the money they deserve.
I've cashed tickets at the Lottery offices for years. Until 2004, I got the full amount of my winnings, and since then I've paid my 5% cut to the state. (Quit laughing back there if you're thinking I'm financing Deval Patrick's junkets. OK, maybe a nice lunch at a London restaurant.) If you have nothing to hide and you won a substantial amount of money, you would go and cash in the ticket...
...unless you owed child support, back taxes, parking tickets, and the like. Not only do you get the 5% haircut from the state (or, if you're over $5,000, an additional 25% to the IRS), whatever you owe to the Department of Revenue gets taken. For instance, if you owe $100,000 to the state for child support and you win $250,000, all you get left is $87,500, as $75,000 is sent to the DOR and IRS for taxes and the $100,000 is sent to the ex who has been demanding payment. Even if you win as little as $600, whatever you're in arrears gets reduced by your winnings. If you owe $100,000 and you win $600 - sorry, no check for you, but you get your bill reduced to $99,400.
Enter the professional ticket casher, or the "ten percenter." What a ten percenter will do is cash the ticket for you in his own name, take 10% for themselves, and then give the rest to the winner. The result: the tax/child support cheat still owes money, but keeps his winnings out of the radar of the DOR and the IRS
If you're not in trouble and you still want to remain anonymous (or have relatives or collectors dial you night and day because they discovered your suddenly fattened bank account) a blind trust established by a lawyer would be better than giving it to a ten percenter. That way, the lawyer can come forward and claim the prize in the interest of the trust; the members of that trust remain anonymous (well, except for those under 18).
So what to do about this loophole that's costing the DOR millions in back taxes and child support?
Appeal to the ten percenters to turn against the ninety percenters. A back stabbing move? Sure, but if the ten percenter knows that the cheat won't give them their 10%, nothing lubricates the skids more than a ten percenter entrapping his boss.
Here's how it would go: a tax cheat owes $50,000 in child support and $25,000 in back taxes. The tax cheat wins $100,000 in Mass Cash. His $70,000 net will be seized if he turns in the ticket, so he gives it to the ten percenter with a promise of giving him $10,000. The ten percenter knows the tax cheat has screwed him in the past, so he works with the DOR and cashes in the ticket for the cheat.
The catch: the $70,000 check the ten percenter receives gets deposited into a traceable DOR account, who is also monitoring the amount of money given to the tax cheat. When the tax cheat discovers DOR and IRS agents at his door and arrests him for child support and tax evasion, he also will find out all of his assets are seized too, thanks to the help of the ten percenter. The $60,000 that the tax cheat tried to evade gets applied to his outstanding liens, and the ten percenter still gets his 10% of the original winnings - plus 10% interest on what the cheat originally owed, which is $7,500. A fairly nice bonus.
The program, which I would call "Operation Dime Time," would help the DOR get lost cash from their evaders through the work of the ten percenters, who would also get rewarded for their assistance. The ten percenters themselves would shed their image as mules for tax and child support cheats. Even better - children who have been suffering due to the selfishness of their parents would get the money they deserve.
3/09/2011
Somewhere, Juan Williams is chuckling to himself
After months of controversy, Vivian Schiller, the head of NPR, resigned after one of her colleagues got into a foaming anti-Tea Party tirade, thanks in part to conservative activist James O’Keefe, posing as a Muslim group carrying a $5 million donation to NPR and a hidden camera. Ron Schiller not only offered his opinion, he offered the rope to strangle funding for public broadcasting. (Not only that, one of the hoo-hahs chuckled that NPR is actually National Palestinian Radio. She's on adminstrative leave.)
The clincher in all of this? Upper class white people have maintained their facade of tolerance for many years, but their unadulterated spleen and contempt for others not like them - in other words, their real opinion about minorities, poverty, etc. - comes behind closed doors. They are every bit as bigoted, ignorant, racist, and intolerant as they proclaim their bete noirs to be. The upper white class lusts for power even more than the ones who "cling to their guns and religion," only their guns are mobs of professional agitators and their religion is socialism-lite.
NPR will only have itself to blame when federal funding is cut off from public broadcasting, and their only crime was being too candid.
