The Radical Centrist™

Think for Yourself!

Taxes

Income Taxes… and Politicians

By Leave a Comment

Virtually every election campaign there’s some level of controversy regard politicians publishing their income taxes for voter scrutiny.  We should be clear up-front this is NOT a legal requirement, it is merely “the way the game is played”, according to a popular west coast radio talk show host I agree with more often than not… except here.  It’s what most politicians do, and it started with Richard Nixon and his famous “Checkers” speech in the 1952 presidential race when he was the VP nominee.

Since then politician almost fall all over themselves trying to prove how honest and pure they are by publishing their taxes, as well.  And Ronn Owens… the talk show host I mentioned above… stated it, that’s how the game is now played.  And he’s not wrong.  But, should he be right?

My Opinion

Literally every citizen of the United States should be afforded some basic level of privacy, including their personal finances, even politicians, even Mr Trump.  It is out-of-line for us to expect to see them.  It is out-of-line for the media to demand them.  It is out-of-line for other politicians to try and shame their opponents into releasing them.  It’s a matter of basic human respect.  I have never thought this has evolved to a good practice.  Now, if a politician wants to volunteer them, that’s their business.

…which brings us to Donald Trump

Doesn’t everything bring us to Trump, but I digress.  Anyway, what makes Trump’s defiance different is that he was so adamant during the 2016 campaign, combined with his immediate refusal the day before his inauguration, that makes his lack of action suspect and curious.  If he really didn’t want to he shouldn’t have made such a big deal about it… and no, I don’t buy an audit would take this long, not even as complex as his might be.  No, the man lied to you, and you bought it.

He fights tooth-and-nail to keep them from prosecutors.  His lawyers claimed he would be embarrassed if they were made public knowledge.  Which begs the question: What possibly could there be to be embarrassed about?

I am normally not prone to buy in to the “…if you have nothing to hide…” BS, but here with Mr Trump any reasonably analytical mind has to wonder.

Is tipping fair?

By Leave a Comment

Tipping has become a somewhat testy issue in recent years.  The vast majority of writings I see on the internet are only from the server’s point-of-view.  Why is that?  What about the customer?  No one ever talks about whether or not it’s unfair to the customer. You know, the person who is the one actually paying the money. Yeah, that person.

It’s supremely unfair to the customer…

  • It shouldn’t be the customer’s responsibility to directly pay wages. You don’t do it for a cashier at a store, nor even a cook in a restaurant, you shouldn’t be expected to do it here.
  • Everybody benefits in this scenario… except the customer.  The employer gets to skate by by not paying wages.  Most servers actually make far more than minimum wage.  That leaves the customer out.
  • As such, tips are actually a private tax of sorts.  You do have the option to not pay, sure, but societal peer pressure is strong, and by paying tips you are actually subsidizing what any other business would/should be paying.
  • To make it worse, it puts the customer in an awkward position because the customer never knows how much is appropriate. 10%? 15%? 20%? 35%? It’s a moving target.  You never really know what is appropriate, and you will be judged.
  • It is NOT unreasonable that a customer be able to expect to go out, have a nice dining experience, and just leave it at that without anything like the moving target of a tip to dampen the experience.

There are seven states that mandate employers pay either state or federal minimum wage (MW) even for tipped employees.  Those states are Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.  I lived most of my life in one of those states and now live in another. I can attest from first-hand experience in both scenarios, that the wages an employee makes has absolutely no effect whatsoever on tips. People all over the country tip pretty much the same, percentage-wise, regardless any other factors. And, strangely enough,when the debate over how much a tip should be no one ever allows for a discount in those seven states.  But anyway, it’s become so ingrained into our culture that what the server actually makes isn’t even a factor anymore, and I bet most of you who justify tipping by the lower wages don’t even know what the server makes when you travel. You just blindly and ignorantly tip what you would normally.

Oh, and I can also attest that menu prices are not affected, either. That argument is simply false.

So, what is it exactly that I am railing against?  I DO feel that the current status where states even allow servers to be paid less than MW is flat-out wrong and unfair to the server, as well as the customer. The mere premise flies in the face against what the purpose of MW is supposed to be about (spare me the free contract clap-trap), and it also perverts the intent of what a tip is supposed to be. A person should be paid a minimum wage at their job, and if I decide to leave a tip it should be because I want to, not because I feel guilt-tripped into it.  If I were the Wage Czar, this practice would not be allowed.

As Lt Columbo would say, “One more thing…”  Let’s be honest, even if we did pay MW as a minimum, people would still tip. It’s become that ingrained into our collective psyche. And that’s ok, but maybe it’d revert back to what it should be… a gift/reward for good service, instead of an almost bullying intimidation way to push off paying wages onto someone else.

Can we talk?

By Leave a Comment

No, really, serious talk?  Can we talk, reasonably and rationally, about serious topics?

No, we can’t.

Abortion used to be the big topic that was always devoid of rationality.  You could pop in and out of abortion forums over several years and it was always the same few people screaming the same points at each other.  I know, because I did that on Usenet (remember Usenet?) roughly 15 to 20 years ago off and on over several years.  Nothing ever changed, not the people, not the arguments, and especially not the results.  The same people still held the same opinions.  No one ever really heard a single word that people on the opposing side ever said.  Abortion has always been the great wasteland of intelligent discourse.

But that was a long time ago, oh, say, 15 to 20 years ago.  Today, it seems everything has become so hyper-partisan that we can’t discuss anything anymore.  Immigration, taxes, race, gun control, and now gender issues and sexual assault.  Hell, even “taking a knee” has people virtually screaming at each other.  It’s never ending anymore.  It’s understandable when people say they’ve had enough of politics, even though the issues are vitally important.

