CommenTerry

Don't Give Away Stuff That Doesn't Belong to You

It is extremely rude to allow someone with more than a handful of groceries to cut in front of you a supermarket checkout line, if there are others behind you. By allowing someone to cut in front of you in that situation, you are also allowing them to cut in front of everyone who is behind you. Many people do not consider that fact. If there is no one behind you, then it is truly a courteous gesture. However, when people are behind you, you are giving away other people's time, which is not yours to give. It's like taking money out of your own pocket and giving it to someone, but then also confiscating money from the pockets of several other folks and it giving it to that same person.

We Place Too Much Importance on Pastors

Whenever someone asks me about the new pastor at my church, I just shrug my shoulders and say, "Who cares?" Of course, most people are taken aback by such a response. Nothing against any pastor, but I believe Christianity is all about Christ and none about the pastor. In fact, if I were a pastor, I would make sure my name did not appear on the church marquee, stationery, or anything written material referencing my church.

Random Rants #43

People in many parts of the world hate the United States because they feel that we have "too much" freedom. That seems rather curious to me because, if anything, I don't think we have quite enough freedom.       

---

It's funny how many atheists seem to have such a strong hatred for God, a being whom they supposedly believe does not exist.    

---

If a person lacks knowledge about a given subject, it's usually because he or she has never had enough interest in that subject to have taken the time to learn something about it. For example, I've never been interested in auto racing. Therefore, I've never taken the time to learn anything about it.

---

Any entrepreneur or investor who is unwilling to lose much money is unlikely to make very much money. 

---

There is one major downside to microwave ovens: While you can cook food very quickly, the food cooked in them also gets cold very quickly. 

---

It's a shame that a person can't buy himself/herself out of problems more often.

---

Here are the newspaper sections I always read: national headlines, state headlines, editorials, obituaries, business news, and sports. Here are the sections I sometimes read: weather, weddings/engagements, advice columns, and movie reviews. Here are the sections I never read: horoscopes, home and garden, funnies, and TV reviews.

---

It's funny how one mistake can often cancel out another. For example, this morning I sent out an email with the wrong subject line (I had copied and pasted the wrong one). Fortunately, I also typed the email address incorrectly, which caused the email to be bounced back as undeliverable. That second mistake saved me a little bit of embarrassment.

---

I have little tolerance for silly mistakes, especially when I'm the one who's making them!

Tax Reform, My Way

We need real tax reform and we need it now. Previous attempts have been made at tax reform, but they have only provided band-aid solutions that have still left us with too many quirks, complication, and read tape. There are several things Congress could do to simply the tax system and benefit the taxpayers and federal budget at the same time.

First, I would institute a simple two-tiered tax on earnings and passive income (interest, dividends, capital gains, etc.) that are not in a tax-sheltered account. They would be treated equally and no distinction would be made between long-term and short-term capital gains. Individuals (whether married or not) who have taxable earnings and passive income of less than $30,000 would pay no federal taxes. Amounts equal to or greater than $30,000 but less than $200,000 would be taxed at 25%. Amounts equal to or greater than $200,000 would be taxed at 30%. 

Second, I would get rid of the quarterly estimated tax requirements and associated penalties for everyone except those who are habitually late (after April 15) filing their return and/or paying their taxes. Few things in our tax system are more complicated than trying to figure whether or not you paid enough estimated taxes, whether they were paid on time, and/or the penalty for not doing so. Even the IRS acknowledges how complicated it is to figure out this penalty, as they offer to calculate it for you.

Third, I would eliminate the annual limits on capital losses as well as those special “wash sale” rules, which further restrict the writing off of capital losses. The reporting of capital gains has never been limited and neither should capital losses. “Wash sale” rules restrict the writing off of capital losses for stocks and mutual funds sold at loss but bought back again within 30 days. As I mentioned in a previous writing, these rules can get very complicated, with those for figuring the estimated tax penalty being the only ones that are more difficult to understand.

Fourth, I would keep personal exemptions and child tax credits intact but eliminate all deductions except for charitable contributions and mortgage interest on one’s primary dwelling. There would be no standard deduction or Earned Income Tax Credit.

Fifth, I would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This is probably the third most complicated item in the tax law. It was designed to make sure the rich pay at least some taxes, but the elimination of most deductions would accomplish this goal now by taking away most of their shelters.

Sixth, I would make some adjustments to inheritance and gift taxes. For the most part, they would not be treated any differently than ordinary income. However, there would be some exceptions. Inheritances and gifts passed from one spouse to another would be exempt from federal taxes. Inheritances of family farms and other legitimate businesses by any family member from another would not be taxable. 

These changes would benefit individuals by making the tax system less complicated for everyone and taking a smaller percentage of income from most taxpayers (especially the middle class). The government would benefit from collecting more taxes because more people would be working and receiving higher incomes (as this system would encourage more investment in infrastructure). Also, more people would be encouraged to make more taxable passive income. The current system discourages taxable passive income. In addition, the extremely wealthy would have fewer options for sheltering their income.

No More Respect for Scott Peterson

During his sentencing hearing, I lost all remaining respect that I had for Scott Peterson. He just sat there like a bump on log while, one after the other, members of Laci's family verbally trashed him. I would not have been able sit there and take it. My mouth would have sprung into action early on. If he is innocent, he should have jumped up and proclaimed as much. If he is guilty, he should have either shown some remorse and apologized or attacked them back with a variety of expletives and vulgarities. He had already been sentenced to death - what did he have to lose? What was the judge going to do? Hold him in contempt? Give him a second death sentence?

