During prime election years my thoughts often turn to solving/griping about how things are. I wouldn't call myself a big-picture guy when it comes to politics, but I have my moments (in my own mind). One particular item I tend to contemplate is the tax code of these United States. As it has grown over the years it has become a cumbersome mess. It's time we fix it.
The biggest issue is how to be fair. No matter what one proposes, someone else won't like it. The 'poor' won't like what the 'rich' get and the 'middle class' (of which I am a member) won't like what either of the other groups get. Many ideas have been floated with much or little fanfare, yet here we sit with a tax code so complicated that no one person could possibly know half of it.
Here's my thoughts.
Institute a 'semi-flat' tax. Pick a percentage, I'll go with 18. That's higher than some want but less than others. There would be some deductions across the board that each group would be able to take. I would list them as a dependent deduction, homeowners and medical. No matter what your level of income you face the same tax rate as everyone else. There should also be some manner of business deduction if you are the principle owner of a business and you are investing your own money into that business. (This is where I would have to leave it to the accountants to hash out the details). The one thing I would not include as a deduction is capital gains. It's income, plain and simple. At that point you are not investing in creating jobs you are building wealth for yourself. Capital gains should be taxed the same as any other income. Why? It's just income, why does it matter where it came from?
I understand others won't like it if the poor are taxed, but they use the services of the government just like everyone else, and often are the heaviest users of those services. At some point there can be a floor where there is no tax but that floor should be low enough that no one would want to be there. Although our government spends much to much and they should have their hands slapped, everyone needs to pay their share, rich or poor, no hiding money through sheltered funds or investments or other 'accounting tricks'. If you want more wealth, earn more. If you don't want to pay the taxes, move to another country. I hear Greece is currently looking for investors.
And just in case anyone wants to know, this ramble has been penned without the insight of whether my own taxes would go up or down using this scenario. Besides, My Beloved takes care of all that. I just sign what she tells me to.
Ramblings of a 60 Year Old Man - My thoughts on just about anything, in no particular order; Robert Thomas - author.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Fischer vs Spassky
Recently, Punkin, age 5, was looking in the basement for a game to play, and pulled out a long box, asking, "Can you teach me this game?"
It was Chess, a game I played so infrequently as a child that I had to read the instructions (that were fortunately still in the box) so as to properly set up the pieces on the board. I then had to try to explain to him how each piece moved (again, after checking), and what the ultimate goal was.
He did his best to recall what each piece would do, but did require some help during the game. It became evident that he liked getting his pieces captured even if he took one of mine. We played perhaps 5 games over the course of a couple weeks, and each time he did slightly better, even if he still didn't mind losing pieces.
Last week we started to play and Punkin Bread asked to play on my team, so we teamed up against Punkin. Punkin Bread and I alternated moving our pieces; I let her move any piece she wanted as long as the move was legal, even if it meant putting our piece at risk. Her favorite tactic was to take a piece and slam it straight down the line to smash into Punkin's piece. I had to repeatedly tell her that's not quite how the game was played, so she would have to go back and try something else.
After about 20 minutes she decided she had had enough, leaving the two Grand Masters to battle it out against each other.
And what a match it was! We went toe-to-toe for an additional 10 minutes before we were both left with just a King, thus settling for a draw.
If the international press had been there to cover our every move, perhaps we could have played for millions of dollars, just as they did in 1972.
It was Chess, a game I played so infrequently as a child that I had to read the instructions (that were fortunately still in the box) so as to properly set up the pieces on the board. I then had to try to explain to him how each piece moved (again, after checking), and what the ultimate goal was.
He did his best to recall what each piece would do, but did require some help during the game. It became evident that he liked getting his pieces captured even if he took one of mine. We played perhaps 5 games over the course of a couple weeks, and each time he did slightly better, even if he still didn't mind losing pieces.
Last week we started to play and Punkin Bread asked to play on my team, so we teamed up against Punkin. Punkin Bread and I alternated moving our pieces; I let her move any piece she wanted as long as the move was legal, even if it meant putting our piece at risk. Her favorite tactic was to take a piece and slam it straight down the line to smash into Punkin's piece. I had to repeatedly tell her that's not quite how the game was played, so she would have to go back and try something else.
