Living wage part II-Tax reforms and subsidies

I am discussing these two in the same entry as a lot of subsidies come in the form of tax credits. First let’s talk about tax reform by starting with the poster boys Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney.

A lot of people will claim tax reform will only benefit the rich- however Warren Buffet claims he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary

The tax issue is one of the reasons I can’t stand Warren Buffett- he goes on TV screaming his taxes are to low and asking for the “Buffett Rule” while in private he seems to believe the real Buffet rule- is “if you are Warren buffet you don’t pay taxes http://nypost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-hypocrite/.”

I digress- the two of them both have such low tax rates because they are able to structure their business in such a way to avoid as taxes as best as they can. I don’t blame someone for wanting to do that so my biggest issue with Mitt was the fact when he had a chance to address the issue- he avoided details and seemed to quite ignorant on the subject.

He was proposing to reduce loopholes and and deductions and lowering the right. When Obama claimed that this had never been done before- Mitt could have- stated that both JFK and Ronald Reagan did that.

I consider this to be the bare minimum that needs to be done with tax reform ideally we should go farther- and adopt something a long the lines of a flat tax or sales tax.

Examining the pros and cons of those tax proposals is beyond the scope of this post- as this is about why it needs to be done.

The first issue when discussing tax return is simplicity- I don’t care if some one like Warren Buffet or Mitt Romany- only pay 10% in taxes but I do care how they get that rate and this is the first failing of our current tax system. The amount of loopholes, credits and deductions- the argument for the lot is to shape behavior and some are designed to favor certain industries- which is the case with the green energy and renewable fuel mandates.

Subsidies no matter what their form is- are designed to give a boost to economic activities that would otherwise be unprofitable or less profitable.

Let's take the green energy mandates- the stated goal is to make America carbon neutral by encouraging bio-fuel, wind and solar power with subsidies.

A person's choice to buy any of these products should be based completely on their advantages and disadvantages compared to the alternative and not a government subsidy or tax credit. Some time the reason their supporters give in congress is terrifying for example this lobbyist stating one of the goals of the ethonal mandate is to increase the price of corn- then he tries to argue it does not effect people because it was feed corn and not sweet corn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyNRl-YzX4Q

If the price of corn were to drop- then perhaps you might be able to cut the budget for food stamps- by making it so fewer people will qualify. I could hear some people screaming this might harm the US farm industry- but if the bottom falls out of the corn market- perhaps farmers will change crops

or may be some one will find away to make corn based bio-fuel profitable. I don't know what is possible- but I do know when the economics side is market driven- people will save money some how.

This might be cheap food, cheap fuel or ideally both.

The next area to simplify the tax system is removing the progressivity. The main arguments for a progressive tax system are the ideas- that the rich benefit proportionality more from the government than other people and the idea the government should be redistributing income with out thinking that policies like a fiat currency and low interest rates are leading to inequality, or asking the question do people drop in and out of income brackets or the negative effects of catering to envy- like reduced investment, reduced savings, both of which can lead to reduced employment or the possibility that increased taxes might just lead to increased prices.

The charts that show a growing income inequality tend to claim that this trend has existed since the 1970’s- they will normally blame taxes and come out to support a tax system that did not exist back then- perhaps there are other issues could be causing the situation as I fail to see how this complex tax code helps the poor or how taxing someone else more would help me either as I expect them to pass the cost of their higher tax rates to everyone else

a living wage - introduction

While I am opposed to a $15 minimum wage- I would love to see everyone get a living wage.

I would agree 100% with the notion that every full time employee should be able to make enough money to rent or buy a house buy enough food to feed themselves and take care of a dependent.

However- raising the minimum wage will not allow this and the only way to make this dream a reality is for people to have higher real wages which mean low unemployment and lower prices.

The notion that raising the minimum wage will result in a higher standard of living across the board is simply magical thinking.

First- in order for a higher minimum wage to mean anything for the bottom rung prices would have to remain the same or at least increase less than the minimum wage increase.

So when these posts pop up I start talking about regulations, taxes subsidies , tort and monetary reforms which the people supporting a higher minimum wage will automatically dismiss under the claim that would only help the rich then state that executives at McD’s make $8 million a year.

