An article in Forbes points out the many disincentives our tax code lobs at people whose goals in life are some combination of: make more money, get married, get college educations for the kids.
It does a lot of soul-searching over the whys involved in giving incentives to those who don't work as hard and don't move up the financial ladder. It seems pretty clear cut to me though. Our tax code is constantly tweaked and tailored with the goal of equalizing income. The goal is to take money from those who have it and give to the government, who will give it to those that don't. Think that's crazy?
"There are now more than two dozen federal tax breaks, including seven created or expanded by February's $787 billion stimulus, that disappear (often simultaneously) as income rises. As her adjusted gross income climbs from $60,000 to $90,000, a single parent could lose some or all of the $1,000 per child credit, the $2,500 per college student credit, the $400 Making Work Pay credit and the $8,000 first-time home buyer credit, as well as deductions for contributions to an individual retirement account and for interest paid on a student loan. Such gotchas can push up the marginal federal income tax rate--that is, the tax on the next $1 earned--far beyond the top 35% rate imposed on rich folks."
It's easy to say, well of course tax breaks go away as you make more income. We have a progressive tax system, after all. True enough. The problem is, in the rush to hand as much money as possible to those in the lower income brackets, the definition of "rich" or even "well off" grows to encompass more and more people. That's the only way to explain the graph on page one of the linked article, which plots the marginal tax rates for single parents.
Obviously, there are people that need the help. But the goal of society should not be to increase the number of people on one dole or another. It should be to provide people with the means to get off the dole forever. Our tax system, with its perverse incentive to make less money, doesn't do that.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Fun With Spam
The spam filter on my work's email servers is pretty fantastic. I never see any spam in my inbox, and only very rarely does a legitimate email get stuck in the spam filter. I still check the filter every once in a while in order to catch those two or three a year that get caught. Here are some of the subjects:
- What Britney hides?: I just imagine a guy getting stopped by customs officals: "Okay, Johnny. Where are the Brtiney hides?" "What Britney hides?" Johnny replied innocently.
- Your Love Stick won't get tired: Especially if I ever called it that in front of my girlfriend. I'd never need it again.
- This is not a potion for making you a womanizer. This is better than that: Better than tequila? Cause that stuff makes me sleep with all kinds of women then I say "later baby" and leave them all alone and crying in the bed.
- Madonna is a moslim now: First she was cathalick, then she was into the cabbala junk. What's next? Vudu?
- Pants off, Lavigne: I think this got sent to me by mistake.
- Chest pains chasing you. Get them off track: No, no. Charley horses keep chasing me. Chest pains just call and hang up.
- Renew your organism: I'm trying to kill the tapeworm, not renew it.
- Oh shit!: I almost opened this one.
Rights I Just Made Up: The Right To Trespass On Your Land Without Seeing You Naked
A man in Springfield,VA is facing charges in connection with an incident in which police say he exposed himself to a woman and her daughter. In this case, however, the man was in his own kitchen and the two females cut through his yard from a path on which they were walking.
The police's theory seems to be that this man was making coffee in his kitchen naked because he somehow knew that someone would leave a path that runs along his property, cut through his front yard, pass the kitchen window, and look into his kitchen.
So let that be a lesson to all you perverts who think that, just because you're in your own house on your own land, you can just walk around naked. Other people are trying to walk through your yard uninvited and they have the right to look in your kitchen window and not see you naked.
The police's theory seems to be that this man was making coffee in his kitchen naked because he somehow knew that someone would leave a path that runs along his property, cut through his front yard, pass the kitchen window, and look into his kitchen.
So let that be a lesson to all you perverts who think that, just because you're in your own house on your own land, you can just walk around naked. Other people are trying to walk through your yard uninvited and they have the right to look in your kitchen window and not see you naked.
Whither The Blame For The Flu Vaccine Shortage?
Remember back in 2004, when flu vaccine shortages had everybody up in arms? No? You should. It was all over the news. Pundits wrung their hands in disbelief that this could happen. One guess who most blamed for this.