Juan Williams, who was dismissed for exhibiting his opinion at NPR, is somewhere chuckling wryly to himself.
UPDATE: Juan Williams responds in the New York Post. Compared to his former NPR bosses, Williams at least has his shoes tied while they tripped over themselves.
The clincher in all of this? Upper class white people have maintained their facade of tolerance for many years, but their unadulterated spleen and contempt for others not like them - in other words, their real opinion about minorities, poverty, etc. - comes behind closed doors. They are every bit as bigoted, ignorant, racist, and intolerant as they proclaim their bete noirs to be. The upper white class lusts for power even more than the ones who "cling to their guns and religion," only their guns are mobs of professional agitators and their religion is socialism-lite.
NPR will only have itself to blame when federal funding is cut off from public broadcasting, and their only crime was being too candid.
Juan Williams, who was dismissed for exhibiting his opinion at NPR, is somewhere chuckling wryly to himself.
UPDATE: Juan Williams responds in the New York Post. Compared to his former NPR bosses, Williams at least has his shoes tied while they tripped over themselves.
3/05/2011
Instant Monkey Business (or I voted for #1 but we elected #3?!?!)
Instant Runoff Voting is an alternative way of voting for candidates versus the usual method of voting for one person. In a nutshell, people are ranked in preference.
Sounds great in principle...but in this article by Brendan O'Neill (editor of spiked!) it really isn't that bright and shining pearl of democracy its supporters purport it to be. I've included some parts here, and as it's written mainly in British English, I've put some words in braces {example} for an American approximation. Anything bolded is also my emphasis.
Which may be the reason why some people, who despise the current, yet imperfect electoral system, would love to have IRV up and running. Or maybe not...if IRV were active during the 2010 Mass Gubernatorial elections, and Tim Cahill and Jill Stein were eliminated, the 9% of the votes would have gone to Charlie Baker rather than Deval Patrick, and Baker would have been governor. And, for the reasons listed above, vote pandering and dealing would dilute the very idea of voting in the first place - and dilute the votes themselves.
Sounds great in principle...but in this article by Brendan O'Neill (editor of spiked!) it really isn't that bright and shining pearl of democracy its supporters purport it to be. I've included some parts here, and as it's written mainly in British English, I've put some words in braces {example} for an American approximation. Anything bolded is also my emphasis.
AV is a form of super-technical majoritarianism. The way it works is through insisting that a candidate secure more than 50 per cent of votes before he is declared winner. So it asks voters to list their candidate choices in order of preference, marking them as 1, 2, 3 and so on. If after the first count no single candidate has 50 per cent of votes, then the candidate with the least number of votes is kicked out and those who voted for that candidate have their second-preference votes counted instead. This continues until one of the candidates – through a combination of his own first-preference votes and less keen voters’ second-preference votes for him – finally reaches the 50 per cent mark. So someone eventually wins, even if many of ‘his’ votes were cast very half-heartedly for him.Instead of voting for one person, you select people in terms of preference. When the voting is closed, the person who receives over 50% of the vote wins. If no one gets to the magic 50%, the person who has the lowest percentage is eliminated and the votes get passed around until someone hits 50%.
[AV] would make things less democratic, in two important ways: firstly through its impact on the act of voting, which would turn from being an impassioned statement into a watered-down listing of candidates you like, kind of like and dislike; and secondly through its impact on the act of deciding, which would more and more become a post-election, closed-off process of sifting through people’s preferences to try to decipher which candidate sort of represents the electorate’s desires.
AV would weaken the vote by implicitly inviting people, not to stamp their ballot paper with a heartfelt X for their party, but to scribble numbers next to various candidates, regardless of whether they feel very much for them. Voting would become less a declaration of belief and more a hedging of political bets.
The pro-AV lobby often points out that you will still be able to vote for only one candidate (or just two, or three, or four… it’s up to you). However, the knowledge that your first-preference vote might swiftly be discounted, and that second- or third-preference votes could become key in deciding the outcome of the election, will put moral pressure on voters to play the AV game, effectively to list their feelings about all the candidates rather than attach their flag to one of them. In keeping with our era of ideology-lite, where strong political convictions are seen as weird, voters will be tempted away from their so-called ‘tribal allegiances’ towards the expression of a more relativistic sentiment.
