I'm Comfortable with Taxing the Rich

Recently, we've been studying situations where one can exclude income from their gross income in tax (class).  In many cases, this requires an analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the income to come to a conclusion.  I've been finding that most of these analyses don't end in a firm "this should be excluded," but rather, an "I'm comfortable excluding this."  Akin to this analysis, I'm comfortable taxing the rich.

When discussing tax policy, there seem to be a couple camps.  There's the progressives, seeking a more progressive bracket system, with high-income earners paying more and low-income earners paying less.  This has ultimately been our system since its inception and I don't see this changing.  Of course, there is also the argument that we should have a flat tax, as apparently it would be more simple.  However, I don't see a world where we pass a flat tax and then just simply apply it to everyone without any exceptions.  That's silly for a lot of reasons.

Yet, at the heart of this argument is that the rich pay way more taxes in terms of total amount than the rest of us.  As of 2007, the top 1% of taxpayers (Federal Income Tax that is) paid about 40% of all income tax.  In contrast, the bottom 50% paid about 3% of all income tax.  Is this unfair?  Sure.  I can't argue with that.  Generally, numbers don't lie.  Moreover, they sure don't lie with margins like that.  However, sometimes life's not fair.

I feel as if one very important consideration is left out of this discussion.  Sure, high earners pay more than the low earners, but I want to know who's got more money.  Because really, I may feel that disproportionate taxes are unfair, but if we're comparing a group with a disproportionate amount of the wealth with a group with what essentially amounts to no wealth... my heart strings are not exactly pulled by our high earners.  And as a matter of fact, this is exactly the case.

As it turns out, the top 1% have around 35% of the nations wealth (measured in net worth).  The next 19% of highest earners control another 50% of the wealth.  Ultimately leaving the other 80% of people in the US with a paltry 15% of the wealth.  Moreover, from 2001 to 2007, the top 1% of earners saw their average income rise by about 60%, which ends up being around $500,000.  As for bottom 90% of earners, their income only increased by about 4%, or about $1,200.

So, while I understand the argument for a fair (meaning equal) tax divided among us, I don't believe this yields the best outcome for our country.  I think these numbers tell a story of a large group of Americans that already have extremely reduced buying power.  I think that the bottom 80% (which sounds so ridiculous when I write it) need some kind of subsidization in their lives.  Moreover, if they don't need it, I bet they would at least like it.  And, in the worst case scenario, this group surely doesn't deserve to have their taxes raised.

With that being said, I'm not entirely sure if the top 10% would even notice a difference.  Do they spend all their money?  Obviously not, given that it is concentrated.  It's clearly not moving back out into the economy in any significant amount.  I doubt they really need to penny pinch.  Would more taxes really cause a pain for this group?  Or is this argument about fairness merely some fight for an abstract principle with no real world consequence.  I'm a real-world guy, so this is important to me.

So, regardless of the inherent unfairness of taxing the rich at a higher rate, there is a social utility in this type of scheme given the economic arrangement of our country at the moment.  Also, see this.

Section 108(e)(4)... what is it good for?

In my free time, of course.

I have tax on the brain.

Netflix and Qwikster: Wicked Smart

On the left, Netflix's Qwikster ad.  On the right, Twitter's user, Qwikster.

I had a minor freak out today.  After 5 miles on my bike, facing the wind and woes of the road, I am rewarded not with a bagel, but an announcement from one of my favorite companies, Netflix. 

Computer open.  Dinosaur comics read.  Technology news browsing commences.  Surprise Eric!  Netflix is splitting its business in two!  Now we are Netflix and… Qwikster!  Netflikster!

Oh no you didn’t!  First of all, you did not just rip your company in half.  Sure you had to cut your subscriber forecast by a million (24 million instead of 25 million).  And I’m sorry about the Starz deal.  You see, my problem is this smelled like desperation.  A last ditch effort move.  Netflix (and Qwikster now) is hardly in this position, but how else should I feel?  AND, oh no you didn’t call it Qwikster.  Qwikster?  Like a very fast hipster?  I know you’re trying to convince me that the DVDs get to me quickly, but I wasn’t worried about that to begin with.

