sides of march » Liberty

Beer and Taxes

brian — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:30:11 +0000

The following has been circulated around for a long time. It just resurfaced to me, and I wanted to share it! I wish I knew who to credit it to.

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 ball. “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 men would 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 ? 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

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

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

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” 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 benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax 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 their 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!

On Snow Removal and Garbage Collection

brian — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 04:32:13 +0000

(Cross-posted on the Staten Island Libertarian Party web site.)

Like most people, I struggled to get around after the snow storm hit. On Monday Dec 27, I checked the MTA web site, which said “Good Service” for all express bus routes. Walking to the bus stop (Arden Ave & Drumgoole Rd), I saw one bus, stuck at the intersection, unable to get up the hill at Arden Ave. I then walked to the train station. The platform was nicely shoveled, and the waiting area was open, and there were signs that a train came by at some point (the rails themselves had little snow on them). No sign was posted about services (or lack thereof). After about an hour, myself and other people waiting started to give up. One person, after repeated attempts, got through to someone at the MTA, who said service wasn’t running at all, and they have no idea when it will be running. I stopped at a local deli (which of course was open), bought a coffee and egg sandwich, and walked back home.

The amount of work to deal with a significant snowfall is tremendous. Staten Island was reported to get between 18 and 29 inches (varying reports I’ve gotten from different news sources). A news report stated that “every inch of snow costs $1 million to remove”. Keeping trains and buses moving, and streets clear, is a lot of work for a lot of people.

It took two to three days, but things started to return to normal, thanks in part to hard-working public sector workers and hard-working residents (like me, who dug a trench through the hard-packed snow at the end of my block so the snow melt can work its way towards a sewer and not create street and sidewalk flooding). At least, MOST things returned to normal.

Garbage pickup has been suspended since December 25 (the Christmas holiday), and has not resumed until January 3 — a span of NINE days, including two major holidays. I can understand the difficulty in cleaning up snow AND picking up garbage, especially when the same group of people do both. Recycling, however, is not resuming today. The Dept. of Sanitation can not give an estimate as to when recycling pickup will resume.

My garbage pickup days are Wednesday and Saturday, with Saturday being the recycle day. So, assuming my garbage pickup resumes on Wednesday of this week, I will have gone 14 days without garbage pickup. Assuming my recycling will not be picked up this Saturday (since recycling pickup is suspended until further notice), I will have gone 21 days without recycling pickup.

I called 311 last night to find out what I’m supposed to do with my recycling. A summary of the dialog follows:

Me: “Do I put out the recycling with my normal garbage?” ”
311: “No, you still have to recycle.”
Me: “But no one is coming to pick up the recycling.”
311: “Correct, you can’t put it out with the regular garbage. You still have to recycle.”
Me: “So where am I supposed to put three weeks worth of recycling?”

311: “I don’t know.”

In the week since the snowstorm hit, I have seen plenty of private garbage companies and carting companies hauling commercial trash. They do this because (1) they get paid to do it, and (2) people who hire them get fined if they don’t do it. There’s an incentive to pick up the trash — as there should be; keeping trash off the streets is important.

Also in the past week, I have seen garbage trucks driving up and down streets of Staten Island — with a plow affixed to the front. Is there any reason why these trucks can’t also pick up garbage? They’re already going down the street, aren’t they? Even more perplexing was the garbage truck (with plow) driving in my neighborhood, with a salt truck (with plow) directly behind it. Why do you need to send a garbage truck with a plow to escort a salt truck with a plow? Can’t the garbage truck go to another block that needs plowing — or, better yet, pick up garbage?

The reason why private carting can do its job where others can’t is that there is no incentive for the Department of Sanitation to pick up trash. They don’t get fined if they don’t do it; in fact, if you put your garbage out and they don’t pick it up, and you leave it at the curb, they’ll fine YOU for leaving garbage out. They can get around to it when they get around to it, because they know the residents can’t fire them for a job poorly done.

Which is why I want out. I no longer need the services of the Department of Sanitation. I will take care of my own garbage. I’ll find a company to take it. Maybe I’ll have to transport it to them, or maybe they’ll transport it to me. In fact, one of my neighbors expressed interest in the same. So we’ll hire a company to pick up the trash on our block. I’ll take the money spent off my NYC tax bill, since I no longer use those city services. The Dept of Sanitation can now focus on keeping the city street clean (the street I pay taxes to maintain), but they don’t have to stop at my house any more — or perhaps, on my block. Maybe I’ll get two blocks, or heck, maybe my entire neighborhood to join me. I’m sure some private companies would love the opportunity to take residential garbage for a fee, and the competition would be welcome.

