Sponsor Me!

Currently, I'm publishing sporadically (as in, there has been a span of 10 months between the last post and the current post). I'd like to write and publish more. Unfortunately, I'm a super busy person, especially since I work a 9 to 5 job five days a week. If you want to help me free up more time, so I can write and publish more, please buy me a coffee or sponsor me through recurring Patreon payments (so you don't forget!).

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com


Become a Patron!


Saturday, February 23, 2019

Chicago Voters: Before and On 2/26/2019, Get Out There to Vote (and a couple final thoughts)

If you want to do some preliminary research, find your sample ballot at Chicago Board of Election Commissioners webpage.

You know who I support for mayor, and Lightfoot seems like she has a good chance of winning at this point. Other top runnners and Alderman are going after after her pretty aggressively.

If it matters, votes for City Clerk challenger won't be counted to see who gets into office. In my opinion, though, no vote "counts" for getting someone into or out of office. A vote against incumbent Valencia can provide a message of what kind of City Clerk you want to see in office for the future, especially more votes go against Valencia. I don't know how much attention anyone will pay to those votes, but if anyone does, they might get a message.

Chicago Voters, do your research and get out your vote before and on Tuesday, February 26, 2019.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Well-to-Do Neighborhoods Should Share Their School Fundraising with Not So Well-to-Do Schools

The other day I heard a pretty good interview of Robert Reich by DeRay Mckesson on the Pod Save the People podcast. Based on context, Reich's new book, Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better prompted the interview session.


Reich presented an interesting scenario that I believe he, himself, experienced. After moving into a neighborhood, he enrolled his children into a local public school. Important point: I recall Reich making a dinstinction about the school being a "normal" public school, not a charter school or anything other than a public school. Another vital thing to keep in mind: Reich likely lived in a well to do part of town/city. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume that he could have moved into a middle class part of town/city and had a similar experience.

Either which way, Reich soon received a letter from the school that stated the school had "expected, but didn't require" a donation of a certain amount. I can't recall if Reich clarified how much the school expected him to donate. Reich then used that experience of his to explain how well-to-do neighborhoods use this process to improve their own local school where their children go. By doing so, however, they create further divides from other stratas of society, as that neighborhood becomes more desirable because parents want their kids to attend the school.
From there, the following cycle happens:
  1. Housing values increase because of the good school
  2. Even more well-to-do people move into the neighborhood
  3. Not so well-to-do people get pushed out of the neighborhood because they can't afford the neighborhood anymore
  4. School quality gets better because more money comes into the neighborhood that can be channeled towards the school
  5. Goto step 1
In a way, this seems like a good idea. Why burden the rest of the city for a better school when the neighborhood (and the businesses and organizations in that neighborhood) can fund it themselves? Pay for what you use/get, and use/get what you can pay for. Don't force other people to pay for the benefit of someone else's neighborhood, someone else's child.

It kind of makes me think of what people often say about health insurance, complaining about premiums increasing because of the actions of other people. The person complaining hasn't had a claim in their life! (I'm talking about ideal setting of insurance rates, not CEO pay, paying a workforce, etc. etc. . .because people have to get paid).

The problem of this system: Inequality and divides increase and people grow further apart. As the well-to-do compound the characteristics and actions that improve their lot, the not as well-to-do only get neglected. The not well-to-do don't receive resources, so they can't learn to understand and get the characteristics to know how to do the actions to improve their lot and get the resources to invest themselves and their neighborhood. Even if they have the said characteristics and knowledge, they probably don't have the bone fides to put on a resume or the connections or mentors to get resources or to provide references for them.

Sure, the not well-to-do are not "burdened" by the demand of the well-to-do maintaining well-to-do characteristics to continue having a comfortable life and taking more actions to improve their well-to-do lives even more. Instead, the not well-to-do become burdened with neglect, alienation, and disconnection with society. We shouldn't have any problem empathizing with situations in which the not well-to-do become desperate enough to sell drugs, steal, and other anti-social or victimizing activities (themselves or other people) to simply fund their survival.

