"But saying ‘My god, look at how much taxes so few people pay’, without following up with ‘because they make a huge fraction of the income’…"
It's not dishonest to bring out facts to counter stupidity. And it's stupid to repeatedly insist that we ought to raise taxes on the rich so they "pay their fair share" without actually understanding what share they do pay.
Like the man asked, what do you mean by fair share?
"Magical 100% health care coverage? Not income. Personal assistants who do everything for them, and I’m not talking about corporate assistants, I’m talking butlers? Not income. Private limos everywhere? Not income. Helicopter? Not income. "
Actually, those things are considered income. "Perks" have been being defined as income and written into the tax code for thirty years now. This is why people always go crazy about how "executive salaries have GONE WAY UP!" No; we've just declared a lot of previously off-books things to be part of their salary. They always had these things.
Of course, here's me bringing fact into the discussion, which is apparently the height of dishonesty.
Although here you are saying that the capital gains tax is not an income tax, and I can't decide whether that's dishonest or stupid (or both).
Interesting, a "roadmap" that has us traveling in three directions simultaneously. This looks like the kind of thing that Jared Loughner would have put together.
"I’m asserting that the _amount_ of tax is unrelated to the _amount_ of people paying it. "
So you're arguing in favor of the Flat Tax, then?
(he notion of progressive tax brackets is inherently bound up in the idea that the amount of tax is related to the amount of people paying that tax, because taxes are based on personal income.
Don't forget payouts for unused sick-time, something that private sector workers haven't had since the last century. (It's rather shocking to see a retired police captain say that greedy taxpayers are forcing staff cuts when he took two beat patrolmen's yearly salaries with him when he quit the force.)
Oh, and your pension is based on your final year's salary, and expenses count towards your salary, which is why retiring police captains get so much training at out-of-state facilities.
I'm agreeing with you that contracts can be renegotiated.
Your mistake is in believing that everyone in the current situation is willing to renegotiate. What you have is the government saying "no, seriously, we haven't got the money" and the unions saying "LALALALALALAA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUU, now where's the pension check that you're legally obligated to give me?"
You agree...with what part of the post? You agree that the perceived effectiveness of schools was due to allowing the "D" group to drop out? Or you agree that the "D" group can't drop out anymore?
This is a bit late so I'll address each individually, rather than expect a continuing conversation.
For the first: Students in a class learn at the pace of the slowest learner. And if the slowest learners can be removed from the class, then the entire pace of learning increases.
For the second: You can't remove the slowest learners from the class unless they have somewhere to go. In times past, students who dropped out could work at jobs that required nothing more than "lift, carry, don't chop your foot off with the ax". These days, jobs like that are done by machines or Mexicans.
I'm not suggesting that we should burn down the Caterpillar factory so that uneducated teenagers have something to occupy them, but I am saying that maybe the apparent decrease in American educational performance doesn't have anything to do with NCLB, or educational policy at all.
I could see someone who doesn't pay attention to the news "voting Republican for the funding". But, as far as engineers are concerned, George W. Bush was the biggest defense cutter in history--the only new-development project that made it through his term was F-35. Damn near everything else that wasn't actually being built got cut.
Late reply--bored at work, doing some Google mining.
While we didn't have a huge ground-force army before raising the expeditionary force, the United States Navy was a respected and powerful force.
World War One started (and continued) because both sides thought that they were equally matched. As long as Germany had only England to fight, they thought that they could win. If they'd expected that a war would be against both England and America, they would have told the Austrians to get lost.
"The complaint asks for a jury trial in an overwhelmingly black venue. A DC jury will take every button off Breitbart’s shirt."
Interesting, so you're arguing that the jury should ignore the law and vote based on emotion? Remember that the next time you see a bookstore owner accused of selling pornography to minors.
Every Global Warming discussion includes a lengthy exchange where the funding sources of those performing anti-AGW studies is questioned, and it's usually presented as "well of COURSE they'd find that AGW doesn't exist, EXXON IS FUNDING THEM, argument OVER, you LOSE, good DAY sir!"
But somehow that argument doesn't apply here? It's the facts that matter and not the motives? I'm glad to see you believe that, but just remember it next time.
