"Only in America could the rich - who pay 86% of income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by those who pay nothing."
That's a tweet that wandered past recently. I can't begin to reply to it in a tweet. So here I am in Blogger again.
Firstly, I was unaware that the top rate of income tax in America was 86%, perhaps because it's nothing like that much. A quick Wikipedia check suggests between 21% & 16% "Effective income and payroll tax rate".
Somebody is hyping that 86% a little. But lets ignore that and just nod our heads sagely and say "Hmm yes, the rich sure are liable for a lot of Income Tax on all that money".
Notice I use the word "liable". Unfortunately, the very rich end of any countries population can afford to use tax loopholes like offshore tax haven accounts, declaring spouses as employees, declaring business expenses, and evading tax liability in basically as many wonderful ways as their tax avoidance guru accountants can suggest to them. Since we are dealing with people in the $400,000+ income bracket here, such avoidance quickly adds up to tens of thousands of $ per person. Hundreds of thousands for the super rich. Add them all together and ... that's a fair few million / billion in lost tax revenue. Most of it legal.
The bottom end of the salary scale doesn't get as much chance to avoid tax legally, but lets face it, wherever you look on the income scale, people will be attempting to pay as little tax as possible. If it's taxed at source in your pay packet though like a vast majority of working Joe's and Joanne's, that's it. It's paid in full. No argument.
Right down at the bottom you get the black economy of cash in hand work. Add all of that lot up together and ... hey .. it's also a fair whack of cash. Although individually we're only talking about a few $100 to $1000 avoided, there are a lot more poor people than rich people. Figures are murky here. A big chunk of low paid workers still pay the income tax and just struggle on in life, so we can deduct that from lost tax. It seems likely that the total tax evasion of the lower classes is still a lot less than the massive sums avoided by the upper classes.
BUT.
The argument is screwed from the start. The problem is, if EVERYONE at the top, bottom and middle of society actually paid the taxes without either legal or illegal tax avoidance then the amount taxed on everyone could be less. The problem is all the loopholes and dodges, mainly at the upper end of tax avoidance, that get exploited and never dealt with.
And it also ignores the far bigger problem of corporate tax evasion. The entire loss in tax income across all income tax for all citizens of the US is far smaller than the loss in tax due to corporate tax evasion. That doesn't even get a mention.
You can spot this one in the current fiscal cliff farce talks in Washington. Yes it is pretty pointless talking about solving a trillion $ debt problem by increasing personal taxation on the wealthy. But nobody in government has the balls to say "Well actually, it's the companies and corporations we need to collect proper taxes from".
And that folks. Is capitalism at work. It owns the government, it maintains the loopholes and god forbid anyone should try and address the real problem because they'll threaten you all with job losses and economic recession if you even dare think about it.
See?
Wasn't going to fit in a tweet was it?
29 Dec 2012
18 Dec 2012
The Gun Debate (cynical version) MOAR GUNS!
If you ever wanted a study in flawed logic, some of the messages and debate coming out of America following the vile tragedy of the recent school shooting is a good place to start.
It stirs emotion. This is good. But...
I follow a bit of an eclectic bunch on Twitter even after my own selective preferences, so I see a weird and broad spectrum of reactions scroll past. Here we go!
On the far left are those who can't believe fellow Americans want to stick with free gun ownership. They look at gun death rates in countries with gun control and wonder why on earth people want them around. I'm with these guys. They are in a vocal minority.
Also on the far left are those that utterly mistrust the US Government. They want to keep any guns and rights they have to defend themselves against their own government. Many see a coming collapse in America and want to protect themselves when it does happen. This could be true. If you want to be a hero and you're sure you're right? Keep an illegal gun or two for the end of times.
A little way in from there are those arguing for a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatics (either or both). They argue this kind of tragedy can only occur with guns designed for relatively rapid fire, but they still want rifles, shotguns and many of them pistols. Some for reason of defence against criminals, some for the above reason of defence against the US government. I sort of get this. It would be a decent step in the right direction. I don't think it will stop the next school massacre though. A couple of handguns and clips full of ammo will do plenty of damage.
