Monthly Archives: October 2011

Tax Cuts Do Not Pay For Themselves

Posted on by
Reply

Main point: Democrats raise taxes and overspend. Republicans cut taxes and overspend. The former is at least somewhat more sustainable.

Cutting the top tax rate (currently those making over $370,000) is something that has been promoted by many of the the Republicans currently running for president in the form of a flat tax (or variations of it such as the 9-9-9 plan). There are many arguments for this notion and many against.

It’s possible to point to historical data and claim that such tax cuts either do or do not lead to:

  1. Economic growth
  2. Income growth
  3. Wage growth
  4. Job creation

I’m not going to engage in such armchair analysis. I have my opinions, but they are just that, opinions, and are hardly founded in real scientific reasoning.

What I do want to say about it is that human nature and the way that politicians operate makes such tax cuts destructive to our long-term economy. Why? Because they do not pay for themselves in the short term. That means deficits increase. That’s fine, as long as the tax cuts are matched with major cuts in programs. The Republicans talk about cutting “wasteful spending”, but at the end of the day, they cut very little. So if you believe in “small government” you need to wake up a bit and realize that cutting taxes is not the first step to small government. The first step is cutting programs, and 99% of politicians just don’t have the guts to do that.

The problem in a nutshell:

  • Democrats raise taxes and spend like crazy
  • Republicans cut taxes and spend like crazy

That’s why I support Democrats that are fine with big government but want to make it more efficient.

The Best and Worst of The “One Percent”

Posted on by
Reply

Main point: Money is not a measure of a man in that wealth is neither an indication of productive genius nor morally flawed character.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is born out of the frustration at the growing income inequality in America.

More than anything else, in my mind, this is a reflection of our society’s relationship with money. The “market” values a CEO much more than it did 30 years ago. Big banks have gained power not because they somehow went against the values of the masses, but because they went with them.

I think the arguments on both sides have been trivialized to the point of absurdity. To me, the top 1% of income earner is no better or worse than the 99%. I respect productive genius. Some individuals that represent that are in the 1%. Some are in the 99%. Money is one of many possible indicators of greatness. A wealthy person is one who has often excelled in a business venture. That is admirable, but no more admirable than someone who has excelled in a scientific field, an olympic sport, or in the arts, all of which are quite likely to produce little income unless the person is also able to make a business of their skills and achievements.

Our society has great men and women: the real 1% (of which I’m not one). That 1% should be admired, respected, striven for, and never confused with the top 1% of income earners.

So I don’t mind the OWS protests when they are solely about money, and not about putting down the best that our civilization of proud ants has to offer.

Iraq Troops Withdrawal: Can’t Teach A Runner How to Complete a Marathon

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, NPR’s Talk of the Nation did a program on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. A female soldier (and trainer of Iraqi military) that just got back from Iraq called in and made a comment about the fact that most of the U.S. soldiers there believe that they’ve done all they could, and it’s time to go home. She finished with an analogy: “I can teach a runner how to run, but I can’t teach him the mentality needed to complete a marathon”.

I never know where to focus my criticism of the neocon foreign policy, because it’s fundamentally an emotional framework and thus doesn’t quite sit comfortably in the realm of reason. It lacks concrete goals and realistic plans of accomplishing those goals. ‘Eradicating terrorism” is not a concrete goal. “Establish democracy and freedom” is not a realistic plan. But most importantly it lacks the kind of empathy needed to understand the other side, the families in Iraq that are trying to live a peaceful existence day to day. What do they want? How do they see U.S.? Because we are only safe if they see us as the good guys: as a country that values the rights of every human being.

Bar fights (my own, and those I’ve watched) have taught me all I need to know about conflict. An eye for an eye escalates tension and transforms into generational hatred. There has to be room for “turning the other cheek”. Not always, but just often enough to give our animal instinct a chance to be pacified by reason.

The Past and the Present of the Income Tax

Posted on by
3

The current tax code is a mess, and that fact is used by every politician to peddle his/her personal agenda, whether that involves raising or lowering taxes. In 1913 the tax code was contained in a single 400 page book, and today it spans volumes with over 70,000 pages. There are 60,000 full-time lobbyists in Washington focused on pushing tax reform of one kind or another. It’s an industry in itself.

I think who we tax, how much, and for what purpose fundamentally reflects our view of human nature and justice. On this subject, I’ve always been very torn (at least at the philosophical level). On the one hand taxation at its worst is an oppressive tool of government bureaucracy backed by force. On the other hand, at it is best, it is a funding source for implementing the ideas that emerge from our democratic process.

I find too many people are unaware of: the past and the present of the U.S. income tax. Le me put up some simple numbers…

That’s the income tax for the top bracket from 1913 to 2009. Throughout its history, it’s gone under 10% and over 90%. These days, I hear conservatives will argue that 10% marked the prosperous times, while liberals will argue that 90% was the real source of growth. It’s a chaos of facts interpreted in any number of ways to prove arbitrary subjective points. Though there is science amid the chaos, sometimes it’s hard to identify.

The other set of numbers is the current marginal income tax rate per bracket:

  • 35% for over $370,000
  • 33% for $171,000 to $370,000
  • 28% for $82,000 to $171,000
  • 25% for $34,000 to $82,000
  • 15% for $8,000 to $34,000
  • 10% for under $8000

I do want to emphasize a surprisingly misunderstood fact. If I make $400K, only $30K of that is taxed at 35%. The rest is broken down into the above brackets and taxed at 33%, 28%, 25%, 15%, and 10% respectively.

