Are you paying your fair share?

People are sometimes a puzzle to me. I'll give you an example...

A man calls into Rush Limbaugh's show, says he's 24 and he wondered why we couldn't cut "corporate welfare, tax breaks for the very rich, [and so on]?" Did he not realize who he was talking to? Did he really think no one had argued that to Limbaugh before?

I see this all the time, it seems. People talk about how the "rich should pay their fair share" without defining the term "fair share." What, exactly, is a "fair share" of one's income?

Let me relate something that happened to me. I once belonged to a union, Communications Workers of America (which, at the time I joined was strictly composed of members who worked in the telecommunications industry). At the time, the dues was a measly $8 a month. Very cheap. And it applied to all members regardless of what they earned. Later, around 1974 or 1975, the dues was changed to the equivalent of 2 hours pay per month. Since I was making $250 a week at the time, that meant my dues went to $12.50 a month. Still not a lot of money and I could easily afford it. But then I began thinking about the "fairness" of it. You see, I was told this dues structure was more "fair."

I wondered... Did I get more representation than, say, an operator who made about 60% of my pay? Or a frame attendant (who made 80%)? No, I got the same representation. I was told I should pay more because the union had negotiated the pay I got.

It still did not make sense to me. They also negotiated the pay of those who earned less than I did. The union didn't get me the job, it didn't qualify me to work in that position. In fact, they did nothing except represent me in disputes and every three years when the contract came up. The only "fairness" I could see was that I made more so I could pay the union more.

Let's apply that to taxes. What is so special about making more than $250,000 a year in taxable income? Why should people be penalized for succeeding? How is paying a greater rate than someone who makes $50,000 a year "fair?" The higher income earner doesn't get anything more from the government than the person making less. What he does get is a nicer home in a better neighborhood, both of which he pays for. The government does not subsidize him.

On the other hand, the person making $22,000 a year and with a wife and two kids is squarely in the poverty range and becomes eligible for all kinds of programs. He also does not pay a dime in income tax. He gets more services from government than the "rich" guy does but pays nothing for them.

Your tax bracket is the rate you pay on the "last dollar" you earn; but as a percentage of your income, your tax rate is generally less than that. First, here are the tax rates and the income ranges where they apply:

"To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00

This puts you in the 28% tax bracket, since that's the highest rate applied to any of your income; but as a percentage of the whole $100,000, your tax is about 22.37%."
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

So, someone with a taxable income of $100,000 will pay the government the equivalent of what that poor guy makes under the current tax rates.

Is that fair? Is that really his "fair share?"

We talk about taxing the rich as if they do not pay any taxes. But that is patently untrue, they pay most of the taxes. It is only the poor who pay no taxes.
The following is about the Bush tax cuts...

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

Just something to consider...

Like father like son?

I was musing today about why one kid grows up to be hugely successful and another grows up to be a waste of oxygen. Maybe that's putting it in extreme terms but it got your attention, didn't it?

We are animals, after all, and that means genetics makes a difference. But I don't think genetics is the final determining factor. Studies of twins are how we try to determine just how significant genetics play a part in our destiny. We have learned some interesting things about human genetics through those studies and seen some interesting results, especially on studies of twins separated at birth or near birth.

In the end, genes are not the determining factor in personality formation. They do seem to be the primary factor in physical attribute. Oh, there are anecdotal indications of a genetic influence, such as separated twins growing up to marry similar looking spouses and naming their children similarly, but these can be dismissed because there seems to be no constancy involved.

We forget, however, that children are raised by parents who, in most instances, share genes with the child. We cannot dismiss their influence during personality formation. What this means is that if Poppa is a criminal and the child becomes a criminal, it could be because of genetics or because the child was strongly influenced by Poppa's behavior.

My position has always been that genetics is the basic "blueprint" for personality but that environment supplies the details. If we continue with that analogy, think of the architect as the genetic influence and the the buyer and the builder as the "parents." The builder and the buyer influence how the house will look when completed, the architect provided the initial plans only. In other words, Poppa not only influenced the child but provided the genetic structure which the child used to filter the environment in which he was raised.

Let's say there's a gene (or, more likely, set of genes) for a quick temper as part of a child's makeup. Odds are that one, or both, parents also have that gene. That quick temper gene will encourage impulsive behavior and, perhaps, snap judgments. If his younger brother somehow avoids that gene and gets the "patience" gene carried by a distant aunt or uncle or grandparent, he will start with a different personality foundation. He will still be influenced by the temper gene of his parent and the one his brother has but it will be an environmental factor rather than a genetic one.

