Here's a good photo slide show teaching pruning techniques.
http://resources.cas.psu.edu/TFPG/Pruning/slide1.htm
January 27, 2012
January 26, 2012
One Step Closer to Race War
You go, Arizona. Drag us all down with you.
Judge Orders Arizona Candidate Struck From Ballot
By MARC LACEY
Lawyers for Alejandrina Cabrera, a candidate for the City Council in the border community of San Luis, Ariz., said Thursday that they might appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court a lower-court ruling that Ms. Cabrera be removed from the ballot because she did not speak English proficiently.
Alejandrina Cabrera, with her lawyer, John Minore, right, is fighting claims that she is ineligible for office in San Luis, Ariz.
Judge John Nelson of the Yuma County Superior Court ruled late Wednesday night that Ms. Cabrera be struck from the ballot because she did not know enough English to do the job. In removing Ms. Cabrera, Judge Nelson agreed with the recommendation of a linguist who had conducted tests of Ms. Cabrera and found her English skills lacking.
The linguist, William G. Eggington, a professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, testified before the court on Wednesday. He said that based on interviews and tests he conducted with Mrs. Cabrera, she had “basic survival level” English that fell well below that needed to participate in city business.
“Obviously, we’re disappointed, although the judge acknowledged that there’s no precedent for him to follow,” John S. Garcia, one of the lawyers for Ms. Cabrera, said Thursday.
Mr. Garcia said he planned to meet Thursday night with Ms. Cabrera to determine her willingness to continue the legal battle.
Fix the Housing Market??
Reasonably good discussion about how/whether to "fix" the housing market.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/25/is-refinancing-the-best-way-to-fix-the-housing-market
Robert is basically in the "government can do little" camp.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/25/is-refinancing-the-best-way-to-fix-the-housing-market
Robert is basically in the "government can do little" camp.
January 25, 2012
San Rafael
Robert has to say that San Rafael has it going on. It has an El Farolito and an Arizmendi Bakery. On the same block!
January 21, 2012
January 20, 2012
Effective Tax Rate
Robert has decided to announce his federal income tax rate paid in the years 2008, 2009, 2010. He does this because it is a good way to discuss the somewhat confusing question of what a person actually pays in federal taxes as a percentage of income. A question that Robert is sure most American's cannot answer about their own tax returns, which is one of the biggest problems in US society today.
There are at least three ways to answer the question "How much federal income tax did you pay this year as a percentage of your total income?"
First, one could answer the question by giving one's "marginal tax rate." This is the answer that perhaps many (unthinking) Americans would give to the question stated above. The problem is that it is a nonsense answer. The marginal tax rate for a given tax return is the rate at which the last dollar earned by the taxpayer during the year is taxed. It IS NOT an answer to the question "How much federal income tax did you pay this year as a percentage of your total income?"
Second, one could answer the question by giving one's so-called "effective tax rate." The term "effective tax rate" does not, as far as Robert knows, have a universally recognized definition. He believes that what most people mean when they say "effective tax rate" is the amount of tax an individual or firm pays when all government credits are applied, divided by income that has been reduced by government allowed deductions. Robert believes that using a person's effective tax rate is certainly a better way to answer the above question than answering with a marginal tax rate (which is nonsense), but the effective tax rate measure is also a poor way to answer because when calculating the effective tax rate one subtracts from income all government allowed policy deductions (such as exemption deductions, charitable deductions, retirement account contribution deductions, and mortgage interest deductions). By giving this answer, one understates income and thus overstates the percentage of one's income paid in tax.
One might most straightforwardly and honestly answer the question above by giving the amount of tax one pays without application of credits, divided by base income without government policy deductions (such as exemption deductions and mortgage interest deductions). Stated another way, using this approach, one measures taxes as a percentage of net income, where net income is gross income less the allowable and customarily measured costs of generating that gross income. For employees, who earn wages, gross income and net income are generally the same amount. This definition recognizes that to give an intellectually honest answer to the question above, one must not reduce the amount of one's base income by the amount of policy deductions, which are, after all, ways the government reduces taxes. Robert will call the tax rate determined using this method the "True Tax Rate."
