Is There a Need for Universal Healthcare?

     I can't remember when, but I saw a post on IG saying something along the lines of "I believe in your right to insurance, but I don't believe it's your right to make me pay for it." I don't agree with this principle in concept or practice, and here's why: as a group, doctors already make an oath to - essentially - heal those that need it. So regardless of anybody else's opinion, they've essentially committed themselves to a line of action - if someone needs it, they'll fix it (this is pretty much what the emergency department is for - urgent care that requires treatment). Furthermore, they cannot turn folks away whether they are rich, homeless, or anything in between. This creates a situation where "consumers" receive a service regardless of their ability to pay (I put "consumers" in quotes because I think it's a really callous way of viewing people), creating some debt. How's this debt covered?
     Well, either the staff provide the service without charge (which they usually don't, nor would I expect them to) or everyone else gets a little bit added to the top of their bill to take care of it. Situation remedied, right? Completely. If you can't tell, though, that means we are all (already) collectively paying for that service (emergency services). As the saying goes, though, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let's take it literally (just for the sake of the blog, there's literally no economic or medical data I am citing for this) and say that $1 in preventive care is worth $16 (16 oz. to a pound) in later, emergency costs. For 137 million emergency department visits in 2015, that cost ends up being quite hefty. Let's say the average visit costs $1,000 for scans and other treatment for some simple math - this ends up being $137,000,000,000, or 137 BILLION dollars. According to the CDC, 14% of emergency department visits (in 2012) were by people with no insurance. If the percent from 2012 applied to the number and cost of visits in 2015, then 19.18 billion dollars (14% of 137 billion dollars)  worth of care is administered to those without insurance - which is a figure that must be bore by some other entity. Lastly, if we take this figure and take 1/16th of it as the hypothetical figure for preventive care, the cost would end up being 1.2 billion dollars. So, the health care system (and by extension, all its customers) could save some ~18 billion dollars by focusing treatment on preventive care rather than emergency services. Now, is my number off? Yes, most certainly. I (admittedly) oversimplified the issue and am missing a host of considerations.
     HOWEVER, the point still stands, and hopefully you understand these ideas better:

• Everyone ends up paying for everyone else's health because hospitals cannot refuse to administer emergency services. Hopefully, you're made of the moral substance that says this is the right thing to do. If you're not, then this really isn't for you, but you don't get to go around pretending like you care about anyone else. You don't, because denying anyone emergency services is cruel and about as far from caring as you can get.
• It is more expensive to treat health when it gets to the point of being an emergency (scans, surgeries, etc. etc.) than it is to enact preventive measures (medicine, lifestyle changes, etc. etc.).
• If we are all going to pay for it when people end up being in poor health, then we might as well be cheap about it by ensuring universal access to healthcare that is preventive so as to ensure as many health problems as possible are dealt with as early as possible (before they snowball into major health issues).
• It might be counter-intuitive, but by being willing to look out for everyone else, you also serve yourself by reducing your financial burden.

My 2018 Ballot

I just submitted my ballot earlier today. I wanted to share my vote because I think it's important to have an opinion and stand by it. The teachers union has a set of recommendations that they share, so for those votes, I just put a (U) by them for Union. Otherwise, I'll have a sentence or 2 on my thinking.

Gov: Gavin Newsom (U)

Lt. Gov: Ed Hernandez (U)

Sec. of State: Alex Padilla (U)

Controller: Betty Yee (U)

Treasurer: Fiona Ma (U)

Attorney General: Xavier Becerra (U)

Insurance Commish: Ricardo Lara (U)

State Board of Equalization: Malia Cohen (U)

US Senator: Kevin De Leon - His website just sells him really well on the things I believe in and the direction I want the country to go

US House of Reps: Ro Khanna - Same goes for Ro

State Senator: Bob Wieckowski (U)

State Assembly: Kansen Chu - Is there anyone in 95132 not voting for Kansen Chu...? This vote was seriously just a name recognition one.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond (U)

ESUHSD School Board: Kristin Rivers, Frank Biehl, Manuel Herrera (U)

Berryessa USD School Board: Long Nguyen - He just had "Retired Engineer" going for him. I think public schools need a diverse set of board members and not just all former school teachers or similar. Sometimes you just need a fresh eye.

County Sherriff: John Hirokawa. Laurie Smith's been in for 20 years and seriously has no ringing endorsements. If someone worked a job for 20 years and their best quality is mediocrity, that's not saying much.

Prop 1-4: Yes; I'm just all about spending on things I like. The federal gov. already spends a ton of my taxes on things I don't believe in, I might as well authorize spending for things I can get behind.

