Friday, January 10, 2014
You Deserve The Truth -- 320 N. Mechanic
If you are planning on buying, you need to know the truth. The "trustees" have failed in about every way possible when it comes to preserving the value and condition of this property.
First and foremost: This is NOT an investment property!
This Registered History Structure does, however, offer an opportunity for someone with a high degree of liquidity (cash only purchase, no financing available) and in need of a tax shelter. Have your accountant set up a 201c, donate the property, and you're on your way. Grants are probably available, but you can plan on having close to (at least?) $100,000 in additional work that must be done on the structure to bring it up to livability and various building codes -- all of which will have to be accomplished through donations to the 201c.
CURRENT CONDITION
* The new roof is substandard. Repairs to the sub-roof were poor and/or incomplete; a large dip is visible on the one-story roof. The edges of the single story roof abutting the two-story wing were neither done with curled tar paper nor hot tar and sand; as a consequence there are new leaks into both the one-story units and the walls of at least one of the two-story units.
* Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the electrical is not up to code; as a consequence, all the main breakers are at one location on the exterior of the building right by the meters. (There have been instances in the past where "jokers" tripped the mains.)
Interior circuits are both mislabeled in the breaker boxes and probably crossed as well. It was recently discovered that the circuit for an exterior plug was linked to an interior circuit two rooms away. FYI, one of the apartments did not have a circuit breaker box the last time we checked; it had a large, open, fuse box.
* There were a number of major water leaks which the former owner was unaware of -- until a water bill bigger than he could pay made an appearance. It went unpaid, and the water was turned off with tenants still in the building.
Now, with four of the five apartments sealed by the City so that it was impossible to open the water taps and allow the water to drain out, the majority of the water pipes in the building are likely broken. They've been audibly bursting for the last two days, with more cold weather on the horizon. Plan on having to replumb the entire building.
Most of, if not all, the drains are not vented, or vented incorrectly.
* There is no insulation in this building. As a consequence, any tenants spend half their heating monies on melting the snow on the roof.
* Insects and their kith: The area is endemic to cockroaches; they have not neglected to find 150 year old spaces to hide in within this building. Would be nice if they stayed hidden, but they have, so far, cost me two microwaves, a convection oven, a food processor, a blender, and possibly my electronic piano (I stopped playing and removed the power when I saw a roach inside an LCD meter. I also found a busy nest of termites about four feet from the corner of the building.
* The single story wings were never properly footed. and have started sinking; you can see places where spaces get larger and larger between the two- and single- story portions. Doors and windows jam or refuse to close properly as a consequence.
* All the floors need repair of one sort or another. A fire partially destroyed the stringers under the kitchen floor of the northeast apartment and correct repairs were never made and flooring laid was substandard; it is possible to lose your balance simply because your feet don't find the floor where it should be. Leaky toilet and abuse in the northwest apartment have ruined floors there (the antique stairway is probably trashed also, since hearing furniture thrown down it was not unusual). You can see the gaps between floorboards near the front door of the southwest unit. The southeast apartment floor has been taken up a number of times for pipe laying; covered with a carpet it is hard to tell what the actual shape is.
* There are three gas furnaces. Currently none of them work properly. One was scavenged for a so-called repair of another. The third was jury-rigged by a "repairman" sent when it stopped heating. It ran, but only if the bottom half-door was removed and the cut-off switch taped down. None of the heat outflow vent lines were adequately run, so money spent on gas did not equate to money spent on heat.
* The "enclosed end" between the two single-story wings originally had thick, brick looking tar paper haphazardly covering the surface. That was pulled off when the deck for the attic unit was built. A temporary covering of plastic sheet (like painters use for throws) was stapled loosely up in an attempt to cut down the wind into bathrooms. No subsequent repair was made, and landlord had the painters simply paint right over the plastic. Wind still blows in.
HISTORY
The first wing of this building was built in approximately 1860. It is two stories. It appears as if, based upon the way the basements are built, the two two-story units were built at different times. Based upon the screwy way the apartments have been numbered, it is likely that the northernmost unit on Mechanic was the first portion built. The two single story wings were built at subsequent date(s).
Later still, the single story wings were connected by closing off the open entryway and pouring a concrete slab as flooring; the floor level was never built up to the same level as the floors in the wing. This area was divided and two bath rooms were built for the two apartments these wings were turned into. As a consequence of the concrete floor, there is no option to change the positions of the two toilets installed. In addition, the water pipes are run through walls and wooden constructs above floor level.
Above the closed in space a small 'studio' apartment was built. It was less than ideal, having a sleeping berth built into the wall (taking advantage of ceiling space above the apartments below) about three feet above floor level. There was a toilet, and kitchen sink, but no shower or tub until approximately 2000, when a shower was built in.