So, using the definitions above, here are Robert's, and thus the Pierce Family's, federal tax rate numbers:
2008
Marginal Tax Rate: 28%
Effective Tax Rate: 22.0%
True Tax Rate: 17.5%
2009
Marginal Tax Rate: 28%
Effective Tax Rate: 23.4%
True Tax Rate: 18.2%
2010
Marginal Tax Rate: 15%
Effective Tax Rate: 17.7%
True Tax Rate: 8.2%
Here's a link to the Tax Policy Center page that tells the same story (see second table down). Note that the definition of "Effective Tax Rate" used by the Tax Policy Center appears to be the same as what Robert defines as "True Tax Rate."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
There are at least three ways to answer the question "How much federal income tax did you pay this year as a percentage of your total income?"
First, one could answer the question by giving one's "marginal tax rate." This is the answer that perhaps many (unthinking) Americans would give to the question stated above. The problem is that it is a nonsense answer. The marginal tax rate for a given tax return is the rate at which the last dollar earned by the taxpayer during the year is taxed. It IS NOT an answer to the question "How much federal income tax did you pay this year as a percentage of your total income?"
Second, one could answer the question by giving one's so-called "effective tax rate." The term "effective tax rate" does not, as far as Robert knows, have a universally recognized definition. He believes that what most people mean when they say "effective tax rate" is the amount of tax an individual or firm pays when all government credits are applied, divided by income that has been reduced by government allowed deductions. Robert believes that using a person's effective tax rate is certainly a better way to answer the above question than answering with a marginal tax rate (which is nonsense), but the effective tax rate measure is also a poor way to answer because when calculating the effective tax rate one subtracts from income all government allowed policy deductions (such as exemption deductions, charitable deductions, retirement account contribution deductions, and mortgage interest deductions). By giving this answer, one understates income and thus overstates the percentage of one's income paid in tax.
One might most straightforwardly and honestly answer the question above by giving the amount of tax one pays without application of credits, divided by base income without government policy deductions (such as exemption deductions and mortgage interest deductions). Stated another way, using this approach, one measures taxes as a percentage of net income, where net income is gross income less the allowable and customarily measured costs of generating that gross income. For employees, who earn wages, gross income and net income are generally the same amount. This definition recognizes that to give an intellectually honest answer to the question above, one must not reduce the amount of one's base income by the amount of policy deductions, which are, after all, ways the government reduces taxes. Robert will call the tax rate determined using this method the "True Tax Rate."
So, using the definitions above, here are Robert's, and thus the Pierce Family's, federal tax rate numbers:
2008
Marginal Tax Rate: 28%
Effective Tax Rate: 22.0%
True Tax Rate: 17.5%
2009
Marginal Tax Rate: 28%
Effective Tax Rate: 23.4%
True Tax Rate: 18.2%
2010
Marginal Tax Rate: 15%
Effective Tax Rate: 17.7%
True Tax Rate: 8.2%
Here's a link to the Tax Policy Center page that tells the same story (see second table down). Note that the definition of "Effective Tax Rate" used by the Tax Policy Center appears to be the same as what Robert defines as "True Tax Rate."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
January 19, 2012
Finally!
This is the story Robert would write if he worked for the New York Times.
The truth is that most households probably pay a lower rate than Mr. Romney. It is impossible to know for sure, given that he has yet to release his tax return. What is clear, though, is that a large majority of American households — about two out of three — pays less than 15 percent of income to the federal government, through either income taxes or payroll taxes.
Many Americans see themselves as struggling under the weight of a heavy tax burden (partly for the understandable reason that wage growth has been so weak). Yet taxes in the United States are quite low today, compared with past years or those in other countries. Most important, American taxes are not sufficient to pay for the programs that many people want, like Medicare, Social Security, road construction and education subsidies.
What does this combination create? An enormous long-term budget deficit.
Together, all federal taxes equaled 14.4 percent of the nation’s economic output last year, the lowest level since 1950. Add state and local taxes, and the share nearly doubles, to about 27 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington — still lower than at almost any other point in the last 40 years.
