Right now I'm feeling tired and cranky. Mostly cranky. Which is a good thing, really; I have lots of work to do and can't stand for being tired right now. But I figured I'd pay everyone a visit. Might help relieve some of the ol' crankiness.
So yesterday I went ahead and filled out this survey left on the counter by my mom for about two weeks. It was sent from the Democratic National Committee, and they were all, "PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 72 HOURS!" And I figured it wouldn't be nice to keep the poor Democrats waiting, so I gave my folks twenty-four hour notice two days ago that I would fill it out if they didn't. And they didn't. So I did.
And this is a very good thing, because my parents subscribe just a tad too much to the party schtick and are just a tad too populist for me to happily let them fill the thing out. And while the survey could have been worse, it could have also been considerably better. Every question had three (or, much worse, two) answer choices. This really irked me when I came to the minimum wage question, which was asking if we supported increases. The two answers choices were, "Yes, they should be paid more, blah, blah," or "No, increasing the minimum wage discourages employers from hiring." But there was no, "Yes, in order to keep up with the rising cost of living and to pass on the benefits of increased productivity the minimum wage should be marginally and gradually increased, but not by the fucking 40% margin over three years that you apparently support, you retarded twats." And so I had to pick the no option, since it corresponded more to my views--especially when I considered the moronic populism plauging Congress on the issue.
By the way, I just like to say how extremely motherfucking happy I am that that ridiuclous bit of legislation did not get past the Senate. I swear, that kind of thing is almost as bad as the PATRIOT Act, though thankfully not nearly as popular. I really don't understand what's happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but now they're the party of mindlessly cutting taxes. I mean, how dare you try to get rid of the estate tax, you imbeciles? How dare you?
(The bill that was rejected by the Senate does not actually push to repeal the estate tax, but the difference in revenues for the US Treasury between the proposed neutering of the tax and a repeal are rather small, so whether or not any further action would have been taken to actually remove the estate tax completely would be mostly irrelevant; either way it would cost us the better part of $1 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Why then? Well, Bush's tax cuts have already set provisions to progressively reduce the estate tax's tax base and rate until it is temporarily eliminated in 2010, only to be reborn at old rates in 2011.)
You know, if taxes were always about the principle of the matter, then we would probably charge a nice flat rate, and rich people and businesses would be happy. But in the real world, the principle of the matter takes a back seat to pragmatism. The marginal utility of money diminishes as you get more and more money. To make that clear for those of you who aren't familiar with marginal utility, imagine having absolutely no money, and you're living out on the street. Then imagine if I gave you $1000. You'd be ecstatic, yes? You'd finally be able to eat and sleep in a bed (though it might be roach-infested). Then say I gave you an additional $1000. You'd be able to eat even more, and sleep in a nicer bed! Then another $1000, and you might go crazy and get a TV. But every $1000 you get after the first one means less to you than the one before; you will never be as happy to receive $1000 as you were when you had absolutely nothing. This is especially true if you have say... $1,000,000 and I give you another $1000. Do you care? Not that much. And that's what the marginal utility of money (which refers to how much utility--or happiness, or whatever--you get from getting one more dollar, given that you already have x amount of dollars) is all about. Isn't it fun when you come to read a blog and you find a lecture? Well I'm having fun. So nyah.
So anyway, the estate tax, if it were to affect the same people as it did in 2000 (which it will in 2011 if no one moves to repeal it), would affect dead couples with over $1,350,000 to bequeath. Now, who needs the money collected from the tax? The U.S. government or the rich couple's kids? I'd say the U.S. government. No, it's not fun to have your inheritance taxed, but the Treasury must get its money from somewhere, and you're really not losing much utility, whereas if we were to spread the burden over middle- or working-class families, we'd be destroying much more utility. There is, of course, a fine line that we must walk; rich people do, after all, contribute a great deal to the economy when they save their money or invest in companies, and getting rid of rich people alltogether (as, say, Huey Long would have liked to do) would be a dreadful mistake. But even if all that money that was being taxed was going to head straight for the bank, we can't use figures of GDP to allow us to further increase inequality and the misery that it brings; taxes and economics don't exist to permit the unregulated growth of money, after all, they're here to (among other things) try to distribute things properly so that everyone is better off.