Originally heating was by coal, using fireplaces. There are four two-level fireplaces in the two-story portion of the building, and single level fireplaces in the one-story wings. The two story portions were subsequently converted to gas, then later still the gas connections were removed and the faces of fireplaces covered. (In the one story portion the fireplaces were subsequently covered over by false walls -- following the most recent fire in that section.) Later still, forced air heating was more or less installed for the northern two-story unit; it had direct vents only to the lower story. The furnace and vents appeared old twenty years ago. Electric baseboard heaters were, at some point, installed in the four main apartments. The studio apartment is heated only by the apartments below, unless a resident decides to use an electric space heater.
There's more but I can't spare the time ...
Monday, May 27, 2013
Memorial Day 2013 -- The Forgotten Ones
In memoriam Little Bob, Patrick Schwab, Robert Harding, and the rest of the group. Vietnam did a job on you. There is/was no apparent cure. But you are not forgotten.In memoriam Robert J. Schumacher. Too many alerts, too many secrets, too many talents ... the Navy sucked your life away.
In memoriam Martin E. Tabnik. You never went to war because your daddy didn't want to lose his boy. What he did to you to assure that was cruel beyond words. I hope you have a decent caretaker now.
In memoriam Richard Besst. It never got better, did it? The faces, the memories, the sounds, the smells. They cut you off from the world. I truly hope you've found a place of peace and security now.
In memoriam All the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of those who've felt the consequences of radicalism, greed, and all the other truly petty causes of conflict. I remember you, I know some of what you feel. I hope there are more who will remember that those who stay behind are also fighting the war.
Monday, January 11, 2010
On the backs of children ...
A couple of years ago, the State of Texas (home of the Bush Hooligans, et alia) decided to "help out" the various counties of the State ... and, of course, the children of Texas. They did this by centralizing all child support payments -- removing the processing of those payments from the county where the judgment was entered, and putting all collection and disbursement in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Sounds nice, right? Counties save money, centralized receipt and disbursement of funds should speed things up -- particularly since now the ability to receive those payments at the family level includes direct electronic deposit of funds. (It probably also allows payor or payor's agent to make the payment the same way ... quickly.)
Strange as this may sound, when the county received the check (usually on the last business day of the month), it was forwarded to and received in Ohio by the 5th day of the month 90% of the time. Now that the Secretary of State is in a position to have those funds forwarded to any bank account in the country by the 2nd or 3rd day of the month .... are you ready for this??? ... the payment arrives in that same Ohio bank account on the 10th or 11th or 12th day of the month.
Most landlords can stand to wait for the rent until the 5th of the month, if the payment is always made then. Few landlords want to wait until the 10th, or 11th, or even longer (like this month, when the money isn't in the account).
So who is benefiting from this new improved processing? Bet you've already guessed: The State of Texas. Depending upon when the funds are received, the State of Texas has use of the funds for no less than five (5) days. Most states (I can't say for certain when it comes to Texas, but I'd be shocked if it were not the case) require that all their funds -- even funds held temporarily on the behalf of others -- be kept in interest bearing accounts. True, the rate may be low ... but think of how much money is involved.
The statistics I found are a bit shocking:
Number of children owed child support 1,109,955
Amount of child support owed them $8,936,337,402.00
Collection rate 68%
I can't get more detail, but we can simplify those figures just for the sake of conversation. Let's say that the average number of children in each household due support is three (3). That would mean 369,985 households due child support each month. We'll cut that down even more by saying that only 68% of the households receive those payments -- 251,589 payments that come in. We'll reduce the Eight Billion (using the non-USA proper 1 million million = 1 billion) plus in owed child support to the same 68% -- $607,673,433 rounded to nearest dollar. But that doesn't add up, not really, because that would mean each household received an average of $2,415 monthly ... and we all know that not all fathers who pay support make enough money to pay that amount, even using the 30% of gross income for 3 children standard which Texas has legislated.
Are you starting to see why I can't provide exact figures? It might well be more accurate to simply come up with some "ferinstince figgurs" ... yup?
Low-balling it may have more impact than whatever "facts" we might come up with. Let's simply say that 300,000 households each month receive $600 a month ... $180,000,000. I counted those zeros three times, and that amount is correct: One Hundred Eighty Million
Going with that figure 180,000,000 and give the benefit of the doubt -- that it is held only five days each month -- let's pick an interest rate of 1% and see where it gets the Texas Treasury.
180,000,000 x 0.01 x 5 /365 equals $24,657.53 interest per month. Multiply by 12 to cover all the months of the year and the total minimum income to the State of Texas from withholding prompt payment to the households due child support: $295,890
For that amount of money I'd gladly provide my own computers, my own software, and my own sub-contractors to do the job for Texas! Of course I wouldn't want the job, to be truthful. I've been on the short end of the child support stick, and we can't add up the costs to those families who have to wait that extra five days.
