Monday night as I was biking home in the early darkness of a December evening, I felt a surprising moment of affection for… my bicycle light.
Moby (yes, that Moby) also wants to know why the Republicans refuse to let the rich pay more in taxes. Which, as we’ve discussed, is foolishness. So I helpfully provided a succinct explanation. There are only about 15 replies as of now, so maybe someone will actually read it. That would be interesting.
Last week I wrote a couple of posts about the Hardy Boys and magical ponies, although actually they were about marginal vs. average and statutory vs. effective taxation. Today, we get to the good stuff: how much more should the rich pay? It makes sense to start, however, with how much they already do pay.
When Mitt Romney made that infamous “47%” remark, it didn’t take long for people to shoot that full of holes. But, in my previous post on taxation, I also said that the idea of corporations getting away with not paying their fair share was also dumb. You might ask “Why’s that?” I’ll assume that you did ask, and give you the answer in this post. With magical ponies.
I read this story and couldn’t help but immediately think of doing this:
I will admit, however, that most of my motivation was fear. Sharks are terrifying!
While I was working on that epic piece about marginal and average tax rates (I know, right?) my wife IMd me. It went a little something like this:
I’m going to write about taxes. Probably not the smartest move if I want to attract more readers (which I do), but I’ve got two things going for me. First: I’ll shamelessly target nostalgia with some gratuitous Hardy Boys references. Secondly, I’m betting that a lot of people are as tired of hearing bumper-sticker political arguments as I am. Topics like marginal vs. average tax rates or statutory vs. effective taxation might not sound thrilling, but you know what’s even less thrilling? Listening to your relative tell you that he’s going to “go Galt” if he has to keep supporting that slacker 47%. Or maybe hearing your high school buddy argue that it’s criminal for corporations to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. (If you don’t know why one or both of those is stupid, just keep reading. Soon you will.)
On Monday the Internet was abuzz with news that Angus T. Jones (the “1/2” from “Two and a Half Men”) had found Jesus, declared the show “filth” and asked people to stop watching it. (He’s stuck making it for another year because of a contract.) To which I responded “It took him 10 years to notice?” Yesterday, Vulture (a popular blog covering the media) printed Angus’s apology and noted that we now had “Two polar opposite perspectives.” Except that we don’t. Angus apologized to the cast and crew of the show (who depend for their livelihood on people watching it) and also expressed gratitude to Lorre and others (for giving him 10 years of work and stacks of cash), but the heart of his earlier comment was that the show is “filth”. Nothing he said actually retracted that. And why should he?
Stewart Baker has some odd ideas about male psychology and the TSA. According to his view, men have a constant desire to perform in public. Demonstrating competence fuels our secret desire to attract a watching woman’s attention and get to have sex with her. But the TSA keeps changing the rules, and men feel humiliated when an authority figure shatters that facade of confidence. This, reasons Stewart, is the real root of anti-TSA hatred. To which I respond: really? The view of masculinity is weird (maybe I’m just a beta male), and the only time I get mad at the TSA is when I hear about how they mistreat children, the elderly, or other vulnerable folks. I’ve never had a problem with them myself. Maybe it’s not a coincidence that the lone voice defending the TSA would have such an alien argument behind it…
There have been lots of articles about the wonders of the Obama campaign’s cutting-edge technology, but even as a sad Romney supporter it had never occurred to me that this might be a bad thing. Tom Steinberg begs to differ. His main point seems to be that the technical arms race between GOP and Democrats is wasteful because of mutual cancellation: “But everything you build in this field always attracts people trying to undo your work by directly opposing it.” Tom would rather people work on tech that won’t be counter-acted, and that will therefore make our lives better. That’s plausible, but the article made me wonder about something else. If a campaign can be won or lost on the basis of technical prowess or some other factor that’s independent of political differences, are we risking a society where democracy exists in theory, but in practice has already become irrelevant? If money can corrupt politics, can’t a decisive marketing advantage do the same thing?