Skip to main content

Pay your fair share

The current pitch from the Clinton/Kaine ticket is that those making more, doing well, and those with good incomes, should pay more. They should pay their fair share. Fair share sounds reasonable.  That is until you chalk up who will pay.

Most of us, at least those reading this, think of our personal situation as middling.  We are not rich, not poor, but getting by, some better than others. We think, let's get the million a year rich.  YES. These people drive luxury cars, take luxury vacations, and enjoy the benefits of household maids, gardeners, servants at parties, and the like. These are the folks that should pay more.  YES.

The only problem here is that these so-called "folks' have already taken care of their money.  It is gone, already exported to save havens, untouchable by the taxman. The stronger the hint that the money will be taxed, the more motivated they have become. There are agencies supporting their cause, offering remedies for shelter in the coming storm. Some are in Panama - haven't you heard?   The "let's get em" mantra we all support is null and void. That money is gone. The IRS can try to tax, but only try.  It makes good press.  Nothing will come.

Yet, money to support adventurous new programs must be found.  From where?  From us. From us with far less resources than a million per year.  It will be found from those in the 100-300K range.  A large pool of resources it may be. But not enough. We have more than the poor, a lot more.  Most are on salary, in most cases money they've worked hard to get. Bump them up to a 50% tax rate, and there is a bunch of dough, but more resentment.    More big loans will be needed. We will long for the days of only a twenty trillion of debt. 

Bottom line.  Don't count the on the truly rich to help, to contribute, and to make redistribution possible.  It is you and I that will. And we will at a far higher rate than you can imagine.

"Blame it on the rich" is a battle cry for votes. Even those rich, Buffet, Bloomberg, Cuban and more, make the cry, These sanctimonious rich have protected their cash.  They pay maybe 15%. in taxes.  Do you?

Bernie Sanders, the champion of the poor, upon seeing Aetna* pulling out of the Obama care exchanges, has signaled the need for a single payer plan, namely the federal government.  It may be possible if the government was just a little bit efficient.  It is not. It will never be.  If you believe otherwise, or believe it can be made to be so, this is more than delusional. Bernie, like so many others, believe the cash cow of the rich will continue to generate taxable money no matter what.

*http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/17/490202346/aetna-ceo-to-justice-department-block-our-deal-and-well-drop-out-of-exchanges

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Fake News

If you've been following the news the last couple of days, you will note the flurry of copy devoted to fake news.  Both sides are blaming whatever has befallen them the consequence of fake news.  Let's look at this phenomenon a bit.    When I was a student years ago, a friend climbed some mountain in Peru.   A article was written in the local newspaper about the event.   In only three column inches, the newspaper made about six errors.   An easy article to write you say?   Just interview and reproduce.   Yet so many errors?   The question is this: was this fake news or bad reporting?   The idea here is that fake news comes in various flavors. Bad reporting – errors made by the author or editor Opinion presented as news     Deliberate creation of falsehoods to favor a point of view       The reporting of selected truths to favor a particular point of view Now we have the big social media ...