We can't add them up, but we most surely can list a few of the potential consequences:
Homelessness -- the landlord got sick and tired of promises and late payments
Hunger -- even with a roof over your head, you still need to buy food
Anger & Distrust -- mothers (and maybe a few custodial fathers) angry at the system and not believing anything the-powers-that-be might tell them; children growing to hate and blame the custodial parent, sure that one person is responsible for no home, and no food, and no decent clothes, and problems at school, and bullying, teasing, etc.
Higher crime rate -- desperation leads to desperate measures, as does confusion and distrust on the part of the children.
How will it affect Texas? I don't know, but I do know it won't be anything good that comes out of it.
If only we could get the idiots (apologies to those born with limited abilities, as opposed to those who seem to lose all ability once in positions of power) to realize just how much hardship their "great plan" can create. If only they had to live on canned vegetables with a bit of mayo and lettuce (has to be a bit because it's almost all gone) and dry soda crackers, rather than meat and potatoes, hot dogs & beans, fish-that's-not-in-a-can, meals that are actually balanced nutritionally if you eat a bit of each thing provided. In households dependent upon child support, any left-overs are not for the dog; they're for later when the backbone starts rubbing a hole in your stomach.
So what can be done about this type of narrow-minded (mindless) "good thinking"??? If you're reading this, you're seeing what I can do. I don't know what you can do. If you don't like what's going on, tell someone. Blog it, tweet it, write it, e-mail it, call the radio station about it. If you live in Texas, try getting hold of one of your legislooters. Or click to a new page -- it's up to you.
Sounds nice, right? Counties save money, centralized receipt and disbursement of funds should speed things up -- particularly since now the ability to receive those payments at the family level includes direct electronic deposit of funds. (It probably also allows payor or payor's agent to make the payment the same way ... quickly.)
Strange as this may sound, when the county received the check (usually on the last business day of the month), it was forwarded to and received in Ohio by the 5th day of the month 90% of the time. Now that the Secretary of State is in a position to have those funds forwarded to any bank account in the country by the 2nd or 3rd day of the month .... are you ready for this??? ... the payment arrives in that same Ohio bank account on the 10th or 11th or 12th day of the month.
Most landlords can stand to wait for the rent until the 5th of the month, if the payment is always made then. Few landlords want to wait until the 10th, or 11th, or even longer (like this month, when the money isn't in the account).
So who is benefiting from this new improved processing? Bet you've already guessed: The State of Texas. Depending upon when the funds are received, the State of Texas has use of the funds for no less than five (5) days. Most states (I can't say for certain when it comes to Texas, but I'd be shocked if it were not the case) require that all their funds -- even funds held temporarily on the behalf of others -- be kept in interest bearing accounts. True, the rate may be low ... but think of how much money is involved.
The statistics I found are a bit shocking:
Number of children owed child support 1,109,955
Amount of child support owed them $8,936,337,402.00
Collection rate 68%
I can't get more detail, but we can simplify those figures just for the sake of conversation. Let's say that the average number of children in each household due support is three (3). That would mean 369,985 households due child support each month. We'll cut that down even more by saying that only 68% of the households receive those payments -- 251,589 payments that come in. We'll reduce the Eight Billion (using the non-USA proper 1 million million = 1 billion) plus in owed child support to the same 68% -- $607,673,433 rounded to nearest dollar. But that doesn't add up, not really, because that would mean each household received an average of $2,415 monthly ... and we all know that not all fathers who pay support make enough money to pay that amount, even using the 30% of gross income for 3 children standard which Texas has legislated.
Are you starting to see why I can't provide exact figures? It might well be more accurate to simply come up with some "ferinstince figgurs" ... yup?
Low-balling it may have more impact than whatever "facts" we might come up with. Let's simply say that 300,000 households each month receive $600 a month ... $180,000,000. I counted those zeros three times, and that amount is correct: One Hundred Eighty Million
Going with that figure 180,000,000 and give the benefit of the doubt -- that it is held only five days each month -- let's pick an interest rate of 1% and see where it gets the Texas Treasury.
180,000,000 x 0.01 x 5 /365 equals $24,657.53 interest per month. Multiply by 12 to cover all the months of the year and the total minimum income to the State of Texas from withholding prompt payment to the households due child support: $295,890
For that amount of money I'd gladly provide my own computers, my own software, and my own sub-contractors to do the job for Texas! Of course I wouldn't want the job, to be truthful. I've been on the short end of the child support stick, and we can't add up the costs to those families who have to wait that extra five days.
We can't add them up, but we most surely can list a few of the potential consequences:
Homelessness -- the landlord got sick and tired of promises and late payments
Hunger -- even with a roof over your head, you still need to buy food
Anger & Distrust -- mothers (and maybe a few custodial fathers) angry at the system and not believing anything the-powers-that-be might tell them; children growing to hate and blame the custodial parent, sure that one person is responsible for no home, and no food, and no decent clothes, and problems at school, and bullying, teasing, etc.