If
  • I had a child of my own
  • Lived in this neighborhood
  • Enrolled my child in the school at the end of the block
I probably would have received a letter similar to the one Robert Reich did. I haven't been in that school, even though I've patronized the farmers market there during the spring, summer, and the fall. I've also seen the nice playground the school has. The school also posts
  • Signs that thank the neighborhood families and businesses for the investment in the school
  • Imaginary thermometers that show how much money has been raised and still needs to be raised
  • Announcements of fundraisers and events to raise money
  • Nice pictures and announcements of accomplishments that students have had
This school does a good job raking in some money. I live in a pretty good neighborhood. Go one block over, and you see some nice homes. I've gone into a couple open houses, and my jaw has dropped at the size of the homes and the amenities in them. Michi and I can only really live in this neighborhood because we've found the best deal in one of the oldest apartment buildings. If we can help it, we don't plan on ever moving.

One mile north, property values drop drastically because the district for the school near to here ends right when you reach a particular road. The condition of homes don't get bad so much, but since people in those homes can't go to the well-to-do school, the market doesn't have much demand for those homes.

Candidates for mayor during the Chicago city elections have talked quite a bit about the school system. A lot of them highlight that the current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, closed 50 schools all at once. Emanuel, on the other hand, touts that he improved the school system by making the school year and school day longer. Emanuel probably has some right for feeling accomplishment as some schools had improved scores and some students have gone onto bigger and better things (I just heard Emanuel interview a couple STAR scholars on an old episode of the Chicago Stories podcast).

Nonetheless, Emanuel closed 50 schools and advocated for the opening of a lot of charter schools that seem to really skew the system (since charter schools can easily expel students if they bring down the grade/test curve). I remember hearing a lot of stories on the radio over the years about how students who didn't have to go far to get to a poor performing school in their neighborhood that didn't get the investment it needed. When their school closed, though, the children had to travel really far to go to another school that was just average or went down in quality since high performing students just went off to charter schools and other better quality schools.

Even more distressing, these students often had to go through dangerous parts of town in which they risked being attacked or possibly even getting hit by a stray bullet. All because of obvious inequality, segregated neighborhoods, and the list goes on to the factors involved. It also doesn't help that by closing schools and consolidating students, classroom sizes just grow larger while the number of teachers remains the same or decreases. The quality of school will likely go down for everyone, unless those with the means can get to better schools and/or those without means somehow get slipped out of the system. Manipulate the data set, and the results can be manipulated.

Before hearing the Reich interview on Pod Save the People, the whole well-to-do schools soliciting well-to-do people and businesses in their well-to-do neighborhood having such systemic impacts went right over my head. . .even as the practice occurred right before my eyes. I simply thought schools received funding from taxes, property and many times, as I'm learning these days, from states and sometimes from the Federal government. Obviously, I had the facts wrong.

So, in an attempt to remedy this issue, I have a policy proposal that I'm sharing with the world: What if these well-to-do schools that receive donations from well-to-do parents, neighborhood residents, and businesses have to share a portion of their fundraising with the rest of the school system? And depending on the situation and the state of schools in the county, state, etc. etc. that aren't in the same district, what if such abundant fundraising had to be shared with those schools, too?

I don't have any details beyond asking for more sharing of the fundraised wealth. I also understand that this kind of system won't save the world, but it can help. Maybe it can provide enough resources and funds to help pull up areas, neighborhoods, and people that often get neglected when these kids, when taken seriously, when given a chance, and when affirmed as worth the time and effort, can accomplish so much more, become so much more, and give back to society and the world so much more. By neglecting these kids, to compound the well-to-doness of the already well-to-do, the well-to-do neglect themselves. There's no telling how much the world could be better just by this sharing of wealth and helping helping to develop other human beings with different perspectives.

Why don't we do it, is my question, why don't we help fund the education of those currently neglected and help lift up our fellow humanity? Frankly, with all the money that goes into Go Fund Me's, Kickstarters, and Patreons, I'm sure we can make all the more difference in the world by funding our schools. Don't let me stop you. Get out there and make a difference! What's stopping you?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

Sunday, February 10, 2019

FLASH POST: Chicago Mayoral Election, Final Elections on 2/26/2019: My Stand on Lori Lightfoot vs Amara Enyia

I needed a week or so to read up on Lori LIghtfoot's positions and platforms provided on her campaign page. Lightfoot had well thought out position papers that meticulously laid out plans that feel

  • Realistic
  • Thought out
  • Acknowledged that Lightfoot will need to fight legislators and bureaucrats to make her goals happen
I feel like Lightfoot has realistic plans that will likely happen.

