Daily Archives: 28 December 2012

The Obama Fiscal Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a table of the effects of the Obama tax increases that will follow from President Barack Obama’s drive to put us all over the fiscal cliff.  The data are compiled from a recent Wall Street Journal article.

Category

Income

Post-Cliff Tax Rate

Tax Rate Increase from Pre-Cliff

Tax Dollar Increase from Pre-Cliff

Remarks
Unemployed Person Under $10,000 8.4% 55% $159
College Student $10,000-$20,000 7.5% 38% $308
Lower-Income Working Couple $20,000 – $30,000 5.5% 9,809% $1,423 From $15 refund to $1,423 tax payment—loss of Bush tax cut 10% bracket
Retiree Household $30,000 – $40,000 5.1% 42% $540
Higher-Income Professional $150,000 25% 25% $6,662 This also represents just under 25% of the total increase from the Obama tax hike
High-Income Couple $350,000 29% 20% $13,847 Loss of the AMT and higher dividend and cap gains taxes
Very High Income Households $1,000,000+ 39.7% 24% $254,637 Total share income taxes paid by these earners actually goes down due to the disparate impact of the Obama tax increase on the lower incomes

Obama’s Plan B desire for going over the fiscal cliff is going to hurt the least among us—the antithesis of our country’s Judeo-Christian imperative—and it makes his Evil Rich relatively better off.

Mass Shootings

Posted on by
Reply

In the aftermath of the Newtown, CT, school massacre, there’s been a push to reapply a ban on “assault” weapons—whatever those are; not even the military has any such.  The term is purely legalist, cooked up in the back halls of Congress, and subject to change with the winds of political convenience.

One of the excuses used for this foolishness is one that Peekskill Mayor Mary Foster repeats:

We have seen a proliferation of these tragedies after the ban on assault weapons expired in 2004.  We cannot allow this to continue.

Let’s look at some actual facts.  The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel published some of those just last August.  The graph below is built from their data, which cover roughly 35 years—from 1976 through 2010.

Note:   Mass shooting defined by the FBI as the shooter killing four or more people in a single incident (not including the himself), and typically in a single location.  Data compiled from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program by James Alan Fox, criminology professor at Northeastern University; US Census Bureau; Journal Sentinel research

Hmm….  Pop quiz time, and no peeking below: who can identify from this graph the period of effectivity of the “assault” weapon ban?

I didn’t think so.

The ban ran from 1994-2004.  The incident rate during that period is the same as the rates both before and after.  The number of victims per incident varies wildly—but is unchanged, in average or variability, over the same three periods.

Maybe it would be better for concerned communities to put trained, armed guards on duty in locations where there are masses of people—like schools and shopping malls, maybe.

Maybe it would be better for folks sitting in leadership positions—like, say, Mayor Foster—to think with their brains, rather than their emotions, and to consult some actual data.