Does this sound crazy? It shouldn’t. Earlier in 2010, Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith said he wouldn’t rule out fees for residential garbage pickup. Prior to 1957, the city picked up commercial garbage; things changed in 1957 when the city opted out of that business (much to the happiness of organized crime). Crafty ways to handle residential garbage is already happening in other places (Toronto, New Jersey).

It should happen here, too.

The cost of mandating rear-view cameras on cars

brian — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 04:30:34 +0000

(Cross-posted on the Staten Island Libertarian Party web site.)

This morning, I read a news headline from the LA Times which read, “Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory.” An excerpt follows.

The federal government wants automakers to install back-up cameras in all new vehicles starting in late 2014.

The plan, announced Friday, received a strong endorsement from insurance industry and other analysts and is likely to get some level of support from car manufacturers.

Of course car manufacturers will support it; it brings in significant revenue. The same article states, “The rear-view camera system adds about $400 to the price of a Ford.”

As per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, new car sales have averaged around 7.5 million per year for the past ten years. 7.5 million cars at $400 a pop is an additional $3 billion a year. Granted, technology will reduce the cost of implementation, but we’re still looking at lots of money here.

And what do we get for our money? The LA Times article also states, “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that, on average, 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries occur each year as a result of back-over crashes.” That’s $164,000 per fatality or injury (assuming the $3 billion cost.) Or, $3 million per fatality and $118,000 per injury. Seems expensive to me. Couldn’t we install a device on cars which create an audible beeping sound when the car is in reverse? After all, it’s on most large trucks, specifically to mitigate the same problem (look out, a big vehicle is backing up). I’d imagine such a device would be much cheaper than $400 per car, and would likely have a similar effect on reducing injuries and accidents while moving in reverse.

Want a more effective solution? Tell your lawmakers to legalize a driver’s side mirror which eliminates blind spots (source: Scientific American). Yes, such a device has been patented since 1994, which, according to the patent, would help eliminate up to “4 percent of vehicular accidents in 1994″ caused by merges and lane changes. It’s illegal because “current federal safety standards for motor vehicles require driver’s side mirrors to be of ‘unit magnification’” — in other words, flat. Sure, it won’t solve the rear-view problem, but maybe it would solve a bigger problem — at a lower cost.

More government-inspired inefficiency. Let’s hope this one dies before it becomes law.

We will not rest [once our vacation is over]

brian — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:46:56 +0000

From “Al Qaeda Takes Credit for Plot” in today’s Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” Mr. Obama said in remarks broadcast on television from Hawaii, where he is on vacation.

OK, I know, the President of the United States is never really on vacation, but it is funny nonetheless.

Bureaucracy’s insatiable appetite: The Federal Register

brian — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:22:00 +0000

From the essay Computer Productivity: Why it is Important that Software Projects Fail by Dr. Anthony Berglas:

The boundless creativity of politicians and bureaucrats to develop new and more complex regulation is bounded only by the bureaucracy’s inability to implement them.

Considering the 2008 Federal Register is 80,700 pages, and that it grows every year, it’s safe to say that there appears to be no upper limit to scope of the problem.

Incredibly, the Federal government actually believes that people should, or could, read the Federal Register. It even answers the question, “Why should I read the Federal Register?”. The only real reason should be to cure insomnia.

Metrics on reading the Federal Register

Let’s presume you had to read the Federal Register, taking the following assumptions:

The document, as of its final 2008 version, is 80,700 pages.
You sleep eight hours a day.
You have a full-time job, five days a week, eight hours a day.
You commute to/from work for an average of one hour each day.
You spend two hours a day for personal and domestic matters – bathing, eating, housekeeping, etc..
You spend four hours on each weekend day to address random matters (paying bills, playing WoW, etc.).
While reading, you take a 15-minute break every two hours.

Considering that, you have about 39 hours per week to read. If you can read two pages per minute (a good clip that assumes comprehension rates don’t matter), it would take you nearly 121 days (17 weeks) to read all 80,700 pages of the Federal Register.

Keep in mind that such a clip requires reading on average 5 1/2 hours per day. In reality, the average American spends just 21 minutes a day reading. At that rate, the average American would take nearly 2,000 days (about five and one-half years) to read the 2008 Federal Register.