Well, here in 2009 we are in the midst of a shortage of N1H1 vaccine, but I don't see a lot of finger pointing. Where are all the stories about the Obama administration being to blame for ignoring a health crisis, not being prepared for flu season and generally not caring about Americans in general?
For the record, I don't believe the current administration is to blame for the vaccine shortage any more than I thought Bush was responsible in 2004. But if you're reading this and wondering why all our news outlets aren't raising the same questions now as then, congratulations! You're starting to realize just how in the tank most Obama-Approved news organizations are.
Well, here in 2009 we are in the midst of a shortage of N1H1 vaccine, but I don't see a lot of finger pointing. Where are all the stories about the Obama administration being to blame for ignoring a health crisis, not being prepared for flu season and generally not caring about Americans in general?
For the record, I don't believe the current administration is to blame for the vaccine shortage any more than I thought Bush was responsible in 2004. But if you're reading this and wondering why all our news outlets aren't raising the same questions now as then, congratulations! You're starting to realize just how in the tank most Obama-Approved news organizations are.
Online Education Can't Come Fast Enough
I put college money away for my daughter in a 529 plan because I want her to be able to get the type of education she's going to need in order to compete in the job market come 2023 or so. I do this even though I secretly believe that by the time 2019 gets here she will be able to take all her classes from home online. That's assuming the earth isn't destroyed by Mayans or whatever in 2012.
I hope this comes to pass (online college, not the Mayan thing) despite my feeling that colleges will fight it tooth and nail. Why? Money, of course. While there would be money to be made in online classes, there would be less:
It rises faster than inflation. It rises when colleges promise not to raise it. It should be a t-shirt: Tuiton: It Rises.
The excuse right now is that colleges are being forced to pass on "their own financial problems". That sounds plausible, except that tuition rose when colleges didn't have financial problems. It rose when Harvard and Yale's endowments were $36 billion and $23 billion, respectively. It's risen now that those endowments are at $26 billion and $16 billion. It's true that their big cash piles have had several shovelfulls removed. But "we have to raise tuition: we've only got $23 billion in the bank!" just doesn't sound right to me.
When you consider that tution rises outstrip inflation, it sounds really bad:
"The price increases came despite painful cost-cutting by colleges on everything from faculty to cafeterias and sports travel. And as usual, the rise in tuition outstripped the overall inflation rate. In fact, during the period covered by the report, consumer prices declined 2.1 percent. So the latest tuition increase at public colleges was closer to 9 percent in real terms."
Think about that for a minute. Can you think of another business (and let's be honest, that's exactly what a private university is) that would look at declining demand for it's product (declining enrollment), a deflationary dollar (the dollar is worth more) and an economy in which people are having to make hard choices on where to spend their money, and conclude that raising the price is the way to go?
How do they get away with this? I see it as three-fold problem: First, bargain shopping doesn't apply to colleges. Little Suzy wants to go to Harvard. Or maybe Yale. If she can get in that's where she's going. If she can't get in (or can't afford it) she's probably going to Mystate U., the local school.
Second, a college education is looked at the same way as gasoline: it's a must-have commodity regardless of price. We may bellyache about the cost when it goes up but we pay it anyway.
Third, the role of subsidies. Financial aid isn't called that, but that's exactly what it is:
"The estimated net price – what the average student actually pays after financial aid is taken into account – is still much lower than the list price, at about $1,620 at public four-year colleges, and under $12,000 at private ones. Both figures are up slightly from last year but still lower than five years ago."
The dirty little not-so-secret of universities is that they tend to tie tution increases to the available pool of federal and state tuition grant money available each year.
So, cheaper education from the comfort of your own home and lower taxes (that's where grant money comes from, after all) all thanks to the internet. The only thing opposing it is a monolithic higher education entity that relies on increasing tuition, text book sales and housing payments to increase an already-giant pile of cash.