I don't know where you're getting your stereotype about aerospace engineers, because I am one, and my experience has been that the political distribution is about like everywhere else--ten percent strongly on one side, ten percent strongly on the other, and the other eighty percent don't give a hoot in hell.
Aerospace engineers in the defense or science industry deal with the government bureaucracy, and that's a group that is barely affected by who's in office.
At no point did I say anything about "moving out of the state", so I have to admit that I've got no idea what you're talking about here.
If you're suggesting that my statement "customers can choose a different provider" translates to "residents can move to a different state"...no, that's not what I was saying at all.
"[T]axpayers do not have a fundamental right to determine the “appropriate” distribution of the funds required to secure those products."
You need something other than bare assertion to justify this statement, because...
"It’s like he’s saying that the customer, because he’s buying a car, has a fundamental right to set the “appropriate” wages of the people building it."
...the customer does have that right, in the sense that if the customer feels the workers are underpaid then he can buy a different product. That's the whole idea behind "fair trade coffee". That's the whole idea behind "no sweatshop labor" movements. And, if the customer feels that the company is charging too much for the level of service it provides, he can choose a different provider.
Every time I suggest that maybe pension payment could be cut instead of jobs, I get told that those contracts are an AGREEMENT that everyone AGREED to and you CAN'T CHANGE them because we all AGREED to it.
"I’d argue that the tax-payers have an ability to see that their money IS distributed appropriately. They elect those that do the bargaining on their behalf, you know."
But then, according to many, union contracts are perpetual, once signed. They can't be modified, they can't be cancelled, they can't be renegotiated; if your contract says you pay each retiring worker $300,000 then each retiring worker gets $300,000 no matter what else happens.
So, yeah, if the present administration does something I don't like then I can vote for someone else; but what if that doesn't actually matter?
"And when you’re sick and tired of the lines at the DMV, and the potholes in the road, you might actually nod your head and agree to pay some more taxes for those services. "
Considering that DMV and road-repair services are paid for by gas taxes and licensing fees, and that voters have repeatedly approved measures trying to keep that revenue in the pot it's supposed to stay in (as opposed to being dumped into the general fund and used to pay for pensions), I'd say that--in that specific instance, as you're fond of saying--voters are entirely okay with paying for the services they use.
It used to be that the "D" group could go to trade schools--or, failing that, go out to a factory or go back to the farm. Neither of those last two is an option these days.
It sounds like you're saying that the problem isn't "teach to the test"--the problem is that the tests aren't testing the right things.
If it's basic skills you're after, then why isn't rote learning an acceptable practice? I know how to multiply because I memorized the multiplication tables. I memorized them by repeating them over and over again. I learned to type the same way.
" Businessmen and politicians, often bringing in six-figure incomes, trying to implement top-down reforms on teachers and administrators without asking for input or buy-in, and punishing schools and educators for not meeting their arbitrary standards."
A: if you're going in with the assumption that teachers have spent the last thirty years screwing things up, then why would you listen to what they had to say?
B: People talk about "arbirtrary standards" as though they're totally disconnected from reality, but aren't we talking about "read words" and "write coherent sentences" and "do math"? Why is "teach to the test" such a bad thing when the stuff on the test is what you're going to school to learn how to do?
On the one hand, it's extremely inexpensive to staff and operate a regulatory agency that could shut down every form of a particular activity. The CPSC budget is about a hundred million, and they could shut down Mattel tomorrow if they wanted.
On the other hand, that activity depends on resources elsewhere in the government. Maybe the FBI only spends a little bit on, e.g., the "Online Defamation Team", but if you do something naughty that falls under their ODT's purview, they will be able to call on other agents (or local police) to go arrest you. They don't have to get up from their desks and come out to bust you themselves.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
"But saying ‘My god, look at how much taxes so few people pay’, without following up with ‘because they make a huge fraction of the income’…"
It's not dishonest to bring out facts to counter stupidity. And it's stupid to repeatedly insist that we ought to raise taxes on the rich so they "pay their fair share" without actually understanding what share they do pay.
Like the man asked, what do you mean by fair share?