This could impact on what kinds of candidates are put forward for elections in the first place. Which political party will risk {campaigning} a hardcore individual[...]when it knows that if its candidate fails to secure 50 per cent of the vote in the first count then the views of other parties’ voters may become key? Today’s {weaker} parties rarely {campaign} risky candidates these days anyway; but with the introduction of AV we would likely see the party leaders exerting even more influence over which individuals are permitted to {campaign}, with the elbowing aside of those with possibly controversial beliefs in favour of more acceptable, politer and blander candidates who might not only pick up lots of [#]1's from said party’s traditional voters, but also some [#]2's and [#]3's from the other parties’ voters, too. AV would implicitly encourage the homogeni[z]ation of political life.
The new way of voting would also create enormous scope for {mischief}. The knowledge that second- and third-preference votes could become key will invite opportunistic lobbying between the various candidates and their minions. Under AV, the emphasis will inevitably shift from politicians appealing directly to the public for their outright political support and towards candidates cosying up to each other, striking deals, saying ‘get your people to give me their second-preference votes, and I’ll get mine to give them yours…" AV has a built-in tendency towards oligarchical relationship-building over direct, passionate, people-oriented electioneering.
Finally, AV would transform the traditional act of counting votes into a political form of tea-leaf-reading. Elections will be decided through the laborious process of sorting out preferences, expelling failing candidates one-by-one and subsequently spreading their supporters’ votes to other candidates. The people’s will would become something that is not so much clearly expressed in the election itself, in the act of voting, but rather something that is worked out after the election by officials and experts. Politics would become less open, less forged in the public realm, and more an act of elite deciphering of what ‘the people’ seemingly prefer rather than want. We could easily end up with representatives that no one truly, passionately, wants.
In short, AV will both weaken The Vote and strengthen electoral bureaucracy. It will encourage even more candidates not to stand on a platform of ideas or policies that they are prepared to live and die by, but rather to take fewer political risks and always to keep one eye on the lowest common denominator of appealing to as many people as possible. And AV will strengthen the hand of that expert caste of middle-class negotiators and well-connected, well-educated political players who already dominate much of the modern political sphere. It will be a travesty for democracy.
Which may be the reason why some people, who despise the current, yet imperfect electoral system, would love to have IRV up and running. Or maybe not...if IRV were active during the 2010 Mass Gubernatorial elections, and Tim Cahill and Jill Stein were eliminated, the 9% of the votes would have gone to Charlie Baker rather than Deval Patrick, and Baker would have been governor. And, for the reasons listed above, vote pandering and dealing would dilute the very idea of voting in the first place - and dilute the votes themselves.
1/08/2011
Success should NEVER be punished
Amy Alkon leads a discussion on why the rich are penalized at high tax rates when the poor skate away without paying a single dime in income taxes, once their credits and withholding are factored in.
The poor, despite paying little to no income tax, actually pay much higher and very well hidden taxes on other things - well hidden by cowardly politicians who would face an enraged populace if they discovered that all the EITCs and withholding they got back from the IRS went back to the government via consumption. For instance - that $6 of generic smokes they got at the convenience store slams them with an effective tax rate of 58.5%. Or that their cellphone bill has taxes that have been collected since the Spanish-American war and tack on 10-20% in taxes. Gasoline taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon in Massachusetts - if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage of $8 an hour and fill your 20 gallon tank at $60, you've just paid half an hour of your wages in tax. (When you factor in the federal tax of 24.4 cents per gallon, each hour you work you will pay that much money in gas taxes.)
On the other hand, the rich are paid very well because their value and success to their business warrants it. Sure, there are sports players that earn hundreds of millions of dollars in salary for each season, which is a few months a year. Sure, there are greedy bankster and baron robbers out there that have million-dollar bonuses. But others who are inventors, innovators, researchers - people who do a genuine service - deserve to be compensated handsomely. Some are so rich now that they take a nominal dollar salary per year, but they do so as a symbol to their employees that money doesn't matter.
