Who's paying the bills? More of all of us are paying than you might think. Let's look at it.
The figures here come from the OMB and the CBO. They are current for 2015. That doesn't really matter, it doesn't change much no matter how you fiddle with the marginal tax rates. Thank God.
It boils down to this: 46% of all federal revenue comes from income taxes. In the end, the famous 1% provide about 24% of all federal revenue. If they don't have enhanced access they certainly should. However, 54% of all revenue comes from other sources. That's tariffs and excise taxes and fees. It's interesting it took a Constitutional Amendment to make those not the only sources for federal revenue. The Sixteenth Amendment. That was the result of decades of debate, claim and counter court claim. It's really kinda fascinating and not what I'm talking about.
That 54%. All federal and local taxes for that matter are eventually levies on individual residents. All corporate taxes, all tariffs and levies are paid by individuals going about their daily lives. Do you rent an apartment rather than own a house? You are still paying property taxes. Several states don't just take note of that. They refund a portion to low-income individuals and have for decades. You know it's only fair when even republicans think it's fair. That's not a partisan 'knock'. It's an observation. I might get to the partisan knocks later.
Here's a question: Are you a one pack a day cigarette smoker? If so, you actually pay more state and federal taxes than a married individual with children who earns in excess of 100K a year. You will certainly pay more in your lifetime than any amount your care might cost if you are unfortunate enough to fall ill from your habit. That'll piss the kids off but it's true. Smoke em if you got em.
Do you enjoy a drink now and then or regularly? If you live in Pennsylvania 51% of you liquor bill is taxes. Even a lousy glass of draft beer contains a myriad of micro taxes both federal and local. All of this contributes to and benefits the common weal. Look that up. 'The Common Weal'. It's important. Cheers and thanks.
Just by living in a community an individual makes a major, lasting and important contribution to that community. No matter who we happen to be, no matter the source of our income we are, perforce, contributing members of that community. All of us deserve a say. It's our money. Our accidents of birth don't matter. It's our money, hopefully properly directed at the common weal but our money in the end. That means it's also their money in the end no matter who "they" happen to be and it should be spent with them in mind.
In case you're too dense to get it this is an argument for so-called 'illegal' aliens. These are our neighbors and with a little thought our friends. It's also an argument for all of us. You should be able to vote in, at least, local elections by showing a current utility bill. You're there. You should have a say. It's your money. That's America! Thanks for your contribution and I sincerely do mean that!
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Geographic Isolation
We've been told so often and tried so often to walk a mile in another's shoes we sometimes forget we really do have shoes of our own. We try so hard to keep an open mind some people seem to forget to not keep their minds so open their brains fall out on the ground. The 'white man's burden' is becoming something other than Kipling's completely innocent but completely objectionable idea. We're being burdened with blame we really don't deserve.
The truth is the collection of 'scary white guys' that traditionally have run the United States aren't exclusively some manifestation of white supremacy. They're just the product of geographic isolation.
We currently face and have faced the tension between accident of birth and true meritocracy. Capitalism is the ideal venue to let that play out. ( Boy, that'll get me in some trouble.) Capitalism with its rewards can separate aristocracy and meritocracy better than any other system.
Our aristocracy is just the product of a certain group of individuals being confronted with relatively unlimited resources and opportunities. I don't think it would really matter if they had been white, black or purple. It was a unique circumstance and they would have to have been pretty dumb not to make the most of it and they would have to have become some sort of different species to not pass on their success to their progeny.
I guess that's all just a roundabout way of saying, in the end, race plays a smaller role than we seem to believe. It sure has played a different role than most people think in the debates of the last 60 years or so.
The recent formulation is: Scary white guys because of 'white privilege' run the show. They somehow abuse the 'privilege' to hold everybody else down. Do they? Which white guys?
It seems to me there has been an awful lot of progress made in the last 50 years or so. An awful lot of it proposed by those white guys and at the very least promoted by those guys, encouraged by those guys, very often articulated by those guys and articulated well. Sure, we're seeing backsliding but we're responding to it.
I don't like the idea that somehow I can't know your circumstance or understand your aspiration because I am not you. It's so obviously untrue in actual result. I don't think I have to be black or purple to see the value of ultimate truth. I seem to have done fairly well being old, white and fairly scary. I have no more to do with northern Europe than other people have to do with Africa or Latin America. I do have a lot to do with America as an ideal I want to succeed, just as my neighbors do. We all can read and have a sense of right and wrong.
I believe in inclusion across the board. It works. We've built a NATION by using it. Let's not forget. But also let's not forget who "all" includes.
