Taxing the Rich

With this year's presidential debate heating up, there is often talk about economic and fiscal policy. Naturally, there are arguments about whether there should be higher taxes, lower taxes, or a different tax structure altogether. The conservatives arguing on the side of lower taxes, and the democrats arguing for higher taxes on the rich.

The argument against taxing the rich is flawed. Yes, in theory it would be beneficial to the economy if they ponied up 35% of their wages to the IRS. However, the wealthy do not simply have an income. They do not have one number that can be pointed to objectively as taxable income. The fact is, their wealth is distributed across a multitude of investments all over the world. The majority of it is probably here in the United States, but even then it's impossible to keep track of. 

It goes like this. A man with a million dollars owns a small business. He can harbor the money in the small business; he can harbor the money in many small businesses. These businesses don't necessarily have to be money laundering joints either. But with this business, the man can now report less and less income. Essentially he chooses his own "wage". And it follows that the lower wages he reports, the lower taxes he pays. 

So what happens when the rich are taxed more? Do they finally fork over that money to the IRS? No. They pass the burden of the hire taxes on to other people by imposing higher prices, stagnating salaries, or not hiring more people. Companies and people behave to maximize their utility. Period. If their utility is increased by being philanthropic, they will go ahead and do that, but not because the government imposes taxes on them. James, an avid reader, says, "The government thinks that they can take earnings from investors or companies and redistribute that wealth in other areas of the economy to stimulate economic growth more efficiently and faster than that investor or business can reinvest their own capital to contribute to economic growth through their own business."

My point is people throw around the notion that taxing the rich will generate more revenue for the country, but they also don't have a concrete plan to execute. "Close all the loopholes", they say. While I agree there needs to be regulations put in place so that there can't be huge tax write-offs on "gift ponies", loopholes or other means to divert money will exist.

Solution? A national sales tax that is closely monitored on the suppliers' side for all goods and services, except for food. You're able to buy a lot of clothes, yachts and electronics? Well that 40% sales tax sure does pave nice roads. The rich people might start importing their goods from overseas, but even then they would be creating jobs for the increased number of warehouse employees.


I believe it would be ideal to live in complete anarchy, if everyone was rational and didn't infringe on the rights of others. But one can dream.

-Mi

Catch by Transitive Property of Possession?

I don't want to talk about the play. I have to talk about the play and I've finally calmed down enough to do so. When I sat down to write this, my plan was to only write about the residual effects of the call, but there has been so much false information floating out there, I have to sort some things out in writing to at least clear my own head.

First of all, there is no controversy about whether it was a touchdown or not. I don't want to go through the play frame by frame, because I know the large majority of you either watched it or heard a hundred different renditions of what happened. It is painfully clear a touchdown should not have been called, especially now that the rules allow for all scoring plays to be reviewed. If you would like a more detailed account and analysis of the play, this edition of Sports Science is one of the best I've seen.

Sorry about the awful quality, this is only complete version I could find:

"After further review, it was a fucking interception!" A catch in the NFL requires three things: (1) Secure control of the ball. (2) Touch the ground in-bounds with both feet or any part of the body. (3) Maintain control of the ball throughout the catch. As the video explains, Jennings was the first to establish two points of contact on the ball with control; the basic definition of possession. Additionally, Jennings sustained possession by following through with the catch all the way to the ground by maintaining control and keeping two feet in bounds. It is not a simultaneous catch, because Tate doesn't establish a second point of contact on the ball (no is sure if he ever did) until after Jennings had possession. Therefore, there is no tie and Tate cannot be awarded the touchdown. 

People keep bringing up the offensive pass interference on the last play. While the interference did occur, it's not reviewable. Also, I've heard the argument that the precedent is to not call pass interference on Hail Mary plays at the end of games, so the refs were correct in not throwing a flag. The first part is actually true; however, the precedent (assuming the new refs even knew of it) is only in place because there are usually multiple instances of pass interference on such plays and a clear call is difficult to make.  This was not at all the case here. The defense played clean coverage until first contact with the ball was made; there was a single, clear-cut instance of offensive pass interference on the play. It should have been called, but the interference had nothing to do with the eventual ignorant interpretation of the rules.

This is probably the most trivial of all my points, but the second official did not signal incomplete, interception or to stop the clock. As far as I know, there is no signal for interception in the NFL, only a signal for a touchdown and a catch. The signal he gave was for a touchback, for which the only logical conclusion is an interception in this instance.

At this point, unfortunately, the facts don't make a difference. The league is firm in its decision to uphold the Seahawks victory and all the petitions and threatening phone calls to the commissioner's office aren't going to change anything.

But as I wrap this up, the real NFL season is now underway. The veteran refs are back and the replacement refs are back in their mothers' basements and their Lingerie League jobs. And as the Browns prepare to lose to the Ravens, I would like to point out that the first penalty called in this game was against the Browns defense in Baltimore. Good call refs. I guess the standing ovation before kickoff wasn't enough; way to set yourselves up for another round of cheers.

It thoroughly sucks that the integrity of the NFL demanded a Packers loss as a price, but the return of the refs is a huge relief for everyone and I'm thrilled it got done. One last awesome thing to come out of this debacle is all the memes. There are some really clever ones out there and I was inspired to make a couple myself:

-De

Why Music is the Universal Language

What's good MoT Nation and casual MoT readers? I hope you all are schooling responsibly.

During one of my slower nights, in between watching 30 Rock and editing vocals for a song, something pretty cool came to me. Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but I've often wondered why music traverses across every culture of every continent on earth. Why does the need for music seem so fundamental and universally understood?

My first thought was the majority of music is the same. Even comparing eastern and western music styles, there are obvious similarities, similarities that make music identifiable as music. We're about to get really basic for a minute, but I promise this is going somewhere. All music has tempo and rhythm. Tempo is the thing that keeps the sound in time and rhythm is the subdivision and repetition of that tempo. Tempo is the first thing that separates music from noise. Now to anyone with a background in western music history, I'm aware that things such as rhythm and tempo weren't denoted in early notation, such as Gregorian chant. But the tempo and rhythm of a chant was still inherent in the aural tradition of the piece. Also, I'm not suggesting that all music has a constant rhythm or tempo. In modern terms, if you take a phrase such as, "It would be awesome if the Yankees don't make the playoffs this year", it's only a phrase until a tempo and rhythms are assigned, then it becomes rap. The next step is to assign melodies, both to the phrase and to an accompaniment. There can be other things like chords, form, dynamics and so on, but I feel like I've gone into way too much detail to explain my original point; music has a foundation that ties together all the different genres.

I would argue parallels can be drawn to the similarities between people. Music and people are 99% the same (don't do the math). Like music, there is a basic foundation that ties all people together. DNA, emotions, instinct and so on. This is why music is so basic across every culture and is such a need in our world. People "get" music. Regardless of language, music education and the era the music was written in, a song will provoke an emotional response in a person and it is often the common response. I believe without music, some paramount ideas that bring us together as a race would never be discovered. And now for one of my favorite quotes, take it away Victor Hugo:

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent"

Well said Victor, well said.

-De (and Victor Hugo)