Prop 5: No; I am for spending taxes, and to spend taxes we need taxes. All the wealth is tied up by old people, soooo I'm not tryna cut them any slack.

6: No; people who buy gas are using the roads. They are wearing down the roads. Those roads need repairing. Gas taxes repair those. Makes sense.

7: Yes; from what I've come to understand, shifting that hour back and forth causes unnecessary accidents/other bad things without even saving energy. So what the heck.

8: Yes; caps profits on dialysis centers and forces higher standards. It kills me that people seek to obscenely profit from others' maladies. It's just absolutely disgusting.

10: No; rent control doesn't help renters. Only building more housing does.

11: No; just gives breaks to corporations and not employees. Sucks.

12: Yes; just some PETA type stuff. Honestly not that invested in this measure.

Measure

A: Yes; taxes.

S: Yes; modifies procedures for city construction contracts. I think it opens up bidding?

T: Yes; funds emergency and disaster responses, infrastructure, and roads.

U: Yes; city council and mayor don't get to approve their own salaries. Duh??

V: Yes; funds housing. I'm young, poor, and need housing. Yes.

Why We Need to Look Past Labels (Republican vs. Democrat) pt. 1

     Religion and politics are similar in that, for extremists, they are extremely divisive (think "Islam is a religion of VIOLENCE!!" or "Christians are all HYPOCRITES!!"). Note: I don't believe either of those things, but I've seen the idea bandied about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. For the rest of the population, though, there's the nice, wiiiide range of space between the extremes that we can occupy. In religious folks, this could look like people who try to live by example, make their regular appearances at the church/mosque/synagogue, and/or are welcoming of newcomers to the religion without pushing it on them. How does this apply to politics? Unfortunately, I think more people than ever are painting others with a political paint brush that's just too general (and, oftentimes, inaccurate).
     Welp, this one gets heated really quickly. Just to point out a few:

• Democrats:
•  are okay with killing babies
• want to shelter rapists
• plan to make the country Communist/Socialist 
• Republicans:
• are racist/hate Mexicans
• believe that guns are more important than kids
• don't believe in women's rights
• Russian COLLUSION!! (I like this one the most because [somehow] it's used against both Hillary and Trump, lol)

     Again, though, those are just the extremes. Not only that, but people confuse their own views with their perceived views of others. What am I talking about? Let's take 2 examples, one from each side, to be fair:

• On abortion: Democrats want to kill babies. I think people (conservatives) fail to understand that an abortion isn't something anybody is happy to do. Granted, I'm speaking without the benefit of experience, but I'm just trying to use my brain as best as I can. & something tells me that the majority (if not the entirety) of women that are compelled to abort a pregnancy do so for a variety of reasons*:
• financial hardship
• not being ready to raise a baby
• not being in a stable relationship
• following their parents' or partner's desires

      You don't see "likes to kill babies" or "hates life" on there, do you...? This doesn't even take into account the different definitions (medical/scientific vs. religious) for what constitutes a baby, and that's on purpose. It doesn't matter what your definition of a baby is - if a woman isn't going or is unable to raise a baby "right" (y'know, with all the basic needs for a healthy baby), then why force her to? What if she's another Casey Anthony? (For full disclosure, Casey Anthony was found not guilty) Would you want someone to hold off on abortion just to actually commit a gruesome murder because they hate their kid? What if a hypothetical mom subjected their child to a lifetime of abuse? The easy way to consider it is: if you wouldn't want to be the kid in that position (born to a mother that doesn't want you), why would you want someone else to be?

I know there are women who are happy that they decided not to abort, but that's not the point - not all women will end up that way, and there are also women who are unhappy that they didn't abort. So what's the deal if we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution? Welp, we leave the choice open. There are those who will choose to abort and those who will not. There are those who might regret it and those who might not, but that's just life, isn't it? Let's move on to the next example.

• On building the wall: Republicans must hate Mexicans. Again, I think people (liberals) fail to understand the concerns that some Americans bring to the table. (Granted, they are concerned about what amounts to a non**-issue***) Just humor me, though. Imagine if we took a population of 200,000 people and dropped them off anywhere in the world. Let's continue to imagine that these 200,000 are all in perfect nuclear family units of 4, and will require accommodations (whether apartments, condos, or houses) as such. Well, you'd need 50,000 units of housing for that. Where's that going to come from? Who will pay for this housing, and how? How about schools? Healthcare services? If half of the population is kids and we assigned a 30:1 ratio for educators, we'd need 3333 educators. With a 1,000:1 ratio for doctors, we would need 200 doctors (not to mention nurses, support staff, etc. etc.). Where are those going to come from, and on whose dime? 