I find it odd that we accept genetics as a determinant factor in animals while dismissing it out of hand when it comes to humans. Well, we give lip service to that anyway. In reality, we accept it. That's why there are royal families, why there are political, sports, and business dynasties. And, of course, that old saw:

"The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

Have you ever...

... wanted to go back in time? Or into the future? I have... go back in time, that is. I have no desire to visit the future sooner than I must. The future has rarely been good to me. Oh sure, it might be nice to get a glimpse of the financial pages of, say, 5 years hence. But, other than that, do we really want to know what lies in wait for us?

Now, visiting the past is an intriguing thought. We could correct misconceptions about past events, we could gain a better grasp of how we got where we are, we could unravel many mysteries. We might even find out what happened to Judge Crater [link]. We could learn how Latin was actually spoken. We could also alter our current time and our history due to the "butterfly effect" so it might be a bit dangerous.

Well, forget it. It isn't going to happen. At least, according to some Chinese physicists who feel they have proven Einstein's theory to be correct about the Speed of Light [link]. According to their research and experiments, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This is what Einstein posited in his theory of special relativity and they, the physicists, believe they have concrete evidence that Einstein was right.

I am crushed. So is Xander... who has been visiting me from 2255.

The Maelstrom of Madness

Reading through the news today (Monday), I came across an article [link] from CBS about the "terrorist" in Norway. I noticed a few days ago that the media quickly jumped on the "terrorist" label, something they shied away from in the Ft. Hood shooting. Which, sadly, adds some substance to the rantings of Mr Breivik.

One of the worries of some people is that fighting against Islamic terrorism (and acknowledging it as such) is that naming it and fighting it will just create more terrorists. If that is so then will labeling Breivik just create more Right Wing terrorists?

Like most madmen (see Ted Kaczynski [link]), there are bits and pieces of truth in Breivik's "manifesto."[link] Madness is rarely total, I think. It is usually a distortion of the reality surrounding the madman. There is enough substance to the madman's delusions to provide a kind of foundation.

Let me provide a sample:

"Multi-culturalism (cultural Marxism/political correctness), as you might know, is the root cause of the ongoing Islamisation of Europe which has resulted in the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe through demographic warfare (facilitated by our own leaders)."

He sees the changing religious face of Europe and the increase in the Muslim population, ties these together with Radical Islam and his (and many others') frustration with the media's and certain political parties' downplaying both and sees a sinister plot to destroy what he clings to (an idealized view of his world, the one he grew up in, or thinks he did).

Kaczynski did something similar, only from the Left. But I suspect you will only see and hear comparisons of Breivik with Timothy McVeigh [link]. Quite understandable. Of course, that will only reinforce the beliefs of Breivik and those who agree with him.

There are times when I, myself, feel like the world is caught up in a whirlpool that is gaining strength and will someday be a maelstrom (a Scandinavian term, oddly enough) into which we will all be dragged. And it will be mostly the madmen who do the dragging.

And isn't it always?

Update: "Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik has caused potential embarrassment for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin" [link]

Walking and wetness

I ran across an old file that had a couple of blog post ideas. One of them was "A walk in a warm rain." This is something I have not done in many years. Mostly because it is something older folks don't do (yeah, I am an "older" folk). But also because I haven't had the opportunity. I don't do much walking anymore. And I am not about to leave the house when it rains. I prefer to stay dry.

But I did do quite a bit of walking in the rain when I was young. And much of that walking was done in south Florida where the rain in the summer is fairly warm. If the rain is light and warm, it is a pleasant feeling; if the rain is heavy or cold, not so much. There is something sensual about walking in a warm rain. A cold rain cuts into you, chills you, makes you miserable. A warm rain does none of that, it reminds you of standing in a shower stall and feeling the warm water running through your hair and down your face and back.

Even a warm rain feels cold at first but if you resist heading for shelter and just continue walking, the chill will go away and a kind of euphoria will replace it.

I couldn't do this in San Diego because the rain never felt warm, it remained cold. It was easily done in Hawaii and south Florida. I would, as a boy in his mid teens, find myself walking in the rain after having been to the beach. I would walk and hitchhike home from the beach fairly often back then. Rains would come in the afternoon on a regular basis during the summer so it was not unusual to find yourself in a light rain, or even a heavy one. I learned not to head indoors if caught out in the rain. Stores and restaurants were (and still are) air conditioned and chilly, turning your wet clothes cold and heavy and chilling to the bones. Better to stand outside under an awning or roof over a sidewalk.

Now, all rain feels cold to me. A sign of age, I suppose, but I miss those walks where the heat of the road causes a little mist to rise and the air is fresh and you no longer notice just how wet you are.