common misunderstanding

Progressive taxes in America do NOT mean that all income for wealthier people is taxed higher. We have a bracketed system, which means that people in the top tax bracket are only taxed at the top rate on their income that falls above the top bracket minimum. For example, no matter how rich they are, a married couple would be taxed at the 10% rate on the first $16,700 they make. Any income they earn between $16,700 and $67,900 is taxed at 15%. Any income they have in the next bracket will be taxed at 25%, followed by 28%, 33%, and 35% for any income over $372,500.

For 2008, the Federal tax brackets for a single (unmarried) person are:

1) 10%: from $0 to $8,025
2) 15%: from $8,026 to $32,550
3) 25%: from $32,551 to $78,850
4) 28%: from $78,851 to $164,550
5) 33%: from $164,551 to $357,700
6) 35%: $357,701 and above

And here is the breakdown of American wages by household (not individual):

28.22% earn less than $25,000 per year
26.65% earn between $25,000 and $50,000
18.27% earn between $50,000 and $75,000
10.93% earn between $75,000 and $100,000
15.73% earn over $100,000
Just a small fraction earn millions

bar stool economics

Here is a great little conservative story that's being forwarded around the internet. Below this one is my progressive rebuttal. The battle of the philosophies, as told through beer.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


###
###


I thought that was such a great story, I wrote my own version:

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer. A lot of beer. If they paid their bill the way fiscal Conservatives WANT us to pay our taxes (21% rate for everyone, which would amount to an enormous tax reduction for the richest and the largest tax increase in history for the poorest), it would go something like this:

The first four people (the poorest) make $50 a day and would pay $11.50, leaving them with $38.50 to survive.
The fifth makes $200 a day and would pay $42, leaving her with just $158.
The sixth makes $300 and would pay $63.
The seventh makes $400 and would pay $84.
The eighth makes $500 and would pay $105.
The ninth makes $1,000 and would pay $210, leaving her with $790.
The tenth man (the richest) makes $10,000 and would pay $2,100, leaving him with $7,900.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten people drank in the bar every day under this arrangement. The poor had to sacrifice birthday gifts for their children and healthcare for one member of their family in order to buy that beer. The wealthy still enjoyed their healthcare, college, 401k retirement savings, their gated home and clean and healthy organic lifestyle, and their yacht, but they couldn’t afford a second yacht because of that beer!

One day, the bar owner threw them a curve. Instead of paying 21% of their income each for the beer, they could each pay 15%! The bar owner proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The first four people (the poorest, most strapped for cash) save $3 (6% savings).
The fifth saves $12 (6% savings).
The sixth saves $18 (6% savings).
The seventh saves $24 (6% savings).
The eighth saves $30 (6% savings).
The ninth saves $60 (6% savings).
The tenth saves $600 (6% savings).

Each of the people had more expendable income than before. But while the poorest struggled to buy just one additional teddy bear for the new baby with the savings, the rich saved enough that they actually could afford that second yacht after all! In fact, they saved many times the sum of the poor people’s income, and that was just their savings!

However, despite the additional income, not everyone was better off. Even though the beer was cheaper, the healthcare assistance for the poor disappeared, the public transportation system in America deteriorated, the country could no longer invest in medical research or fund job training centers or police stations around the country. So, in actuality, the poor, who were the financially worst off to begin with, became even worse off, despite the extra $3 bucks a day they saved. Working class people also happen to represent the majority of America. Despite the crumbling surrounding community, the small rich minority were astronomically better off! Their healthcare rates didn’t change, they kept their Lexus, they could still afford college, and although they decided against buying the second yacht, because, why would you need two?, they were able to throw even more money into derivatives!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our fiscal conservatives want our tax system to work. Everyone pays the exact same percentage of their income in taxes, the people who pay the highest taxes are the only ones to benefit from a tax reduction, while the poor, struggling to get by to begin with, struggle even more regardless of whether taxes go up or down.

No one is attacking anyone for “being wealthy,” as some assert. (I wish I were rich, and I certainly wouldn't complain about my taxes if I were.) But the rich got rich in America, on the shoulders of their working class employees and using the infrastructure the working class have built and the security and structure America provides. Numerically equal tax rates do not amount to equal burden. It does not amount to "fairness." It utterly ignores the common good, and it is the antithesis of equal opportunity. The world just don’t work that way.