The truth is the collection of 'scary white guys' that traditionally have run the United States aren't exclusively some manifestation of white supremacy. They're just the product of geographic isolation.
We currently face and have faced the tension between accident of birth and true meritocracy. Capitalism is the ideal venue to let that play out. ( Boy, that'll get me in some trouble.) Capitalism with its rewards can separate aristocracy and meritocracy better than any other system.
Our aristocracy is just the product of a certain group of individuals being confronted with relatively unlimited resources and opportunities. I don't think it would really matter if they had been white, black or purple. It was a unique circumstance and they would have to have been pretty dumb not to make the most of it and they would have to have become some sort of different species to not pass on their success to their progeny.
I guess that's all just a roundabout way of saying, in the end, race plays a smaller role than we seem to believe. It sure has played a different role than most people think in the debates of the last 60 years or so.
The recent formulation is: Scary white guys because of 'white privilege' run the show. They somehow abuse the 'privilege' to hold everybody else down. Do they? Which white guys?
It seems to me there has been an awful lot of progress made in the last 50 years or so. An awful lot of it proposed by those white guys and at the very least promoted by those guys, encouraged by those guys, very often articulated by those guys and articulated well. Sure, we're seeing backsliding but we're responding to it.
I don't like the idea that somehow I can't know your circumstance or understand your aspiration because I am not you. It's so obviously untrue in actual result. I don't think I have to be black or purple to see the value of ultimate truth. I seem to have done fairly well being old, white and fairly scary. I have no more to do with northern Europe than other people have to do with Africa or Latin America. I do have a lot to do with America as an ideal I want to succeed, just as my neighbors do. We all can read and have a sense of right and wrong.
I believe in inclusion across the board. It works. We've built a NATION by using it. Let's not forget. But also let's not forget who "all" includes.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
A Three Legged Stool
I find this to be annoying. So, I'll annoy you. Tom Selleck is a favorite B-List movie actor. I like him. One of my all-time favorite lines comes from him. In " Quigley Down Under" he says, " This ain't Dodge City and you ain't Bill Hickock." It comes in handy as a put down in a gun rights debate. Recently, he appeared in a commercial for some sort of financial thing or other. In that commercial, in his best, gee shucks, sincere tones he told everyone how unstable a three legged stool was in comparison to a four-legged chair. That is simply untrue.
The production of an advertisement like this is a several hundred thousand dollar enterprise. In the upper, decision-making process there are dozens of experienced, well-educated people. How did they miss this?
Any decent craftsman knows a three-legged stool is far more stable on an uneven surface and doesn't need precisely made legs to be stable on any surface. You never have to stick a match pack or some other kind of shim under one of the legs to keep it from wobbling. Most people who have ever milked a cow know this to be true.
Now, I kinda get it that a college graduate working at a production company probably has never milked a cow and might not be aware of that but how, among all those educated people, did someone not come across Buckminster Fuller? You would think one of them had been to Epcot. Epcot largely consists of a very large geodesic dome. It's a series of interlocking triangles all based on Fuller's theories about the strength and stability of triangles and tri-pods. Those facts, that should be immediately available to any well-informed person rendered what Ole Tom had to say absolute gibberish but boy, he sounded convincing. That's a problem. It's a real problem in that at least one person involved in that production had to be aware it was gibberish but the decision was made that the reassuring style far outweighed any substance. Further, the decision was made that a majority of the potential audience was too ill-informed to know the truth. That's a major problem of contempt for the average person.
When you translate that contempt into politics it becomes dangerous and a bit insulting if you catch it.
Over the years we've seen a variety of public speaking styles in our leaders. There's the FDR style of careful explanation coupled with an appeal to the angels of our better nature, couched in a kind of soaring, well crafted rhetoric. It's the kind of thing you'd hear in the Ivy League mainly because these guys are from the Ivy League. Then we see the thing Selleck was trying to do rhetorically in Reagan's appeals. That kind of dead-pan unemotional assertion of assured, common sense no matter the content.
I like Jimmy Carter's employment of the speaking style he'd grown up listening to from the pulpit. It's a style heavily influence by classical ideas. That's mainly because of the heavy influence of Bible Colleges and Seminaries and their heavy reliance on classical instruction. In that style not only do you hear the rolling cadences but if looked at on the page, the sentences nearly, physically balance. That's evidence of a good education in Latin. You can see it a lot in the writings of the Founding Fathers because that's the type of education they had. Lincoln modified that style to suit his almost crunching logic mainly because he was self-taught and learned, in large part, in a vacuum devoid of any Latin pretensions. It's an interesting synthesis almost evocative of Truman.