John McCarthy: Father of Artificial Intelligence

Posted on by
Reply

John McCarthy died today at the age of 84. He coined the term Artificial Intelligence and invented LISP: the programming language that every computer scientist interested in A.I. considers to be his first love (as far as programming languages go).

He authored many seminal papers in the field and was the source of much of the enthusiasm (and gentle skepticism) about the  possibility of intelligent machines throughout the last half century.

Artificial Intelligence is a young field, and as McCarthy suggested, I believe the 21st century will be its time to shine with intelligent systems in medicine, communication, warfare (for good and for bad), and much more. It’s sad to see one of the field’s visionaries pass away. But I’m excited at the prospect of his work and the work of those he inspired transforming our future in the decades to come.

Pedestrians, Bikes, Cars, Cabs, and Buses

Posted on by
Reply

I have seen the world from all 5 perspectives in the title, and perhaps not surprisingly, every time it’s everyone else except me who is a damn irresponsible insensitive a**hole from that perspective. And that seems to be the common trend. Bicyclists complain about cars, bus drivers complain about pedestrians, and everyone complains about cabs.

So I wanted to gather up some random facts, stats, and whatever else I have in my notes on the subject.

Bicycles

  • 50% of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips. 91% of bicyclists killed last year weren’t wearing a helmet. So don’t be like me and wear a damn helmet (and also criticize me for not wearing one).
  • Most bicyclist deaths occur on a major road between intersections
  • Cyclists have the same rights as cars, but are supposed to ride as close to the ride curb as possible.
  • Riding a bike drunk is the same as driving a car drunk in most states (meaning it’ll get you a DUI). The same goes for riding a lawn mower while intoxicated, in case you were wondering.

PS: If you ever have a bicycling question, check out this awesome Q&A site.

Cabs

  • In a study of NYC cabs last year, 538 pedestrians and 282 cyclists were injured.
  • In my personal study of Philly cabs, 97% of cab drivers either don’t know how to drive or just don’t care.

Pedestrians

  • The number of male pedestrians killed by cars are twice that of women. I suspect that a large percentage of those men are Russian and have a general affinity for vodka (the drink of the people).
  • If you’re hit by a car at 40 mph you have an 85% of dying.
  • If you’re hit by a car at 30 mph you have an 45% of dying.
  • If you’re hit by a car at 20 mph you have an 5% of dying.
  • Unless you’re a judo player (especially a Russian one who has consumed a lot of vodka), then your likelihood of death goes down as the speed of the car goes up.

I guess the lesson here is to have respect for those you share the road with.

To my fellow cyclists that don’t get off the bike in the winter, stay safe and good luck.

I would be amiss not to include this promotional video for a Russian log bike delivery service:

Egotistical Assholes and Incompetent Idiots

Posted on by
Reply

Sorry for the language, but I just watched the following Google talk by Robert Sutton (author of Good Boss, Bad Boss) and he doesn’t shy away from such language so I figured I wouldn’t either:

It occurred to me that, using his language, we can divide bosses (and co-workers) into the following categories:

  1. Nice and competent
  2. Assholish and competent
  3. Nice and incompetent
  4. Assholish and incompetent

Of course, everyone likes #1 and no one likes #4. The question is which you prefer between #2 and #3. Would you rather work with a productive asshole or a friendly slacker?

I’m not sure if it has to do with my upbringing, or more specifically my temperament in the face of conflict, but in people I work with I always prefer competence without much value assigned to personality. I feel like a common ground (where things can get done) is much easier to come to when both parties are willing and able to work at it.

But of course we all should strive to be #1: both nice and competent.

The Absence of Reason and Empathy in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Posted on by
Reply

Main point: In the face of a long history of injustice and suffering on both sides, the only way out is through reason, empathy, compassion. The latest trade of 1000 Palestinian prisoners for 1 Israeli soldier is a sign that all three are absent among the leadership in that part of the world.

It is undeniable that the Palestinian people and the Israeli people have both suffered in the struggle for finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict for land, for freedom, for a balance of power in the region.

However, the announcement today (not unprecedented) that there will be a swap of one captive Israeli soldier for 1000 Palestinian prisoners is as clear a sign as any that the balance of reason is drastically misplaced. How can such a trade be reasonable? And if this is what is considered reasonable, how can we ever hope to see peace agreement between these two peoples?

Here’s a video from 2009 of the Gilad Shalit (the kidnapped Israeli soldier):

For the Israeli people, this one soldier has become a symbol. Therefore, the trade of 1 to 1000 may not seem so drastic. But it is! Certainly almost none of the extensive media coverage that I’ve read today is at all outraged at the imbalance of this outcome.

I ask again: how is this not an indicator that one of the negotiating parties at this table has a monstrously deformed sense of justice? What is wrong with this picture?

Chris Christie: The Man, The Legend

Posted on by
Reply

Main point: wit in a politician is a sign of character.

Chris Christie (a man with whom I’m supposed to disagree according to the blue color of my team’s jersey) really impressed me with his announcement today that for the millionth time he is not running for president. His wit, humor, and common sense logic won me over. Whatever you think of his policies, Governor Christie is not trying to be anything, faking an image, or afraid of taking risks. That’s just what wit indicates to me, that just like Biden, he is not afraid of saying something offensive in making a point he wants to make. His priorities are on conveying the ideas in his head and not on packaging a consistent message that will help win him favor with a particular group. At least, that’s my initial impression of the man. Here’s a classic video where he tells people to “get the hell off the beach”:

Of course, I disagree with him on many issues if not most issues. In particular, he is pro-life, anti-regulation, against socialized medicine, for lowering taxes. However, I do share his critical (but constructive) view of our education system, his radical (by conservative standards) respect for and support of science, and his opposition of using U.S. military for nation building.