Or, to be precise, I'd like not to see...
I wish the media would stop allowing themselves to be used as a forum for certain public figures to spread their spin, half-truths or outright lies, but who refuse to be interviewed or answer any questions about what they're saying.
I'll give you a few examples of what I'm talking about.
Since the recent economic stimulus package became law, there have been a handful of members of Congress putting out press releases to make sure that their constituents are well aware of the benefits coming to their home state or district. Press releases that invariably link the Congressperson's name with those benefits. The Congresspeople I'm referring to specifically are the ones who are doing this, despite the fact that they opposed, and voted against, the bill.
Baseball player Alex Rodriguez recently admitted that he has previously used steroids. In a February 17th press conference, Rodriguez claimed that the substance (acquired in the Dominican Republic and injected into him by his cousin) was one that his cousin believed would give him an "energy boost," and would have no ill effects. He had previously stated that he believed at the time that he was doing nothing wrong. A few questions I would have liked to have asked him are: Did you really believe you were doing nothing wrong in taking this substance that can not be acquired without a prescription in the US? Are you aware of any other "energy boost" products that are injected? And if you really believed this would just provide an "energy boost," and would have no ill effects - that you were doing nothing wrong - how many of your teammates did you encourage to use it? (Seems to me that it would be to the benefit of the team, no?) Of course, had I been at the press conference, I would not have had an opportunity. His team only allowed each reporter to ask one question, with no follow-ups. Of course he was evasive in answering all of the questions that were the least bit penetrating. Once the question was asked, the reporter had no opportunity to press him for a better answer.
I wish the various media outlets would stop giving these people a forum under these conditions. You want to put your message out there? Fine. Take questions. Give answers. Be held to account. Explain to us why you're taking credit for benefits in a bill you voted against. Tell us why you want us to believe you thought you were acting aboveboard, when everything you did was done in secrecy.
I know, I know. It'll never happen. But it would be nice.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Five of Spades
There's a card trick/joke that I came up with when I was about 12. It's really not original, although at the time I thought of it, I hadn't seen it (or any of the variations of the same theme) before.
The way it goes is this: I start out with the well-known "pick a card, any card." While I'm obviously not looking, I have you select your card. Then, while I'm still not looking, I have you put your card back in the deck anywhere you like. I then take the deck. Depending on how much of a production I want to make of the trick, I may shuffle or cut the cards. I then take the deck in my left hand, and, while concentrating very intently on the feeling I'm getting from the cards, I move the thumb and middle finger of my right hand up and down the outside of the deck, trying to get a sense of the proper place to cut the deck to reveal your card. Again, depending on how much of a production I want to make of this, I can spend quite a bit of time doing this. When I'm ready, I cut the deck and reveal a card, asking, "Is this your card?" When the answer is revealed to be the obvious "No," (like I'm going to happen to cut the deck right at the card you picked?), I reply with a completely indifferent "So?" and move quickly to the next topic of conversation. Or, under the right circumstances, I'll toss toss the cards in the air, to spill about the table and floor. Or, sometimes, I'll reassemble the deck, and, with a bit of bend of the deck between my fingers, flip the cards in succession in the direction of my trick/joke stooge. I know, not terribly funny. Like I said, I was about 12 when I came up with it.
I tried the joke today with my wife. After she selected and replaced her card, I did my prestidigitation, and cut the deck to reveal the 5 of spades...
"Is this your card?"
"Yeah."
(pause)
"Really?"
"Yes."
(shorter pause)
"REALLY?"