The reason why there are calls for the rich to be taxed higher and higher doesn't involve money. There are people so insanely jealous and envious of others are guilty of not being successful themselves, so they demand the money be seized via taxes and inflation and given to others as a warped method of "justice." In East Germany, those who dared work privately and not for the state found their wages taxed at 90% - all because Karl Marx - himself a wealthy aristocrat with disdain for the lower classes - saw those same visions of serfs and feudal lords.
We don't live in the times of feudal lords, aristocracy, royalty, serfs, commoners, and peasants anymore, but there are folks who dream that a pecking order returns and people are put in their place. The other fantasy is that all are equal and none are exceptional - no one learns how to work hard to get ahead and all is provided by a invisible hand. (Love this quote about so-called "social justice" in the blog, though - "[Bec]ause if it were real justice it wouldnt (sic) require a qualifing word.")
Hence, not only should the rich not be an ATM for social engineering wonks, the rich should never, ever be punished for their success. Not all of them are going to drive six-figure cars and spend the entire summer in Martha's Vineyard burning hundreds and engaging in all-day insider trading deals. Most of them are humble; most of them donate freely to places and charities (the IRS is a government agency, not a charity). To sneer that the rich are "not paying their fair share" is a sign that the inquirer is either an ignorant moron, a control freak of the highest order, or is clueless of how things and people work. Of course, if you feel you're not paying enough to the government, by all means, write a check to the IRS to reduce the national debt (or, if you live in Massachusetts, check off the 5.85% "optional" income tax).
Otherwise, you're a jealous fucking control freak asshole.
The poor, despite paying little to no income tax, actually pay much higher and very well hidden taxes on other things - well hidden by cowardly politicians who would face an enraged populace if they discovered that all the EITCs and withholding they got back from the IRS went back to the government via consumption. For instance - that $6 of generic smokes they got at the convenience store slams them with an effective tax rate of 58.5%. Or that their cellphone bill has taxes that have been collected since the Spanish-American war and tack on 10-20% in taxes. Gasoline taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon in Massachusetts - if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage of $8 an hour and fill your 20 gallon tank at $60, you've just paid half an hour of your wages in tax. (When you factor in the federal tax of 24.4 cents per gallon, each hour you work you will pay that much money in gas taxes.)
On the other hand, the rich are paid very well because their value and success to their business warrants it. Sure, there are sports players that earn hundreds of millions of dollars in salary for each season, which is a few months a year. Sure, there are greedy bankster and baron robbers out there that have million-dollar bonuses. But others who are inventors, innovators, researchers - people who do a genuine service - deserve to be compensated handsomely. Some are so rich now that they take a nominal dollar salary per year, but they do so as a symbol to their employees that money doesn't matter.
The reason why there are calls for the rich to be taxed higher and higher doesn't involve money. There are people so insanely jealous and envious of others are guilty of not being successful themselves, so they demand the money be seized via taxes and inflation and given to others as a warped method of "justice." In East Germany, those who dared work privately and not for the state found their wages taxed at 90% - all because Karl Marx - himself a wealthy aristocrat with disdain for the lower classes - saw those same visions of serfs and feudal lords.
We don't live in the times of feudal lords, aristocracy, royalty, serfs, commoners, and peasants anymore, but there are folks who dream that a pecking order returns and people are put in their place. The other fantasy is that all are equal and none are exceptional - no one learns how to work hard to get ahead and all is provided by a invisible hand. (Love this quote about so-called "social justice" in the blog, though - "[Bec]ause if it were real justice it wouldnt (sic) require a qualifing word.")
Hence, not only should the rich not be an ATM for social engineering wonks, the rich should never, ever be punished for their success. Not all of them are going to drive six-figure cars and spend the entire summer in Martha's Vineyard burning hundreds and engaging in all-day insider trading deals. Most of them are humble; most of them donate freely to places and charities (the IRS is a government agency, not a charity). To sneer that the rich are "not paying their fair share" is a sign that the inquirer is either an ignorant moron, a control freak of the highest order, or is clueless of how things and people work. Of course, if you feel you're not paying enough to the government, by all means, write a check to the IRS to reduce the national debt (or, if you live in Massachusetts, check off the 5.85% "optional" income tax).
Otherwise, you're a jealous fucking control freak asshole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)