As the economy recovers and incomes rise, tax payments will increase somewhat. But they will not keep pace with projected spending, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And total taxes at current rates would still make up a smaller share of the economy than in virtually any other rich country — not just European nations but also Australia, Canada, Israel and New Zealand.
Obviously, tax increases are not the only way to solve the deficit. Spending cuts can, too. But so far, at least, many voters seem to prefer small, symbolic cuts, like those to foreign aid. Substantial cuts — be they the changes to Medicare that President Obama included in his health care bill or the Medicare overhaul that Republicans prefer — tend to be politically unpopular.
Since the late 1970s, just before the modern tax-cutting push began, total federal tax rates have fallen for every income group. The payroll tax has risen, but declines in the income tax have more than made up for those increases. Nearly half the population now pays no federal income tax.
All told, most households pay less than 15 percent of their income to the federal government because of tax breaks, like the exclusion for health insurance, and because marginal rates apply to only a small part of a taxpayer’s income. On the first $70,000 of a couple’s taxable income, the total federal income tax rate is only 13.8 percent.
That said, taxes have fallen the most for the very affluent. Mr. Romney and his father — George W. Romney, the former automobile executive, Michigan governor and presidential candidate — do a nice job of illustrating the change.
The elder Mr. Romney, who died in 1995, paid an average federal tax rate of 37 percent in the 12 years for which he released his tax returns, according to an analysis by Joseph J. Thorndike, a columnist for Tax Notes magazine. Mitt Romney’s tax rate has been far lower, thanks mostly to the decline in taxes on stocks and other investments. The top marginal tax rate on ordinary income has also fallen sharply.
And George Romney paid a lower tax rate than most affluent Americans in the 1950s and ’60s, mainly because of deductions for his large donations to the Mormon Church. Then, a typical household near the very top of the income distribution would have paid almost 50 percent of its income in direct federal taxes, research by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty has shown.
In recent years, that number has been below 30 percent.
Besides the drop in tax rates, affluent households have benefited disproportionately from tax breaks and deductions. The mortgage interest deduction, widely considered a middle-class benefit, actually saves a typical middle-income household only about $200 a year, because so many families claim the standard deduction, rather than itemized ones. The average family in the top 1 percent saves more than $5,000 from the mortgage deduction.
Such breaks are probably one reason that so many people feel as if their own taxes are such a burden: they have a sense, and not incorrectly, that others are benefiting from tax breaks unavailable to them. “If we had a simpler tax code,” said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, “people might be more accepting of what they pay.”
The group for which tax rates have fallen the least is the upper middle class: those households earning between about $75,000 and $300,000 a year. Their tax rates have declined over the past few decades, but only by a couple of percentage points.
Of course, many of the people who talk publicly about taxes — economists, policy experts, journalists — happen to fall into this group, which may be yet another reason that the public debate does not always match reality.
Why Americans Think the Tax Rate Is High, and Why They’re Wrong
By DAVID LEONHARDT
WASHINGTON — When people heard that Mitt Romney’s federal income tax rate was about 15 percent, the immediate reaction of many was to assume that their own rate was higher. The top marginal rate is 35 percent, after all, and the marginal rate on a couple with $70,000 in taxable income is 25 percent.
The truth is that most households probably pay a lower rate than Mr. Romney. It is impossible to know for sure, given that he has yet to release his tax return. What is clear, though, is that a large majority of American households — about two out of three — pays less than 15 percent of income to the federal government, through either income taxes or payroll taxes.
This disconnect between what we pay and what we think we pay is nothing less than one of the country’s biggest economic problems.
Many Americans see themselves as struggling under the weight of a heavy tax burden (partly for the understandable reason that wage growth has been so weak). Yet taxes in the United States are quite low today, compared with past years or those in other countries. Most important, American taxes are not sufficient to pay for the programs that many people want, like Medicare, Social Security, road construction and education subsidies.
What does this combination create? An enormous long-term budget deficit.
Together, all federal taxes equaled 14.4 percent of the nation’s economic output last year, the lowest level since 1950. Add state and local taxes, and the share nearly doubles, to about 27 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington — still lower than at almost any other point in the last 40 years.
