Monthly Archives: January 2019

“Proper Tax Rates”

Posted on by
1

According to the EU.  Or at least the European Parliament’s Green Party.

An investigation by the Greens in the European Parliament has shown big companies throughout the bloc are failing to pay their statutory taxes. The party has called for more social responsibility.

I’m always amused by claims that studies—statistics—show anything.  At most, they can indicate, even strongly indicate, something, but showing—proving?  Not so much.

Be that as it may, and it really is more sloppy elocution than it is factual error in this sort of context, what really interests me is that “failure to pay,” and “social responsibility.”

The Greens presume to be the arbiters of what is social responsibility.  Not the citizens, not their aggregate as the society at large.  No, it’s these Green Know Betters who will define the term and set the criteria for its satisfaction—for our own benefit, of course.

And that statutory claim?

Luxembourg stood out in the study, where the official tax rate is 29 percent, but corporations paid only 2 percent on average.
Hungary, the Netherlands and Austria were also highlighted as states where actual taxes paid were significantly lower than the official rates.

The study’s authors, at least as summarized by Deutsche Welle, which was citing Süddeutsche Zeitung, show a broad misunderstanding of anyone’s tax code.  It’s easy enough to get the total tax paid below a statutory rate, and do so entirely legally.

That’s what deductions, tax credits, tax subsidies, and the like do.  What starts out as top line taxable income—before deductions, credits, etc—also does not include some forms of income—income not earned within the taxing jurisdiction, for instance, which is the big player in Luxembourg’s code.  All the nations of the EU have their own suite of these, but in essence, these all reduce the income actually subject to tax by large amounts, and then the subsidies pay back into the tax payer other monies—like, for instance, subsidies for setting up “green” energy facilities.

And we arrive at a realized tax rate substantially less than the official yet mythical statutory rate.

Maybe the Greens will reach the point where financial success is socially irresponsible, too.

DACA and Walls

Posted on by
Reply

When President Donald Trump made his latest offer and attempt at negotiation last Saturday, it already had been rejected by the Progressive-Democrats—yes, even before Trump spoke.  In a Monday editorial, the Wall Street Journal was generous when it suggested the Dreamers (and TPS folks, I add) are pawns in the eyes of Progressive-Democrats. Reality isn’t that good.  Dreamers and TPS folks aren’t even human to Progressive-Democrats—they’re just votes and potential votes, just marked ballots.

This is shown by Pelosi’s stated utter refusal even to discuss DACA recipients anymore.

Here, though, the WSJ‘s editors are wrong:

Mr Trump is wrong that this will magically reduce drug traffic or illegal crossings. The solution to the flood of drugs is lower US demand [and, better] a legal system that gives migrants the chance to move back and forth….

For one thing, a wall will, indeed, contribute to a reduction of the flow of drugs and illegal crossings. Actual experts, including those who work the borders, say this unequivocally. No less a light than Progressive-Democrat and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agrees they work in places.

The other thing is that “the solution to…” includes those additional steps. They and walls are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

The Teachers Union Strike in LA

Posted on by
Reply

The subhead on Monday’s Wall Street Journal article on the United Teachers Los Angeles union strike against the Los Angeles Unified School District says it all.

Nearly one in five LA public school students attends charters unaffected by the strike; union wants a cap on them

Herein lies one more proof of the disingenuousness of the UTLA. While the UTLA is striking, demanding a cap on the number of charter schools (and money, money, money), all the while holding Los Angeles’ public school students hostage to their demand, the charters are open and actually educating their students.

With its strike demand, the UTLA is ignoring the enormous opportunity that should be available for the children of LA: the two systems of schools could complement each other.  Instead, the union has chosen to present the situation as a zero-sum game. The contrast couldn’t be sharper.

It’s no wonder the union wants to eliminate what it sees as its competition; it can’t stand the clarity the charters’ existence and performance provide in the union’s zero sum.

Cynically, the union’s demand for money, is nothing more than what unions do; although, here it’s also a smoke screen.

***

In the end, the LAUSD caved completely. In addition to a 6% pay raise and more than $400 million in additional money to be spent on the union, there’s this:

Union President Alex Caputo-Pearl said the agreement goes beyond contractual issues and addresses “having accountability and regulations on charter schools,” including how to give traditional schools a bigger say when charters are given space on their campuses.