Moving to the right there is the argument that guns are not the problem, but a screening and mental health check of gun owners is required. There's a bit of a hole in this one. It seems the killer in this case took his guns from, and killed his mother. He wouldn't of had a mental health check. Here is where we start to depart from logic. This one is pure and simple "I want my guns! Blame and identify mentally ill people!" ... Little realising it's their guns that can be used by the loony and that health screening won't catch everyone who has a bad Monday.
Sadly also in here are those who jumped to identify asberger's as a mental health problem that caused the shooting. Just no. I'm not aware of any link for decades between asberger's syndrome and violence. Cut that crap out.
There's another one in here that it's violent video games that do it. Not the guns. Oh jeez. Really? Well ok. You run your own nation. Go ahead. Ban all violent video games. I bet you in a few months time even after a ban like that, another bunch of innocents will be shot and you'll be looking for something new to blame. This one really is insane. The kinds of violent video games they are talking about exist in all the gun control countries as well. They have death rates sub 20 per year. America is 9,000+?! Logic fail and again "I want my guns! Blame something else!".
[Yes. There is an argument for trying to persuade the public that age limit's on games mean something. Wandering off on my own view for a while, the same is true for DVD's. It seems to be trivial for parents now to ignore age ratings on video and games simply because they have an older child that wants to watch it or play it. I don't think that's right. I don't think the age ratings games and DVD's get are always right either, but it would be better to have parents try harder to enforce the guidance. Kid's are exposed to enough violence and stress via main stream broadcast media already. There are good reasons why we put time and money in to rating films and games. But I digress...]
Further right are those wanting to give all school staff bullet proof vests and concealed firearms to protect the children they send to school. Oh come on! MORE guns will solve gun crime? Every nursery teacher wants to be Rambo? Logic here has taken an acid trip but .. spot the meme yet? "I want my guns!"
And in an odd camp. All on it's own. Are those that simply say "They aren't taking my guns". These guys also say "I want my guns!"
There are some (mainly women I've noticed) who have decided they now need to buy and train with firearms out of fear. I can see the fear, of all the reasons, I can see the straight line logic at work on this one, but ... ouch. This was a mum who was shot and her guns taken to commit mass murder, and here's a bunch more women (people in general) motivated to go buy guns and keep them at home. This is the self-perpetuating "I want my guns" logic at work. It's fear. America wants guns because they live in fear? Possibly. It's still more guns though.
My own position can be expressed a little like this:
"Hey! Everyone in the UK. We've had gun control for ages, but it's clearly a restriction on our freedom. So all those in favour of everyone having a semi-auto handgun and an assault rifle raise a hand!". Looks around the room. Looks at America. No. That's not going to work here. We don't get classroom's full of children slaughtered with guns much, and we're pretty ok with that. Virtually nobody in the UK would even entertain the thought of adopting US gun culture.
I'd call that pretty clear cut from my "smug, self satisfied European outlook". Yup. We are smug. Our kids don't get shot at the rate of 30+ mass killings in schools since 1999. That's something to be smug about. I'm smug. I'm self satisfied, and the children are not getting shot.
Looking back at the spectrum of response in America to the idea of gun control? Change is going to be incredibly hard. I know Obama made some "we must change" noises. But I'm not seeing much in the way of substance yet. Cynical me also realises that we've seen so many multiple shooting incidents in America, why should this one change anything?
So .....
Innocent children died. Horribly. I can't imagine the fear and horror of the dead or of those who survived. I'd expect that kind of trauma to scar many of them for life. It's vile and disgusting.
The chances of America actually changing? Are minimal indeed. I hope. But I doubt. The vast majority of reactions boil down to "I want my guns!".
Sorry America. You want them? Then you get used to people dying by them, and incidents like 20 children being slaughtered should be page 12 news. It comes with the territory.
It stirs emotion. This is good. But...
I follow a bit of an eclectic bunch on Twitter even after my own selective preferences, so I see a weird and broad spectrum of reactions scroll past. Here we go!