"Magical 100% health care coverage? Not income. Personal assistants who do everything for them, and I’m not talking about corporate assistants, I’m talking butlers? Not income. Private limos everywhere? Not income. Helicopter? Not income. "
Actually, those things are considered income. "Perks" have been being defined as income and written into the tax code for thirty years now. This is why people always go crazy about how "executive salaries have GONE WAY UP!" No; we've just declared a lot of previously off-books things to be part of their salary. They always had these things.
Of course, here's me bringing fact into the discussion, which is apparently the height of dishonesty.
Although here you are saying that the capital gains tax is not an income tax, and I can't decide whether that's dishonest or stupid (or both).
On “The Walker Roadmap”
Interesting, a "roadmap" that has us traveling in three directions simultaneously. This looks like the kind of thing that Jared Loughner would have put together.
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
"I’m asserting that the _amount_ of tax is unrelated to the _amount_ of people paying it. "
So you're arguing in favor of the Flat Tax, then?
(he notion of progressive tax brackets is inherently bound up in the idea that the amount of tax is related to the amount of people paying that tax, because taxes are based on personal income.
"
Don't forget payouts for unused sick-time, something that private sector workers haven't had since the last century. (It's rather shocking to see a retired police captain say that greedy taxpayers are forcing staff cuts when he took two beat patrolmen's yearly salaries with him when he quit the force.)
Oh, and your pension is based on your final year's salary, and expenses count towards your salary, which is why retiring police captains get so much training at out-of-state facilities.
On “A Basic Conflict”
I'm agreeing with you that contracts can be renegotiated.
Your mistake is in believing that everyone in the current situation is willing to renegotiate. What you have is the government saying "no, seriously, we haven't got the money" and the unions saying "LALALALALALAA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUU, now where's the pension check that you're legally obligated to give me?"
On “The Death and Life of the Great American School System (part one)”
You agree...with what part of the post? You agree that the perceived effectiveness of schools was due to allowing the "D" group to drop out? Or you agree that the "D" group can't drop out anymore?
This is a bit late so I'll address each individually, rather than expect a continuing conversation.
For the first: Students in a class learn at the pace of the slowest learner. And if the slowest learners can be removed from the class, then the entire pace of learning increases.
For the second: You can't remove the slowest learners from the class unless they have somewhere to go. In times past, students who dropped out could work at jobs that required nothing more than "lift, carry, don't chop your foot off with the ax". These days, jobs like that are done by machines or Mexicans.
I'm not suggesting that we should burn down the Caterpillar factory so that uneducated teenagers have something to occupy them, but I am saying that maybe the apparent decrease in American educational performance doesn't have anything to do with NCLB, or educational policy at all.
On “Liberal Academia (Part 1)”
I could see someone who doesn't pay attention to the news "voting Republican for the funding". But, as far as engineers are concerned, George W. Bush was the biggest defense cutter in history--the only new-development project that made it through his term was F-35. Damn near everything else that wasn't actually being built got cut.
On “Exceptionalism, Imperialism, and the Necessity of “Closed Systems””
Late reply--bored at work, doing some Google mining.
While we didn't have a huge ground-force army before raising the expeditionary force, the United States Navy was a respected and powerful force.
World War One started (and continued) because both sides thought that they were equally matched. As long as Germany had only England to fight, they thought that they could win. If they'd expected that a war would be against both England and America, they would have told the Austrians to get lost.
On “Shirley Sherrod’s Defamation Suit”
Well, he only "went right on defaming" if you what he did was actually defamatory, and that's what this whole court case is about.
"
"The complaint asks for a jury trial in an overwhelmingly black venue. A DC jury will take every button off Breitbart’s shirt."
Interesting, so you're arguing that the jury should ignore the law and vote based on emotion? Remember that the next time you see a bookstore owner accused of selling pornography to minors.
"
Every Global Warming discussion includes a lengthy exchange where the funding sources of those performing anti-AGW studies is questioned, and it's usually presented as "well of COURSE they'd find that AGW doesn't exist, EXXON IS FUNDING THEM, argument OVER, you LOSE, good DAY sir!"
But somehow that argument doesn't apply here? It's the facts that matter and not the motives? I'm glad to see you believe that, but just remember it next time.
On “Liberal Academia (Part 1)”
A: wait, how did a discussion of academic political imbalance turn into a discussion of infant mortality?
B: Jaybird is exactly right.