Never mind that that space was available to the charters because the union’s schools weren’t using it. No, contract matters, as Caputo-Pearl just confessed, had little to do with the union’s strike. Now they have near-veto say on what their competition will be allowed to do. That’s to the great harm of the children this union has pretended to want to protect.

Pseudo-Conservatives also Lie

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, which pretends to advocate for young conservatives. The op-ed at the link is headlined

I judged the Covington kids too quickly—Here’s what I missed

It’s a missive in which he acknowledged he erred in jumping on the bandwagon and smearing those children as soon as he could, along with the rest of the Liberal class, on the basis of an initial, brief, carefully edited video (my characterization of the video; he thought differently about it). Here’s how Kirk described that careful edit.

It’s not that it had been taken out of context. It’s not that the situation was more complicated than we originally thought. It’s that there wasn’t anything there in the first place. There wasn’t now, and never had been, any evidence of the high school students doing anything untoward.

It’s not a matter of the video taken out of context; it’s that the video had undergone that careful editing to fit a preconceived narrative—that anyone wearing a Trump-supporting bit of clothing was evil, that anyone from the Left confronting such a person must be right, that blacks also involved must be innocent of any wrong-doing.

Aside from that little bit, here’s what Kirk missed.

This wasn’t a case of the press lying. Not this time. I made the same judgment that they did and I wasn’t lying. This wasn’t one of the media’s usual, deliberate distortions of facts or vitriolic attacks.

Yes, this was a case of the press lying.  This was a textbook, blatant case of the media’s deliberate distortion of the facts.  The lie—not a mistake in judgment—was made clear by the full 1¾ hour video that gave the full story, a video that was available very quickly after the event.  This was a video that would have been available if the press and the rest of the Left, and pseudo-conservatives, had been willing to tarry a bit and get actual facts instead of hastening to see who could be first with the smear.  And you lied, too, with your jumping onto the smear wagon.  The lie continues to be made clear by the press’ continued attacks on those children even now that the facts are out.

It absolutely was one of the press’ most vitriolic attacks—they called for the brutal (woodchippers) murders of these children.

Here’s the other thing Kirk missed.  Nowhere in his 500-word piece purporting to explain his error is there a single minim of an apology.  Kirk doesn’t even have the grace to apologize for his monstrous error.  Or he still doesn’t understand what he’s done.

Race-Based Admissions at UNC

Posted on by
Reply

The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is under fire and in the courts over its fundamentally racist admissions policy.  Plaintiffs are arguing that UNC violates Supreme Court rulings by giving too much weight to applicants’ race. The problem, though, is that any weight to race is too much, is fundamentally racist.  The Supreme Court’s rulings don’t go far enough to bar this behavior.  As things stand, though, the plaintiffs have a case IMNSHO.

UNC admissions readers frequently highlight the applicant’s race, citing one reader’s comment that even with an ACT score of 26, they should “give these brown babies a shot at these merit $$.” Another reader wrote, “Stellar academics for a Native Amer/African Amer kid,” the plaintiffs said.
Steve Farmer, the university’s vice provost for enrollment and undergraduate admissions, said in response: “Language in this exchange does not reflect Carolina’s values or our admissions process.”

Farmer is being disingenuous. The language clearly reflects both UNC’s values—emphasizing race as they do—and that language equally clearly reflects the fact that UNC does use race emphatically in its admissions process. The notes are right there on the applicants’ forms.

UNC says it has studied race-neutral approaches to admission for many years….

The only race-neutral approach possible for admission—or for any other purpose anywhere—is to not consider race at all. Any inclusion of race (or gender, or…), even as a “plus” factor, necessarily segregates in favor of one group at the direct expense of another.

If UNC truly wanted diversity, it would achieve it by admitting the best students regardless of race, or ethnicity, or gender.  The resulting student population would be a microcosm of the underlying population from which it was drawn.

If that didn’t produce a diversity reflecting the more general population, the correction would not be to play race games with high school graduates, it would be to commit university personnel and resources to improving the K-12 education so those high school grads would more closely reflect the underlying demographics.  And to press other universities and colleges to do the same.

But that would take actual work and dirty hands, not virtue signaling.