Alright, now it’s been like 10 hours.  I’ve reflected, read some articles, and come up with my own impression.

 

I love this.

Netflix is doubling down on the idea that physical media has a finite place in society (actually, DVDs literally have a finite life…).  And you know what, they’re right.  I ask myself, “when’s the last time I bought a DVD?”  I’m not sure, but I can promise you it was certainly something not available on Netflix Instant Watch.  In fact, I’ve moved the other direction.  I’ve been jettisoning physical media like some kind of jettisonable plague (maybe via a cough).  I’m ready to get rid of the junk cluttering the house and move to a digital world.  So, I commend you, Netflix.  Put your DVD division in the garage and if it gets too cold for it to survive the winter, it’s got to die.  That was a metaphor. 

On a side note, other people are really mad about this, evidenced by a lot of nagging posts in a number of locations on the internet.  I say, chill out.  My prediction is that Netflix will have some great content deals for their streaming service that they’ll announce soon.  Come on Full House.

Two Wheel Cooking: Mac and Cheese

First and foremost, I must give credit where credit is due.  This recipe was given to me from Emily Cohen, my former Americorps cohort.  Emily and I spent a year working with students in a North Minneapolis Elementary School as well as discussing cooking and food issues over our breaks.  With this in mind, again, I emphasize that this recipe is from her and she probably had a larger influence on my cooking than anyone else.  That being said, this recipe is not only easy, but absolutely delicious.  Here's a link to her original post:

Ingredients


Pasta:  1 lb box of whatever noodles you want
Butter:  3 tablespoons
All-purpose flour: 3 tablespoons
Milk: 2 1/2 cups of 1% or 2% (or a little more)
Cheddar Cheese: 1 lb (grated)
Worcestershire Sauce: a dash!
Parmesan Cheese: a dash!
Bread Crumbs: 2 slices worth (not too important what kind... I used an English muffin because I had no bread)

Wine is like that obnoxious friend who always gets in your pictures.

Procedure

Quick Overview:

You're going to have two projects going simultaneously.  First, you'll be making your white sauce or "roux." This requires far more attention than your other project, which is simply boiling the pasta.  It's not difficult to do, but just be aware that you'll be juggling a couple pans at once.  Also, you may want to grease a 9"x 13" pan, but it's not necessary.

1.  The Roux

Start by melting the butter in your pan.  I would do this at medium heat since most of your meal will take place at that heat.  However, if you're impatient, be rebel and turn it up.

After it's melted, add the flour.  Once you put the flour in, you'll have to whisk/stir it quite fast to keep it from burning.  Do this for a couple minutes until your mixture looks golden (if it turns brown, that means your pan was dirty... this isn't the end of the world, just proceed).  Here's a pic:

Wooden Spoon= Amazing

Next, you'll be adding the milk.  I highly recommend measuring all the milk ahead of time, as you'll be pouring and stirring at the same time.  Here's the deal with this step.  Milk burns easily, so you'll want to watch it very closely.  Keep stirring and if you notice any sticking or burning, turn the burner down.  Remember, you can always increase the heat again, but once your milk is burned, you're out of luck.  Stir for about 10 to 15 minutes.  It should start to boil after a while and thicken up a little.  PRO TIP: Start boiling your noodles now.  My noodles took 11 minutes to cook and the roux and the noodles finished together.  More pics!

After adding the milk and stirring for a while.

Wow, you're so lucky!  The majority of your work is done.  Now you add about half of your cheese (you're saving some to sprinkle on the top later). Turn the heat off, add the cheese, and stir!

Thinking of captions is hard.

All mixed up.

2.  Boiling Noodles...

I'm just going to assume you know how to do this.  If you don't and you're in trouble, I'm sure About.com has some great tutorials on this.

3.  And Now Mix!

Pour your cooked noodles into your baking pan.

Honestly... so boring.

Pour your cheese sauce in and mix it up.

And so on...

Now sprinkle your cheese everywhere.  That's not sexual either.

Oh yeah baby.