I have digressed but as a participant in several public speaking courses, it does kinda fascinate me. You may have noticed these essays actually scan much better if they're thought of as little speeches. For the most part, they are conceived that way.
Back to the point. I think it's obvious we have two types of leaders cut from the same cloth. In the end, with few exceptions, these guys are highly educated. The difference seems to be in their assessment of their fellow citizens. Some have the realization that our people, en mass, eventually arrive at relatively wise conclusions. A kind of common sense of the common herd. In their rhetoric, they attempt to enlighten, inform and elevate the public debate. They do this out of respect for those they address. Then we have people who think since they are better educated and better informed they are just better than the common herd. Instead of respect for those without their advantages, they have a kind of contempt and believe people are meant simply to be led to whatever ends the speaker/leader desires. There has always been a word for this: Demagoguery. I wonder why common, constant truths seem to become shop-worn.
So, the real difference isn't in the style. The real difference is in the assessment of the audience. Some people will try to sell you a poorly designed chair and call it stability and some will refer you to the simple wisdom of a Buckminster Fuller.
The production of an advertisement like this is a several hundred thousand dollar enterprise. In the upper, decision-making process there are dozens of experienced, well-educated people. How did they miss this?
Any decent craftsman knows a three-legged stool is far more stable on an uneven surface and doesn't need precisely made legs to be stable on any surface. You never have to stick a match pack or some other kind of shim under one of the legs to keep it from wobbling. Most people who have ever milked a cow know this to be true.
Now, I kinda get it that a college graduate working at a production company probably has never milked a cow and might not be aware of that but how, among all those educated people, did someone not come across Buckminster Fuller? You would think one of them had been to Epcot. Epcot largely consists of a very large geodesic dome. It's a series of interlocking triangles all based on Fuller's theories about the strength and stability of triangles and tri-pods. Those facts, that should be immediately available to any well-informed person rendered what Ole Tom had to say absolute gibberish but boy, he sounded convincing. That's a problem. It's a real problem in that at least one person involved in that production had to be aware it was gibberish but the decision was made that the reassuring style far outweighed any substance. Further, the decision was made that a majority of the potential audience was too ill-informed to know the truth. That's a major problem of contempt for the average person.
When you translate that contempt into politics it becomes dangerous and a bit insulting if you catch it.
Over the years we've seen a variety of public speaking styles in our leaders. There's the FDR style of careful explanation coupled with an appeal to the angels of our better nature, couched in a kind of soaring, well crafted rhetoric. It's the kind of thing you'd hear in the Ivy League mainly because these guys are from the Ivy League. Then we see the thing Selleck was trying to do rhetorically in Reagan's appeals. That kind of dead-pan unemotional assertion of assured, common sense no matter the content.
I like Jimmy Carter's employment of the speaking style he'd grown up listening to from the pulpit. It's a style heavily influence by classical ideas. That's mainly because of the heavy influence of Bible Colleges and Seminaries and their heavy reliance on classical instruction. In that style not only do you hear the rolling cadences but if looked at on the page, the sentences nearly, physically balance. That's evidence of a good education in Latin. You can see it a lot in the writings of the Founding Fathers because that's the type of education they had. Lincoln modified that style to suit his almost crunching logic mainly because he was self-taught and learned, in large part, in a vacuum devoid of any Latin pretensions. It's an interesting synthesis almost evocative of Truman.
I have digressed but as a participant in several public speaking courses, it does kinda fascinate me. You may have noticed these essays actually scan much better if they're thought of as little speeches. For the most part, they are conceived that way.
Back to the point. I think it's obvious we have two types of leaders cut from the same cloth. In the end, with few exceptions, these guys are highly educated. The difference seems to be in their assessment of their fellow citizens. Some have the realization that our people, en mass, eventually arrive at relatively wise conclusions. A kind of common sense of the common herd. In their rhetoric, they attempt to enlighten, inform and elevate the public debate. They do this out of respect for those they address. Then we have people who think since they are better educated and better informed they are just better than the common herd. Instead of respect for those without their advantages, they have a kind of contempt and believe people are meant simply to be led to whatever ends the speaker/leader desires. There has always been a word for this: Demagoguery. I wonder why common, constant truths seem to become shop-worn.
So, the real difference isn't in the style. The real difference is in the assessment of the audience. Some people will try to sell you a poorly designed chair and call it stability and some will refer you to the simple wisdom of a Buckminster Fuller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)