New Year, New Plan

Last year I set out to lose 100 pounds.  I ended up losing 33.  Were I a first baseman, this type of success rate could land me a $240 million deal.  While I am disappointed I didn't reach even 50% of my goal I also realize I didn't give even 50% of my available effort.  Half-assing your effort to halve your ass leads to disappointment.

Last year I sought to have less of me around.  This year I seek to have less around me.

I have entirely too many "things".  I am overwhelmed with an abundance of things I have used once and never touched again.  I condemn billionaires for spending their 8 figure bonus checks on vacation homes and luxury yachts but at least they use those lavish purchases and reap continued enjoyment from them.  Meanwhile, I'll buy a $60 video game, play it for 10 hours, and then never touch it again.  In that perspective, my actions are more wasteful than purchasing a third vacation home.

________________________

My home became a cable-free household last summer.  Paying $80/month for ignorant tripe to be spewed at me and my family just sounded crazy when we stepped back to think about it.  There are many entertaining, intelligent, and worthwhile things on television that provide enjoyment and education.  But I don't think we were getting anywhere near $80 worth of that every month.  And once you decide that the product you receive is not worth the price you pay it becomes extremely difficult to continue justifying the purchase.

It started as a money-saving experiment.  It has evolved into a liberating experience, at least for me.  Keeping up with shows I enjoy no longer feels like an obligation.  Our main sources of visual entertainment have become Netflix and Hulu Plus.  These cost us a combined $15.98/month and I think we get more than our money's worth from each.

It has not been without complications, however.  I have always had cable and therefore have always had access to sports coverage.  In previous years, I estimate I would watch no less than 100 football games a season, between college and NFL.  This year I may have watched ten.  Being a Cowboys fan, I got to tune into four of their games this year via NBC's streaming of their Sunday Night Football coverage...and see them lose all four.  Such is the life of a Cowboys fan.

Having less to watch gave us more to do.  This is the basic foundation of my goal for this year:  I want to get rid a large portion of my things.  I was inspired by Sean Bonner and his "Year of Less".  His goals are to limit purchases to one per month and to get rid of one thing every day this year.  This sounds intoxicating to me.

In this spirit, my wife and I spent a few hours going through our closet last weekend.  It was....messy. (I don't even know how to describe it.  Picture the trash compactor from A New Hope and add hanging clothes to the walls.)  We ended up filling six garbage bags with clothes to donate.  And we only stopped because we didn't want to start on the drawers that day.  We didn't even start with the kids' clothes.

Two humans gave away six garbage bags full of clothes and we still had 3 times as much as we needed.  I was extremely angry at myself for having so many things that I neither wanted nor needed yet kept.  I estimate at least 100 items were in those bags.  Some with tags still on them.  Many more never actually worn.

I will be joining Mr. Bonner in his quest to eliminate one thing everyday.  Because of the children, I will have to modify the one purchase per month rule to apply only to things for myself.  But I intend to stand by that as well.

I am going to let the clothes count for the month of January.  Starting February 1st I plan to eliminate one item from my life everyday for the rest of the year.  Computer parts, books, movies, more clothes, or whatever else is taking up space but not being used.  Theoretically, I will keep track of these items, since I obviously tracked my weight goal so well last year.  And throwing away broken things doesn't count, but it will be a nice bonus to get rid of that crap, too.

I am hoping this will alleviate some of the clutter around the house and help me appreciate and enjoy the things I choose to keep.

Bankers and Imbeciles 2.0

The Thursday before Christmas I posted a blog dealing with Bloomberg's report of various bankers and billionaires' comments about the surging 99% vs. 1% sentiment growing across the nation.  Their arrogant and dismissive attitudes enraged me.  In my attempt to show how their "1%" continues to grow while our "99%" steadily declines I did an examination of average household income vs. inflation rate from 1979-2007.  This showed that while average household income increased 62% during the 28 year period, the inflation rate rose a staggering 318%.

Along the same lines, this morning I came across a report from The Society Pages detailing the relationship between the minimum wage and the nominal value of that wage.  It compares a workers' actual hourly rate of pay versus the value of that dollar after many factors, including inflation, are taken into account, determined by the purchasing power of a dollar earned in 2010.  It's a pretty dramatic look at how wage increases are not keeping up with inflation increases.