The supporters of a higher minimum wage seem to believe that if you simply raise the minimum wage- the executives will simply cut their own pay and it would be enough to cover the increase with out raising prices or cutting jobs which leads me to conclude that they believe that the bulk of a burger’s price is the CEO’s pay instead of the executives pay being a small cut of the burger’s price and selling millions of burgers.

If they made their money from mark up- then it would be reasonable to believe that they could make money if they cut their prices. If they made their money in volume – there would be little room to alter pay or other costs upward. As lower prices tend to attract more customers- a company that offers lower prices might be more profitable than one with higher prices. We must also remember that industries with high profit margins- no matter what the cost of entry is will attract new competitors who will bring down prices.

Another fact to remember as well- is that when the cost of running a business goes up- companies will find ways to cut costs, raise prices or go out of business- all of which harm the poor the most.

So any answer that increases the cost of business must be rejected- and we must look for other answers.

If the fast food giants are big because they keep their prices low- decreasing the cost of business will lead to lower prices. I will go though my next few entries addressing each point starting with subsidies and taxes, then monetary reform and finally tort and regulatory reform.

I am looking at these things- as all I would expect to happen with a minimum wage increase- is for people to loose their jobs and prices to increase unless something offsets the higher wages. So let’s look things that could lower the cost of business- there is a chance that it might not increase the buying power of $7.25- however if that does not happen the trade offs could be more raises, more well paying jobs and lower unemployment making it easier for people to climb the economic ladder- which is the common goal.  

Who should be on the $20 dollar bill?

http://www.womenon20s.org/candidates
There is a move to put a woman on the $20- Over all I don't have any objections as long as it is the right woman. My top two candiates are Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth.
Both Women were instrumental in  starting the underground railroad-  which helped a lot of people escape slavery and it was the nation's first civil rights battle.

Saint Patrick - a voice for liberty

As a paleo-conservative/libertarian and Christian who supports the free market and believes the non aggression principle ( all people should be free to make the choices they believe will benefit them with out threat of violence, coercion or fraud.) and Luke 6:3

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

are both the best summery of all moral code was greatly moved when I saw on a couple of websites that Saint patrick was a very vocal opponent of slavery.

(http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Mar1997/feature1.asp#F3 ,http://faithworks.crs.org/our-hero-st-patrick-of-ireland/ )



I know his history and how he was kidnaped and sold as a slave in ireland then escaped and returned as a priest. I am not surprised he would be an enemy of slavery. However reading it just made me feel blessed about him choosing to by my patron and reminded me why the theology of the icon and my belief in individual liberty walk hand and hand.

All arguments for liberty are based on the simple idea- being an individual human means we must be treated with some degree of dignity. The bible states we are created in the image and likeness of God.

Saint patrick knew and understood this- I'm not going to speculate what he would say about the world today only- that belief in the dignity of the individual is a corner stone of liberty.

Congenital Heart Defects (Why I care, and why YOU should)

If I’m posting this on time, then today should be February 6^th 2015. Tomorrow starts Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Week.

Faces of CHD:
from left to right, Bo, 1996-Still Alive,
Matthew, 1996-2003 (May his memory be Eternal),
Chelsea 1994-Still Alive

The definition of a Congenital heart defect is a structural problem with the heart or main arteries that develops before birth. Here’s the sad thing. Every year in the United States, 1 out of every 112 live births, or roughly 40,000 babies, are born with at least one heart defect. 1 in 5 of those 40,000 will require corrective surgery in their first year in order to save their lives.

CHDs and birth defects in general tend to come in clusters, so a child born with a heart defect, may have more than one, and/or also have other muscle problems, problems with the function of other organs, immune system problems, and the possibilities are actually endless.

There are 40 different known kinds of heart defects, ranging from those that don’t interfere with the function of the heart and amount to little more than an internal birthmark, all the way to those that require full heart transplants in order for the patient to have any chance of surviving to adulthood.

The scary thing about CHD is that it is more common and more fatal than all forms of pediatric cancer combined, and yet research into the causes, detection, and treatments of CHD as a whole, is disturbingly underrepresented in terms of government research funding.

What is sad, is that when we as people pay attention, we have proven we CAN save these children’s lives. In 1994 it was expected that 50% of CHD babies born that year would die before he or she reached their eighteenth birthday. In 2014 that rate had fallen to 35%, the reason? There are a few.