Nobody Special
University of New Hampshire alumnus
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, just think about it. You’ll get there. Doesn’t take a PhD, just some perspective.

the case for marriage

Inspired by Barack Obama's speech on race...

Humanity's Self-Evident Truth

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…" It was by no mistake that these were the first words America spoke. This cause of "equality," of justice, was the purpose of the Revolutionary War when our ancestors and founding fathers took a brave stance against the tyrannical British King and in favor instead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "Equality" is the basis of Democracy, and more, it was the promise on which America was founded.

These self-evident truths, however, have not always been accepted; our nation's promise has not always been kept. Even today injustice persists, though enormous improvements have been codified into law and attitudes have changed over time. For close to a century after Thomas Jefferson declared these truths to be self-evident in 1776, slavery remained lawful and common. Women were unable to cast a vote in this Democracy until 1920 – for well over half of this nation's history. Marriage between blacks and whites was widely banned until 1967 – just 41 years ago. For a wide variety of causes, the civil rights movement that began with that Declaration on July 4th, 1776 has marched on in the direction of progress ever since.

Compared to those examples, the campaign for equal lesbian and gay rights - for my equal, axiomatic rights - has been no less gradual, generally more subtle, and often waged within the privacy of families rather than on the national stage. Homosexuals have traversed a rocky path of public perception, from "mentally ill" to "criminal" to "deviant" to "alternative in lifestyle." There is little doubt that today lesbians and gays are more understood and more accepted by more people than at any other time in our history. But still that inherent human truth on which our country was found continues to elude us.

We are treated as equals until our sexuality is the issue. Laws have been passed (and overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional) to regulate our sexual positions; to serve our country in the military, we must pretend to be someone we are not; in many states, employers can still fire us if they are bigoted against our sexual orientation and face no penalty; and gay marriage, as well as all the benefits that would accompany it, is banned in the vast majority of the country, thus ensuring we never can do that which is most American, most important – it ensures we can never begin a family with the one we love.

And on a more personal level, many of us are on the receiving end of a torrent of hatred, religious condemnation, and offensive judgments grounded in ignorance. We must come out every day of our lives to new people, always uncertain of what reaction to expect. We are harassed when we show affection for our partners in public. We are slandered by some of our own representatives in our government. We are called animals, criminals, and nasty epithets. Some of us are abandoned by our families when we confess to them our nature. Some of us encounter discrimination as physical harm.

All of this for merely living as we are, for loving as we know how.

Marriage equality is an ideal I believe to be central to the modern civil rights movement. As President Bush would agree, marriage and family build and strengthen American society. Marriage gives rise to family and signifies love and commitment the way no other institution can. The opportunity for lesbians and gays to live by the same laws as heterosexuals would be an opportunity to function within a common social tradition and to demonstrate our shared sentiments about love and life. Beyond the fact that it is our right, the commonality of marriage equality would serve to help humanize and normalize the gay community in the public arena.

Many in the gay community have been scolded for being too loud for the good of our own cause. We have at times been told we provoke our opposition by pursuing marriage equality when America is not ready. Perhaps we are terrible politicians. Our parades of pride in ourselves to counter the prejudices we daily face are interpreted by some as an affront to the masses. Hand holding disgusts onlookers. Our openness, communities, and cultures offend. We are told we are too pushy in our fight to claim our civil rights. Well, in my view, no person should have to live a political strategy to convince others that they are worthy of a right that is self-evident. No person should have to play politics before being allowed to live freely.

But as much as we may shudder at the idea that our equal opportunity is in the hands of Washington politicians, as impatient as we may be, we must come to terms with reality. Neither of the two dominant political parties in this country stand for marriage equality, though there are notable exceptions among individuals serving in public office who are to be commended for standing strong for what is right. And the Democrats thankfully band together to support non-discrimination laws and to prevent the Constitution from being altered for the very purpose of permanently ending all hope for marriage equality. We must also remember that politicians in Washington are elected because they best reflect the values of their constituents. If we wish to make progress, it is imperative that we continue to educate and advocate within the political arena as well as out. And to do so, we must be willing to make our case for justice in patient, political terms.