Higher crime rate -- desperation leads to desperate measures, as does confusion and distrust on the part of the children.
How will it affect Texas? I don't know, but I do know it won't be anything good that comes out of it.
If only we could get the idiots (apologies to those born with limited abilities, as opposed to those who seem to lose all ability once in positions of power) to realize just how much hardship their "great plan" can create. If only they had to live on canned vegetables with a bit of mayo and lettuce (has to be a bit because it's almost all gone) and dry soda crackers, rather than meat and potatoes, hot dogs & beans, fish-that's-not-in-a-can, meals that are actually balanced nutritionally if you eat a bit of each thing provided. In households dependent upon child support, any left-overs are not for the dog; they're for later when the backbone starts rubbing a hole in your stomach.
So what can be done about this type of narrow-minded (mindless) "good thinking"??? If you're reading this, you're seeing what I can do. I don't know what you can do. If you don't like what's going on, tell someone. Blog it, tweet it, write it, e-mail it, call the radio station about it. If you live in Texas, try getting hold of one of your legislooters. Or click to a new page -- it's up to you.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Dumb Question?
Why must bio-fuel consist of something non-toxic for human consumption?
Before you start laughing or yelling, remember that ethanol is pure White Lightenin'. And instead of filtering and reusing cooking oil in food processes of some sort, they are using it to make ... bio diesel.
So what? Already farmers are planting corn for the subsidies and the rising market price. The consequences are that there is less corn for export, less corn for food use, and the prices of food corn are skyrocketing. Children are literally going hungry because their parents can't afford to buy cornmeal/corn flour.
In the meantime, all the corn stalks out there are being plowed back under the soil -- where they do not decay and do form a hard-pan type barrier preventing natural soil processes. That means more fertilizer is used and more washed into the river systems, which ends up creating more "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico and other ocean areas, where our fishermen used to bring in tons of fish and shrimp, and which no longer support sea life.
Why on earth (no pun intended) can't the persons, who claim to know what to do, decide that menthanol can be used as a basis for renewable fuel? The contents of those acre-sized plastic bags outside commercial dairies could be used in the methanol process. The sewage that leaves your home could be used in the methanol process. The corn stalks, the non-recyclable paper that currently goes into land fills, the straw left after harvesting oats/rice/wheat ... all could go into methanol production. (It could also create methane gas, which could be considered an alternative source of gas power, rather than using the non-renewable "natural gas" pumped from underground.)
If they really think that used cooking fats can produce enough bio diesel fuel to run the trucks and trains and ships that deliver necessities across the country and around the world, they really do need to rethink the concept. Could a methane-related process produce a diesel fuel equivalent as a byproduct or ingredient for additional chemical processes? I don't know, because I'm not an organic chemist. But surely someone out there could get started on figuring things out?
The hill people in Nepal and Tibet use methane generation to light their homes and cook their food. Who would think that the USA would be so far behind? Maybe it's the fact that a prime starter for methane gas generation just happens to be feces. Quite frankly, if people don't care about using the rotten carcases and stinky swamp goo that generates petroleum, why should they care if feces could generate much needed fuel? Some might say that it is a matter of timing -- the guts and rot was then, the feces is now. Well, I say to them that the inhabitants of earth then did not create the mess that man has created on this planet now. And the ice caps are melting now, England is being hit by tornados, the far east is suffering massive damage from mega-monsoons, and the existence of feces -- pet and pigeon -- is creating a health hazard in New York City.
We need to stop flushing money -- and potential fuel -- down the drain.
Before you start laughing or yelling, remember that ethanol is pure White Lightenin'. And instead of filtering and reusing cooking oil in food processes of some sort, they are using it to make ... bio diesel.
So what? Already farmers are planting corn for the subsidies and the rising market price. The consequences are that there is less corn for export, less corn for food use, and the prices of food corn are skyrocketing. Children are literally going hungry because their parents can't afford to buy cornmeal/corn flour.
In the meantime, all the corn stalks out there are being plowed back under the soil -- where they do not decay and do form a hard-pan type barrier preventing natural soil processes. That means more fertilizer is used and more washed into the river systems, which ends up creating more "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico and other ocean areas, where our fishermen used to bring in tons of fish and shrimp, and which no longer support sea life.
Why on earth (no pun intended) can't the persons, who claim to know what to do, decide that menthanol can be used as a basis for renewable fuel? The contents of those acre-sized plastic bags outside commercial dairies could be used in the methanol process. The sewage that leaves your home could be used in the methanol process. The corn stalks, the non-recyclable paper that currently goes into land fills, the straw left after harvesting oats/rice/wheat ... all could go into methanol production. (It could also create methane gas, which could be considered an alternative source of gas power, rather than using the non-renewable "natural gas" pumped from underground.)