(http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/07/the-minimum-wage-and-capitalism-2/)

If you look at the chart you'll see that a dollar's purchasing power appears to be greatest between from 1964-1980.  If you match that up with the tax rates during those years you'll see some correlating numbers.

From 1950-1963, the 14 years prior to the highest purchasing power, the tax rate on income above $400,000 was 91%, with the exception of 1952-53 when it was actually 92%!  The chart above shows a dramatic upturn in the purchasing power of a dollar during this 14 year time span.  I believe the high point of purchasing power I highlighted early, 1964-1980, is a direct result of this sustained tax rate.  It insured reinvestment into the infrastructure that facilitated the enormous growth of the United States.  It also prevented wealthy Americans from reaping financial benefits on their climb toward wealth and then "cashing out" and denying that chance for the next generation.  Without this continued reinvestment of tax dollars it would have been impossible to maintain the governmental investments and incentives for the creation of new businesses and opportunities.

The tax rates, for the lowest and highest income brackets, for those 17 years of high purchasing power are as follows:

Tax Rates
Bottom bracket			Top bracket
Calendar Year	Rate (percent)	Taxable Income Up to	Rate (percent)	Taxable Income over

1964	16	1,000	77	400,000
1965-67	14	1,000	70	200,000
1968	14	1,000	75.25	200,000
1969	14	1,000	77	200,000
1970	14	1,000	71.75	200,000
1971	14	1,000	70	200,000
1972-78	14	1,000	70	200,000
1979-80	14	2,100	70	212,000
1981	13.825	2,100	69.125	212,000

This appears to be a time of great prosperity for the American Dollar.  So what happened to push it toward our current dysfunctional system?

Well, inflation rates were above 10% each year from 1979-81.  That meant that, on average, goods cost 39% more at the end of 1981 than they did at the beginning of 1979.  So to combat this our government surely sought to revert to our more prosperous techniques of the past, with respects to tax rates, by asking wealthy Americans to pay a little extra so that the people who needed money to afford things like food and shelter were able to keep a few more dollars each month, right?

They actually did the opposite.  Here's the data from the same chart for the rest of the 1980s:

Tax Rates
Bottom bracket			Top bracket
Calendar Year	Rate (percent)	Taxable Income Up to	Rate (percent)	Taxable Income over

1982	12	2,100	50	106,000
1983	11	2,100	50	106,000
1984	11	2,100	50	159,000
1985	11	2,180	50	165,480
1986	11	2,270	50	171,580
1987	11	3,000	38.5	90,000
1988	15	29,750	28	29,750
1989	15	30,950	28	30,950

These charts show only the bottom tax bracket and the top tax bracket.  Most years there are several brackets in between with gradual increases in rates but some years these represent the only two brackets.

So, let's try to make sense of this and compare apples to apples.  Brace yourself.  An abundance of numbers will be used.  I will be using tax rates for a single man with no children from this chart.

Let's take a single man making $40,000 per year and assume he maintained this wage from 1981-1989 with no raise.  His tax liability, not including deductions or credits, in 1981 would be $12,000, at a rate of 30%.  That same man's tax liability in 1989 would be $11,200, at a rate of 28%.

Take-home pay 1981: $28,000.
Take-home pay 1989: $28,800.

Hey, way to go!  This fortunate man got to keep $800 more of his money.

But keep in mind, the inflation rate over this nine year period works out to just over 50%.  So if this man's monthly bills in 1981 were $1000, his same bills in 1989 would be $1500.  Sorry, pal.  It doesn't look like that $800 drop in annual tax liability is going to offset the extra $6000 ($500 * 12 months) you'll be paying on your bills.  You actually come out $5200 worse.  Let's hope you got annual raises enough to cover this.

IF(!) he got a 2% annual raise EVERY year, his 1989 wage would be $46,866.  Factoring in inflation and tax rate changes, he comes out $1666 better in 1989, after bills and taxes, than he did in 1981.  Assuming this guy has a generous employer, and hasn't added any expenses (like children), he's not doing too badly.



Now let's look at a man making $1,000,000 per year over this same period.  His tax liability in 1981 would be $691,250, at a rate of 69.125%.  The same man would pay taxes of $280,000 in 1989, at a rate of 28%.

Take-home pay 1981: $308,750.
Take-home pay 1989: $720,000.

Wow!

