WOW!
Look at this! This is intrade’s odds of Brown winning the Senate seat in Mass.
Just 8 days ago betting had him at 10% chance to win!
Go AMERICA!
I can’t believe that I haven’t posted on this before. Even my dad, a die hard Democrat had to tip his hat to this logic:
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, boys and girls, 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.
Planes, trains and automobiles. It’s a famous movie, but what really has the attention of politicians everywhere is this very same concept. Planes, trains and automobiles. Specifically, “how do we get fewer automobiles and more trains?”. Everywhere people are requesting and demanding that we expand our mass transit system. Part of it is a pander to the people who are best served at the expense of the rest of us. Lately, though, we have begun to see the Global Warming crowd clamor that we need to implement more transit in order to reduce the number of carbon producing cars. Still others claim that we have reached peak oil and going forward, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
In each case, the supporters are wrong, blind or both. But nobody is as wrong as often or as blind as California. Check this out via Reason:
For three years, Veronique Selgado took BART from the East Bay to her job working for an airline at San Francisco International Airport. But she recently switched to driving because BART raised fares and upped its SFO round-trip surcharge from $3 to $8, boosting her daily trip cost to nearly $20.
“It’s outrageous,” Selgado said. “At what point do they stop raising the prices, when it’s $50 a day to go round-trip to work? At what point does BART stand back and say, ‘People can’t pay that much to commute’?”
Millbrae resident Robert Smith, 63, had taken BART and Golden Gate Transit to his job in Sausalito because his employer provided transit vouchers, but eventually he threw up his hands, bought a Honda Civic and started driving.
It took him 21/2 hours each way by train and bus, turning his nine-hour workday into a 14-hour endeavor. Now he drives, and it takes him 45 minutes each way, which he said is well worth the extra gas and toll bridge costs.
…
Rick Mann loves public transit but hates the two hours and 15 minutes it takes him to walk from his Milpitas home to a transit station, catch a train, transfer to another train and then walk to his job as a software engineer in Sunnyvale.
The point is this: “Mass transit doesn’t work”. We aren’t dense enough to make it work. People live too far from where they work. Transfers are common. Further, because this is the government, making upgrades to the system is seen as an expense, not an investment. As such, expenses are minimized meaning fewer trains and busses and fewer stops. This raises the time of the commute and reduces riders. But we have to continue to meet the costs. And that means higher fares and higher taxes.
And soon, gentle reader, that means I am going to be taxed here in North Carolina so that someone in San Francisco can ride a bus that they don’t wanna ride.
Posted in Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged California, Global Warming, Light Rail, Oil, Taxes, Transportation
Mark Perry has a most excellent post over at Carpe Diem. The whole thing is a must read, but the highlights:
Exhibit A: California has lost more than one million jobs in the last several years, while employment levels in Texas have remained relatively stable.
Exhibit B: In early 2006, California’s unemployment was actually slightly below Texas, but is now 4.3 percentage points higher than Texas (12.3% vs. 8%).
Exhibit C:
One-way rental rates for a 26-foot truck from U-Haul:
From Dallas to San Francisco: $734
From San Francisco to Dallas: $2,116From Houston to Los Angeles: $706
From Los Angeles to Houston: $2,051Exhibit D: Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age.
Exhibit E: William Voegeli tartly says that “Rome wasn’t sacked in a day, and California didn’t become Argentina overnight.”
Net/net children, it is high time to get the hell out of California. And, now that I think of it, to get California’s mind-set OUT of Washington.
Update: become Argentina overnight! THAT, is hil-ar-i-ous.
Posted in Politics: National, States Behaving Badly
Tagged California, Leftist, Liberal, Texas, zEducation
I am beginning to feel that I am slightly less red than I thought. And with the New Year tried to talk myself into coming out. That resolution is turning out to be harder than I thought. See, I am convinced that both parties are flawed and am often dismayed that by claiming allegiance to one side or the other locks you into the whole bill of goods of either. So, with that said, there are several {many} times when I think the right, or at least far right, has it wrong. And when I am discussing or commenting, I always feel that if I come to defend the more liberal or “Democrat”‘ish view, I will be defending ALL of the policies of the Left. And somehow that seems worse than letting the Right get a free pass.
Maybe I can try harder and allow my trend toward the Purple shine.
So, without further ado, I wanna say that I think this is good news:
The American Law Institute, the organization that provided the framework for our current capital punishment system, has washed its hands of the whole sorry mess. Abandoning the death penalty was necessary “‘in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.’” In other words, we don’t have a fair system, and we’re not ever gonna get one. Better to stick a fork in it than to keep pretending it will ever be workable.
Now, to be clear. I firmly and absolutely feel that there are things that members of our tribe can do that should result in death. When your actions are so egregious that the survival of all of us is risked, you have, in essence, self selected out. This is not punishment or deterrence. It’s just you can’t be part of us any longer.
With that said, our current system of laws and courts, as good as it is, simply can not and will not apply the death penalty fairly. As such, it just can’t be part of us any longer.
Posted in Politics: National, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Death Penalty, Democrat, Left, North Carolina, Republican, Right