If they really think that used cooking fats can produce enough bio diesel fuel to run the trucks and trains and ships that deliver necessities across the country and around the world, they really do need to rethink the concept. Could a methane-related process produce a diesel fuel equivalent as a byproduct or ingredient for additional chemical processes? I don't know, because I'm not an organic chemist. But surely someone out there could get started on figuring things out?
The hill people in Nepal and Tibet use methane generation to light their homes and cook their food. Who would think that the USA would be so far behind? Maybe it's the fact that a prime starter for methane gas generation just happens to be feces. Quite frankly, if people don't care about using the rotten carcases and stinky swamp goo that generates petroleum, why should they care if feces could generate much needed fuel? Some might say that it is a matter of timing -- the guts and rot was then, the feces is now. Well, I say to them that the inhabitants of earth then did not create the mess that man has created on this planet now. And the ice caps are melting now, England is being hit by tornados, the far east is suffering massive damage from mega-monsoons, and the existence of feces -- pet and pigeon -- is creating a health hazard in New York City.
We need to stop flushing money -- and potential fuel -- down the drain.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
More Than Just A Game
I play a lot of games. I do that because I can only read for so many hours each day, and my brain needs to exercise at least a little bit. Since this is the age of digital over-kill, I play games on my computer, some installed and some online. And awhile back I realized that I was classifying games as to whether they would ever be worth buying and, more recently since becoming a grandmother, what games I would not want to give to a child because the game gives the wrong message.
You might be surprised at what I consider a bad game. The first one I realized was a bad game: Feeding Frenzy. It has a lot of aspects that would make it a very good game to buy -- like randomization each time it's played, so you can never know it by heart and it is always a new challenge -- but it has one very bad thing I would not like to have a child deal with: It lies. You can screw up a level big time, miss all sorts of points, and yet the screen message that flashes whenever/however you manage to finish a level is Perfect!
I know I did not do the level perfectly. A child, with the ability to pay greater attention to detail, would easily know if s/he really messed up ... yet there would be that message: Perfect! And the child would be left to reach only a very few conclusions: The game lies; The game doesn't know how it should be played; The game has a different definition for "perfect" than what the child has been taught to date; It doesn't matter if you do a good job, since even wishy-washy effort can elicit praise of perfection.
Bottom line: That is not the type of message I want any child to be fed.
Mind you, FF is not the only game with bad messages. At least two SCRABBLE-based games give out a similar false message -- great round, or similar wording; you can get that "great going" type message if you score less for the round than you could score for a single decent word, if you quit the round without finishing it, etc etc etc ... then the game has the nerve to say you can do better. I should hope I could do better than stinko, but I was just informed -- after each messed up level -- about how great I was doing. So which is it? Am I doing well, or failing to live up to my full potential? I don't want any child to be lied to and confused like that!
Parents, moralists, and politicos are constantly screaming about the damage done our children by violent games. I think they have the wrong target. Some of the games I play are not person to person duels, but they do have shooting up and smashing and otherwise destroying part of something. When I'm furious at something in the world, I can go play game X or game Y or game Z; my younger son says he knows a lot of people, of all ages, who use the games to relieve the anger, frustration, and potential violence in a safe and sane manner. Rather than rant about those games -- which all the players know are not the real world -- how about going after the games targeting the youngest kids, games which lie in their praise then flip the message 180 to tell the player s/he could do better. How about less confusion, fewer lies??
Instead of false perfection, why can't designers create games that just give the score, or score information like "You collected over 80% of the points available on this level!" ?? If they want to add an honor roll -- where cumulative scores raise your character/status, credit is given for total games played, highest score to date, etc. Something like that would not only avoid the spurious lying that currently goes on, but could actually give the kid a point of comparison and a goal to work toward.
I do know one thing: I'm going to be watching for those games which give wrong impressions and/or false messages. And I will be pointing them out to the mother of my grandbaby!
You might be surprised at what I consider a bad game. The first one I realized was a bad game: Feeding Frenzy. It has a lot of aspects that would make it a very good game to buy -- like randomization each time it's played, so you can never know it by heart and it is always a new challenge -- but it has one very bad thing I would not like to have a child deal with: It lies. You can screw up a level big time, miss all sorts of points, and yet the screen message that flashes whenever/however you manage to finish a level is Perfect!
I know I did not do the level perfectly. A child, with the ability to pay greater attention to detail, would easily know if s/he really messed up ... yet there would be that message: Perfect! And the child would be left to reach only a very few conclusions: The game lies; The game doesn't know how it should be played; The game has a different definition for "perfect" than what the child has been taught to date; It doesn't matter if you do a good job, since even wishy-washy effort can elicit praise of perfection.
Bottom line: That is not the type of message I want any child to be fed.