How to Exasperate Someone Who's Arguing with You

When someone you're having an argument with starts using belligerent tactics like name-calling, there's a little trick you can use to neutralize them. Start sarcastically agreeing with everything they say. For example, if they called you an idiot, you might respond by saying "You know, you're absolutely right, I am an idiot - I don't know why I didn't think of that first." That's a lot better than saying, "No I'm not, no I'm not", which makes it seems like they're right. This tactic will also exasperate them very quickly. Besides, it's difficult for someone to argue with you when you're agreeing with them.

Prospective 2008 Presidential Candidate: Mark Warner

Note: This is the seventh in a series of posts I plan to do on the prospective 2008 presidential candidates from both major parties.

Mark Warner was elected governor of Virginia in 2001 after losing a closer than expected Senate race to John Warner five years earlier. Virginia law does not permit its governor to succeed himself, so Warner's term ended in January when the newly-elected Governor, Tim Kaine, was inaugurated. Therefore, he will be able to devote himself to full-time campaigning for president. The fact that Warner was a Democratic governor in a strong "red" state will be a positive for him. However, even though the Republican presidential candidate has carried Virginia every time since 1968, a Democratic governor in the state is not unusual. In fact, since 1977, Virginia has elected a Democratic governor every time a Republican is in the White House. The opposite has been true when a Democrat is in the White House. If Warner is nominated by the Democrats and George Allen is nominated by the Republicans, the Mother of Presidents will be guaranteed to have produced our next Chief Executive.

How the Jury System Should Be Reformed

Our current jury system is ailing. It is beginning to fail us. O.J. Simpson being found not guilty is just one example of that problem. People with loads of evidence against them are found not guilty, while others with far less evidence against them are found guilty. Mass murderers are often sentenced to life in prison, while many others who commit just one murder are sentenced to death. People tried separately for the same crime often get much different verdicts and/or much different sentences. I know the Constitution guarantees the accused a right to a jury of his or her peers, but times have changes over the last 200-plus years and we need to make adjustments accordingly. There are two changes I would suggest we make as soon as possible.

First, we should implement professional juries. There are many reasons why the average person should not serve on a jury. Many of them do not want to serve and find it to be an inconvenience. People with this attitude are likely to focus more on getting the trial over with rather than taking the time to come to reasonable and thoughtful decision. Other people come to a jury with an agenda. They have strong opinions one way or the other about the defendant and/or the case, but will mask these feelings in order to get a seat on the jury. These people are unlikely to be persuaded by evidence which runs counter to their preconceived notions.

Of course, there are many jurors who feel that it is their civic duty to serve and make an honest attempt to seek the truth. But even these people often make flawed jurors. Very often they will use things such as defendants' courtroom demeanor, the way they dress, the emotions they show or the lack thereof, their facial expressions, etc. to help determine guilt or innocence. So what if someone seems arrogant in court? So what if they show no emotion? So what if they dress inappropriately in the courtroom? While it might be appropriate to take some of these items into consideration at sentencing time, none of these issues make a person any more or any less guilty and should not be considered as a part of making that determination. Professional juries would be trained to disregard everything but the facts when determining whether someone is guilty of a crime. It would be their fulltime job and if they had any kind of agenda, it would come to light over time. They would also be subject to a judicial review board on a regular basis to re-evaluate their fitness as professional jurors.

Second, we should put an end to the deliberating process. Jurors should not be allowed to speak with one another and should vote their conscience by secret ballot. This is needed because many jurors do not have the courage of conviction to vote what they really think, but are often intimidated into voting with the majority or with those who are the most persuasive or strong-willed. Of course, a change like this would make a unanimous verdict almost impossible, so a two-thirds majority should be required for a guilty verdict. Anything less would result in the defendant being found not guilty. There would be no hung juries. In the case of sentencing (except for death penalty cases), a simple majority would determine the sentence, with the judge acting as a tie-breaker. A three-quarters majority would be required to sentence someone to death. If a majority, however less than the required three-quarters, votes in favor of death, the next harshest available sentence would automatically be imposed, regardless of the other votes.

Having an impartial jury reach a just verdict along with making sure an innocent person is never convicted should be the ultimate goal of our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, our jury system is broken and doesn't deliver this desired outcome nearly often enough. It is due for a much needed overhaul in the form of the changes I have suggested.

Trust the Real Professionals

I'm getting a bit irked by all the negativism about flu shots being propagated by amateur doctors and nurses who think they are somehow smarter than the real ones. I've never had more than a minor reaction to the flu shot. In addition, I've never gotten the flu in a year which I had the flu shot. The consensus of the medical professional has me in the majority.

While I'm on that subject, there never seems to be any shortage of "know mores", as I call them, who think they know more about medicine than those who went to medical school, more about law than those who went to law school, and more about any subject or discipline than those who have had years of experience in those areas. They also seem to have access to information that no one else seems to know about. We should all aspire to be as smart as they!

Is Honestly Always the Best Policy?

Here's an example of how someone can get into hot water for being honest. About a year or so ago, the mayor of Las Vegas was asked by a group of school children what one thing he would like to take with him to a deserted island. He responded by giving them an honest answer and saying he would like to take a bottle of gin. Now these kids' parents got all up in arms and made a major issue out of it. I don't see the problem, though. Yes, I understand that sometimes there's a need for tact, decorum, and restraint. However, either honesty is the best policy or it's not. If it's not always the best policy, then we need to quit repeating that saying.