When it is said that marriage is largely a religious institution, we should acknowledge that the truth is being spoken. Millions of Americans deeply feel that their marriage is connected to their faith. People perform marriage ceremonies in churches, synagogues, mosques, every day. These ceremonies are certainly meaningful, spiritual; there is no denying a prominent link between the tradition of marriage and organized religion. And we must add that no church should ever be required to perform a ceremony that flies in the face of that church's beliefs, even if many lesbians and gays would take great pride in being included as part of such religious tradition.

The purpose of equality in marriage is by no means to encroach upon the freedom of any other. The right to worship freely, to speak freely, to feel freely is essential to the stated goal of this nation, and is in fact what proponents of marriage equality are promoting. But just as those who say religion plays no role are wrong, so are those who claim marriage to be determined by religion alone. Marriage is indeed also deeply linked to family and to American society, and as evidence of this, it is today a civil declaration, recognized by our government and awarded with legal partnership rights.

Included with marriage is the right for a wife to visit her ailing husband in the hospital. Included with marriage is the right to live in America with a partner from a foreign country. Included with marriage are rights over inheritance, medical decisions, tax benefits, and taking leave from work to care for an ill spouse. Allowing gays to marry in America's courts or in churches that support and consent to marriage equality is no breach of religious boundaries or freedoms. It is upholding the rights and freedoms that make this nation great for all people.

When it is claimed that civil unions offering the full menu of rights that accompany marriage is “enough,” we should speak up. Civil unions can never be equal, and therefore can never satisfy this right – all people are entitled to the very same right to marry. Civil unions are undoubtedly a step closer to recognizing civil rights for lesbians and gays, but it is not “enough” because it is not the same. As a great and wise leader of a civil rights movement once famously observed, "equality is not only a matter of mathematics and geometry, but it's a matter of psychology. It's not only a quantitative something but it is a qualitative something; and it is possible to have quantitative equality and qualitative inequality. The doctrine of separate but equal can never be."

The eloquent words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are no less true today than when they were spoken. Civil unions are established to appease gay couples hoping to one day marry. They are absent history and tradition, void of emotional connotations, sterile imitations of the real deal that all other relationships are entitled to. Even if they were nationally recognized, the mere fact that they would create a separate institution specifically for gay couples is inherently unequal. The distinction is one created by those very advocates of civil unions claiming there is no difference, but gays should not be allowed to marry. Then we say, if there is truly no difference, then surely no distinction is necessary.

And yes, when it is asked what distinguishes gay marriage from marriage between human and dog, a response is warranted. To ask such a question requires a warped vision of our Constitution, of humanity. Offense may not be intended, but those who ask must get how it is painful for me to have my relationship with my partner compared to an owner's relationship with a dog. It implies that allowing marriage between loving and committed gay people will somehow justify marriage with other species of creature, as if there is no difference.

Such an uneducated and confused question warrants a question in return. I would ask: Should crocodiles have the right to a speedy trial because gay citizens do under the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution? Since homosexuals are entitled to obtain a gun permit, would anyone suggest we extend that right to dogs? When our founding fathers declared our inalienable right of equal treatment under the law, did they mean equal treatment under the law for humans as well as horses? It is time to put to rest this thoughtless assertion that the right of two people to marry is a "slippery slope" to the right to marry barnyard animals.

I submit instead that barring homosexuals from the institution of marriage is a slippery slope leading back to a time when marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I submit instead that if we are to continue to make exceptions under the law as to what group of our countrymen is entitled to what right, we are slipping back down the mountain face of history that we as a nation have taken such great pain and spilled so much blood to climb.

Marriage is more than a word, as we all agree. It is more than tradition, and more than tax benefits. And it is more than a civil right. The right to marry is the right for two people who deeply care for each other to decide together to form a family. It is about a lifetime spent with a husband or wife, in love and devoted, in sickness and in health, sharing moments and memories until death do they part. It is about cherishing our life partners, our soul mates, and celebrating a connection between two people that is perhaps more special, more meaningful than anything else we will encounter in this life. And the ability to find that unique connection transcends race; it transcends religion; it transcends class and age; it transcends sexual orientation. Lesbians and gays do share the ability to love, and so we fight for the right to honor it.

