My Blog

Blog

  • Who Pays What Income Taxes?

    At the DNC there was a lot of talk about “Everyone has to pay their fair share.”  That seems to be at introduction into a philosophical discussion about what a particular group should pay.  What is everyone’s “fair share?”

    In Tax Year 2009:

    Top 1%   paid 36.73% of the total tax bill;
    Top 5%   paid 58.66%;
    Top 10% paid 70.47%;
    Top 25% paid 87.30%;
    Top 50% paid 97.75%;
    Bottom 50% paid 2.25%.

    Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
    Source: Internal Revenue Service

    via National Taxpayers Union.

    We live in a country where the top 5% of earners pay over 1/2 of the bill.  How much more should we, as a people, ask them to pay?  What are the appropriate numbers for this summary?  If you asked a progressive, or a liberal, what percentage of the tab should the top 1% pay?  How about the top 25%?

    And if we’re going to have a philosophical discussion about who pays what, should we not consider the role of payment of taxes plays in simply being a good citizen?  Can you be a good citizen, and feel a connection to your country, when you pay nothing?  Do free rider’s feel like they are part of the greater community at large?

    When Obama says that everyone has to pay their fair share does he mean that anyone’s fair share is zero?

  • Fioretti: 35 Member Council & Term Limits

    Alderman Robert Fioretti (2nd Ward) believes Chicago would do fine with just 35 aldermen instead of 50 — especially now that workers are handling garbage pickup and street cleaning on a system of ten “grids” instead of 50 wards.  …

    Besides a smaller City Council, Fioretti is calling for term limits. “Just look at the 2nd Ward and all we’ve done so far” in fewer than two terms, he said. “If they [aldermen] have got to stick around and wait years to get anything done, they should not be aldermen in the first place.”Fioretti admitted he probably has “made some waves” downtown with such “maverick” views.

    via Gazette Chicago.

    Indeed!!

  • Race at DNC – Button Says it Plainly

    20120905-181243.jpg

  • You’re Being Watched by Your Government

    Back in July I wrote about how your government was utilizing all kinds of technology to spy on you.  At the time it appeared to just be speculation; now we know it to be true.

    Part I

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is suing the Justice Department for details of last month’s ruling by a secretive U.S. court that National Security Agency’s domestic spying program violated the U.S. Constitution, Jon Brodkin of arstechnica reports.

    The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) found that “on at least one occasion” the NSA had violated the Fourth Amendment’s restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures.  …

    The kicker is that there is ample evidence that the NSA has gone above and beyond the powers granted through the 2008 FISA Amendment Act by actively spying on the electronic communications of American citizens within the U.S. and by coercing service providers to feed it any and all information it wants.via Business Insider.

    And it that’s not scary enough for you, check this out!

    Part II

    A Naomi Wolf article in the Guardian about the rise of security cameras at Occupy hangouts and the multi-billion dollar biometric technologies industry includes this story:

    A software engineer … visited Disneyland, and … the theme park offered him the photo of himself and his girlfriend to buy – with his credit card information already linked to it. He noted that he had never entered his name or information into anything at the theme park, or indicated that he wanted a photo, or alerted the humans at the ride to who he and his girlfriend were – so, he said, based on his professional experience, the system had to be using facial recognition technology. He had never signed an agreement allowing them to do so, and he declared that this use was illegal. He also claimed that Disney had recently shared data from facial-recognition technology with the United States military.

    It turns out that Disney applies biometrics – that is, the statistical analysis of biological data – in the form of scanning visitor fingerprint information and identifying people with facial recognition software.

    In fact, “Walt Disney World is responsible for the nation’s largest single commercial application of biometrics” and after 9/11 the government sought “Disney’s advice in intelligence, security and biometrics,” as reported in 2006 by Karen Hamel of News 21.

    Hamel listed several former Disneyland employees that have gone on to fill “some of the most sensitive positions in the U.S. intelligence and security communities,”

    via Business Insider.

    That’s more than just a little creepy.

    There’s also a guy who used to work for the NSA who’s coming forward and blowing the whistle.

     

  • IL Pension Hole Analysis

    I wrote this a few weeks ago as a comment on a retired teacher’s blog.  The post there was about how we need to “tax the rich” in order to fund the teachers’ pensions.  I was asked to comment on the post by a retired teacher I know.  Analysis follows:

    There is no one sided solution to this problem. Perhaps if Springfield moved on this a decade ago it could be solved with “funding” but at this time both sides are going to have to give.

    According to Crain’s Illinois’ unfunded pension liabilities are $86 billion. See: https://temp.jamesbosco.com/2012/06/19/illinois-pensions-are-the-worst/

    According to the Il Dept. of Revenue there were 36,682 returns filed in the state with over $500,000 in AGI. These returns paid $1,633,991,633. See: http://www.revenue.state.il.us/AboutIdor/TaxStats/2010/IIT-NetIncome-2010-Preliminary.pdf

    If we (a/k/a Illinois) doubled the tax on these folks with AGI over $500k we could bring in an extra $1.63B assuming no one flees the state (which would happen.) So doubling the tax on “the rich” would cover 1.9% of the current pension liabilities.

    If we quadrupled the tax that would cover less than 7.6% of the current pension liabilities. So it would take over 13 years of quadruple taxation on those making over $500k per year just to get current pension liabilities square. This would not cover the additional debt.

    Union members can sit around pointing fingers but it’s not going to solve the problem. Illinois is broke. Everyone’s going to have to give more than they want. Of course, the “rich” can always move to Indiana or Wisconsin. Then they contribute nothing; that doesn’t help retired teachers one bit. So I recommend that you be careful what you wish for.

    – – –

    We cannot solve our problem by eating the rich.  We must grow the size of the pie. … Well, growth and inflation.