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I characterize the current atmosphere.  People are literally starting Facebook threads by telling people in no uncertain terms to unfriend them if they don’t agree.  I get that the issue(s) are important, both to you and in fact, but this isn’t helping.  All you’re doing is widening the divide.  You’re not shaming people who disagree with you, as I believe you think you are, you’re ensuring that we will not be making any progress anytime soon because conversation has been cut off.

Not that we’d be making any progress with everybody blindly and stubbornly digging in their heels, anyway.

We’d all do well to keep the following rules in mind, if we truly and honestly want to make progress on the serious issues of the day…

I’ll admit this can be tough.  We’ve all been conditioned to do this as a matter of course.  If you follow all of these ten commandments, then how do you debate?  Well, one thing is to argue the issues and not the other person.  If your position is righteous, it will stand on it’s own.  No need for debate parlor tricks.

And please, stop with the name calling.  That’s pretty much a concession of defeat.  You have nowhere else to go.

Your side is not as ethical as you think

By Leave a Comment

Here in Iowa we have the race for Governor going on.  The incumbent, Kim Reynolds (R), is running against challenger Fred Hubbell (D).  Of course, the campaign quickly degenerated into negative hit-piece ads, as they all do.  One campaign issue of particular interest to me, and one that exhibits a particular level of hypocrisy, is a current television ad saying that Hubbell refuses to release his tax returns.  He actually seems to have released a very limited portion for one year only, as pointed out in the Quad City Times editorial: What’s Fred Hubbell hiding?, while Reynolds has released 10 year’s worth of tax returns.

Personally, I see the whole tax return thing as being way overplayed, and really not that important to begin with.  I feel that even public figures should have some reasonable expectation of personal privacy.  But, for right or for wrong, that’s not how the game is played, and each side is quick to point out the egregious wrongdoing if they think it will gain them some votes, so we’re stuck with it and have to deal with it.

Now, also keep in mind that, as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter who paid for or “is responsible” for an ad.  “I’m so-and-so and I approve this message”, means virtually nothing to me.  An ad for Reynolds is in Reynolds’ name and thus is ultimately hers to answer for.  Same with Hubbell, or anyone else.

Is the accusation true?  It seems so.  So what’s the problem?

The problem is that the criticism is coming from the Republican side.  Let’s not forget that our illustrious president, Donald Trump, clearly implied that he would eventually release his tax returns in the 2016 presidential campaign, then promptly after the election we were blown off by Kellyanne Conway when she said, “The White House response is that he’s not going to release his tax returns.”, with what would set the stage for the administration’s habit of backtracking and specious arguments as a seeming matter of unofficial internal policy.

Where does any Republican anywhere come off complaining about unreleased tax returns after that recent debacle and outright deception?  Republicans everywhere forfeited that right after Conway’s statement.  Unfortunately, there are two things going on here.  One, blatant and unrepentant hypocrisy (surprise!), and two, short memories of voters… which enables number one.

Thoughts on the Recent Tax Bill

By Leave a Comment

There’s been a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding the recently passed tax bill.  And let’s be brutally honest right up front… partisan hackery was involved all the way through.  Even if the Republicans had come up with something that really made life grand for the middle- and lower-classes, the Democrats still would have declared the sky is falling if the rich also gained some small coincidental benefit.  The Democrats weren’t going to give any bill a fair shot, so don’t insult me by claiming they would.

Also, let me be clear that I do NOT approve of the manner in which this bill was passed.  The secrecy was repugnant and spineless.  But at the same time, let’s be brutally honest again… if the Republicans had been open the Democrats would have tried to shoot it down unceasingly, so in a grudging sense I understand why they did that.

Ok, since this is a Centrist site, and I strive to be a independent and neutral as possible, let’s take a look at some of the more significant aspects.  I will approach each individually.  Please note that I am only highlighting a handful of key points.  There are many more points, and my silence on those should not be misconstrued as either approval or rejection.

Permanent Tax Cuts for “The Rich”, Temporary Tax Cuts for Everyone Else

I am all for people getting to keep more of their own money.  It has long been my opinion that we do not have, and have never had, a revenue problem.  We have a spending problem (which this bill doesn’t address… cowards, but I digress).  Hence, I’m all for the idea of tax cuts, but why the disparity in term?  Why does one group get a permanent cut while another group gets a temporary cut?  That’s not right.  It’s the disparity between groups that bothers me.  And the sunset is far enough out that when it catches up and people realize what was done to them, most of those responsible will be long gone from Congress.  How insidious.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Individual Mandate

I am not only just ok with this, I wholly approve of it.  From the very beginning of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) I have never been comfortable with the individual mandate.  Just as a matter of principle it’s morally wrong.  A person should not be assessed a penalty for not doing something that they are technically not legally required to do.  Period.  It doesn’t matter how much the thing may benefit, it’s still wrong.  If the benefit is so important, and is so significant, then be intellectually honest and make the thing… in this case healthcare… flat-out mandatory.  If that means amending the Constitution, so be it.  Get to work.

Effects on State and Local Taxes (Deductions)

Ummm… why are taxes tax-deductable to begin with?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  It’s just playing a shell game with tax money, and it artificially shields local leaders from the natural consequences of their spending decisions.  No, local and state leaders should be held fully accountable for their spending and taxing decisions, and that only comes from the people bearing the full brunt of said decisions.  If your property taxes are too high, for example, then you need to either call your local and state leaders on the carpet for it, or shut up and accept it (by re-electing them).

Of course, all of these items are just more reasons in a long list of reasons for why I favor a true flat tax.  In my over two decades of advocating a true flat tax, I have heard many small concerns that I believe would be worked out within a short time, and only one legitimate long-term consequences that had to do with business and investment, but it wasn’t enough to convince me to change my conclusion.  The overall benefits would still far outweigh that one negative aspect.