This is when I added my breadcrumbs.  Toast some bread and smash it.  I've tried using store-bought bread crumbs in the past with terrible results.  Regular bread works great.

3.  And bake!  

15 to 30 minutes at 375 degrees.  I think I did mine at 350.  It's all good.

4.  The Aftermath

And wallah:

The brown things are English muffin...

Also, an Emily tip, the unbaked casserole will stay good in the fridge for a couple of days.  So if you so desire, you can prep a few days ahead of time and eat it later.

Wrap Up:

Ingredients:

Pasta:  1 lb box of whatever you want
Butter:  3 tablespoons
All-purpose flour: 3 tablespoons
Milk: 2 1/2 cups of 1% or 2% (or a little more)
Cheddar Cheese: 1 lb (grated)
Worcestershire Sauce: a dash!
Parmesan Cheese: a dash!
Bread Crumbs: 2 slices worth (not too important what kind... I used an english muffin because I had no bread)

Procedure:

1.  Make your roux (melt butter, add flour, add milk and mix, add cheese)

2.  Boil noodles

3.  Mix!

4.  Bake!

Enjoy!

A Quick Update

Think about it every laundry day.

First, I have had a total of 666 page views at this very moment.  That's horrible.

Second, I've hit 700 miles on my bike.  I've been waiting to get to 1000 to write about my experience buying and using it.  I was going to do 100, but when I reached that in less than a week, I thought it may be a bit premature.

Finally, I received a Dinosaur Comics white board and I have been doing comics.  I've been uploading them with my phone to Picasa and I'll be adding the web album to Two Wheel Observer soon.  Rock and roll.

Disciplining Juveniles in Schools and Courts: We're Doing it Wrong

I feel that sometimes, we'd really like to treat children like little adults.  We'd like to treat them as if they are acting on their own free will and that when you make bad choices, you face bad results.  This is the premise of our criminal justice system and it now and again slips into our notion of juveniles as well.  And since that's the case, we're doing it wrong (Note: "we" does not include everyone).

As our friend T-Rex explains, children are not adults.  Let's look at this a bit.

I recently read a judge's opinion on the duty of the state towards children.  Apparently, the state must balance the need for deterrence and juvenile responsibility against treatment.  This entire discussion is couched in a tension between what causes a child to act out.  Natural evil or environment?

Today, MPR had an interesting discussion about discipline in schools, using Texas' record which found that 60% of students were given punishments ranging from expulsion to in-school suspension.  The guest on MPR said that this is not an isolated incident, but quite telling about all of America.  Here's a link.

With that being said, it seems like we have a dilemma not only in our schools as MPR discussed, but a problem that bleeds into our justice system.  Children aren't adults.  Obviously, children differ from adults in experience and knowledge.  I think we can all infer that from our own experience as a child.  However, a child's mind is also biologically different (unfortunately I don't have the cite for this because I left the book at school).  They're ability to reason, withstand social pressure, and understand long-term consequences is at best, impaired compared to an adult.

So the question is then, what is the value of punishing behavior that may not be the result of a bad moral character?  In theory, punishment isn't deterring anything as the child was not really making a judgment on values anyway.  Likely, they made a judgment devoid of judgment itself.

Perhaps then, the question is really, what are the downsides of punishing children?  In the school context, an easy answer is that they're missing class.  Which may not be a big deal if you're a white, upper-class, female (statistically, the demographic with the highest degree of academic success).  However, if you're a low-income, black, male (polar opposite of the former), those minutes, hours, or days out of class may be a really big deal.  Add that with some other problems like the notion that punishment doesn't necessarily address what makes a child act out or make bad decisions.  Moreover, if they're acting out for another reason, punishment doesn't have the effect of "teaching a lesson," but rather causes confusion and resentment upon its recipient.

I've written this before, but I think we as a society feel good about punishment.  As if some kind of justice has been achieved.  That may be correct, but many times it doesn't help us avoid more crime or even prevent the guilty party itself from reoffending.  It's kind of like fast food.  It tastes good, but it has absolutely no long term value for you.  In fact, it's bad.  It's bad for you in the moment and in the future. So yeah.  Fast food and punishment for kids.  We're doing it wrong.