On the far left are those who can't believe fellow Americans want to stick with free gun ownership. They look at gun death rates in countries with gun control and wonder why on earth people want them around. I'm with these guys. They are in a vocal minority.
Also on the far left are those that utterly mistrust the US Government. They want to keep any guns and rights they have to defend themselves against their own government. Many see a coming collapse in America and want to protect themselves when it does happen. This could be true. If you want to be a hero and you're sure you're right? Keep an illegal gun or two for the end of times.
A little way in from there are those arguing for a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatics (either or both). They argue this kind of tragedy can only occur with guns designed for relatively rapid fire, but they still want rifles, shotguns and many of them pistols. Some for reason of defence against criminals, some for the above reason of defence against the US government. I sort of get this. It would be a decent step in the right direction. I don't think it will stop the next school massacre though. A couple of handguns and clips full of ammo will do plenty of damage.
Moving to the right there is the argument that guns are not the problem, but a screening and mental health check of gun owners is required. There's a bit of a hole in this one. It seems the killer in this case took his guns from, and killed his mother. He wouldn't of had a mental health check. Here is where we start to depart from logic. This one is pure and simple "I want my guns! Blame and identify mentally ill people!" ... Little realising it's their guns that can be used by the loony and that health screening won't catch everyone who has a bad Monday.
Sadly also in here are those who jumped to identify asberger's as a mental health problem that caused the shooting. Just no. I'm not aware of any link for decades between asberger's syndrome and violence. Cut that crap out.
There's another one in here that it's violent video games that do it. Not the guns. Oh jeez. Really? Well ok. You run your own nation. Go ahead. Ban all violent video games. I bet you in a few months time even after a ban like that, another bunch of innocents will be shot and you'll be looking for something new to blame. This one really is insane. The kinds of violent video games they are talking about exist in all the gun control countries as well. They have death rates sub 20 per year. America is 9,000+?! Logic fail and again "I want my guns! Blame something else!".
[Yes. There is an argument for trying to persuade the public that age limit's on games mean something. Wandering off on my own view for a while, the same is true for DVD's. It seems to be trivial for parents now to ignore age ratings on video and games simply because they have an older child that wants to watch it or play it. I don't think that's right. I don't think the age ratings games and DVD's get are always right either, but it would be better to have parents try harder to enforce the guidance. Kid's are exposed to enough violence and stress via main stream broadcast media already. There are good reasons why we put time and money in to rating films and games. But I digress...]
Further right are those wanting to give all school staff bullet proof vests and concealed firearms to protect the children they send to school. Oh come on! MORE guns will solve gun crime? Every nursery teacher wants to be Rambo? Logic here has taken an acid trip but .. spot the meme yet? "I want my guns!"
And in an odd camp. All on it's own. Are those that simply say "They aren't taking my guns". These guys also say "I want my guns!"
There are some (mainly women I've noticed) who have decided they now need to buy and train with firearms out of fear. I can see the fear, of all the reasons, I can see the straight line logic at work on this one, but ... ouch. This was a mum who was shot and her guns taken to commit mass murder, and here's a bunch more women (people in general) motivated to go buy guns and keep them at home. This is the self-perpetuating "I want my guns" logic at work. It's fear. America wants guns because they live in fear? Possibly. It's still more guns though.
My own position can be expressed a little like this:
"Hey! Everyone in the UK. We've had gun control for ages, but it's clearly a restriction on our freedom. So all those in favour of everyone having a semi-auto handgun and an assault rifle raise a hand!". Looks around the room. Looks at America. No. That's not going to work here. We don't get classroom's full of children slaughtered with guns much, and we're pretty ok with that. Virtually nobody in the UK would even entertain the thought of adopting US gun culture.
I'd call that pretty clear cut from my "smug, self satisfied European outlook". Yup. We are smug. Our kids don't get shot at the rate of 30+ mass killings in schools since 1999. That's something to be smug about. I'm smug. I'm self satisfied, and the children are not getting shot.