As the economy recovers and incomes rise, tax payments will increase somewhat. But they will not keep pace with projected spending, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And total taxes at current rates would still make up a smaller share of the economy than in virtually any other rich country — not just European nations but also Australia, Canada, Israel and New Zealand.
Obviously, tax increases are not the only way to solve the deficit. Spending cuts can, too. But so far, at least, many voters seem to prefer small, symbolic cuts, like those to foreign aid. Substantial cuts — be they the changes to Medicare that President Obama included in his health care bill or the Medicare overhaul that Republicans prefer — tend to be politically unpopular.
Since the late 1970s, just before the modern tax-cutting push began, total federal tax rates have fallen for every income group. The payroll tax has risen, but declines in the income tax have more than made up for those increases. Nearly half the population now pays no federal income tax.
All told, most households pay less than 15 percent of their income to the federal government because of tax breaks, like the exclusion for health insurance, and because marginal rates apply to only a small part of a taxpayer’s income. On the first $70,000 of a couple’s taxable income, the total federal income tax rate is only 13.8 percent.
That said, taxes have fallen the most for the very affluent. Mr. Romney and his father — George W. Romney, the former automobile executive, Michigan governor and presidential candidate — do a nice job of illustrating the change.
The elder Mr. Romney, who died in 1995, paid an average federal tax rate of 37 percent in the 12 years for which he released his tax returns, according to an analysis by Joseph J. Thorndike, a columnist for Tax Notes magazine. Mitt Romney’s tax rate has been far lower, thanks mostly to the decline in taxes on stocks and other investments. The top marginal tax rate on ordinary income has also fallen sharply.
And George Romney paid a lower tax rate than most affluent Americans in the 1950s and ’60s, mainly because of deductions for his large donations to the Mormon Church. Then, a typical household near the very top of the income distribution would have paid almost 50 percent of its income in direct federal taxes, research by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty has shown.
In recent years, that number has been below 30 percent.
Besides the drop in tax rates, affluent households have benefited disproportionately from tax breaks and deductions. The mortgage interest deduction, widely considered a middle-class benefit, actually saves a typical middle-income household only about $200 a year, because so many families claim the standard deduction, rather than itemized ones. The average family in the top 1 percent saves more than $5,000 from the mortgage deduction.
Such breaks are probably one reason that so many people feel as if their own taxes are such a burden: they have a sense, and not incorrectly, that others are benefiting from tax breaks unavailable to them. “If we had a simpler tax code,” said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, “people might be more accepting of what they pay.”
The group for which tax rates have fallen the least is the upper middle class: those households earning between about $75,000 and $300,000 a year. Their tax rates have declined over the past few decades, but only by a couple of percentage points.
Of course, many of the people who talk publicly about taxes — economists, policy experts, journalists — happen to fall into this group, which may be yet another reason that the public debate does not always match reality.
Jared Lanier
I thought the profile of Jared Lanier in the New Yorker a few months back was rather lame.
But his op-ed today in the New York Times is pretty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/sopa-boycotts-and-the-false-ideals-of-the-web.html?_r=1&hp
But his op-ed today in the New York Times is pretty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/sopa-boycotts-and-the-false-ideals-of-the-web.html?_r=1&hp
January 17, 2012
Romney Tax Rate
Robert thinks this is an important campaign issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/politics/facing-pointed-attacks-romney-urges-focus-on-obama.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/politics/facing-pointed-attacks-romney-urges-focus-on-obama.html?_r=1&hp
January 13, 2012
Photo Tampering
Here's some fascinating information about photo tampering throughout history.
http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/
Also, this, which is somehow not as good as it could be:
Fotoshop by Adobé from Jesse Rosten on Vimeo.
http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/
Also, this, which is somehow not as good as it could be:
Fotoshop by Adobé from Jesse Rosten on Vimeo.