Mind you, FF is not the only game with bad messages. At least two SCRABBLE-based games give out a similar false message -- great round, or similar wording; you can get that "great going" type message if you score less for the round than you could score for a single decent word, if you quit the round without finishing it, etc etc etc ... then the game has the nerve to say you can do better. I should hope I could do better than stinko, but I was just informed -- after each messed up level -- about how great I was doing. So which is it? Am I doing well, or failing to live up to my full potential? I don't want any child to be lied to and confused like that!
Parents, moralists, and politicos are constantly screaming about the damage done our children by violent games. I think they have the wrong target. Some of the games I play are not person to person duels, but they do have shooting up and smashing and otherwise destroying part of something. When I'm furious at something in the world, I can go play game X or game Y or game Z; my younger son says he knows a lot of people, of all ages, who use the games to relieve the anger, frustration, and potential violence in a safe and sane manner. Rather than rant about those games -- which all the players know are not the real world -- how about going after the games targeting the youngest kids, games which lie in their praise then flip the message 180 to tell the player s/he could do better. How about less confusion, fewer lies??
Instead of false perfection, why can't designers create games that just give the score, or score information like "You collected over 80% of the points available on this level!" ?? If they want to add an honor roll -- where cumulative scores raise your character/status, credit is given for total games played, highest score to date, etc. Something like that would not only avoid the spurious lying that currently goes on, but could actually give the kid a point of comparison and a goal to work toward.
I do know one thing: I'm going to be watching for those games which give wrong impressions and/or false messages. And I will be pointing them out to the mother of my grandbaby!
Thursday, August 09, 2007
More Than "Smart Enough"
Dear Andy Rooney,
I know I am smart enough to be President. And I believe that you, after you read on, will not only acknowledge that fact but actually might end up supporting me.
I am smart enough to be President because:
Am I likely to become President? Well, let's just say that I am more likely to win that $10 million and be presented with a big check on live TV. Would I want to be President? NO! I am old, tired, much of me worn out, disabilities which severely limit where I can go and what I can do, and I am just recently a grandparent for the first time. Would I accept the "sentence" if it were the result of the vote? Yes. Gladly? No. Honestly afraid of all the necessary work and extended period of having no life of my own? Yes.
Well, Mr. Rooney, do you think I'm smart enough to be President? Or just smart enough to know that no one is smart enough to go it alone?
Think about it ... while I do my best to put it out of my mind.
I know I am smart enough to be President. And I believe that you, after you read on, will not only acknowledge that fact but actually might end up supporting me.
I am smart enough to be President because:
- I know I don't know all the answers, or even most of some of them;
- I know how to ask questions, listen to the answers and then ask more questions until things are clear, defined, identified in a manner where answers are possible;
- I know that a good leader is just that -- a leader not a dictator;
- I am not afraid to seek the counsel of, and actually hire if possible, those who know far more than I;
- I understand most of the Constitution, in its original meaning and not necessarily as the Court has reinterpreted it;
- I understand why the President must be a figurehead -- a single individual speaking for a multitude, while working toward realizing the will of the people is almost as important as the "won't put up with it" of those same people;
- As President it should be my duty to work on saving this country from itself, on feeding our hungry despite the hunger of others, to provide medical care for all our people rather than having a disgraceful level of poor or no medical care for a large part of our population;
- A critical responsibility of the President is to educate -- not just children but adults, not just voters but Congress;
- I believe that we, and our country, have limited resources and those resources should be spent on "we the people" -- regardless of tyrany, pain, and/or evil somewhere else;
- I believe there ARE answers, and that they can be both found and instituted, despite the fact that there will always be some portion of the population which feels slighted;
- I believe that we the people can see and understand, accept, and "forgive" some things, because the overall picture becomes clear;
- I firmly believe that "selfish" is NOT a 4-letter word. The more people dependent upon me/you/all-of-us, the more we need to take care of ourselves else we shall be unable to help anyone anywhere any time.
Am I likely to become President? Well, let's just say that I am more likely to win that $10 million and be presented with a big check on live TV. Would I want to be President? NO! I am old, tired, much of me worn out, disabilities which severely limit where I can go and what I can do, and I am just recently a grandparent for the first time. Would I accept the "sentence" if it were the result of the vote? Yes. Gladly? No. Honestly afraid of all the necessary work and extended period of having no life of my own? Yes.
Well, Mr. Rooney, do you think I'm smart enough to be President? Or just smart enough to know that no one is smart enough to go it alone?
Think about it ... while I do my best to put it out of my mind.
Friday, June 29, 2007
They just don't get it!!
Thanks to PBS I am watching the declared Presidential candidates "debating" at Howard University. Much of what is being said is the same as has been said so many times before. But one gentleman has really REALLY got it all wrong.
A national sales tax is about the worst way to equitably tax the people of this country or any country, state, or political division.