After about 20 minutes she decided she had had enough, leaving the two Grand Masters to battle it out against each other.
And what a match it was! We went toe-to-toe for an additional 10 minutes before we were both left with just a King, thus settling for a draw.
If the international press had been there to cover our every move, perhaps we could have played for millions of dollars, just as they did in 1972.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
First Amendment or bust
Recently in Cincinnati, Ohio, an ex-husband was ordered by a domestic relations court to apologize on his Facebook account to his ex-wife. The court ordered him to apologize for thirty consecutive days posting an apology written for him. I was immediately appalled. I couldn't believe any judge would think this punishment would be legal in itself. As it seems to us in the private sector, judges often are want to hand down rulings or judgements with whatever whims they desire. Then, I thought I would do some digging.
This flaunts nearly everything in the First Amendment, I thought. So, I researched several things on the net about the 'First'. One of the things I came across concerned libel and slander. I read several things and decided this particular magistrate must be ruling based on this section of interpretation. The problem however is courts often go back on previous decisions and rewrite them with their own interpretations. And this is in the Supreme Court. I have often failed to see how something can be ruled constitutional but then a court years later doesn't hold the same opinion. It is or it isn't. Although society's tools such as the use of the internet changes, the fundamentals don't. The biggest flaw here is the use and interpretation of whether a private person's opinion constitutes slander. Even here the courts don't always agree.
Under this situation I could understand how the magistrate could rule that an apology was in order. (The other choice he had was sixty days in jail). Although I now believe the magistrate might have been on the right track, dictating the actual apology overstepped the bounds of the court (in my opinion). In this case the court represents the government and should not be able to force/coerce any individual into saying or publishing something he doesn't believe is true. If in fact the defendant truly stated an opinion that that was not actionable, the magistrate's ruling then limits the magistrate's own voice in stating any future personal opinion about anyone he may meet in the future.
I doubt that anyone could go through life without expressing a negative opinion about another. Hope he has a stack of legal pads to write the apologies he'll need for the rest of his life, thirty days at a time.
This flaunts nearly everything in the First Amendment, I thought. So, I researched several things on the net about the 'First'. One of the things I came across concerned libel and slander. I read several things and decided this particular magistrate must be ruling based on this section of interpretation. The problem however is courts often go back on previous decisions and rewrite them with their own interpretations. And this is in the Supreme Court. I have often failed to see how something can be ruled constitutional but then a court years later doesn't hold the same opinion. It is or it isn't. Although society's tools such as the use of the internet changes, the fundamentals don't. The biggest flaw here is the use and interpretation of whether a private person's opinion constitutes slander. Even here the courts don't always agree.
Under this situation I could understand how the magistrate could rule that an apology was in order. (The other choice he had was sixty days in jail). Although I now believe the magistrate might have been on the right track, dictating the actual apology overstepped the bounds of the court (in my opinion). In this case the court represents the government and should not be able to force/coerce any individual into saying or publishing something he doesn't believe is true. If in fact the defendant truly stated an opinion that that was not actionable, the magistrate's ruling then limits the magistrate's own voice in stating any future personal opinion about anyone he may meet in the future.
I doubt that anyone could go through life without expressing a negative opinion about another. Hope he has a stack of legal pads to write the apologies he'll need for the rest of his life, thirty days at a time.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Tweets and twangs
Just from the title (and those who know me or have followed this blog) I'm sure you can likely figure out where this is going to lead.
Although I don't have a Twitter account and likely never will, this ramble about Twitter is fully from the outside looking in. All I know about Twitter is what I hear on the news, radio and other social media and the internet. That means I don't follow anyone.