Yay for economics-related rambling! ^.^
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I must go and finish my UT essays. And my homework. Neither of which is fun. Le sigh.
Hasta la byebye!
So yesterday I went ahead and filled out this survey left on the counter by my mom for about two weeks. It was sent from the Democratic National Committee, and they were all, "PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 72 HOURS!" And I figured it wouldn't be nice to keep the poor Democrats waiting, so I gave my folks twenty-four hour notice two days ago that I would fill it out if they didn't. And they didn't. So I did.
And this is a very good thing, because my parents subscribe just a tad too much to the party schtick and are just a tad too populist for me to happily let them fill the thing out. And while the survey could have been worse, it could have also been considerably better. Every question had three (or, much worse, two) answer choices. This really irked me when I came to the minimum wage question, which was asking if we supported increases. The two answers choices were, "Yes, they should be paid more, blah, blah," or "No, increasing the minimum wage discourages employers from hiring." But there was no, "Yes, in order to keep up with the rising cost of living and to pass on the benefits of increased productivity the minimum wage should be marginally and gradually increased, but not by the fucking 40% margin over three years that you apparently support, you retarded twats." And so I had to pick the no option, since it corresponded more to my views--especially when I considered the moronic populism plauging Congress on the issue.
By the way, I just like to say how extremely motherfucking happy I am that that ridiuclous bit of legislation did not get past the Senate. I swear, that kind of thing is almost as bad as the PATRIOT Act, though thankfully not nearly as popular. I really don't understand what's happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but now they're the party of mindlessly cutting taxes. I mean, how dare you try to get rid of the estate tax, you imbeciles? How dare you?
(The bill that was rejected by the Senate does not actually push to repeal the estate tax, but the difference in revenues for the US Treasury between the proposed neutering of the tax and a repeal are rather small, so whether or not any further action would have been taken to actually remove the estate tax completely would be mostly irrelevant; either way it would cost us the better part of $1 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Why then? Well, Bush's tax cuts have already set provisions to progressively reduce the estate tax's tax base and rate until it is temporarily eliminated in 2010, only to be reborn at old rates in 2011.)
You know, if taxes were always about the principle of the matter, then we would probably charge a nice flat rate, and rich people and businesses would be happy. But in the real world, the principle of the matter takes a back seat to pragmatism. The marginal utility of money diminishes as you get more and more money. To make that clear for those of you who aren't familiar with marginal utility, imagine having absolutely no money, and you're living out on the street. Then imagine if I gave you $1000. You'd be ecstatic, yes? You'd finally be able to eat and sleep in a bed (though it might be roach-infested). Then say I gave you an additional $1000. You'd be able to eat even more, and sleep in a nicer bed! Then another $1000, and you might go crazy and get a TV. But every $1000 you get after the first one means less to you than the one before; you will never be as happy to receive $1000 as you were when you had absolutely nothing. This is especially true if you have say... $1,000,000 and I give you another $1000. Do you care? Not that much. And that's what the marginal utility of money (which refers to how much utility--or happiness, or whatever--you get from getting one more dollar, given that you already have x amount of dollars) is all about. Isn't it fun when you come to read a blog and you find a lecture? Well I'm having fun. So nyah.
So anyway, the estate tax, if it were to affect the same people as it did in 2000 (which it will in 2011 if no one moves to repeal it), would affect dead couples with over $1,350,000 to bequeath. Now, who needs the money collected from the tax? The U.S. government or the rich couple's kids? I'd say the U.S. government. No, it's not fun to have your inheritance taxed, but the Treasury must get its money from somewhere, and you're really not losing much utility, whereas if we were to spread the burden over middle- or working-class families, we'd be destroying much more utility. There is, of course, a fine line that we must walk; rich people do, after all, contribute a great deal to the economy when they save their money or invest in companies, and getting rid of rich people alltogether (as, say, Huey Long would have liked to do) would be a dreadful mistake. But even if all that money that was being taxed was going to head straight for the bank, we can't use figures of GDP to allow us to further increase inequality and the misery that it brings; taxes and economics don't exist to permit the unregulated growth of money, after all, they're here to (among other things) try to distribute things properly so that everyone is better off.
Yay for economics-related rambling! ^.^
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I must go and finish my UT essays. And my homework. Neither of which is fun. Le sigh.
Hasta la byebye!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home