Fair Tax

Is the Fair Tax Fair ? Heck, what is the Fair Tax? In short it is a plan to dismantle the current tax system. No more yearly individual tax returns. The current tax code would be wiped. Blank slate. In its place a simple system (to listen to its proponents) with only a national sales tax and a universal stipend system to deal with the issues of survival costs (which most agree we shouldn't tax).

In its place we would get A 30% sales tax. Before the Fair tax advocates scream and shout at me that it is 23% let me finish. The sales tax under the fair tax would be 30%. But it would be equivalent to a 23% income tax. IE a 30% income tax and a 30% sales tax are not equal values. Here is why.

Income Tax:
You make 100 dollars. The income tax rate is 30%. You receive $70 to spend.

Fair Tax:
You make 100 dollars you receive $100 to spend but whatever you purchase has a %30 sales tax added to it. So If I buy something that costs 100 dollars it will cost $130 with tax. But what can I buy for $100 with tax included? Well If a 30% income tax and a 30% sales tax are equal then if I buy something that costs $70 it should cost $100 with tax. Well $70 * .3 taxrate = $21 in tax. $70 + $21 = $91. So as you can see a 30% sales tax and a 30% income tax are not equal.

Essentially a 30% sales tax is equal to a 23% income tax. A 30% income tax is equivalent to about a 43% sales tax.

So what's the Catch? Quite simple and quite appropriate considering this sites title. TANSTAAFL. The pundits and proponents and detractors can yak all they like but in the end this plan is pitched as revenue nuetral. That means that in the end the difference is nil for the average Joe. So don't think for a second that Fair Tax will reduce how much you pay in taxes. However if implemented as presented currently it will change how much the average joe HAS to spend in Taxes. If you spend nothing you pay no taxes. Spend it all you will fork out just as much in taxes as you did before. That is nice in the short run but in the long run you still pay just as much taxes. The only way you don't is if you don't EVER spend it. However this still favors saving which is nice. By saving I reduce my tax burden which in turn increases how much I can save. But its just a bigger number because the money wasn't already taxed. Not because it will buy more. Remember, just because the amount of money you receive might be higher dosn't mean you can actually buy more stuff with it. But the freedom to delay when that burden lands on you is nice make no mistake. IF the system is revenue neutral or resulting in a lighter burden for you.

We are long overdue for some serious Tax reform. The current code has become ludicrously convaluted. It is the moral equivalent of 50 years of rube Goldberg contraptions all combined to make one useless edifice which no one can understand. Whole livelihoods are made out of understanding small sections of the code well enough to teach people how to pay less in taxes. This system seems like a good candidate to at least get us back to a simple system that anyone can understand.

What are the catches ? Well numero uno is that revenue neutral or not this system does not account immediately for savings. So its revenue neutral IF and only IF you spend every dime you make (from the perspective of Uncle Sam)... or if the rate is effectively higher to account for the fact that you do not spend everything. So if you save alot then a move to this system will effectively lower your tax burden. But for people that have to spend essentially everything.. Say a family of 5 with a marginal income, it is going to make no difference at best and potentially hurt more at worst. In any event those that have to spend all that they make will have the highest percentages of their income go to taxes.

Numero 2 is the issue of necessities. The Fair Tax plan currently calls for a stipend based on poverty rate to be issued monthly to account for poverty spending. For example If the poverty rate is 12,000 a year you would get a check from the government each month for 300 dollars to offset any taxes paid on necessity level spendind, or in other words 3600 a year to account for taxes paid for the first $12,000 of income spent. The assumption of poverty level is that you would have to spend that much just to survive at the poverty level and that no one given the option would spend less.

The other option is to pick and choose what sale items are taxed. This is a very difficult thing to do as who gets to decide what is a necessity product, or necessity level of product (Ford vrs a Rolls Royce etc...) and what isn't? The idea of the stipend is to just give a blanket pass on the poverty income amount and let the individual decide what is a necessity and what isn't.

The idea of the stipend is similar to the idea of the graduated tax bracket in the current income tax system. IE your first X amount of income is not taxed, from X - Y is taxed at such and such rate, y - z at such and such rate etc etc... This way they just do it monthly up front rather than doing it at the end of the year. Its really just a question of where you account for it. Not anything new. Big difference of course being you don't get a big bite taken out of your check each week/month and then a tax refund at the end of the year to settle the score. Which is... dare I say it? Much more Fair. However I do think it is a bit of a red herring. Sounds cool to get money each month. But in the end you really are not getting any more buying power. The only reason to do it that way is to allow individuals to make their own decisions about what constitutes necessity purchases. I like that. So long as moral pundits don't start trying to dictate what are and are not viable spending habits for poverty level folks it might even work. The second that stipend starts smelling like food stamps is the second I say it is a stupid idea.

