Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thinking of mom...
If life works the way it's supposed to, we're guaranteed to feel the pain of loss. A parent. A spouse. Maybe a sibling. God forbid a child. It's unavoidable. We usually don't know when to expect it. Sometimes we know how it happened. We always ask why when it does. We beg God for the answer to that question, but we know why. And still we ask.
The only thing that makes any of this alright is hope. Hope that our loved ones are forever in a better place. Hope that we'll one day be reunited with them by the grace of God. For some, this hope comes easily and naturally. For others, like myself, it's a struggle. And still I hope.
If you're fortunate enough to have your parents around, call them. Tell them you love them. Don't wait hoping for a day that may never come. Life has a way of letting you know how it's supposed to work when you least expect it.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Our government at work
Lisa hands me a letter from the IRS with a snort. What now? She's not the snorting type, so this should be good, or bad, as the case may be. The last letter I received from this paragon of governmental efficiency said I underpaid my 2006 federal income taxes by $400 and that a $40 interest penalty was assigned. My accountant admitted the error and covered the $40 interest penalty.
Apparently the interest on the $400 underpayment was only $39.68, and that I had a refund due of $0.32. $0.32! Wow, imagine what I could do with $0.32. Why, I could send a lette... wait a minute. The IRS sent me a letter telling me I could send them a letter to recover $0.32? Not only me, but Lisa too. I check the envelope; first-class presorted postage, which is $0.394. So let me get this straight--the IRS spent $0.788 in postage alone to tell Lisa and I that we can spend $0.42 to request a $0.32 refund? Are these people daft? Is this all part of the USPS welfare program? Yes, I know this is all automated and no one really made the decision to issue we serfs... err, taxpayers, a $0.32 refund, but then someone had to program the IRS Tax-o-tron 9000 with this bit of logic. I won't even get into the cost of materials, e.g. paper. It's ludicrous.
I'm not a tax expert. I've had all of two law classes in tax, which probably makes me as qualified as the next guy to work at H&R Block, but it's a vast, exceedingly complex field and I am a bear of very little brain. But from what I can tell, the tax system in this country is f'ed up (and my choice of words and contractions is so damn clever and works on so many levels that I just had to point it out parenthetically). We tax the fruits of our labor and the government gets the first fruits before we ever see a dime. It's sorta like tithing. And we tax when we give, either by gift or in death, the underlying principle being that we don't want future generations to have it too easy, which strikes me as institutionalized class envy. We've certainly gone out of our way to make a function of the government adversarial to the interest of the people. I blame Woodrow Wilson, a liberal fascist if there ever was one, but I digress.
For a country that prides itself on its industriousness, our tax system stands at odds with what we value. So, why don't we tax something that most refer to with derision, that being consumerism? Why don't we simply impose a national sales tax in lieu of a personal income tax? I don't think most people refrain from purchasing something simply because of the local or state sales tax, though people will shop online to avoid it. Let's close the loophole and charge a flat 5% for everything purchased except maybe basic food stuffs. No more filing annual tax returns. No more hunting for deductions. No more silliness on the part of the IRS as to under or overpayment. You keep what you make and you're taxed on what you spend, and if you spend less and keep more, then maybe this country won't have the credit issues and problems with healthcare and housing costs. Maybe.
In any case, I'll pass on my $0.32 refund. Consider it a gift, Uncle Sam, pursuant to Sec. 170(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Apparently the interest on the $400 underpayment was only $39.68, and that I had a refund due of $0.32. $0.32! Wow, imagine what I could do with $0.32. Why, I could send a lette... wait a minute. The IRS sent me a letter telling me I could send them a letter to recover $0.32? Not only me, but Lisa too. I check the envelope; first-class presorted postage, which is $0.394. So let me get this straight--the IRS spent $0.788 in postage alone to tell Lisa and I that we can spend $0.42 to request a $0.32 refund? Are these people daft? Is this all part of the USPS welfare program? Yes, I know this is all automated and no one really made the decision to issue we serfs... err, taxpayers, a $0.32 refund, but then someone had to program the IRS Tax-o-tron 9000 with this bit of logic. I won't even get into the cost of materials, e.g. paper. It's ludicrous.