I was able to read up on Amara Enyia's positions in less than a half hour. Enyia's positions feel
  • High minded
  • Idealistic
  • Glib
  • Search Engine Optimizable
  • Ready to grab the emotions of people with justifiable axes to grind
Problem with that marketable approach: I wonder about the chances of the Enyia platform's success once she gets into office. Does Enyia have thought out plans other than let's give the electorate a great image, and we'll figure out how to realize that image once we get into office.

In my studies into a few Historical Utopian Communities, I've seen the latter approach, and it doesn't fare well. With that in mind, unless I'm provided with
  • More detailed light on Enyia's platform
  • That platform includes realistic measures I can get behind
  • That Enyia's platform has a good chance of success
I plan to vote Lightfoot.

Other points:

This endorsement at the Sun Times for Lightfoot also does a great job highlighting the experience and actions that Lightfoot has taken to increase justice in this city and the world, both instrumentally in a realistic fashion and symbolically to get the attention of people. The main thing I find amazing: I don't remember knowing anything about Lightfoot before this election!

While, on the flipside, most of my exposure regarding Enyia has come from
  • Grassroots activist friends
  • A text conversation I've been having with a text bank campaigner for Enyia
  • News stories like this one about Enyia
    • Not being on top of her taxes
    • Not being on top of reporting campaign contributions
    • Even abandoning a pet project that she led at a non-profit at the point of about being ready to launch because she wanted to run for office
I don't attribute any corrupt or negative motivations on the part of Enyia. The lack of attention to detail or having someone working with her to pay attention to those details makes me wonder just how accountable Enyia is. . .and I don't mean unaccountable as untrustworthy. Rather as in, does Enyia have the personal infrastructure to stay on top of things. I don't care if Enyia has that infrastructure in her own capacity or if she has someone by her side to help with those details, but I don't see it.

Keep in mind, this is this candidate that could only enter the race after Kanye West paid her fines for not staying on top of reporting campaign contributions for a past campaign. Chicago already has plenty of problems from previous politicians' shortsightedness at meeting political goals and approval. Can we continue to mortgage the future inhabitants of Chicago. . .if there are future inhabitants of Chicago, at the rate we're going now.

From everything I've seen right now, Lori Lightfoot has a better plan for making Chicago a better place to live now, and to live in for the future.

UPDATE (2/10/2019 2:22 PM): If Enyia ends up in a run up against anyone other than Lightfoot, I'll vote Enyia.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

Sunday, February 03, 2019

My Case for 70% Tax on Highest Income Tax Bracket Leading to Economic Stability, Prosperity, and Strong Social Fabric

Calling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 70% tax on income higher than $10 million an Excess Profits Tax might have its benefits. For those who didn't click on the link, Excess Profits Tax was used during at least the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean War to both

  • Help pay for the wars
  • Discouraging profiting too much from the wars (which might encourage corporations to thump the drums of war to increase profits)
A couple historical issues that might arise from labeling Ocasio-Cortez's tax rate proposal this way:
  • It might create the impression that this tax bracket only has a temporary life span
  • Excess Profits Taxes in the past mostly applied to corporations and businesses in the past, not individuals
Calling this 70% tax bracket an Excess Profits Tax could definitely have its place in the area of rhetoric. $10 million in a year is A LOT and generally a whole lot more than most people seen in their bank accounts during their lifetime. Even my own plan for becoming independently wealthy and living off interest, dividends, and capital gains generally depends on having at least $15 million in the bank (which would generate approximately $75,000/year or $6,250/month at a half percent interest rate).

I can't even imagine how to spend $10 million in a year, let alone make that much in a year or more. Making more than that intuitively feels excessive.

