Well hello! Glad you've dropped by. Feel free to have a good read, but you should know that
I'm no longer writing on this blog. The new blog is over here: Pursuit of Redemption.

Category: Finances

Ooooooo, makes me wonder…

Posted by – 2/2/09

So the much praised first act that Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (Legislators love adding the word ‘Fair’ to their legislative acts, don’t they?) And while my main beef with the new law is that it potentially allows former employees to bring a lawsuit against their former employer even decades after the fact, I do find it overwhelmingly ironic that Obama himself paid his female staffers 78% of what he paid his male staffers. Hmm, if even Obama does it, there must be a valid reason, non? Perhaps the women never pushed for better compensation while the men did? Studies suggest that the gender gap in compensation can be tied to the differences in salary negotiation between men and women:

In one study, eight times as many men as women graduating with master’s degrees from Carnegie Mellon negotiated their salaries. The men who negotiated were able to increase their starting salaries by an average of 7.4 percent, or about $4,000. In the same study, men’s starting salaries were about $4,000 higher than the women’s on average, suggesting that the gender gap between men and women might have been closed if more of the women had negotiated their starting salaries.

America's Own Weimar Deutschmarks!

Posted by – 2/2/09

Coming soon to a billfold wheelbarrow near you!

Legendary Environmentalist: Most Green Stuff "A Gigantic Scam"

Posted by – 1/24/09

Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It’s absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt – that’s an awful lot of countryside.

It’s from the same fella whose work on CFCs brought about a global CFC ban. Here’s the whole interview.

In this season of giving, the stinginess of Liberals comes to light

Posted by – 12/27/08

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals – who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did – would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Excellent op/ed by a surprised and disappointed liberal.

Thomas Friedman on the Bailout of Detroit

Posted by – 12/10/08

[O]ur bailout of Detroit will be remembered as the equivalent of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes.

If we miss the chance to win the race for Car 2.0 because we keep mindlessly bailing out Car 1.0, there will be no one to blame more than Detroit’s new shareholders: we the taxpayers.

Great Op/Ed. Read the whole thing.

Arguments against Obama's Redistribution of Wealth

Posted by – 11/2/08

  1. It kills personal and professional incentive
  2. It rewards underperformance and lack of achievement
  3. It forces companies to drastically re-calculate their bottom lines, which means layoffs and hiring freezes
  4. It is the financial equivalent of throwing a inflatable duckie to a person caught up in a raging sea
  5. It merely buys votes
  6. It is discriminatory, assuming that those who haven’t achieved probably cannot
  7. It placates the poor, like giving a motivational Valium to an already half-hearted potential worker
  8. It teaches entire generations to depend more and more on the Government
  9. It teaches the poor to hate and blame the rich, distracting them from identifying and combating their own problems
  10. It discourages investment for individuals’ wealth building plans and retirement plans
  11. It severely discourages investment for venture capitalists, the effect of which means less start-ups and therefore fewer jobs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence.”
- William Boetcker, early 1900′s Presbyterian minister and lecturer

Why? Two things you must keep in mind. Companies and corporations never pay taxes. People do. Tax the company more and it’ll just increase their cost of doing business. As any business owner knows, when you and all your competitors have a identical simultaneous increase in your cost of doing business, it’s pretty safe to assume you can increase the price to your end-user. If the government added a $100 tax to all web developers per week, you can bet every single web developer in the United States would adjust their rates to reflect it. What’s that? You say someone could circumvent this by simply outsourcing? Why, I think you’ve stumbled upon the force behind outsourcing there, Watson!

The second thing to keep in mind is this: a Democrat who promises to raise taxes will absolutely do so. And it will be much farther reaching than promised.

As candidate, Mr. Clinton promised to offer tax relief to families with incomes of less than $80,000 a year. He said he would raise taxes on only “the wealthiest 2 percent,” those with incomes above $200,000 a year, and impose a surtax of 10 percent on those with annual incomes of more than $1 million.

