How Great is your God?
Are you Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Evangelical, or Charismatic? Do you go to Saturday Mass, Saturday Night Service, Sunday Morning Service, or worship at home? Do you prefer rap, rock, gospel, contemporary christian, or "devil music"? Do you sing a capella? Do you have a praise band? Do you have an orchestra? Does your choir wear robes, do they wear suits, do they wear black, or do they show up in whatever was clean enough? Are you mic'd, or are you unplugged? Do you do "real church" or "rock-and-roll church"? Do you have a worship leader, or a conductor? Is it your adult choir, or your youth group? Do you need earplugs or hearing aids? Do you know the words or do you read the words?
Just how great is your God?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
A modest tax proposal
45% don't owe U.S. income tax
The article explains that in addition to not paying ANY taxes, some households receive a NET refund from the government. In other words, they receive MORE from the government than was deducted from their paychecks in Federal Income Taxes. And, please note, this ONLY discusses FIT. It does not include any other federal, state, or local taxes that are deducted.
Personally, I am in the 12.5% category above, and further, I receive a NET refund from the government. How can this be? I have a family of 6, with a single income. We have a home mortgage. We contribute over 10% of our annual gross income to charitable organizations. I receive the full child tax credit for four children. All in all, it's the "perfect storm" of federal deductions and tax credits. About the only thing I'm not getting, it seems, is the education deductions, because I finally finished up college. In other words, I'm a federal welfare recipient.
There is a problem with this scenario. These are "tax code expenditures", to borrow the phrase du jour, that are supporting social policy, not fiscal policy. I say that the concept of "refundable" tax credits should be abolished. You should not be able to receive a refund larger than your contributions. If the federal government wants to support various social policies or programs, it should explicitly create a budget line item for that action. Do you want to provide support to families in raising their children? Set up a Federal program to do it. Don't hide it in the tax code. Do you want to increase home ownership (as misguided a policy as that might be)? Set up a Federal program to do it. Don't hide it in the tax code. Do you want to increase attendance in institutions of higher eduction (even though trade schools can be just as effective in training someone for a career)? Set up a Federal program to do it. Don't hide it in the tax code.
At the very least, if you are going to provide a tax code incentive, it should be capped. Again, no one should receive a TAX REFUND greater than the amount of taxes paid. It is a TAX REFUND, not a social program payout. If the tax incentive is not sufficient to modify social conduct to your desired ends, then set up a nominated program, that is fund from the general budget.
We often hear that we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. So, you can either try and increase the amount of revenue you're receiving from existing sources, or you can increase your sources of revenue. In a personal budget scenario, this is analogous to asking for a pay raise, or taking on a second job. According to the article:
That seems like a no-brainer to me.
Personally, I am in the 12.5% category above, and further, I receive a NET refund from the government. How can this be? I have a family of 6, with a single income. We have a home mortgage. We contribute over 10% of our annual gross income to charitable organizations. I receive the full child tax credit for four children. All in all, it's the "perfect storm" of federal deductions and tax credits. About the only thing I'm not getting, it seems, is the education deductions, because I finally finished up college. In other words, I'm a federal welfare recipient.
There is a problem with this scenario. These are "tax code expenditures", to borrow the phrase du jour, that are supporting social policy, not fiscal policy. I say that the concept of "refundable" tax credits should be abolished. You should not be able to receive a refund larger than your contributions. If the federal government wants to support various social policies or programs, it should explicitly create a budget line item for that action. Do you want to provide support to families in raising their children? Set up a Federal program to do it. Don't hide it in the tax code. Do you want to increase home ownership (as misguided a policy as that might be)? Set up a Federal program to do it. Don't hide it in the tax code. Do you want to increase attendance in institutions of higher eduction (even though trade schools can be just as effective in training someone for a career)? Set up a Federal program to do it. Don't hide it in the tax code.
At the very least, if you are going to provide a tax code incentive, it should be capped. Again, no one should receive a TAX REFUND greater than the amount of taxes paid. It is a TAX REFUND, not a social program payout. If the tax incentive is not sufficient to modify social conduct to your desired ends, then set up a nominated program, that is fund from the general budget.
We often hear that we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. So, you can either try and increase the amount of revenue you're receiving from existing sources, or you can increase your sources of revenue. In a personal budget scenario, this is analogous to asking for a pay raise, or taking on a second job. According to the article:
If most tax breaks were removed, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the percentage of households with no federal income tax liability would drop to 27% from 45%.This provides a double-whammy. It both increases revenues AND decreases spending.
That seems like a no-brainer to me.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
What makes a friend?
Who says online friendships aren't real? A friend of mine got laid off today. A friend of mine I've never met in person, and with whom I've only ever communicated by sacrificing electrons. My first thought? "How can I help him down in Florida from all the way up here in Kentucky?" Wish I had some funds to spare to help him take care of his new pets.
I want some of that lemonade once you make it Robb.
I want some of that lemonade once you make it Robb.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Well, that's somewhat interesting
I knew I had a following (if two peopled can be considered a following) more on the geeky side, but the last I'd checked Internet Explorer (all versions) was still the predominant browser seen on my site.
According to Blogger Stats, that has now changed. These are the hits for last week (actually numbers hidden to protect my self-esteem):
According to Blogger Stats, that has now changed. These are the hits for last week (actually numbers hidden to protect my self-esteem):
Pageviews by Browsers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And here are my all-time hits:
|
I weep for humanity
According to El Reg:
A full 20 per cent of European consumers are too befuddled to work out which is the cheapest flat screen TV when given a choice of two*, European Commission research has found.If the research including having to know VAT rates amongst the various countries, or do a feature-set comparison to determine the "best deal", that would be one thing. But, no, it wasn't quite that difficult:
"Respondents were next presented with a scenario where two shops were selling identical flat-screen TVs. They were told that in shop A, the price is €500 but a discount of 10% is offered. In shop B, the price is €400. Consumers were asked which TV would be cheaper."And they could not figure it out. Seriously.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)