Let's say his bills are TEN times the previous man's bills.  That means that monthly bills of $10,000 in 1981 would be roughly $15,000 in 1989, after factoring in inflation.  Meaning he would pay $411,250 LESS in taxes and $60,000 ($5,000 * 12 months) more in expenses.  With no raise at all, this man comes out $351,250 better in 1989.

If you factor in an annual 2% raise (new salary $1,171,659), this man comes out $522,909 better in 1989, after bills and taxes, than he did in 1981.



That's a lot of numbers but here's what it boils down to:  After bills and taxes, the first man increased his yearly income by just over 4% while the millionaire increased his yearly income by just over 52% during the same time period.

Wait.  28% tax rate in 1989?  Isn't that the same rate as the guy making $40,000?  Yes, it was.  The tax rates for the wealthy from 1988-92 and 2003-2011 were literally HALF what they were from 1936-1981.  The rates from 93-2002 were merely 44% lower.  AND, from 1988-90 anyone making over $19,450 paid the same tax rate.  A person making $20,000 paid the same tax rate as a person making $20,000,000.  That sounds absurd to me.

Fun Fact: Prior to 1987, the last time tax rates for the top bracket were below 50% was 1925-1931.  Check those years, and their aftermath, if you need help figuring out what broken policy can create.



My point is this:  Our current system is completely unsustainable.  If we continue to allow inflation to rise much faster than wages we will end up with a country full of people completely dependent on their government for assistance.  If we simultaneously allow millionaires and billionaires to hide their income and pay unbelievably, historically low tax rates, then the government will be in no position to offer any help to those who have slowly been robbed of their financial security, their buying power, their self-sufficiency, and eventually their dignity.




I don't want socialism.  I don't want to rob from the rich and give to the poor.  I want a country with sustainable policies.  And we don't have that right now.

Web/Life Design

It's funny how a person's desires change over time.  Well, not so much funny, I guess. More like, random.  If high-school me could see how late-twenties me is living he would be pretty pissed.

I'm not rich.  I'm not famous.  I haven't written a song in nearly a year.  I work 8-5 and sometimes go to bed before 10 o'clock.  Through the week, I spend more waking hours at work then at home.

But high-school me was a predictably naive idealist.  Late-twenties me is a slightly less naive cynic.  Whatever those words mean.


The desire for worldwide fame and fortune was supplanted by marriage and children.  I may not be internationally renowned for my songwriting but I am easily the most kick-ass daddy that my children have ever known.  And my wife laughs at my terrible jokes.  Even when they are only semi-riotously hilarious.


I miss writing music a great deal.  But I was only good at writing two styles: Whiny, mopey bullshit and self-righteous diatribes.  Don't get me wrong.  I am extremely proud of nearly 37% (!) of the lyrics I have written.  Ironically, it sounds to me like both of these writing styles have meshed into the current hipster "It's cool because it's stupid" movement.  If that's true, then I have a goldmine of terrible lyrics and fashion choices aimed at the post-adolescent angst-stricken crowd with a laser beam focus.


Bedtime.  The bane of adolescents everywhere.  At one point in my life I never wanted to sleep.  Fuck tomorrow.  Tomorrow is tomorrow, after all.  I know it's 3 AM but I need to reorganize my MP3 collection by average combined birth year of artist and producer, immediately.

I've spent a large chunk of time trying to pinpoint the exact moment a human becomes an adult.  It very well may be the first time said human chooses to go to bed early, not because of any impending event, but solely because they don't want to be tired the following day.  That may be the exact moment when childhood dies.


But the only one of those afore mentioned teenage gripes that is ALSO a post-teenage gripe is the time spent at work.

Let's do a bit of math for a typical human.  Alarm set at 5:30, leave for work at 7:30, get back home at 5:30, sleep at 10:30.  That makes 17 waking hours, 10 of which are outside the house.  Multiply this by 50 weeks (allowing for potential vacation time) and we get 150 more annual weekday hours spent away from home then actually at home.  I could go on a rant about the distribution of wealth in contrast to actual hours worked in this country but I'm not feeling very rant-y today.

Today, I feel hopeful that I have found a new professional/life direction.