There is one major bonus here. One which is rightfully trumpeted by the proponents of this system. This should effectively tax the consumption of rich people. Corporate expense shennanigens will be at an end. However, I don't think it is quite the cure all to Tax evasion by the wealthy that some would have you believe. For one, Rich people do spend more than the average Joe. But they also Save more. The Percentage of someone's income that ultimately goes to taxes is going to be determined by how much of that income is spent. So someone that makes 2 million and spends 1 million will essentially have a tax rate half that of the fair tax rate. But that afore mentioned family of 5 with a marginal income will have a a tax rate roughly equal to the fair tax rate (23% or 30% however you care to look at it) because they have to spend all of their money to get buy... Stipend or no stipend.

Overall I like the concept but I do worry about the potential pitfalls of implementation. Politics is the art of compromise. Implementing this system has very very little room for compromise. You can't ease it in else you risk keeping to much of the old combined with the new which just makes it worse and not better. Sweeping change like this can happen. But such a fundamental change to our nations tax income is not going to happen without some problems in terms of program funding. That danger is highest with a complete swap which is why I suspect if it ever makes it out of committee and passes into law their will be some kind of phase in period during which the risk will be high for the system turning from a revenue neutral move to a European style VAT system where effective tax burdens skyrocket in a very short period of time. On the other hand I could cross my fingers and hope for a move the other direction... One which strangles absurd government programs in their sleep and we come out on the otherside having leaned out or government, with lower taxes and a system that can do more with less. Yeah Yeah... very optimistic.

Evolution Vs Intelligent Design

There is a quote I love from Einstein.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

The issue of the recent court case in Pennsylvania I think is a pretty clear case of Religion being blind without science. However, the recent article about the science achievements of 2005 being the additional work done in support of evolution is a great example of how Science is lame without religion. Why is this?

First off let me be perfectly clear. I am in the camp of evolution. The evidence that life changes over time is pretty damn overwhelming. The evidence that all life currently in existence on earth shares common ancestry is equally overwhelming. Hence somehow we started from one thing and became what we are today. However, while evolutionists do a great deal to try and explain the mechanism's of this change, as yet ALL proof of it is speculation and extrapolation. Including all the work listed as the greatest scientific achievement of 2005. There is no directly observed evidence of evolution. There is an awful lot of indirect evidence obviously. Genetic similarities, Shared DNA sequences and a host of other insanely technical issues surrounding the inner workings of genetics. Yet there does not exist in the annals of science one single case of observed evolution of one species into another. Nothing so similar as a chimp into a man, and certainly nothing on the scale of say single cell organism's becoming complex living organism's.

The Creationist folk have faith in the almighty. The scientist faith in the scientific process and peer review. There is no doubt in my mind which is more 'factual'. Yet both require elements of faith. Direct evidence has shown we share common ancestors. Yet we have never seen any new species born. Thus all theories regarding how the change occurs is speculation. No matter how educated it is, that means it is a guess. Evolution is a very logical, very well supported guess. Belief that it is correct without direct observation is almost by definition 'Faith'.

In the end this whole fiasco is an issue of philosophy. Even if we have Evolution hammered out to the nth degree. It still does nothing to answer the age old question of 'why'. If life is just the random mutation of inanimate material into animate life which eventually becomes us then what is the damn point? This is the very lameness of which Einstein is reffering too. The end game of science is depressing in the extreme. There is no reason. Just existence of a collection of cells that perform a number of biological activities observed down to the minutest level the combination of which we call life.

Frankly if my choices are that of belief in an immortal soul with a benevolent ghost that has imparted upon me the gift of free will, Or belief that I am just some statistical fluke of the random interactions of atoms/quarks/sub-quarks/muons etc... etc.... Well, I have no doubt which one is more attractive.

Now. The title is Evolution vrs Intelligent design and yet up above I said Creationists as if it were interchangeable. Let me take the time to say that equating Creationists to Intelligent Design is a rather faulty assumption if you ask me. True there are many Creationists that have latched onto the basic argument of ID with which to champion the teaching of Christian Creationisim in America. The Court Case recently in Pennsylvania was an excellent example of this. But do not lump in the central concept of ID to simply be a smoke an mirrors concept with which to make creationism pallatable in a scientific society. The central concept being that of irreducible complexity.