What I don't understand is the pull Twitter has on others. The problem with Twitter since it is limited to 140 characters is you can't speak to anything in-depth. Not everything can or should be limited to two or three sentences and either make sense or require further explanation. I'm not saying everyone should go out and blog but from what I hear of others, specifically the tweets from stars and upper-crust of society amounts to no more than things they must apologize for afterwards. You can't make very many thorough points in that short of space. What seems to be happening then is everyone is trying to deliver their best "one-liner" so followers will think they are funny or clever. That's when the apologies have to follow. "Oh, that's not what I meant, or "that was taken out of context". You can't take anything out of context if you only have 140 characters to work with. (This short post would require nine tweets to publish on Twitter).
For those reasons, Twitter will never be something I will voluntarily subscribe to. Besides, knowing when someone is going to the grocery store doesn't interest me either.
Although I don't have a Twitter account and likely never will, this ramble about Twitter is fully from the outside looking in. All I know about Twitter is what I hear on the news, radio and other social media and the internet. That means I don't follow anyone.
What I don't understand is the pull Twitter has on others. The problem with Twitter since it is limited to 140 characters is you can't speak to anything in-depth. Not everything can or should be limited to two or three sentences and either make sense or require further explanation. I'm not saying everyone should go out and blog but from what I hear of others, specifically the tweets from stars and upper-crust of society amounts to no more than things they must apologize for afterwards. You can't make very many thorough points in that short of space. What seems to be happening then is everyone is trying to deliver their best "one-liner" so followers will think they are funny or clever. That's when the apologies have to follow. "Oh, that's not what I meant, or "that was taken out of context". You can't take anything out of context if you only have 140 characters to work with. (This short post would require nine tweets to publish on Twitter).
For those reasons, Twitter will never be something I will voluntarily subscribe to. Besides, knowing when someone is going to the grocery store doesn't interest me either.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Living in a Punkin Bread World III
Ahhh, to be a child!
Recently, Punkin Bread asked her older brother, Punkin, if he wanted to play hide-and-seek. He said no, whereupon Punkin Bread covered her eyes anyway and counted up to 14. She uncovered her eyes, looked to her right and exclaimed, "I found you!"
Mind you, this game of hide-and-seek took place in the family van wherein the children were strapped into their car seats, literally inches from each other.
Recently, Punkin Bread asked her older brother, Punkin, if he wanted to play hide-and-seek. He said no, whereupon Punkin Bread covered her eyes anyway and counted up to 14. She uncovered her eyes, looked to her right and exclaimed, "I found you!"
Mind you, this game of hide-and-seek took place in the family van wherein the children were strapped into their car seats, literally inches from each other.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Attacks of randomitisness
Last night I had an attack of randomitisness. This happens to me periodically as I have complete random thoughts and then have to investigate them. I don't know if others suffer from this scourge, but it is something that I must deal with on a random and continual basis.
Last night's influx dealt with the issue of the distance of an arc-second. I know that particular word will likely keep North of 50 from reading any further as his long-ago post "What I Learned in Algebra and Geometry" shall attest. Though his knowledge of subjects is wide and varied, he's a little lax on the sciences.
Several years ago before the popular advent of GPS devices I decided to find the map co-ordinances of my home. It took some doing but I was at last able to decipher them. I used the internet to track the latitude and longitude but had to convert them to the degree, minute and second designations. Still with me North? I also sent him the location of his home which is not far from mine.
Last night, I wondered what the length of an arc-second was. For the uninitiated, if you divide the earth's circle into 360 segments, each one is a degree, hence that is what is taught in geometry. Degrees are then sub-divided into 60 parts (minutes) and those minutes to another 60 (seconds). North, wake up! The problem you run into is in dealing with longitude. As you move north or south on the globe, the distance of an arc-second decreases. (OK, I'm sure North is completely gone by now). That being said, most use the distance on the equator as the standard. To that end, the distance of an arc-second at the equator is approximately 101 feet, just in case anyone wanted to know.
N39* 55' 1"
W-82* 45' 29"
Last night's influx dealt with the issue of the distance of an arc-second. I know that particular word will likely keep North of 50 from reading any further as his long-ago post "What I Learned in Algebra and Geometry" shall attest. Though his knowledge of subjects is wide and varied, he's a little lax on the sciences.