I have recently discovered a love for web design.  A few months back, I saw the website for a friend's new business.  It wasn't bad, but it wasn't being updated and I didn't think that accurately represented the people involved.  On a whim, I started looking up HTML and CSS tutorials and decided I would make a new website for my friend.  This would be similar to me deciding that I wanted to build an extension on my house made entirely of unobtainium.  I knew so little that I didn't know what I didn't know.

But I am obsessed with learning about interesting things.  Being able to use text to make design elements look, move, and behave according to my desire is an intoxicating feeling.  I'm assuming this is what it feels like when an artist looks upon an empty canvas and wants to make it his own.  I feel completely unencumbered by any preexisting design templates.  If I want a column of ads in the center of the page and two content columns flanking either side I can damn well do it.  I have the technology.

(I used http://www.w3schools.com/ for my foray into web coding.  I have since seen several places that discourage that particular site but most complaints seem to be semantically driven.)

This potential new professional direction has given me fits of unbridled euphoria as well as days of mental turmoil brought on by frustrating design elements.  Anytime you wake up at 5 AM on a Saturday morning with an idea in your head and have 50 lines of code written before anyone else wakes up you know you have become passionate.

I am hoping to harness this passion of the Christ and progress enough in my coding knowledge to land a job, freelance or contract, in web design. Employers like to say that passion for a job and desire to learn are worth more than degrees and test scores.  I aim to prove my worth to potential employers.

Hide yo child nodes!  Hide yo floating elements!  I'm coming for you Internet!

Holiday Musings

From my experience, holidays bring out two conflicting yet complementary emotions in me: Joy at seeing loved ones and an overwhelming desire to be far away from said loved ones.

I love my family.  I just love them from over here.  At my house.

It's the same way I feel about talking on the phone.  I am approximately 93000% more likely to respond to a text message or email than a voicemail.  The ability to say "You know what? You can wait for 6 minutes while I do some important shit." before sending a response is one of the most liberating things that technology has ever done for me (Also, pooping is much more entertaining).  Try that technique on a traditional phone call. "I'm sorry. I am at a critical moment in my research of warp drive mechanics on the Enterprise D. I'm going to need you to shut up for 4-5 minutes so I can comprehend this fake science. Thanks."  See how well that goes with your grandma.

That's exactly how I feel at human gatherings.

I have something I call "Corporate Andy", formerly known as "Blockbuster Andy".  This guy is just a super dude.  He's all about your cat stories and helping you with your newfangled touchscreen phone.  He began out of necessity while at my first job. (I bet you can't guess where it was.)  Putting on the Blockbuster Andy persona allowed me to be a sociable and genuinely likable guy for nearly anyone in any demographic.  It worked very well for selling frivolous things to busy people.  When I changed jobs my corporate persona had to evolve.  I was no longer dealing with the general public.  Corporate Andy became the guy at work that would listen to you explain why that particular sweater was just perfect for your dog while fixing mundane "problems" on your "system".

This is usually the personality I adopt at social events.  Lately, "social events" has turned into anything outside my home.  Once you're adopting artificial personalities on a nearly daily basis one of two things can happen:  1) You can gradually become that person, even when you're alone.  2) The fabric of reality around Fake You begins to crack and the dreaded Real You emerges.  I believe I am in the final stages of scenario 2.

I just don't want to play the game anymore.  You know the game.  Brown-nosing and sexual favors getting the same consideration as intelligence and hard work.  Status quo taking precedence over progress and efficiency.  Showing up to the department's Christmas party on time is more important than showing up to work on time.

This is the machine that has taken control.  I know I sound like an emo teenager right now but at least they give a shit about something.  When you are passionate about something you make stupid decisions in the name of that passion.  When you are trying to keep your desk job you lay low and try not to get noticed.  I feel like I'm in a hidden camera version of Office Space.  The cover of the TPS report is more important than the content.

These emotions start to seep into my after-work moods during the holidays.  The absurdity of everyday human behavior becomes much more visible.  Parents and grandparents fiendishly searching for a hunk of plastic because the TV said it was the hot toy of the year.  Families spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars trying to have a better Christmas card than anyone else.  Businesses everywhere trying to be polite and non-offensive while just wanting to say "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Have a great Kwanzaa", "Hope you have a fantastic Whatever-The-Fuck-It-Is-That-You-Celebrate".