     While I personally do not consider this an issue since the majority of Mexican immigrants are already here (and contributing), that doesn't mean people's concerns aren't real. Granted, in this case they seem to be invalid, but that still required some digging on my part (and I guarantee that most folks on either side of the "issue" haven't done even 2 minutes of Googling, let alone 5-10) to find out. 

     PHEW. With all that out the way, what am I trying to get at? Whatever your political stances are, try not to buy into the strawmen that abound in this political landscape. When you do, you fall into the thought trap of thinking that all Republicans are racist/moronic/misogynistic or that all Democrats are baby killers/rapist sympathizers/Socialists. & whether you think Russians gave Hillary $400 million (false) or that they influenced on behalf of Trump (true), the truth is that these divisive tactics by Russians are sowing division to the point where Americans can't engage in politics with the people that they need to the most - each other. So keep your head on straight, talk it out with the people you know, but do not overgeneralize. Otherwise, you've failed your country (and by extension, yourself)!

*International study on abortion

*US study on abortion

**"As of 2014, 78% [of illegal Mexican immigrants] had lived in the US for 10 years or more"

***Inflows of Mexican immigrants have already gone through a dramatic decline since the early 2000's.

   

How Much Do You Make? (The Importance of Salary Transparency)

     Something that is curious to me is that (all?) public sector employees have their salaries published for anyone to look up. Fair, right? We wouldn't want anyone entrusted with the public interest (teachers, firefighters, cops, politicians, etc. etc.) to be getting a mad overpay (where they are profiting from the position more than they are serving the public). What I take away from this policy is that there's a level of accountability there - we can all see how much you make, so don't get too wild. By having that accountability and transparency, that also creates a sense of trust. All this sounds good and nice, right?
     Then why is it that we take these principles - accountability, transparency, trust - and toss them out of the window when dealing with the private sector? The easy answer here is embarrassment: it impacts social dynamics when we put a number on ourselves. The weird thing is, we already do that when it comes to titles (e.g. POTUS > doctors > engineers > etc. etc. >...McDonald's employee). So if we already have a somewhat-established hierarchy when it comes to jobs even before considering compensation, why would people be embarrassed if that hierarchy is a tad more crystalized by concrete numbers?
     If you know me really well, you know I can have an overbearing sense of pride - I am what I am, I'm proud of it, and the amount of money I make has a minuscule impact on my sense of self-worth (if I were a better person, this impact would be nonexistent). & to be clear that I'm not dodging the issue: my salary was 55,350 last year, and I'm getting a less than $800 bump to 56,136 this year. I know most of you are private sector, and I also know that most have me beat by, at minimum, 30k/year. So why's salary transparency important for you?
     Here are just a couple issues that are enabled when salaries are kept hidden:

• The glass ceiling (pay gaps for women)
• The bamboo ceiling (pay gaps/lack of opportunities for Asian Americans)

Besides those systemic issues, hiding salary also means that that idiot that doesn't contribute to the team... can be well compensated compared to the rest of the squad, simply for having the guts to negotiate and the sweet talk to highlight (or outright fake) their contributions. Very meritorious, right...? (if you didn't catch the sarcasm, no, that's not right - it's wrong)

     Furthermore, & I hate to say this because I know y'all already make buckets more than me, but this also allows employers to suppress salaries across the board. If we look past the inequities that hold down women and minorities, there's also this issue: companies succeed when they pay their workforce the absolute minimum amount that they can. That's just a byproduct of capitalism. By keeping salaries hidden, it's possible for a company to, for example, pay their top whatever (engineer/manager/intern/coffee grunt) at a rate that isn't actually "fair."

     So, what's the dealio? Why perpetuate a system that allows you and all your coworkers to get bent over and taken for a ride by "the man"? Go forth and at least post an entry on Glassdoor. More seriously, talk to your coworkers*! That way, you can figure in your head where you stand - if you know you're worth more than someone who makes more than you, go demand it. If someone is putting in work but doesn't have the $$ to show for it, go encourage them to make their needs known. 

*How does this conversation go? Well if you're me, something like this:
Me:"Hey man, how much do you make?"
Them: "This much"
Me: "Nice!" (note: this is only if it's actually nice)  or "Dang, man! How come you don't get paid more?!"


Curious about pay for someone who works for the City of San Jose? Or do you want to see how much the top 50 (or 100, or 200, or whatever) employees get paid? Check this out - it's a table that shows pay: https://data.sanjoseca.gov/dataviews/245417/EMPLO-COMPE-PLAN-2017/ 

If you are looking for someone specific, you can go to the bottom of the table and click the magnifying glass then type in someone's last name (for instance, Liccardo for the mayor, or Garcia for SJPD Chief, so on & so forth). Otherwise, the table just shows all employees in order of highest to lowest pay (you can change the table's settings in a lot of other ways as well).