Several years ago before the popular advent of GPS devices I decided to find the map co-ordinances of my home. It took some doing but I was at last able to decipher them. I used the internet to track the latitude and longitude but had to convert them to the degree, minute and second designations. Still with me North? I also sent him the location of his home which is not far from mine.
Last night, I wondered what the length of an arc-second was. For the uninitiated, if you divide the earth's circle into 360 segments, each one is a degree, hence that is what is taught in geometry. Degrees are then sub-divided into 60 parts (minutes) and those minutes to another 60 (seconds). North, wake up! The problem you run into is in dealing with longitude. As you move north or south on the globe, the distance of an arc-second decreases. (OK, I'm sure North is completely gone by now). That being said, most use the distance on the equator as the standard. To that end, the distance of an arc-second at the equator is approximately 101 feet, just in case anyone wanted to know.
N39* 55' 1"
W-82* 45' 29"
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Pay to play
Our local paper weekly places the best of the best in high school athletes in the sports pages. It is nice to see such recognition and I'm sure it gives the multitude of schools a little bit of bragging rights. It's also a nice clip to save for the future.
In the last few years, as we all know, high school sports has become more and more a pay to play. It can cost anywhere from a few dollars up to several hundred dollars for a teen to play the sport they love. Most think that is unfair but that is the reality of today. Some don't understand and think everything should be free. The world doesn't work that way.
Take these sports for instance. When I was an aspiring pitcher back in the day, the only varsity sports we had were the majors, football, basketball and baseball. And those were for boys only. There were the occasional volleyball sports for girls but those were still rare. In my senior year, the girls of my class won the very first girls state basketball championships. Yep, the first.
One of the reasons it costs to play is the wide variety of sports. There is now hockey, lacrosse, the three majors, volleyball, tennis, golf, swimming and still many others. That costs money folks, to pay coaches, travel from meets or matches, the various facilities to maintain or pay to use. Large swimming pools aren't cheap nor is renting them for practice or meets. Come to think of it, soccer virtually didn't exist in my high school career and it is now likely the number one participatory sport for youth today.
Budgets for schools are stretched far enough without having to pay for all these extra sports. When a school levy fails, parents are outraged when the school boards always threaten to cut sports. As much as I believe they are a necessary activity for schools, I never hear anyone complain about cutting back on math class. For too long we have put too much focus on these sports for our teens. How much more would we help them in life if we put that much focus on their homework?
I'd hate to lose them due to budget cuts, but high school sports are actually a luxury and with schools in deficit spending modes should be treated as such.
In the last few years, as we all know, high school sports has become more and more a pay to play. It can cost anywhere from a few dollars up to several hundred dollars for a teen to play the sport they love. Most think that is unfair but that is the reality of today. Some don't understand and think everything should be free. The world doesn't work that way.
Take these sports for instance. When I was an aspiring pitcher back in the day, the only varsity sports we had were the majors, football, basketball and baseball. And those were for boys only. There were the occasional volleyball sports for girls but those were still rare. In my senior year, the girls of my class won the very first girls state basketball championships. Yep, the first.
One of the reasons it costs to play is the wide variety of sports. There is now hockey, lacrosse, the three majors, volleyball, tennis, golf, swimming and still many others. That costs money folks, to pay coaches, travel from meets or matches, the various facilities to maintain or pay to use. Large swimming pools aren't cheap nor is renting them for practice or meets. Come to think of it, soccer virtually didn't exist in my high school career and it is now likely the number one participatory sport for youth today.
Budgets for schools are stretched far enough without having to pay for all these extra sports. When a school levy fails, parents are outraged when the school boards always threaten to cut sports. As much as I believe they are a necessary activity for schools, I never hear anyone complain about cutting back on math class. For too long we have put too much focus on these sports for our teens. How much more would we help them in life if we put that much focus on their homework?
I'd hate to lose them due to budget cuts, but high school sports are actually a luxury and with schools in deficit spending modes should be treated as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)