When giving examples of evolution and taking something like say the neck of a Girraffe it is easy to work out how this might of occurred due to Evolutionary principles selecting for survival of animals with longer necks. But how does this work for say an Eye ? There are many parts of an eye that require other parts... all very highly specific and integrated to provide the marvel that is an eyeball. If it developed as a vestifle appendage with little utility then the concept of selection for survival breaks down. If it was a central advantage of survival how then did the creature survive in the midst of development when much of it would have been useless? The argument of ID adherrents is essentially that in some cases you encounter irreducible complexity and they say that the only way for such a development to occur is through an intelligent choice. They do not even really try and answer where that choice comes from. Christian Creationists supply 'God' with all of the dogmatic trappings that come along with it. Many in ID simply use God as a catch all phrase for some as yet unknown factor which influences the course of evolution. Often people assume that belief in ID precludes a belief in evolution. Like most stereotypes, this one is false with a hint of truth at its core.

It isn't that ID means you can't belive in evolution. It is just that ID is for those who don't think evolution can hold the entire answer.

If you want to really think about it then instead of delving into this issue by studying the highly charged issue of man being descendent from lower primate life (chimps/gorrillas etc...) take a look at the transition of inanimate material into animate life. IE the formation of first life. Evolution has natural selection, mutation, etc with which to support its basic thesis of how life has come to be. Yet those arguments founder just as hard on the issue of first life as do Christian Fundamentalists encountering things like shared DNA sequences and the fact that all life on earth has far more in common at a genetic level than it has different.

What good is it to an eternal mineral to become a life? What advantage to survival? Questions such as these sound equally silly as fervent statements that the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says so the evidence be damned. The issue of first life is another area where it has never been directly observed. Some guys took some basic elements of life, stuck them in a tank, zapped it with electricity and wound up with some basic amino acids or amino acid components or some such (the begining of the building blocks of life in other words) and yet they still have not seen inanimate things come to life. The fervent belief of scientists creationists alike is in that of immaculate conception. One in the virgin birth, The other in life from unlife. Strictly limited to observation, life begets life. how then do you get life from something which is not alive ? In other words the age old question of which came first. The Chicken or the Blasted EGG.

Those that argue in favor of ID, Evolution, Creationism etc are no different from all arguments through time used to explain life. Science is better at reporting truth about how life works, yet it runs aground just as hard on its ignorance as religion when the issue of first life arises. In fact it probably does so more dangerously because just as those before who placed their faith in religion, they think they have the means to find the answer. And it is a futile argument that scientists have more proovable/demonstrable knowledge of the mysteries of life than the priests/witchdoctors/philosophers of old. But in the end it is an argument that probably cannot ever be solved no matter how well we understand the process of life.

If for example we genetically manipulate ourselves or another animal into an incompatible new species designed intentionally by us which breeds true. What then? To do so would in and of itself proove that intelligent design is possible because we would be capable of it. You could then use the basic principle that generally speaking if something happens once it can and will happen again, and argue that it could have happened before. If we do accomplish this feat then who is to say that we were the 'first' to achieve intelligent design of life? Ok so lets say at that point Intelligent design comes to hold the upper hand over evolution in the issue of why change occurs. Does it then answer the question of first life? Most people are scared of genetics for the simple reason that we can indeed become inteligent designers of life. But their fear resides not in our intelligence, but in our ignorance. That we would not be intelligent enough to actually design in a worthwhile manner. That any such design would run amok and cause endless unforeseen problems. This is a fear shared by creationists, ID, and evolutionists alike. What I find ironic in that is that you then turn around and evolutionists say while we arn't smart enough to do it intentionally, it happens quite easily by accident given a long enough time scale.

In the end I like it all as always. To settle down with one is to ignore what the others have to offer. It is quite possible to pick and choose the good stuff from each. Afterall This is how new ideas evolve ;-)

Double Standard

Ok I am just a little steamed about this one. 25 year old teacher does the horizontal mambo with a 14 year old student. If this were a Male Teacher and Female student they would put the guy under the jail and throw away the key damn near. But in this case it is a woman and if it were not for a single judge balking at the current plea bargain she would get house arrest only. Obviously this hasn't happend just yet. But such a plea bargain would have been laughed out of court if the teacher had been a guy instead of a very attractive woman.

Now I more than understand that society places different values on protecting young women vrs young men. The problem is that the law does not claim to make any such distinction between gender for sexual offense. Obstensibly treatment is equal. But if you just listen to the late night show jokes it is easy to see that the cases are viewed as anything but equal. Jokes about older guys having sex with underaged girls are scathing and condeming. Jokes about the same break in age with reversed genders are congratulatory to the underaged boy. At worst they suggest the older woman is less than picky in choosing her sexual partners (call her a slut). Where the men are caled sick/demented perverts you often hear jokes from guys of "Well where was this teacher when I was in school".

Perhaps such double standards are an unavoidable part of life. But a law is ultimately about an ideal. As such if it proclaims equal justice then the best effort needs to be made to dispense equal justice. If this leads to unfair rulings then perhaps, just perhaps, this means that the law is flawed and must be re-evaluated. And no where is this more apparent than the laws surrounding sex in the United States.