1.      Better and Earlier treatment. Thanks to advances in medicine that make life saving surgeries safe and possible earlier in life, and drugs and machinery such as the Berlin Heart, that help keep children healthier otherwise and alleviate the strain of everyday life on their hearts, therefore helping prevent further damage to the heart while they are waiting for surgery, fewer children are dying and/or suffering long-term damage before they can receive the treatment they need.

2.      Better detection: The fact is, that unless the required treatment IS a full heart transplant, lack of treatment options isn’t usually to blame for most CHD related deaths these days. More often than not, it is because the CHD isn’t detected and treated in time. There are a few ways of detecting CHDs, including prenatal ultrasound, neonatal ultrasound, detection of a heart murmur, labored breathing, cyanosis (lack of Oxygen which is apparent in a blue/grayish tint to skin around the mouth and fingernails), or the use of a pulseoximity meter. Pulsox is more accurate, cheaper, less time consuming and less invasive than almost any other method at our current disposal for detecting CHDs in babies that appear healthy. For this reason, most states now have it on their list of neonatal medical tests that are mandated by law. Of the 8 states that currently don’t, (Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Hawaii, and Mississippi) Mississippi has introduced legislation which if passed would require pulseox as a newborn screening, Hawaii has a similar bill already in the works, and in the remaining six that have yet to make laws requiring it, Wyoming and Kansas are currently considering it, and a majority of hospitals in all 6 states are using pulseox as a normal part of their own protocol.

Here’s a map detailing current Pulsoximeter legislations:

http://cchdscreeningmap.org/

Still the sad fact remains that of the 40,000 CHD babies born last year, 14,000 of them STILL will not live to see the big 18, and in the year 2015, that’s appalling. 

            If you would like to help, there are several ways to do it.

You could donate to the organizations where most of the funding for research is coming from.

http://www.marchofdimes.org/

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/

Here is a link that will help you learn more about pusloximeter screening and allow you to sign a petition to enact legislation in your state if it does not currently have one:

http://www.chfed.org.uk/campaigns/chf-pulse-oximetry-campaign/

Or, starting tomorrow, wear red, support the cause!

An Eye for an eye will make the world blind

http://news.yahoo.com/europes-muslims-feel-heat-backlash-paris-terror-123511491.html
After the Hebo massacre there has been an increase in the number of attacks on Mulsims and other people the attacker think looks Muslim.
These attacks whether or not they end with the loss of life should be considered just as much of an act of terrorism as the Hebbo shootings, as they are designed to terrorize and intimidate the local Muslim population.
This cycle of violence must stop- We need to take a moment and seek to be peace makers.
I've read places claim that there are sections of France Paris which are basically under Sharia law and that Kufari (non-muslim) enter at the risk of their own lives, Which I am inclined to believe is nothing but irrational anti-Muslim propaganda as studies show that at least around Paris when surveyed Muslims will state they consider themselves to be French, view religion as important and are appalled by violence.
http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/city-profiles/paris/
Some people might try to say the 2005 riots disprove these studies -however the riots and high crime rates simply show there are some thugs in the community and the attacks mentioned in the article above show that Non-Muslim French have their share of violent thugs as well. The streets of Paris were designed so Napoleon could shoot cannons at rioters.
The problem is We have violent individuals committing acts of violence and not enough people preaching and practicing peace and tolerance. There are multiple reasons people turn violent and all should be discussed. Today is Martin Luther King Jr day and I believe we shouldn't simply think about the issues of race in the US but of all violence between people for reason of "race" religion and what have you and ask- what can we do as individuals to make things better.

Bishop IAKOVOS and Martin Luther King JR. 

Liberté, égalité, fraternité- what a crock

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to-stand-with-charlie-hebdo/2015/01/08/ab416214-96e8-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html?hpid=z2+

This article is talking about how France is turning into a totalitarian nightmare- with a national speech code as well as a national dress code. 

I don't see a big difference between the mentality of some one who would kill a bunch of offensive idiotic trolls for publishing an offensive magazine or a government agent who would fine them for publishing the same magazine.

I just wish more people would embrace the most famous quote attributed to Voltaire.

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."