I'm not a tax expert. I've had all of two law classes in tax, which probably makes me as qualified as the next guy to work at H&R Block, but it's a vast, exceedingly complex field and I am a bear of very little brain. But from what I can tell, the tax system in this country is f'ed up (and my choice of words and contractions is so damn clever and works on so many levels that I just had to point it out parenthetically). We tax the fruits of our labor and the government gets the first fruits before we ever see a dime. It's sorta like tithing. And we tax when we give, either by gift or in death, the underlying principle being that we don't want future generations to have it too easy, which strikes me as institutionalized class envy. We've certainly gone out of our way to make a function of the government adversarial to the interest of the people. I blame Woodrow Wilson, a liberal fascist if there ever was one, but I digress.
For a country that prides itself on its industriousness, our tax system stands at odds with what we value. So, why don't we tax something that most refer to with derision, that being consumerism? Why don't we simply impose a national sales tax in lieu of a personal income tax? I don't think most people refrain from purchasing something simply because of the local or state sales tax, though people will shop online to avoid it. Let's close the loophole and charge a flat 5% for everything purchased except maybe basic food stuffs. No more filing annual tax returns. No more hunting for deductions. No more silliness on the part of the IRS as to under or overpayment. You keep what you make and you're taxed on what you spend, and if you spend less and keep more, then maybe this country won't have the credit issues and problems with healthcare and housing costs. Maybe.
In any case, I'll pass on my $0.32 refund. Consider it a gift, Uncle Sam, pursuant to Sec. 170(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Monday, September 8, 2008
This should be fun...
Knowing that politics, like the economy, runs in cycles, I pretty much wrote off the upcoming election as being a redux of 1976. People like soaring rhetoric, and while I'll be damned if I can tell you what Obama stands for, he does have soaring rhetoric. McCain, on the other hand, comes off sounding like the old guy telling the kids to stay off his lawn. He did, that is, until he discovered Palin. Zowie for a number of reasons... ahem, all political reasons, of course. ;)
Once the media got over its shock at the novelty of the selection, the attacks began. Some were ridiculous, like her family issues, while some were reasonable in context, like her supposed lack of experience, though equally ridiculous when the charges come from Obama. The New York Times raised the issue in an August 30, 2008 editorial when it said:
Governor Palin’s lack of experience, especially in national security and foreign affairs, raises immediate questions about how prepared she is to potentially succeed to the presidency. That really is the only criterion for judging a candidate for vice president.
But contrast that to what The New York Times said on July 3, 1984:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? . . . Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified? . . . Where is it written that governors and mayors . . . are too local, too provincial? . . . Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. . . . What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. . . . Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
That, of course, was written in support of Geraldine Ferraro. So which is it? I don't really care, since I find the NYT to be substandard medium upon which to potty train a puppy, let alone read, but it does amuse me to see the left-wing media flip-flopping to lash out at a threat to the Obamessiah. It's gonna be an interesting race to November.
Once the media got over its shock at the novelty of the selection, the attacks began. Some were ridiculous, like her family issues, while some were reasonable in context, like her supposed lack of experience, though equally ridiculous when the charges come from Obama. The New York Times raised the issue in an August 30, 2008 editorial when it said:
Governor Palin’s lack of experience, especially in national security and foreign affairs, raises immediate questions about how prepared she is to potentially succeed to the presidency. That really is the only criterion for judging a candidate for vice president.
But contrast that to what The New York Times said on July 3, 1984:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? . . . Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified? . . . Where is it written that governors and mayors . . . are too local, too provincial? . . . Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. . . . What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. . . . Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
That, of course, was written in support of Geraldine Ferraro. So which is it? I don't really care, since I find the NYT to be substandard medium upon which to potty train a puppy, let alone read, but it does amuse me to see the left-wing media flip-flopping to lash out at a threat to the Obamessiah. It's gonna be an interesting race to November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