I cannot imagine living life as anyone other than me. This is very personal. I cannot help but feel that I have been left out of the great American dream because of who I am. People prejudge me. People criticize me for loving the good, smart person I do. I hear that 20% of all homeless children in this nation are homosexuals abandoned by their families upon coming out, and I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to consider myself lucky to have an accepting and loving family. I always thought that acceptance and love in the face of anything was what defines family.

There are challenges and discriminations we all face, and being lesbian or gay in this society is but one of many triggers. Racial tensions still simmer, the class divide continues to grow, even comparative health and attractiveness are determining factors in people’s lives. We all face our share of challenges to our personalities and beliefs. Amidst it all, we can always find common interest with each other. People are not either black or gay; either poor or white; either obese or conservative. Life must never devolve into a battle of "us" versus "them," because we are them and they are us. We are all people, entitled to a level of respect and compassion. We are all Americans, inherently deserved of American rights and the pursuit of American dreams.

And so the marriage equality movement, made up of millions of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, is reaching for this nations highest ideals. We reach for a common purpose, a common freedom, a common humanity. In 1776, it was declared to be "a Law of Nature and Natures God" that we are all created equal. Today, let us live as equals.

brilliant ad

Mr. W

It comes together... Not to raise expectations, but it's incredible.

top secret: the gay agenda

Equality.

my god

I believe in God. How could anyone not? We are the ultimate proof. The universe is without limit. We evolved as a species from single-celled organisms out of the depths of the ocean. The elements of this world, from gravity to oxygen to DNA, are strange and magnificent, unlikely and flawless. The complexity of our mere being is beyond the scope of fathomability, save to say that the reality in which we function is no more than a single time and place out of the vastness that is existence. Divinity is not a concept of which I can claim to be unfamiliar - it extends before our eyes and inside our hearts and minds. Nature is truly an inspiration.

So, as I just hinted, the God I believe in is not the stereotypical bearded, wise man depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Instead, God is the force of energy that propels all of the laws of the world to work together. I suppose if I were to depict my God on a canvass, I would paint a tree in a meadow. Serene, beautiful, and powerful, Mother Nature would lie among the branches and gaze out over her kingdom. I have come to use the terms `God' and `nature' interchangeably. Shakespeare was right - that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

It is a view of the world that I have developed after considering many philosophical possibilities and common religious perceptions. God provided us humans the ability to think for ourselves, to ask questions, and to search for our own answers. These very qualities distinguish humanity on Earth in a class of its own. My questions have led me to an understanding of the universe that brings me great comfort and provokes me to make the most of what I've got.

Even though I do not worship a traditional image of God, I still believe, as do a number of organized religions, that we are never alone - our common humanity and circumstances connect us all. I believe that it is not the job of God to ensure justice, but rather God has given us the tools of thought and soul that assign justice as our own responsibility. Life is not fair unless we, as brothers, sisters, and neighbors, make it so. We have come to own the ability to think rationally and to reason right from wrong without the help of any higher authority.

Rest assured, living without angels and supernatural miracles is not a meaningless, lonely, and dreary existence as some in society assert. I, personally, find meaning in my life through relationships with my friends, foes and family. The world would only lack meaning if there were no other people whom with I could experience life. I believe that life continues after death, but not in a heaven or hell. We each will leave parts of ourselves behind with those who survive us, and our influence will pass down through the ages, leaving only history as our judge.

I believe that we each are a part of something greater than ourselves. Individual life is extraordinary but fleeting, while life itself is an unrelenting force to be reckoned with. Life beyond ourselves is a phenomenal reality that we have the honor and opportunity to affect.

These beliefs, which I am sure are shared by many others, guide my decisions and place on me a sense of obligation to others. This world is an inspiring place, greater than any single institution or individual, yet upholding each entity as fundamental all the same. My God may be without intention and lacking a grand plan, but that means the future is left to us.

update on the ban on gay blood donors

The Food and Drug Administration shockingly denied all scientifically and medically based appeals in favor of reducing the ban on sexually active gay blood donors from a lifetime ban to a year ban.

The permanent ban remains intact as of March 16, 2008.

This is not the first time the FDA has ruled in favor of Bush ideology over scientific evidence, and it raises significant questions as to the politicization of the Bush appointed FDA leadership.


ABC News article here.