To make matters worse, the Federal Register continues to grow, at a pace of about 1.5% per year (Federal Register Pages Published Annually, PDF). That means an extra month of reading each year for Joe Sixpack if he wants to read all the applicable laws in 2013 after spending more than five years reading the 2008 Federal Register.

In closing: To understand the laws of America, start reading now, and don’t plan on stopping for over five and one-half years. Then, expect to spend a month of reading each year just to catch up.

Of course, this doesn’t include the state or local laws where you live… but that’s a whole other matter.

Bad government: Spending $250,000 to create or save one job

brian — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:42:46 +0000

From the Wall Street Journal Online, Oct 30 2009: White House Data Shows 650,000 Jobs From Stimulus:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that the government’s fiscal stimulus program has helped create or save almost 650,000 jobs…

The new jobs figure — 640,329 specifically — represents direct stimulus spending through Sept. 30 on projects or activities…

[T]he reports cover only $160 billion of the $339 billion in stimulus spending that has occurred through Sept. 30.

I’m not an economist or a mathematician or a politician, but I can do basic math:

$160 billion divided by 640,329 equals $249,871.55 per job created or saved.

As a comparison: the median full-time salary for a U.S. worker was $27,756 in 2005 (source).

Why does it cost $250,000 to create or save a job in a market where the average worker makes under $30,000? Can someone explain to me how spending a quarter of a million dollars to save one job is a smart way to spend money?

Seriously, can someone explain?!?!

How a cup of coffee per week equals 210,000 jobs over ten years

brian — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:33:59 +0000

Posted today on CNN.com. Emphasis added:

The White House will unveil reforms to the nation’s international tax code on Monday intended to close loopholes for overseas tax havens and end incentives for creating jobs overseas.

…

The administration expects these initiatives to raise at least $210 billion over the next 10 years “to cut taxes for American families, increase incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and reduce the deficit.”

What does $210 billion in new taxes mean to Americans? Let’s review.

The median U.S. household income is about $50,000 per year.
Let’s assume that the typical cost (insurance, office space, pens, etc.) of an employee to an employer is double an employee’s salary. (It varies quite a bit by industry, but this is a fair back-of-the-envelope number.)
The “cost” of one $50,000 per year job over ten years is therefore roughly $1 million.
$210 billion in new taxes over ten years can result in up to 210,000 less jobs being created, if you assume how that money could otherwise be spent providing a job to 210,000 people for ten years.
To compare, only 16 American companies have more than 210,000 employees.

The flip side:

The population of the United States is about 304 million.
$210 billion in new taxes over ten years equals about $690 per person over ten years, or $69 per year, or 19 cents per day.

Feel free to thank the White House for eliminating the potential of 210,000 well-paying jobs over ten years so you can enjoy an extra $69 per year – about enough to buy one cup of coffee per week.

Depressing, isn’t it?

Obama’s approval ratings aren’t as rosy as they seem

brian — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:45:57 +0000

I opened up my Google News page this morning to see the following headline:

This contrasts with an article I recall reading a few days ago which talks about how Obama’s approval ratings are not sky-high when compared to past presidents at the 100-day mark.

First, what is President Obama’s approval rating? The folks at Gallup poll this stuff constantly, and have an article that tells us:

As President Barack Obama concludes his first 100 days on the job, Gallup Poll Daily tracking for the week of April 20-26 finds 65% of Americans approving of how he is doing and only 29% disapproving. Obama’s average weekly job ratings have varied only slightly thus far, ranging from 61% to 67%.

We’ll take 65% approval and 29% disapproval as our President Obama benchmarks.

For historical comparison, we have the American Presidency Project, which provides a chart of Presidential job approval ratings at or near the 100-day mark. Note the chart below, which I have taken the liberty to highlight.

See those green boxes? Those are presidents who showed a higher approval rating and lower disapproval rating after 100 days than President Obama. The yellow box highlights President George W. Bush’s approval/disapproval ratings after 100 days – an approval rating three percentage points lower than President Obama, and an identical disapproval rating.

What can we surmise from this?

Taken in historical context, the public approves of President Obama at a level typical of most presidents.
Taken in historical context, the public disapproves of President Obama at a level typical of most recent presidents – that is, those since the Reagan/Bush years.
Feelings about our President are much more polarized in recent years, with lower approval and higher disapproval numbers than past presidents.

And now, the best conclusion: Only three presidents had a lower approval rating 100 days into their first term of office than they had on their first day in office.

Jimmy Carter (started with 66%, fell to 63%)
William J. Clinton (started with 58%, fell to 55%)
Barack Obama (started with 68%, fell to 65%)

Which presidents saw the greatest increase in approval rating between their first day and their 100th day?