"
I don't know where you're getting your stereotype about aerospace engineers, because I am one, and my experience has been that the political distribution is about like everywhere else--ten percent strongly on one side, ten percent strongly on the other, and the other eighty percent don't give a hoot in hell.
Aerospace engineers in the defense or science industry deal with the government bureaucracy, and that's a group that is barely affected by who's in office.
On “A Basic Conflict”
"What can’t be done is a unilateral change by the government that violates the contract it signed."
Because those contracts are an AGREEMENT that everyone AGREED to and you CAN’T CHANGE them because we all AGREED to it...
"
At no point did I say anything about "moving out of the state", so I have to admit that I've got no idea what you're talking about here.
If you're suggesting that my statement "customers can choose a different provider" translates to "residents can move to a different state"...no, that's not what I was saying at all.
"
"[T]axpayers do not have a fundamental right to determine the “appropriate” distribution of the funds required to secure those products."
You need something other than bare assertion to justify this statement, because...
"It’s like he’s saying that the customer, because he’s buying a car, has a fundamental right to set the “appropriate” wages of the people building it."
...the customer does have that right, in the sense that if the customer feels the workers are underpaid then he can buy a different product. That's the whole idea behind "fair trade coffee". That's the whole idea behind "no sweatshop labor" movements. And, if the customer feels that the company is charging too much for the level of service it provides, he can choose a different provider.
"
Every time I suggest that maybe pension payment could be cut instead of jobs, I get told that those contracts are an AGREEMENT that everyone AGREED to and you CAN'T CHANGE them because we all AGREED to it.
"
"I’d argue that the tax-payers have an ability to see that their money IS distributed appropriately. They elect those that do the bargaining on their behalf, you know."
But then, according to many, union contracts are perpetual, once signed. They can't be modified, they can't be cancelled, they can't be renegotiated; if your contract says you pay each retiring worker $300,000 then each retiring worker gets $300,000 no matter what else happens.
So, yeah, if the present administration does something I don't like then I can vote for someone else; but what if that doesn't actually matter?
"
...fuck it. That's a lot of words, but someone who calls the other side "talibs" obviously isn't interested in a discussion.
"
"And when you’re sick and tired of the lines at the DMV, and the potholes in the road, you might actually nod your head and agree to pay some more taxes for those services. "
Considering that DMV and road-repair services are paid for by gas taxes and licensing fees, and that voters have repeatedly approved measures trying to keep that revenue in the pot it's supposed to stay in (as opposed to being dumped into the general fund and used to pay for pensions), I'd say that--in that specific instance, as you're fond of saying--voters are entirely okay with paying for the services they use.
On “Labor 2.0 (initial thoughts)”
And no true Scot would force someone to submit to a drug test, right?
On “The Death and Life of the Great American School System (part one)”
It used to be that the "D" group could go to trade schools--or, failing that, go out to a factory or go back to the farm. Neither of those last two is an option these days.
"
It sounds like you're saying that the problem isn't "teach to the test"--the problem is that the tests aren't testing the right things.
If it's basic skills you're after, then why isn't rote learning an acceptable practice? I know how to multiply because I memorized the multiplication tables. I memorized them by repeating them over and over again. I learned to type the same way.
"
" Businessmen and politicians, often bringing in six-figure incomes, trying to implement top-down reforms on teachers and administrators without asking for input or buy-in, and punishing schools and educators for not meeting their arbitrary standards."
A: if you're going in with the assumption that teachers have spent the last thirty years screwing things up, then why would you listen to what they had to say?
B: People talk about "arbirtrary standards" as though they're totally disconnected from reality, but aren't we talking about "read words" and "write coherent sentences" and "do math"? Why is "teach to the test" such a bad thing when the stuff on the test is what you're going to school to learn how to do?
On “Government Spending and Liberty”
On the one hand, it's extremely inexpensive to staff and operate a regulatory agency that could shut down every form of a particular activity. The CPSC budget is about a hundred million, and they could shut down Mattel tomorrow if they wanted.
On the other hand, that activity depends on resources elsewhere in the government. Maybe the FBI only spends a little bit on, e.g., the "Online Defamation Team", but if you do something naughty that falls under their ODT's purview, they will be able to call on other agents (or local police) to go arrest you. They don't have to get up from their desks and come out to bust you themselves.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.