Look at what people would buy, and how they would pay sales tax:
One thing I've never seen anyone speak of, and I have yet to read, anything recognizing the basic bottom-line fact: Those with lower incomes will spend all their money in the United States, while those with wealth are likely to spend in the Caribbean, the Riviera, the various Pacific island nations. With a sales tax, the wealthy could spend and spend and never pay a dime of tax... all they need do is buy from outside the US.
And don't even start on setting up tariffs and duties for imported personal things; tariffs, duties, and taxes on things like that are hard to enforce and could end up with a negative gain in tax revenues -- for every dollar collected it could well cost two dollars or more to hire and train the people necessary to keep the records, appraise the goods, impound, store and collect. The secret of making a profit -- which is what this country wants to do, or at least needs to do until the deficit is gone and a reserve built up -- is income exceeding the expenses of making that income.
The moral of this story? Complex problems are seldom solved with simple responses.
My proposal is for a flat tax. OK, it's not quite that simple but bear with me while I explain the skeleton of my thoughts. First, an integral part of "flat tax" is also a guaranteed minimum income for every man, woman and child in the country; if the person/couple/family income does not meet that minimum then they don't pay taxes -- in fact, for the program to work and be fair, the government would provide a stipend to bring income up to those minimum levels set. If a President wished to be magnanimous, s/he could cajole Congress into making all individual's annual income over five billion dollars tax free. (Gotta get them campaign contributions from somewhere, yah gno.) Bottom line would be that all income in excess of that "guaranteed minimum" amount would be taxable at a flat one percent (1%). Before you say that is too low, please realize that many wealthy individuals do not pay that much, not when you get down to the actual income received.
The flat tax would also hold for corporations. Unlike now, corporations would deduct dividends paid to stockholders; if not for the funds received for the sale of stock, the company would be hard-pressed to acquire adequate capital to get going. Stock values need to remain high for the company to benefit, and values go up when two things (we'll forget about speculation and market manipulation) occur: The assets of the company increase in value, and the dividends paid out amount to a good return on investment. Bottom line: Pay dividends, remain solvent. A bankruptcy, or even restructuring, doesn't profit anyone. (And don't worry -- those dividends will be taxed via the individuals who receive them.) If done correctly, mega-corps and conglomerates with brother-sister-mother-goodgriefgrettlemyfriend consolidated accounting that spreads the income so thin you can't find it via normal pathways, would be split into separate entities for tax purposes. This would serve to isolate the profit where it actually occurs and point out the money sink-holes that generate only losses. Unable to shelter their income with consolidated losses, corporations would have to start reconsidering business practices and do things that only show a profit, rather than hanging onto businesses that did nothing but eat up the cash. There should be only one exception to this profit-or-drop-it: Not for profit companies which "spent" at least 75% of "total gross income" in recognized charitable work. Corporate funds transfers to the NFP charitable company would be deductible, as would be employee expenses for individuals who worked periodically for the NFP with the parent corporation footing the employee salary and expenses.
Oh, the tax rate on corporations would be the same as for individuals: one percent (1%) of gross income. They could save so much money currently spent on creative accounting and conglomerations of funds transfers, that they would pay more taxes on the bottom line and save money at the same time. (No fees/salaries for those accountants which spent all year looking for ways to reduce the tax burden.)
Since I am not running for President, I will only mention in passing the things this new revenue would make possible: universal health care, pensions large enough to live on -- a total revamp of Social Security (not just retirement) and Medicare.
This type of total change, a turn-over in thinking, would not come easy for some. Many have spent their lives doing complex things to keep everyone befuddled and others feeling dependent, and this type of open honest change would be anathema to most politicians and high-level civil servants. They might actually tuck their tails and run for the hills! (Hey, a girl can dream can't she?)
Oh, one other thing: All elected Federal positions would be strictly limited as to how much money was collected and spent on campaigning. A limited number of public service announcements would be mandated for each newspaper and radio/television broadcasters; no amount of money could buy any additional space, nor additional air time. To successfully run, the candidate would have to go to the constituents on a face-to-face level. (Think we might also consider outlawing bill board ads and other similar eye-sores?)
If you have read this far, you've been given the opportunity to do a lot of thinking. Don't worry -- you can keep it a secret if you'd like. But on the other hand, you might look deeper and see if you personally could push for sane changes in all sorts of activities.
tiafn
P.S. Before you think I'm totally crazy, Google GDP -- Gross Domestic Product (formerly GNP) -- and compare one percent of GDP to current tax revenues
A national sales tax is about the worst way to equitably tax the people of this country or any country, state, or political division.
Look at what people would buy, and how they would pay sales tax:
- Food -- For people with low incomes, food can be twenty-five percent (25%) of spending; those with high incomes think nothing of spending hundreds of dollars on food, food preparation, food preparers ... and it is surely well under ten percent (10%) of their total income. Hmmmm.... starting to see the unfairness yet?