Looking back at the spectrum of response in America to the idea of gun control? Change is going to be incredibly hard. I know Obama made some "we must change" noises. But I'm not seeing much in the way of substance yet. Cynical me also realises that we've seen so many multiple shooting incidents in America, why should this one change anything?
So .....
Innocent children died. Horribly. I can't imagine the fear and horror of the dead or of those who survived. I'd expect that kind of trauma to scar many of them for life. It's vile and disgusting.
The chances of America actually changing? Are minimal indeed. I hope. But I doubt. The vast majority of reactions boil down to "I want my guns!".
Sorry America. You want them? Then you get used to people dying by them, and incidents like 20 children being slaughtered should be page 12 news. It comes with the territory.
1 Dec 2012
Welfare Mythology
Current popular wisdom in economic circles is that the welfare state is doomed and in part, or entirely to blame for some of the economic troubles of the world.
First off, there are components to this generic Welfare term.
Pensions, healthcare, social security.
Pensions
In my humble opinion, the problem with pensions is not only that when birth rates decrease, fewer people are around to generate the wealth for the pension pots, but also the constant bubble mentality of pension fund planners. Expected annual growth of funds is estimated too high over lengthy periods of time. All it takes is a few years downturn or an unforeseen event in the basket of bonds & shares to knock a big hole in the finances.
So my view on pensions? Yeah big problem. Anticipating yields over 30 years simply isn't something we seem to be good at. There are far too many unknown variables. We even seem to have entirely failed to take in to account changing demographics as a factor. It's more a case of stupidity than the pension plans of the world sucking the life out of economies. Hey ... Guess what kind of people it is that manage the pension funds and happily promise high yield returns? Nope. It's not that guy who's worried about loosing his job through ill health at the factory, it's that other guy who just got a huge bonus and has private healthcare.
Sadly the end result is. Yes. Pensions are now a problem for developed economies all over the place.
Healthcare
Here I've got a bit of an inside view on the UK's NHS problems. Being a bit of an oldie it spans a few years. Over that time I've seen a continuing cycle:
"We need cheaper centrally managed healthcare, it's an economy of scale"
vs.
"We need regional efficient, effective deployment of services"
There are many back arguments to the above, but that's the cycle I've seen repeating often with each change of government. So what happens then?
A few things. The old sites need to be sold off, often in such a bulk that it distorts the market a little in each region. Sometimes the huge sites lie dormant for years and years. They need paid security to stop travellers and squatters moving in. They don't immediately sell for millions and fund the changes. Funnily enough, when the call comes back to centralise, the derelict ex-hospital sites aren't considered because they are now so out of date and in need of demolition that it's cheaper to do a deal with a developer on a PFI deal on a new site, or expanding a smaller existing site.
So there's your every 4 year+ for various developers to take a bite out of the NHS. A fair few years back, the NHS had to bin it's own property management and architects. "Couldn't afford them. Would be cheaper to out source it". Ping. Wave goodbye to staff who previously had decades of experience managing NHS property. That costs! And welcome in PFI Bob and his golf buddy friends. No. Actually they aren't quite as bothered about getting value for money for the tax payer as the guy who was being paid by the tax payer. They'd rather have a new BMW / Audi for the family, and a nice big wedge of cash out of the next deal thank you very much. Oh. And they know less about hospitals than the people we just put out of a job.
It's not just the property department either. (Can you tell what side of the NHS I dealt with yet?). Every time this contraction, expansion cycle happens, it's taken as a chance to shed some staff along with the few that just can't physically work from the new locations. There goes some more in house skill.
The personal skill factor of employee's is something I see ignored. I think it costs businesses a hell of a lot more over time than is appreciated, especially so in an organisation as huge as a government or health service. It's like constantly stripping the bonus efficiency you had out of a system and binning it. It's also often false economy. Binning the NHS property management levels actually cost more in external consultancy fees even before you get to the increased costs in contract administration, and you're doing with people who know less than the people you had, so on a time charge basis, you're just screwing yourself badly.
Sighs.