Compared to just over fifty years ago, however, the Ocasio-Cortez 70% marginal income tax proposal for over $10 million frankly comes off as charitable. Back then, The Federal government tax individuals and married couples for 70% on income higher than $100,000. Also keep in mind, the 70% tax rate at that time had been the law of the land for decades.

Ocasio-Cortez's proposal starts this tax rate at a point 100x higher than the Federal government started the 70% tax rate fifty years ago. Taking into account inflation, that $100,000 of 1968 dollars would be equal to about $704,367.82 in 2017 dollars, which is only about 7x more than about fifty years ago, much less than 100x than what Ocasio-Cortez has proposed.

From at least the First World War to Nixon's Presidency, the top income tax bracket was at 70%. In addition, the Federal government levied the Excess Profits Tax on corporations of up to 95% on large wartime profits that would not have been generated during peace time while the First and Second World Wars and the Korean Wars waged. Nixon lowered the top tax bracket to 50% and a whole bunch of other economic experiments (though his Alternative Minimum Tax has its place). When Reagan's reforms went through, the top income tax bracket rate lowered to 33% in 1987.

Internet research yielded this information today because of some discussions with a friend about the lengths that Paul Volcker went to defeat out of control inflation that was the trend through the '70s and lasted until the early '80s. Volcker put a lot of focus on raising interest rates to tame the economy (as contrasted with the Fed after the 2008 Great Recession lowering interest rates to let the economy loose and encourage it to grow). On the flipside, this article makes an interesting argument that increasing taxes on high income earners could have tamed the economy while also reducing the suffering of people in lower income brackets.

The tax higher income brackets while keeping interest rates low or moderated argument leads me to reconsider the argument I've made in my most popular Lextopia essay, "A Case for Increasing Interest Rates and Speeding Up Quantifiable Tightening Just a Little Faster". In that essay, I argued that increasing interest rates would work to decelerate the economy before it forms a bubble pop better than two other factors to help decelerate the economy: increasing taxes and the government reducing its borrowing.

Increasing interest rates would work best, according to my earlier argument, because it would generate real wealth for people who have money in savings while also decelerating the whirlwind borrowing and spending of frackers, other energy producers, and stock buybacks. Based on "The Silicon Bubble Edition" - Slate Money podcast, frackers and other energy producers haven't been making profits lately, mostly funding their business, including labor, by borrowing lots of money.

The same goes for corporations financing stock buybacks. Borrowing costs have been so low, that executing stock buybacks makes for the most profit for shareholders. These facts led me to believe that increasing borrowing costs would cut down on these practices that will eventually lead to over borrowing and cause another borrowing bubble from popping, while also helping savers generate wealth through increased interest rates.

Government borrowing, when done right can help to invest in the people of this country. For the purposes of the argument in my other essay, though, I had only entertained feasible actions done by a rational actor. At that time, Jerome Powell, the current head of the Fed, seems like the most rational actor who has control over these factors. I still believe he remains the most rational and able party to have an influence on these factors (which isn't necessarily a great thing).

I also agree that, at this time, Powell's decision to stay stable with interest rates has its place. Considering the
  • Recent government shutdown
  • Possibility of a near future shutdown (this time also possibly including a debt ceiling element)
  • Trade tensions with China
  • other factors around the world
keeping interest rates steady provides some stability for now and some amount of flexibility if the foot needs to be put onto the economic gas pedal.

Nonetheless, as we enter the 2020 Election season, discussing government borrowing and tax rates has become appropriate. I agree with some of government borrowing occurring now, especially if it increases social welfare, improves the environment, and invests in people (especially so they can become productive members of society later).

I'm guessing a lot of the present borrowing goes toward war efforts and homeland security. Homeland security exists in a gray area for me that I don't know enough about to comment on. I don't care for the war efforts, but I also don't agree with entering into an area, wrecking it, then exiting it less stable than when we went into it. My feeling has always been if we break an area, we need to leave it better than we left it. In the end, my issue with government borrowing focuses more on what it gets spent on, not on the fact that it happens. When borrowed money gets spent right, on the People, future profits can go back into paying back the borrowing and also create more capital and profits.