"Yes."
dammit
The way it goes is this: I start out with the well-known "pick a card, any card." While I'm obviously not looking, I have you select your card. Then, while I'm still not looking, I have you put your card back in the deck anywhere you like. I then take the deck. Depending on how much of a production I want to make of the trick, I may shuffle or cut the cards. I then take the deck in my left hand, and, while concentrating very intently on the feeling I'm getting from the cards, I move the thumb and middle finger of my right hand up and down the outside of the deck, trying to get a sense of the proper place to cut the deck to reveal your card. Again, depending on how much of a production I want to make of this, I can spend quite a bit of time doing this. When I'm ready, I cut the deck and reveal a card, asking, "Is this your card?" When the answer is revealed to be the obvious "No," (like I'm going to happen to cut the deck right at the card you picked?), I reply with a completely indifferent "So?" and move quickly to the next topic of conversation. Or, under the right circumstances, I'll toss toss the cards in the air, to spill about the table and floor. Or, sometimes, I'll reassemble the deck, and, with a bit of bend of the deck between my fingers, flip the cards in succession in the direction of my trick/joke stooge. I know, not terribly funny. Like I said, I was about 12 when I came up with it.
I tried the joke today with my wife. After she selected and replaced her card, I did my prestidigitation, and cut the deck to reveal the 5 of spades...
"Is this your card?"
"Yeah."
(pause)
"Really?"
"Yes."
(shorter pause)
"REALLY?"
"Yes."
dammit
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Taxes
I've been thinking about taxes lately, as have a lot of us, I'm sure. Nobody really likes taxes, everybody (it seems) complains about them, but nobody really does anything about them. (I know what some of you are thinking, "What can I possibly do?" Well, for starters, you can talk to your elected representatives, and use their responses [and their votes] in your decision as to whether you're going to vote for them the next time.)
I came up with 2 ideas. To be honest, I don't think either is a workable plan. But they are, maybe, a start - something I can communicate to my representatives as perhaps a starting point for a conversation about what we might do.
First idea - Get rid of the "pay as you go" system. Prior to 1942, income tax was not withheld from paychecks in the U.S. That meant that you were responsible to pay your total tax due by the filing deadline, but it also meant that you had and held (not spent, if you were smart) that money over the course of the year, and you earned interest on it. It wouldn't be that difficult to set aside 15%, 25%, 28%, whatever is necessary, of your income into an interest-bearing account, and then to cut Uncle Sam a check once a year. (Actually, due to deductions and the progressive nature of our tax structure, if you're in, for example, the 28% tax bracket, you wouldn't pay... and wouldn't have to set aside... 28% of your income, as your actual tax burden would be noticeably less than that, but that level of detail isn't necessary for this discussion.)
As strange as this sounds, I think a lot of people lose track of how much money they pay in income tax every year. It shows up on your paycheck stub every 2 weeks (or however often you get paid.) It's right there on your W-2, and you have to write it on the 1040. But it's somehow not "real" money. You never see it, and when you're dealing with it at tax time, they already have it. It almost looks good, because it means either that you have to pay less, or you're going to get some back. They're giving me money!!! (Yeah, whose money?) I think it would be a much different story if we had to take that money out of our figurative pockets and hand it over to the government. I think people would be more mindful of how much they actually pay. And maybe (pipe dream alert!), just maybe, they would be a bit more inclined to hold those in Washington to account for how much is taken from us, and how it's used.
For anyone who gets a refund, the government is basically getting an interest-free loan from you. They have use of, or earn interest on, money that is rightfully yours, and then return it to you. When we do that, it's called a loan, and we pay interest for the privilege. That leads me to my...
Second idea - Pay interest on all refunds. They could make the formula as simple or as complicated as they wanted. I came up with a pretty simple one for our purposes here. Let's say they pay a 6% annual (or, 0.5% per month) interest rate. Let's say you're getting a $2,400 refund, meaning the IRS over-withheld $200 per month. For January's $200, they had it the whole year, so you get the full 6% - $12. For February's $200, you'd get 5.5% interest - $11. It would continue like that - $200 at 5%, $200 at 4.5%, etc. Overall, you'd get $78 interest, so your $2,400 refund would turn into a payment of $2,478.