Star Wars Galaxies re-invention

Wired is running a story about a recent shake up in a major online world. Now I would like to spend some time to document what I know of it... and its a surprsing amount now that I think of it.

First off. The game "Starwars Galaxies" was never released if you ask me. Those that remember the old Dev Boards days preceeding the launch know what I am talking about. This kind of defection due to a massive core game design change happend once before... it happend even before the game was released. The rift began about 6 months before the initial release date when all of a sudden space combat dropped out and was designated as the first expansion. At that time the nature of core game mechanics for interaction changed and suddenly the dreaded EQ "treadmill" re-apeared in the core mechanics design.

There were enough pieces remaining that the defection of contributers to the board community wasn't quite as bad as what I am hearing about regarding the current mass exodus of players. But after that change many people who posted page after page of thoughtfull comentary on the comming game design implications were no longer present. What had drawn them there was gone and what had been put in its place drew a new and different crowd. I survived that change on the boards, hoping against hope that more of the initial design would survive than did. It didn't take long after logging in to the inital world to realize the game we had all be talking about for more than two years up to that point had not been made. In its place was a pale image of the possibilities we had been promised and despite the fact it was a pretty good game the results left a bad taste in my mouth I couldn't shake. The elements that remained were not enough to salvage the world, and the rough hack job that had removed the other elements had left a very rough game world that faced a great deal of growing pains early on to hide the gaping wounds in the play mechanics. A lot of the assumed interaction was broken. The civil war participation was transformed into an end game kind of reward for people who dedicated a long time seeking the skill advancement dings. Player control of territory almost didn't exist.And in game dynamic content was thin on the ground. The imagination sand box had turned into another graphic candy defined jungle gym. It was a far more elaborate play system than had come before. But I could see enough to understand they had changed the basic idea of a player run world into a static theme world. And with that realization I logged out to rarely return.

NGE is simply the logical end of that shift that occured in the months before the initial launch date. They killed the individuality of proffesions, killed decay (which drove the crafting game) and finally made Jedi open to all which fits in with Sony's idea that the game must cater to the individual and not the overall idea of a sustainable online community. Its a terrible shame if you ask me. Truly new things are rare... and inital Galaxies was going to be New. Alas it never was allowed to be what the creators wanted it to be. To me and many of the early dev board denziens the game was Still born and placed on life support. NGE simply marks the final death of the game that could have been. I am sorry to hear it go. But in a sense I am relieved. It always pained me to talk to peple playing in the game, constantly hearing reminders about how close we came to receiving a true online world in which to play 'Starwars' rather than a controlled theme park experience. It was like seeing a great college athlete suffer a career ending injury on the eve of turning pro and then running across them every now and then and being constantly reminded of what could have been. But NGE isn't an injury. It marks the final death of the intial vision of Lucasarts lead designer Ralph "Ultima Online" Koster aka Holocron.

May it rest in Peace.

If by chance any of the old Dev boarders happen across this I was known there by the somewhat less than origianl nick of Anakin_Darklighter.

Junk Food Advertising and Obese Kids

Here is a story about a study suggesting kids not be subjected to junk food ads. Personally I'd like to find a way to just not have anyone subjected to ads period. But no matter how nobel the motivations in this case I just don't trust it. Parents certainly need to start making better decisions about their kids health. And frankly the parents themselves need to be better educated about food choices. But we do not need regulations saying what can and cannot be advertised just because it isn't 'healthly'. This started with the restrictions on tobbacco and alchohol and it is now moving on. Who makes these decisions ? What constitutes healthy, what not ? Will it be illegal for a kid to buy a candy bar next ? Yes that is extreme and you are meant to laugh at it. But if you are restricting advertising "for the sake of the kids" then what is next ? This is not the start of the slippery slope. We are very much on it. The precedence for any restriction of this type (specifically limiting a type of advertising due to influence on kids) is rooted in the Joe Camel ruling which forced Camel to stop using the iconic cartoon camel in their ads due to wide spread brand recognition among kids (Joe was as identifiable as Mickey Mouse for most kids).

This is not a good sign if you ask me. Are the ads bad and for unhealthy food? Yes. Do they claim to be anything other than junk food ? No. Nothing wrong here. They are advertising a product that is legal to sell and they are advertising to children to whom it is legal to sell too. If it isn't legal to aim an ad at the kids then is it so far fetched to think someone might not want to make it illegal to sell/provide the item as well ?

In the end the responsibility for obese kids goes to Parents. And the parents need better health educations as well because the obesity problem is most certainly not just a problem for kids. The problem isn't junk food. Its our nature. We eat. And we like to eat things that taste good. Junk food by its nature will ALWAYS taste better than healthier alternatives. Regulating advertising is not going to stop the problem. It is going to add uneeded nanny state regulations.