We have become so conditioned that you are either happy or sad, there is no in-between.  I feel like I have to turn on corporate Andy just so people won't ask me why I'm sad.  I'm not sad!  I'm fucking indifferent to the stupid shit coming out of your mouth!  I don't want to talk about the weather, or a fake singing competition on TV, or why you don't much care for the bitch in accounting.

If you have to be fake at work, and you have to be fake around your family, when can you ever be you?

Silence.

I think that's what I crave.

If small-talk and gossip and regurgitated opinions are all there is to offer, can we please just have silence?

Bankers and Imbeciles

I am currently in a overwhelming rage.  I just read this Bloomberg article about bankers' and billionaires' opinions on their tax obligations.

These criminals use shady/borderline-illegal business practices to destroy the financial stability of this country yet it's the protester who is the "imbecile"?

One of the asshats, John A. Allison IV, says "Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let's call it an attack on the very productive."  I'm not sure of Mr. Allison's daily duties as former CEO of BB&T Corp. but I'm relatively certain it didn't produce anything other than the taste of vomit in the back of my throat.  Calling the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans "very productive" is like calling pimps "investment bankers".  It's nonsensical and masks the reality of the tactics involved in acquiring and maintaining those positions.

No one is upset that these criminals individuals have been successful.  We are upset because many of them destroyed millions of lives in the process and then are given absurd tax incentives and loopholes to ensure they stay wealthy.  In a very basic sense, an extra 2% tax on income over $1,000,000 would be an additional $20,000 and, depending on how this income was acquired, result in a tax rate of 37%.  This would still leave the individual with $630,000.  Meanwhile (again, in a very basic sense not including tax credits or deductions) the single mom paying 15% on her $30,000 salary is left with $25,500.  Tax credits and deductions aside, food, shelter, transportation, and general quality of life become much more uncertain for the individual bringing home $2000/month than the individual bringing home $30,000/month.

This whole scenario is assuming any of the wealthy individual's income was actually considered income.  Capital gains on long-term investments, and several other forms of income, aren't technically counted as income.  The Long-Term Capital Gains tax is currently set at 15% which coincidentally is also the same tax rate the single mom in the previous example, working and earning $8,500-$34,500, is responsible for.  Yeah, that makes sense.

So to insinuate that the lowly hourly workers are just jealous and looking for a handout is arrogant and offensive.

According to a report from the IRS, average household income increased 62% from 1979 through 2007.  I won't list every year's inflation rate but the inflation rates during 1979-1981 were 11.22%, 13.58%, and 10.35%. respectively.  And as anyone with a credit card can tell you, calculating percentages of percentages is messy business.  This is significantly skewed by the fact that income for the top 1% "more than tripled" during this time making the actual number for the remaining 99% a bit lower than the reported 62%.  Factor in inflation, and the old adage of "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" doesn't sound too far from the truth.

(Quick math timeout to illustrate the previous comment:

Lets say all of your monthly bills cost you $1000 (if only, right?).  A 10.35% annual inflation rate means that the next year those same bills will cost you $1103.50.  That hurts already.  Most people won't be getting a raise worth $100 extra every month to cover that increase in expenses.  However, if that 10.35% increase came after previous annual increases of 11.22% and 13.58% your bills would have increased from $1000 to $1393.98 in just three years.

Using $1000 in 1979 as a base, and calculating each year's inflation rate on top of the previous year's rate, we see that in 2007 the same bills would cost roughly $3181.84.  An increase of 318%.  And, as stated previously, average household income (even including the top 1%) increased just 62% over this same time period while income for the top 1% alone "more than tripled".  Regardless of the actual number, roughly tripling income would account for the roughly tripling expenses.)



I'll leave you with a few quotes from the unjustly vilified patriots interviewed for the Bloomberg piece.

-When asked about willingness to pay higher tax rates Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman instead chose to complain about low-income families who pay no income tax saying "...we should all be part of the system".  Classy.

-Robert Rosenkranz, CEO of Delphi Financial Group Inc., claims the 1% should be getting thanks instead of persecution.  He says "It's simply a fact that pretty much all the private-sector jobs in America are created by the decisions of 'the 1 percent' to hire and invest".  So the next time you see a new small business open in your town make sure to thank Robert Rosenkranz.

(No word as of yet on how Mr. Guildenstern feels about the U.S. tax code.)

-CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Peter Schiff claims his taxes are "more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf".


Billionaire CEOs: modern-day serfs.