The end result I'm going for is for the IRS to be, and/or allow us to be, smarter and more precise about how much of our income is withheld. The ultimate goal would be for everyone to be as close as possible to even on their 1040's - nothing due to the IRS, no refund due to the taxpayer. When I lived in Pennsylvania, it always worked that way for my state income tax. There was a flat 2.8% (I think) tax rate, and I had no deductions. They withheld 2.8% of every paycheck, so when I filed my return it was always even. I never paid to or received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania so much as $1 in conjunction with filing my tax return. What had been withheld always equalled my tax burden. I don't think it's possible to be quite that precise with our federal taxes, because there are so many variables, but I think... or maybe I just hope... it could be better than it is now.
Again, I'm not under any delusion that these ideas are usable in my simplistic form. But I think they could be the base upon which some workable ideas could be built.
I came up with 2 ideas. To be honest, I don't think either is a workable plan. But they are, maybe, a start - something I can communicate to my representatives as perhaps a starting point for a conversation about what we might do.
First idea - Get rid of the "pay as you go" system. Prior to 1942, income tax was not withheld from paychecks in the U.S. That meant that you were responsible to pay your total tax due by the filing deadline, but it also meant that you had and held (not spent, if you were smart) that money over the course of the year, and you earned interest on it. It wouldn't be that difficult to set aside 15%, 25%, 28%, whatever is necessary, of your income into an interest-bearing account, and then to cut Uncle Sam a check once a year. (Actually, due to deductions and the progressive nature of our tax structure, if you're in, for example, the 28% tax bracket, you wouldn't pay... and wouldn't have to set aside... 28% of your income, as your actual tax burden would be noticeably less than that, but that level of detail isn't necessary for this discussion.)
As strange as this sounds, I think a lot of people lose track of how much money they pay in income tax every year. It shows up on your paycheck stub every 2 weeks (or however often you get paid.) It's right there on your W-2, and you have to write it on the 1040. But it's somehow not "real" money. You never see it, and when you're dealing with it at tax time, they already have it. It almost looks good, because it means either that you have to pay less, or you're going to get some back. They're giving me money!!! (Yeah, whose money?) I think it would be a much different story if we had to take that money out of our figurative pockets and hand it over to the government. I think people would be more mindful of how much they actually pay. And maybe (pipe dream alert!), just maybe, they would be a bit more inclined to hold those in Washington to account for how much is taken from us, and how it's used.
For anyone who gets a refund, the government is basically getting an interest-free loan from you. They have use of, or earn interest on, money that is rightfully yours, and then return it to you. When we do that, it's called a loan, and we pay interest for the privilege. That leads me to my...
Second idea - Pay interest on all refunds. They could make the formula as simple or as complicated as they wanted. I came up with a pretty simple one for our purposes here. Let's say they pay a 6% annual (or, 0.5% per month) interest rate. Let's say you're getting a $2,400 refund, meaning the IRS over-withheld $200 per month. For January's $200, they had it the whole year, so you get the full 6% - $12. For February's $200, you'd get 5.5% interest - $11. It would continue like that - $200 at 5%, $200 at 4.5%, etc. Overall, you'd get $78 interest, so your $2,400 refund would turn into a payment of $2,478.
The end result I'm going for is for the IRS to be, and/or allow us to be, smarter and more precise about how much of our income is withheld. The ultimate goal would be for everyone to be as close as possible to even on their 1040's - nothing due to the IRS, no refund due to the taxpayer. When I lived in Pennsylvania, it always worked that way for my state income tax. There was a flat 2.8% (I think) tax rate, and I had no deductions. They withheld 2.8% of every paycheck, so when I filed my return it was always even. I never paid to or received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania so much as $1 in conjunction with filing my tax return. What had been withheld always equalled my tax burden. I don't think it's possible to be quite that precise with our federal taxes, because there are so many variables, but I think... or maybe I just hope... it could be better than it is now.
Again, I'm not under any delusion that these ideas are usable in my simplistic form. But I think they could be the base upon which some workable ideas could be built.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