  • Taliban Behead People for Music (CAIR Silent)

    The news out of Afghanistan is that the Taliban beheaded 17 men and women who had gathered for a mixed-gender social event with music and dancing.

    via Business Insider.

    Some parts of the world are simply 1,500 years behind the times.  We need to leave them be.  It’s not worth the American lives and money to try to front-face backward people.

    One questions I do have though is where is the outcry from moderate Muslims?  It appears to me that this sort of behavior is simply acceptable to them.  That’s at least a save assumption until someone says otherwise.

    Back to my first thought… why should we risk our lives trying to save the innocent when their own people refuse to even acknowledge that anything is wrong?

  • 30 Game Changing Innovations

    Some very clever (or crazy) ideas are coming in the near future.

    Check ’em out.

    Business Insider.

  • Paradoxical Quote on Obamacare

    Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen. Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.
    — Attributed to Ben Stein

  • Thoughts on Colorado – Freedom vs. Safety

    This is was written as a comment on this NYT piece.  I’ve made it much longer here because the NYT limits space.

    —

    Restricting access to firearms will never stop these kinds of attacks.  As a society we need to resolve ourselves that some people are crazy and will drive cars into crowds, shoot other people en mass, and otherwise engage in spree killings.

    Many believe it’s as simple as restricting access a/k/a gun control.  But what happens when a police officer’s gun is stolen?  What should we do with the 5+ million firearms already owned? What about hunters?  People who think that food comes from a store don’t have decent solutions that play nationally.

    Vermont has nearly no restrictions on firearm ownership or concealed carry.  One never hears of people shooting-up a Home Depot in Vermont.  Why should Vermont be required to change their laws – which appear to work and the citizens clearly want – because of actions in New York or Colorado?

    In Chicago (where I live) we have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  It’s not working.  In addition to gangs using guns to solve problems they routinely use knives.  In Chicago over 500 people are stabbed each year.  Should we outlaw knives?

    Chicago has also been the city where three times in as many years we’ve made national news because people have been beaten with baseball bats or a 2×4.  One Irish girl is still in a coma as a result of a beating; another H.S. student is dead.  Dozens of others have been seriously injured.  Should Chicago ban baseball bats and lumber?

    Additionally, at least 4 kids have drowned at local pools and the lake this year.  Should we close them too?

    Of course the last example are accidents.  I recently read a story about “who’s to blame” for the recent drownings.  The story quoted one dead child’s uncle who asked where the lifeguards were.  I wondered where we was.  It is not patently irresponsible for a parent to send a child to a pool if they cannot adequately swim?  While the parents may be negligent, they surely did not intend for their children to drown.  That’s a very very different situation from Colorado — that is recognized.

    But accidents deserve to be included in the analysis because of how society reacts to the event.  And also because how society deals with “means” vs. “ends”.  The end result is the same, people are dead.  We as a society accept that while tragic, we should not close down pools and beaches because they take hundreds of lives each year.  We believe those losses are tragic but the risk / reward (pleasure) ratio is acceptable.

    This is similar to driving.  Traffic accidents kill over 40,000 people each year.  We believe that the risk of being injured or dying in a traffic accident is acceptable given the benefit we receive by not having to walk everywhere (or take a horse which is probably more dangerous.)

    As a society we do our best to reduce the risks.  At pools and beaches we employ lifeguards.  In Chicago lifeguards are paid for by the taxpayer who may or may not utilize them.  On the roads we have laws against drunk driving; we don’t let 12 year-olds drive either.  We, through our government, demand that cars have seat belts and air bags.  It appears that society in general is content with the risk / reward balance.  But of course we could do more.

    It would be very easy for the government to mandate that every vehicle be equipped with a sobriety tester.  It would prevent drunks from driving.

    We, through our government, could also mandate a speed control device on all cars so that they’re limited to the speed limit.  It would prevent high speed crashes not to mention high speed police chases.

    Why do we not have these existing technologies in our cars already?  Because society does not want them.  We’re happy with the balance of risk / reward that is involved with driving.  We value our freedom to drive drunk and fast more than we demand additional safety.

    And that is how we need to address gun control.  Do we wish to give up more freedom in order to provide more safety?  And would we in fact be safer with less freedoms?  Those are two different questions.

    There is no doubt that lifeguards and air bags save lives.

    There is a lot of doubt as to banning guns would save any lives.

    The facts are clear that More Guns Equal Less Crime.

    So however tragic the recent events in Colorado may be, further restrictions on our freedom will not result in additional safety.

    We morn those who we’ve lost.  We pray for their families.  We struggle to find answers to unanswerable questions.

    But most importantly, we get on with our lives recognizing that evil is present in the world and that bad things happen to good people.  In the end we also know that we cannot prevent these events from happening by passing additional laws.

  • New Govt Laser Reads You At Molecular Level

    The Department of Homeland Security will soon be using a laser at airports that can detect everything about you from over 160-feet away.

    Gizmodo reports a scanner that could read people at the molecular level has been invented. This laser-based scanner – which can be used 164-feet away — could read everything from a person’s adrenaline levels, to traces of gun powder on a person’s clothes, to illegal substances — and it can all be done without a physical search. It also could be used on multiple people at a time, eliminating random searches at airports.

    The laser-based scanner is expected to be used in airports as soon as 2013, Gizmodo reports.

    via CBS DC.

    Really?!  Is this what we’ve come to?

    I wonder what the ACLU’s position is going to be on this.  At the airport I kinda understand; you are giving your consent to be searched.  That’s the bargain for what is supposed to be a safe flight.

    But how long before Mayor Bloomberg decides that he wants to use this on people just walking down the street?

    1984 here we come!!