Ronald Reagan (51% to 68%)
John Kennedy (72% to 83%)

I will tell you this: it is not reassuring to know that, at least in this one area, that President Obama is trending more like Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton than John Kennedy.

It is also not reassuring to know that CNN and the Gallup folks are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid… but I don’t expect much different from them.

After the tea: Where do we stand?

brian — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:15:36 +0000

Yesterday, April 15, saw something that doesn’t happen often: thousands of people around the country participated in civil, voluntary, grass-roots protests that had no central organizer. (Eventually, the scattered groups did come together, but it’s far from a top-down organization.) If that’s not shocking enough, toss in the fact that the protests were largely in favor of personal liberty and freedom against a rapidly-growing interventionist government. Now you really know why history was made!

Now that it’s over, what does it mean for us, those Americans who feel that there is a great need to right the ship? If I was to speak for the group, this is what I’d say. My statements are followed by some historic quotes on the topics of freedom and liberty.

Nearly 50 years ago, an American President said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

In that spirit, we, the vast majority of Americans, have taken responsibility for the needs of ourselves and our families. We have extended a helping hand to those who need help. We have lived our lives extolling the principles of good citizenship. We have expected nothing from our country save the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unburdened by an overreaching, overextended government.

We have done our share. Despite that, our country’s leaders are failing us.

Today, we watch as many of our elected officials – those who should be representing us – fail in their oath to uphold the laws of our country. We watch as they take more and more of our money, through direct and indirect taxes and fees, and redistribute it in irresponsible ways. Where we struggled today to save for tomorrow, they irresponsibly spent their way into irresponsible levels of debt. Where we have sacrificed today’s pleasures for the safety and security of tomorrow’s children, they have fed their own political agendas and overinflated egos, and placed huge burdens on the shoulders of our country’s future generations.

Over the years, we, the responsible citizens, the true Americans, have stood quietly in hope that our government will see us – not another country – as the example of how to build a strong society. We have been ignored by career politicians who follow unproven scientific, economic, and social policies with religious fervor, blind to their own failures. We follow the rule of law as our government ignores it, and rewrites it, as if the Constitution was subject to ad hoc whims of interpretation.

In the past, we stood quietly. We stand quietly no more.

We the people are showing that we are united in our common beliefs. We the people believe in liberty. We the people believe in personal responsibility. We the people believe in the social and economic freedom of all mankind. We the people believe in the need to defend ourselves and to aid those who lack the freedom and liberty we take for granted.

We have tried, to no avail, to convince our elected representatives that an over-reaching state is not the solution. Yet history has proven time and time again that the principles of free minds and free markets, not Statism, have been the way towards liberty and prosperity.

There is only one way to return our country to the principles it was founded on and to the values we believe in: to return to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To take back our country, some among us must sacrifice our careers and take time away from our families in order to replace those in office who ignore us. Further to that, those that choose to represent us need our support, financially, socially, and at the ballot box.

Our battle to take back America, our country, and to defend our Constitution, will be fought using the most powerful weapons in the modern world: the pen, the spoken word, and the facts. The fight will not be easy, but we have the voice of the people on our side. We will be victorious, for simple reason: we are Americans, this is our country, and we will take it back.

This is what we can do—and must do—for our country.

“Every revolution was first a thought in one man’s mind.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, American Poet

“Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

“Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.” – Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father of the United States

“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” – Hugo Black, American Jurist

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” – Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.” – Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

Do you really mean it, Mr. Obama & Mr. Biden? If so, I’m your biggest fan!

brian — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:59:14 +0000

A quote of Vice-President Joseph Biden from March 12 2009, via the Associated Press:

“Six months from now, if the verdict on this effort is that we’ve wasted the money, we built things that were unnecessary or we’ve done things that are legal but make no sense, then, folks, don’t look for any help from the federal government for a long while,” he said.

This was followed up by President Obama’s equally compelling statement during the same conference:

“If we see money being misspent, we’re going to put a stop to it.”

Mr. President and Mr. Vice-President, if you are honest about what is deemed wasteful and unnecessary and senseless, there is little doubt that significant portions of the $787 billion you reallocated will prove to be just that. This inconvenient truth (ahem) will hopefully stimulate you (ahem) to stop trying to have the federal government be everything to everyone.

However, after this is the case, will you also promise to stop taking so much of our earned income (via taxes) after you stop the federal government from trying to “help” us? After all, you probably wouldn’t need it any more.

One could only hope for such change (ahem).