Point is. I've seen the NHS get mauled like this time and time again. Every time you get a new bunch of suits and ties who gouge out a profit for as long as they can. PFI was a gift to everyone except the NHS and the tax payer. You're not talking pennies here. Each cycle of change would be flipping costs in the £100's of millions *per county*. A big chunk of that was heading in to private firm hands with the emphasis firmly on profit ahead of value for tax-payers money.
It's even possible. That there may have been the odd bit of behind closed door deals going on. Contractors like public funded work. The bills get paid.
Back to the point. No. Actually, I don't see the NHS as being an entirely impossible idea. I see continual greed and mismanagement, right up to government sanctioned PFI deals, cashing in on the NHS time and time again. I see skills being bled out of the system with very little chance for a system to develop before it's ripped up and changed again. Then there's Mr Economist pointing his finger at it and saying "Hey the NHS costs too much". It never stood a chance Mr Economist. Guess who kicks these cyclical changes off? The finance and economics departments looking for targeted savings with each change of boss. There is no easy billion £ saving, so lets just re-organise the whole thing again, and by the time you've done that, I'll have my pay packet and be out of the door.
Social Security
By now I've almost lost the will to keep typing.
Just no. Are you honestly telling me, that if someone gets made redundant, or falls ill, we as a society just don't give a shit. Nope. I don't want to put my employment insurance with one firm and my health insurance with another, because I've seen what profiteering ass-holes run insurance funds. I've already got private pension funds in my past that are worth nothing now. The government wanted me to go on to those because they didn't want to pay so much out on my state pension. Cheers guys. Nicely shafted me again. So no. I'm not buying that private insurance is safe at all, if it even ever paid out. "We're you miss sold PPI?"...
Blurgh
I'm getting so fed up with the stupidity and narrow minded view on "Welfare" same as the "Socialism" warmongering. I'm fed up with people who have run systems that have constantly failed for decades to be telling us that the only hope of salvation is more of the same. Maybe try figuring out the economics for a system not based on greed for once in the entire history of the human race? What if you did run a health service with very tight monitoring of *any* external profit made from tax-payer money? You supply towels? Beds? Buildings? Machines that go ping? We want to see all your accounts and you're allowed X% profit. No more.... Well ideally, you'd actually get value for money with fair profits and wages resulting from it. In reality? You'll get falsified salary claims, beefed up expenses, all the same old greed as usual, just via new and different methods. Even so. I'd still rather give my method a try than let people die for loosing a job.
First off, there are components to this generic Welfare term.
Pensions, healthcare, social security.
Pensions
In my humble opinion, the problem with pensions is not only that when birth rates decrease, fewer people are around to generate the wealth for the pension pots, but also the constant bubble mentality of pension fund planners. Expected annual growth of funds is estimated too high over lengthy periods of time. All it takes is a few years downturn or an unforeseen event in the basket of bonds & shares to knock a big hole in the finances.
So my view on pensions? Yeah big problem. Anticipating yields over 30 years simply isn't something we seem to be good at. There are far too many unknown variables. We even seem to have entirely failed to take in to account changing demographics as a factor. It's more a case of stupidity than the pension plans of the world sucking the life out of economies. Hey ... Guess what kind of people it is that manage the pension funds and happily promise high yield returns? Nope. It's not that guy who's worried about loosing his job through ill health at the factory, it's that other guy who just got a huge bonus and has private healthcare.
Sadly the end result is. Yes. Pensions are now a problem for developed economies all over the place.
Healthcare
Here I've got a bit of an inside view on the UK's NHS problems. Being a bit of an oldie it spans a few years. Over that time I've seen a continuing cycle:
"We need cheaper centrally managed healthcare, it's an economy of scale"
vs.
"We need regional efficient, effective deployment of services"
There are many back arguments to the above, but that's the cycle I've seen repeating often with each change of government. So what happens then?