I'm going to keep up those 529 payments.
I hope this comes to pass (online college, not the Mayan thing) despite my feeling that colleges will fight it tooth and nail. Why? Money, of course. While there would be money to be made in online classes, there would be less:
- No (physical) textbooks. They would all be online. Cheap to generate. Cheap to revise. No more changing some punctuation, calling it a "new edition" and charging $150 for it. This practice is one of the most egregious rip offs ever devised by bureaucrats.
- Less teachers. Lesson plans, syllabi, etc. could come from more centralized sources. Right now there are thousands of English Lit 101 classes being held, and each one has its own professor, who creates a syllabus, conducts the class, has office time, etc. With the internet, syllabi could be condensed and standardized to the point that there are a few hundred (or dozen) to choose from. There would of course be a need to update them, but this could be done by far fewer people. Office hours could be replaced with more of a help desk model. Hopefully not outsourced to India.
- Cheaper college credits. Since all colleges would be online, you could easily bargain shop. The more colleges to which you are accepted, the more choices you have. College A wants to charge you $200/credit while College B charges $150? If other factors (equivalence of degrees, prestige, etc.) are comparable you can save. Colleges will have to compete on price, something they've never had to do before. Imagine being a high school senior and being bombarded by emails offering 20% coupons to Harvard.
- Travel and housing costs eliminated. Of course, not all college-age people want to live at home but it becomes an option. Sorry, mom and dad.
It rises faster than inflation. It rises when colleges promise not to raise it. It should be a t-shirt: Tuiton: It Rises.
The excuse right now is that colleges are being forced to pass on "their own financial problems". That sounds plausible, except that tuition rose when colleges didn't have financial problems. It rose when Harvard and Yale's endowments were $36 billion and $23 billion, respectively. It's risen now that those endowments are at $26 billion and $16 billion. It's true that their big cash piles have had several shovelfulls removed. But "we have to raise tuition: we've only got $23 billion in the bank!" just doesn't sound right to me.
When you consider that tution rises outstrip inflation, it sounds really bad:
"The price increases came despite painful cost-cutting by colleges on everything from faculty to cafeterias and sports travel. And as usual, the rise in tuition outstripped the overall inflation rate. In fact, during the period covered by the report, consumer prices declined 2.1 percent. So the latest tuition increase at public colleges was closer to 9 percent in real terms."
Think about that for a minute. Can you think of another business (and let's be honest, that's exactly what a private university is) that would look at declining demand for it's product (declining enrollment), a deflationary dollar (the dollar is worth more) and an economy in which people are having to make hard choices on where to spend their money, and conclude that raising the price is the way to go?
How do they get away with this? I see it as three-fold problem: First, bargain shopping doesn't apply to colleges. Little Suzy wants to go to Harvard. Or maybe Yale. If she can get in that's where she's going. If she can't get in (or can't afford it) she's probably going to Mystate U., the local school.
Second, a college education is looked at the same way as gasoline: it's a must-have commodity regardless of price. We may bellyache about the cost when it goes up but we pay it anyway.
Third, the role of subsidies. Financial aid isn't called that, but that's exactly what it is:
"The estimated net price – what the average student actually pays after financial aid is taken into account – is still much lower than the list price, at about $1,620 at public four-year colleges, and under $12,000 at private ones. Both figures are up slightly from last year but still lower than five years ago."
The dirty little not-so-secret of universities is that they tend to tie tution increases to the available pool of federal and state tuition grant money available each year.
So, cheaper education from the comfort of your own home and lower taxes (that's where grant money comes from, after all) all thanks to the internet. The only thing opposing it is a monolithic higher education entity that relies on increasing tuition, text book sales and housing payments to increase an already-giant pile of cash.
I'm going to keep up those 529 payments.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
So THIS Is What A UN Meeting Looks Like
Instapundit put this up as a poke at President Obama's Afghanistan policy. While I can get behind that a bit, the first thing I thought of was a U.N. Security Council meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)