Those Things You do at Depressing Times: My Drunk Kitchen

Props to whoever did this crude, but content accurate pic.  http://hartoandco.com/logo-submissions.html.  

I think we've all been there.  For some reason, something, somewhere, is messing you up.  I'm not sure if that thing is making you frustrated or if it is making you so depressed you're nearly sobbing.  Really, for the purposes of this post, it doesn't matter.  I give to you, My Drunk Kitchen.

Hannah Hart (see http://hartoandco.com) is the creator, writer, editor, and all around mastermind behind the show.  While I would say it is still in its infancy at 9 episodes, this is possibly one of the best, most creative video series to be had on the internet.  

Brought to my attention by Time Magazine, I spent a late night in bed watching every episode in succession and laughing. my face off.  Not only is the premise a good start for entertainment, the resulting scenarios are genuinely funny and charming.

There's something appealing to me about a person who creates something as inventive as My Drunk Kitchen.  Especially considering that every step of the production process is handled by Ms. Hart alone.  It's creative and, for the most part, the quality is more than acceptable given the circumstances.

I highly recommend at least watching a few episodes.  They're not long (about 6 minutes each).  So the next time you're stressing out about an exam, money, or a law review article that needs to be written in two weeks, turn on My Drunk Kitchen.

So Let's Say You're a Self-Identified Nerd...

This is nerdy and I will be wearing it on a sweatshirt soon.

Here's the story.   I was at the state fair last weekend, got hit on by a very nice homosexual man, and attended the Weezer concert where I proceeded to have a great time.  In typical Eric Dietz fashion, I have gone on to listen to a lot of Weezer.  Particularly, the song "In the Garage."  Not to ruin a perfectly good song, but it's about a dude who likes nerdy stuff and the garage is a safe place for him because it's his space and nobody judges him there.  Pretty simple.

This song, in conjunction with my last post about the judgmental Gizmodo blogger has led me to this: should we have to be ashamed of our hobbies?  In my case, the more pointed inquiry is whether I should be ashamed of being a self-identified nerd.

Let's start with my own personal belief.  The answer, of course, is no.  I was ashamed of my "nerdy" lifestyle for quite some time.  No doubt, I spent more time playing Super Mario World than I did riding my bike around the neighborhood.  Some of my best memories involve Ocarina of Time.  And, I owned many, many Magic cards.

For the most part, I haven't really changed.  I still have magic cards.  I spend an exorbitant amount of time watching or playing Starcraft 2.  Finally, I check a comic called "dinosaur comics," everyday, which isn't necessarily nerdy, but just read it and your life will make sense.

So to reiterate, I have no problem with being a nerd.

However, society still has a strong say in this type of thing, right?  While I may not care that I love all the above mentioned items and activities, a lot of people make judgments about them.

I find this in my own life in a number of ways.  Sometimes it comes out as a reluctance to talk about video games at dinner.  Other times it manifests as an outright refusal to play Settlers of Catan at a bar.  I have no concrete evidence that social pressure plays into these situations, but for this post's sake, let's say it does.

Part of my issue with this is that I feel like we've created a hierarchy for hobbies with what my guess is sports at the top and with anime at the bottom (an observation from my own life experience).  My big problem with this is: who the fuck are you to judge the value of one hobby versus another?  In my hierarchy, somehow Transformers 3 slipped above anime, along with the OC, Jersey Shore, and Montel.  Now, the point isn't to insult those things.  And I'll be honest, even I am guilty of making these judgments.  We all are.  I'm just saying that it is unfair to do that.  We should all be able to enjoy our hobbies as we see fit without some kind of social judgment taking place.

So, my request is that when you think about judging a thing that someone else likes, maybe stop and think about the crap you like and how it feels to have some jerk criticize you for it.  It may not be "run to your room crying" hurtful, but it can chip away at you and cause you to write an elongated blog post about it a decade later.

With that in mind, I will still judge the Transformers 3 lover, but I will also understand that we are all free to have hobbies and not judge your character on that basis.  But really, Michael Bay?  Come on.