A few things. The old sites need to be sold off, often in such a bulk that it distorts the market a little in each region. Sometimes the huge sites lie dormant for years and years. They need paid security to stop travellers and squatters moving in. They don't immediately sell for millions and fund the changes. Funnily enough, when the call comes back to centralise, the derelict ex-hospital sites aren't considered because they are now so out of date and in need of demolition that it's cheaper to do a deal with a developer on a PFI deal on a new site, or expanding a smaller existing site.
So there's your every 4 year+ for various developers to take a bite out of the NHS. A fair few years back, the NHS had to bin it's own property management and architects. "Couldn't afford them. Would be cheaper to out source it". Ping. Wave goodbye to staff who previously had decades of experience managing NHS property. That costs! And welcome in PFI Bob and his golf buddy friends. No. Actually they aren't quite as bothered about getting value for money for the tax payer as the guy who was being paid by the tax payer. They'd rather have a new BMW / Audi for the family, and a nice big wedge of cash out of the next deal thank you very much. Oh. And they know less about hospitals than the people we just put out of a job.
It's not just the property department either. (Can you tell what side of the NHS I dealt with yet?). Every time this contraction, expansion cycle happens, it's taken as a chance to shed some staff along with the few that just can't physically work from the new locations. There goes some more in house skill.
The personal skill factor of employee's is something I see ignored. I think it costs businesses a hell of a lot more over time than is appreciated, especially so in an organisation as huge as a government or health service. It's like constantly stripping the bonus efficiency you had out of a system and binning it. It's also often false economy. Binning the NHS property management levels actually cost more in external consultancy fees even before you get to the increased costs in contract administration, and you're doing with people who know less than the people you had, so on a time charge basis, you're just screwing yourself badly.
Sighs.
Point is. I've seen the NHS get mauled like this time and time again. Every time you get a new bunch of suits and ties who gouge out a profit for as long as they can. PFI was a gift to everyone except the NHS and the tax payer. You're not talking pennies here. Each cycle of change would be flipping costs in the £100's of millions *per county*. A big chunk of that was heading in to private firm hands with the emphasis firmly on profit ahead of value for tax-payers money.
It's even possible. That there may have been the odd bit of behind closed door deals going on. Contractors like public funded work. The bills get paid.
Back to the point. No. Actually, I don't see the NHS as being an entirely impossible idea. I see continual greed and mismanagement, right up to government sanctioned PFI deals, cashing in on the NHS time and time again. I see skills being bled out of the system with very little chance for a system to develop before it's ripped up and changed again. Then there's Mr Economist pointing his finger at it and saying "Hey the NHS costs too much". It never stood a chance Mr Economist. Guess who kicks these cyclical changes off? The finance and economics departments looking for targeted savings with each change of boss. There is no easy billion £ saving, so lets just re-organise the whole thing again, and by the time you've done that, I'll have my pay packet and be out of the door.
Social Security
By now I've almost lost the will to keep typing.
Just no. Are you honestly telling me, that if someone gets made redundant, or falls ill, we as a society just don't give a shit. Nope. I don't want to put my employment insurance with one firm and my health insurance with another, because I've seen what profiteering ass-holes run insurance funds. I've already got private pension funds in my past that are worth nothing now. The government wanted me to go on to those because they didn't want to pay so much out on my state pension. Cheers guys. Nicely shafted me again. So no. I'm not buying that private insurance is safe at all, if it even ever paid out. "We're you miss sold PPI?"...
Blurgh
I'm getting so fed up with the stupidity and narrow minded view on "Welfare" same as the "Socialism" warmongering. I'm fed up with people who have run systems that have constantly failed for decades to be telling us that the only hope of salvation is more of the same. Maybe try figuring out the economics for a system not based on greed for once in the entire history of the human race? What if you did run a health service with very tight monitoring of *any* external profit made from tax-payer money? You supply towels? Beds? Buildings? Machines that go ping? We want to see all your accounts and you're allowed X% profit. No more.... Well ideally, you'd actually get value for money with fair profits and wages resulting from it. In reality? You'll get falsified salary claims, beefed up expenses, all the same old greed as usual, just via new and different methods. Even so. I'd still rather give my method a try than let people die for loosing a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)