So barring the ability to
  • Raise interest rates more (because even though it might reduce borrowing by corporations and wealthy people while increasing real wealth of people with savings, a lot of lower income people who depend on borrowing can face interest rates that destroy their life when they just want to pay bills or
  • Reduce government spending
I have come to believe in the validity of taxing higher income people more. A higher tax on them will provide better bracket targeting in putting the brakes on the economy to avoid a bubble popping. At the same time, it will reduce the suffering of lower income and middle income people who depend on borrowing to pay their bills day to day.

History has also shown that higher tax rates on higher income people helps keep government debt under control and the economy stable. When the United States had a higher tax rate on higher incomes, the government had a lower deficit and the country had better control on inflation. The United States spent money and also brought in income to pay back borrowing or recover lost funds. Like in family finance, the United States had better control over debits and credits and the economy when it had higher tax rates on people with higher incomes.

Suffice to say: the government deficit has grown and gotten more compounded since the tax rate trended downward since the Vietnam War. I can come up with valid arguments that social changes have affected the job markets and purchasing markets causing labor issues. Nonetheless, in the end, lowering and keeping taxes low
  • At the end of the Vietnam War
  • After the Vietnam War
  • During neoliberal interventions in South America
  • The first and second Iraq Wars (though George H.W. Bush gets some credit for breaking his promise for "no new taxes"
  • The longest war in Afghanistan
  • The Cold War (the old and possible restarted one)
  • In all the fronts of the War on Terrorism
has done a lot for increasing the Federal deficit, benefiting war profiteers, and compounding the future debt that our descendents will have to pay. . .if civilization isn't destroyed by all this war or the Earth destroying us through the climate before we make necessary changes. And all the while,
  • The poorer are getting poorer
  • The economy has a bipolar existence of inflating and deflating like it has a mind of its own
  • Intolerance grows between peoples
  • Tensions grow between countries with peace treaties getting torn up, missile reduction treaties getting torn up, illiberal authoritarians take the reins of leadership, and the uber rich insulating themselves from the world, losing or never getting the ability to identify with regular people
  • Opioids seeming like a rational life decision as we feel increasing loneliness, alienation, depression, and dissaffection
And the list can go on and on and on, much of it because the rich don't want to give up their wealth. The rich don't want to contribute to a more stable, more supporting, more affirming social fabric. The rich disconnect because they fear the rest of the world, the rest of society, the loss of their wealth. Their wealth blinds them from a true connection with others in the world and a true sense of meaning of what it means to participate and identify with others.

Putting the above into perspective with the Left and Establishment Democrats pretty much being torn asunder at the end of the 1960's and the Right taking advantage of that rift to promote their conservative socio-economic agenda, the Right has done its job keeping the country's social fabric, domestically and in foreign affairs, in tatters, all for the benefit of the Wealthy Right, socially and economically.

The Right, if it truly wants a stable social fabric that helps provide stability and social connection, not just affirmation of their own virtue ethics that justifies
  • Selfishness
  • Privilege
  • Distrust
  • And for the rich, their wealth and income
then the Wealthy Right owe it to society to pay higher taxes on their excessive profits. A truly civic republicanism requires liberal values and investment in the People. If the People are to be motivated and involved in civic life, the People need their humanity affirmed, their identities affirmed as human, and to be motivated that this country gives us a worthwhile reason to use our time to engage in civic life. As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

If we keep moving onward the way we are today, in aristocratic, oligarchic societies where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and suffer more, especially with no concern for the climate,
  • The human race will eventually be the biggest contributor to its destruction
  • The economy will be out of control forever
  • Individual humans will likely be in a near constant state of insecure alienation, disaffection, loneliness, depression, and distrust until civilization falls apart, whether we're rich, poor, or in the middling wealth brackets
So with all that in mind, as someone without much influence, I support the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez push for a 70% tax rate on annual income higher than $10 million. Honestly, I see that more as a beginning than the end. For now, though, I think this proposal is a good start to get a better control of the economy and the Federal deficit. This higher tax rate can also help reduce the chance of economic bubbles bursting and, if the tax income is used to invest in the survival and development of peoples' education in liberal arts and marketable skills, I can only see the state of society developing in a positive direction.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!



Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com