- How about housing ... if we are to have an equitable tax, shouldn't housing also be taxed? Other than the fact I have no idea how they would manage that, it is still a matter of those with low income spending a far higher percentage of total income on housing than do the well off.
- It is true that the wealthy spend much more on things like cars, airplanes, clothing, shoes, furniture, household items of every nature ... but what percentage of their income is being spent on such things?
One thing I've never seen anyone speak of, and I have yet to read, anything recognizing the basic bottom-line fact: Those with lower incomes will spend all their money in the United States, while those with wealth are likely to spend in the Caribbean, the Riviera, the various Pacific island nations. With a sales tax, the wealthy could spend and spend and never pay a dime of tax... all they need do is buy from outside the US.
And don't even start on setting up tariffs and duties for imported personal things; tariffs, duties, and taxes on things like that are hard to enforce and could end up with a negative gain in tax revenues -- for every dollar collected it could well cost two dollars or more to hire and train the people necessary to keep the records, appraise the goods, impound, store and collect. The secret of making a profit -- which is what this country wants to do, or at least needs to do until the deficit is gone and a reserve built up -- is income exceeding the expenses of making that income.
The moral of this story? Complex problems are seldom solved with simple responses.
My proposal is for a flat tax. OK, it's not quite that simple but bear with me while I explain the skeleton of my thoughts. First, an integral part of "flat tax" is also a guaranteed minimum income for every man, woman and child in the country; if the person/couple/family income does not meet that minimum then they don't pay taxes -- in fact, for the program to work and be fair, the government would provide a stipend to bring income up to those minimum levels set. If a President wished to be magnanimous, s/he could cajole Congress into making all individual's annual income over five billion dollars tax free. (Gotta get them campaign contributions from somewhere, yah gno.) Bottom line would be that all income in excess of that "guaranteed minimum" amount would be taxable at a flat one percent (1%). Before you say that is too low, please realize that many wealthy individuals do not pay that much, not when you get down to the actual income received.
The flat tax would also hold for corporations. Unlike now, corporations would deduct dividends paid to stockholders; if not for the funds received for the sale of stock, the company would be hard-pressed to acquire adequate capital to get going. Stock values need to remain high for the company to benefit, and values go up when two things (we'll forget about speculation and market manipulation) occur: The assets of the company increase in value, and the dividends paid out amount to a good return on investment. Bottom line: Pay dividends, remain solvent. A bankruptcy, or even restructuring, doesn't profit anyone. (And don't worry -- those dividends will be taxed via the individuals who receive them.) If done correctly, mega-corps and conglomerates with brother-sister-mother-goodgriefgrettlemyfriend consolidated accounting that spreads the income so thin you can't find it via normal pathways, would be split into separate entities for tax purposes. This would serve to isolate the profit where it actually occurs and point out the money sink-holes that generate only losses. Unable to shelter their income with consolidated losses, corporations would have to start reconsidering business practices and do things that only show a profit, rather than hanging onto businesses that did nothing but eat up the cash. There should be only one exception to this profit-or-drop-it: Not for profit companies which "spent" at least 75% of "total gross income" in recognized charitable work. Corporate funds transfers to the NFP charitable company would be deductible, as would be employee expenses for individuals who worked periodically for the NFP with the parent corporation footing the employee salary and expenses.
Oh, the tax rate on corporations would be the same as for individuals: one percent (1%) of gross income. They could save so much money currently spent on creative accounting and conglomerations of funds transfers, that they would pay more taxes on the bottom line and save money at the same time. (No fees/salaries for those accountants which spent all year looking for ways to reduce the tax burden.)
Since I am not running for President, I will only mention in passing the things this new revenue would make possible: universal health care, pensions large enough to live on -- a total revamp of Social Security (not just retirement) and Medicare.
This type of total change, a turn-over in thinking, would not come easy for some. Many have spent their lives doing complex things to keep everyone befuddled and others feeling dependent, and this type of open honest change would be anathema to most politicians and high-level civil servants. They might actually tuck their tails and run for the hills! (Hey, a girl can dream can't she?)
Oh, one other thing: All elected Federal positions would be strictly limited as to how much money was collected and spent on campaigning. A limited number of public service announcements would be mandated for each newspaper and radio/television broadcasters; no amount of money could buy any additional space, nor additional air time. To successfully run, the candidate would have to go to the constituents on a face-to-face level. (Think we might also consider outlawing bill board ads and other similar eye-sores?)
If you have read this far, you've been given the opportunity to do a lot of thinking. Don't worry -- you can keep it a secret if you'd like. But on the other hand, you might look deeper and see if you personally could push for sane changes in all sorts of activities.
tiafn
P.S. Before you think I'm totally crazy, Google GDP -- Gross Domestic Product (formerly GNP) -- and compare one percent of GDP to current tax revenues
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)