January 11, 2012
January 9, 2012
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The CFPB wants to hear from you about your experiences with the consumer financial industry.
https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/tellyourstory
https://help.consumerfinance.gov/app/tellyourstory
January 8, 2012
January 6, 2012
Fed Up with the State of Housing
From the Wall Street Journal, news about a Federal Reserve report that explains the current home mortgage problems and provides some ideas for resolution. For example, provide some debt repayment relief to homeowners. Or, let banks get into the rental business.
Here's the white paper. Some good charts and info.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577144934187722016.html?mod=rss_markets_main
Fed Up with the State of Housing
By DAVID REILLY
For an institution that jealously guards its independence, the Federal Reserve is wading into treacherous political waters.With the economic rebound still mediocre at best, the Fed is charging into the housing debate. But in doing so, it runs the risk of politicizing itself, while also sending mixed signals to banks still trying to find their postcrisis feet.
The latest effort was a housing "white paper" sent this week to Congress, along with a series of comments from Fed officials about the importance of housing to the economic recovery. In this, the Fed may be laying the groundwork for further quantitative easing, this time purchasing mortgage securities. But its paper went beyond even the Fed's already unconventional policies. This included ideas that might require more taxpayer funding through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But having broached the thorny issue of using government entities to boost housing, the Fed didn't touch on questions surrounding a needed long-term revamp of housing finance. This left the Fed implicitly endorsing the housing status quo: a market that is almost completely dependent on the government and, in particular, Fannie and Freddie. Whether the government should be involved in housing, or to what degree, is of course a highly contentious political question for Congress.
The Fed's paper suggested it may be worth pursuing more aggressive actions in terms of loan modifications, mortgage refinancing and sales of foreclosed properties even if they cause greater short-term losses at Fannie and Freddie, and so by extension to taxpayers. And the paper may have led some in markets to believe a new, government housing effort was coming. The Fed's paper said a possible policy option would be for the government to expand existing refinancing efforts "or introduce a new program."
Expectations of such action helped spark a nearly 8% rally in Bank of America shares Thursday, although nothing is reportedly planned. Still, the reaction shows many now see the Fed and White House potentially acting together. That underscores how perceptions of Fed independence have already been eroded.
Beyond Fannie and Freddie, the Fed's paper also took it into other politically charged areas, such as principal forgiveness for underwater mortgage holders. While it didn't specifically endorse such a move, the Fed said that "policy experiments in this area would be useful."
Meanwhile on mortgage modifications, the Fed noted certain types of loan changes "may be socially beneficial, even if not in the best interest of the lender." It went on to acknowledge that this would be "likely to involve additional taxpayer funding, the overriding of private contract rights, or both." While the paper noted this raises difficult public-policy issues, by simply raising the possibility the Fed risks being seen as supporting such an outcome.
The paper also signaled that the Fed, ostensibly the most important bank regulator, will try to involve banks more directly in housing-revival approaches, even as it imposes new, more stringent regulatory constraints. One area involves efforts to turn foreclosed homes into rental properties. While this primarily pertains to Fannie and Freddie, the Fed noted that commercial banks as of last September had $10 billion in foreclosed homes on their books.
Banking regulations typically direct banks to sell foreclosed homes quickly, although the rules do recognize this isn't always practical and so these properties can be held up to five years. The Fed said it is now "contemplating issuing guidance" to banks and regulators that would possibly allow banks to turn some of these foreclosed homes into rental properties.
The hope is this may help stanch the flow of foreclosed properties into markets, although the effect may not be that great. Goldman Sachs economists noted Thursday that a rental effort may add 0.5% to home-price appreciation in the first year and 1% the second, although the impact "would likely be smaller." For banks, a move into the rental business would potentially clog parts of their balance sheets, while requiring them to essentially bet on house prices rebounding.
Housing is indeed important to the economy. But the Fed has to recognize there is only so much it can, or should, do.
January 3, 2012
Workers Unite
Robert thought David Brooks' column today was objective and commonsensical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/opinion/workers-of-the-world-unite.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/opinion/workers-of-the-world-unite.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
January 1, 2012
Simpson Bowles
As we all know, the blueprint for national bi-partisan economic reform has already been laboriously work through. Here's a copy of the bi-partisan report that was issued about a year ago. Just so we have it all handy this year.
TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010
TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
All Comments