Sound familiar? It should. Sounds awfully like Obama’s rhetoric. Let me let you in on a little secret: it’s not about the money. These campaigns have crunched the numbers and know exactly how many people they can attack with class warfare and still win an election. The arbitrary $250,000 threshold — or $120,000 now, perhaps… who knows — isn’t a financially sound conclusion at all. Quit studying his tax plan with such excruciating attention to the threshold. Mark my words and gird your loins, even if Obama were to stick to the $250,000 threshold, that sort of tax on wealth infects the entire economy. Poor people don’t invest. Poor people don’t create jobs. Poor people can barely keep it together themselves. And to my Jewish friends and fellow Christians, don’t forget that last commandment. It may be tenth, but it still counts.

All around this plan is simply wrong. Morally, economically, feasibly. It is bad. The only thing it may do is serve to get Obama elected. Once that’s achieved, the plan can be changed whatever. Its purpose has been fulfilled.

So… how is this plan a good idea again?

No worries, it's only illegal

Posted by – 11/2/08

The quote that is cut off in the YouTube video:

“Whenever you specifically ask for a certain amount of money and you’re asked to be entered into any kind of contest, that becomes a lottery, a raffle, and that falls under gambling statutes,” Kevin DuJan said. 

The rest of the story is here.

I have a feeling this will only further upset and frustrate those of us who are level-headed and rational and cannot understand the substance-free, mindless adoration shown Obama. It won’t do much to sway those who have already concluded that he is Our Hope and The One Who Will Bring Fundamental Change to America.

Also, seriously, does that right there not frighten you? Yeah, we all agree America could use some improvement, but fundamental change? That’s the stuff of revolutions, and by that I don’t mean the kind that end with improvements.

In response to a debate on refundable tax credits

Posted by – 10/22/08

This blog is a response to a post on Facebook that simply grew too large to continue there. The original message, which was not made by me, touched on the hints of Socialism in Obama’s refundable tax credits. From there, a back-and-forth occurred with several different people, and the applicable portion of the latest comment is quoted below.

I definitely understand that Obama is not infallible and that some criticism of him is not baseless. In this case the criticism is misleading at best. All of the tax credits proposed are to go to people who work. For one, “welfare check” implies money from the government for those who don’t work. Those that do work still pay social security taxes and medicare taxes, as well as excise taxes on the gas you use or your telephone bill. These tax credits are designed to somewhat offset these taxes in particular. Currently, according to http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/813/, the government is giving nearly $53 billion in the same type of tax credits to some 57 million people who fall into the zero or negative income tax category. This has been supported strongly by republicans in the past because it helps to keep lower income people who work off of welfare and gives them more of an incentive to work. More…

Taxes understood through a bar tab

Posted by – 10/21/08

A friend sent me this wonderful tax analogy:

Best explanation to share with your congressman, and any Democrats/Republicans who might be your friends, who clearly do not understand this “complex” principle of Obama’s Tax Plan.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just
$80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man, ‘but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them
for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Author Unknown

Keep this in mind next time you hear someone grousing about how the rich get all the breaks — or even more ridiculous, that the government is actually putting money into the rich’s pockets. Taking less of someone’s money isn’t giving them anything; it’s simply taking less of it. It’s still a net loss for them. Pay attention to the rhetoric used regarding taxes by the two different parties on the campaign trail. Have you noticed that the Democrats enjoy speaking in relative terms? The rich should pay more! How much more? Who knows, but more! There’s already an inordinate burden on “the rich,” so at what point will the populists stop shouting for the rich to pay more taxes? Allow me to pose a question, and we’ll suss this out in the comments:

Why should the rich have to pay more than they already do in taxes?

2006 Letter from McCain, other Republican Senators on Fannie/Freddie

Posted by – 10/11/08

My piece on the implosion and mismanagement of the McCain bid still forthcoming, I’d love to see my liberal friends spin this one. In addition to the Bush Administration’s 2003 calls for more oversight on Freddie and Fannie (more oversight, not less. again, not that evil deregulation we keep hearing about), McCain and 19 other senators, none Democrats, wrote and signed a letter demanding action in 2006 to prevent Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae’s fail. See the following:

So remember, in 2003 and 2004, the conservatives were being racist and hating low income people because they didn’t want the government handing out mortgages all willy nilly. In 2008, the conservatives are being racist and blaming low income people by laying the blame at the feet of Barney Frank and friends. Whatever it is, if it involves conservatives criticizing something, and there are in any way black people involved, it’s racism.