What Should We Do About Income Inequity?

     The income/wealth gap in America has been growing over the span of decades - you can seriously take your pick of resources to illustrate the point, but the bottom line is that the rich have been getting richer while everyone else has either been staying at the same level or getting a little poorer. In relative terms, though, since we're referring to a gap, then that gap has just been growing. The separation between the wealthy and everyone else grows, and it doesn't seem like that many people are concerned. Or if they are concerned, they haven't been able to come up with a solution. Fortunately for those looking for answers, I've got time on my hands and love to explain. So read on, and prepare to have your mind blown.

     In my last post, I explained how income taxes are calculated. My reasoning is that you shouldn't have an opinion on something without understanding it. So if you haven't yet, give it a read (note: it's NOT so simple as taking x% of your income - so if you think that, then you are wrong, and it is REALLY worth it to read the post). 

     Before we dig in, I'd like you to answer a couple questions:

1. As a percent, how much do you think someone who makes 50,000 should get taxed?
2. As a percent, how much do you think someone who makes 500,000 should get taxed?
3. If we throw it back 40 years to 1978, do you think people were paying more or less in taxes?

Your answers CAN'T be wrong - they're just opinions! I'm so serious about you answering these questions, I'm cutting up this entry.

Whether you write it down on a slip of paper, or jot down some answers in your "Notes" app, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. It requires you to come up with 2 percents and the word "more" or "less."

So if you're a fan of lower taxes and think that the government has just been JACKING UP tax rates lately, your answer might look something like "1. 10%, 2. 20%, 3. more" would suffice.

Or if you think people should pay their fair share and that government has been better at holding people accountable than they used to, your answers might look like "1. 20%, 2. 50%, 3. less"

YOU ARE CHEATING YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE CONTINUING.

Alright, you made it. Here's the work I did this morning - these calculations seriously took maybe 15-20 minutes of tedious number crunching, so consider yourself benefiting from my free labor. Here is a table that demonstrates how much a person would pay in  federal income taxes across the span of 4 decades. In parentheses, I include the highest tax percent for that person (as in, all the numbers in parentheses are percents).

	2018	2008	1998	1988	1978
A makes 50k	6,900 (22%)	8,900 (25)	10,700 (28)	11,700 (28)	18,900 (60)
B makes 100k	18,300 (24%)	22,000 (28)	25,900 (31)	25,700 (28)	51,600 (69)
C makes 150k	30,300 (24%)	36,000 (28)	42,500 (36)	39,700 (28)	86,600 (70)
D makes 200k	45,700 (32%)	51,800 (35)	60,500 (39.6)	53,700 (28)	121,500 (70)
E makes 500k	150,700 (35%)	153,600 (35)	176,400 (39.6)	137,700 (28)	331,500 (70)

1. What general trends do you notice?
2. What's the deal with '88?
3. How do these numbers make you feel?
4. Do you see any problems with the current situation? If so, what are the problems?

Some personal observations:

1. From '78 to '18, the tax rates fell across the board - so we all got a break, which is pretty sweet, right?
2. From '78 to '18, someone who makes 500k saw their rate fall by 35% (or cut in HALF), while someone at the 50k mark saw their rate fall by a WHOPPING 38% (cut by almost 2/3!!)
3. So while the 50k earner saved about 12k, the 500k earner saved... 180k. For millionaires, the savings are even more astronomical. 

So now would be a really good time to ask a few key questions:

• What do you think should be done about income inequity? 
• Between the four earners (50k, 100k, 200k, 500k) I presented, which ones do you think pay their fair share to society? 
• Is it worth it for you to save 12k in order for someone else to save 180k? 
• How do you expect these gaps in funding to resolve themselves?
• What government services would you like to see get cut (e.g. welfare, defense spending, healthcare, etc. etc.) since the government can't pay for what it used to?

Related reading:
Article on how tax cuts mostly apply to the 1%

Inflation calculator if you care to turn all the numbers in the table to 2018 numbers. I didn't want to give you more numbers to confuse you, though.

Tax tables used to calculate all these numbers. It's actually really worth it to check out this page - in 1963, the highest tax rate was 91%!!!! MAGA baby!!

Historical corporate income tax rate. Spoiler: it used to be way higher

How Federal Income Tax Works (or why "Higher Taxes" don't mean what you think)

     Taxes are a pretty big deal. I don't think anybody likes to pay them, but there's definitely a sense of resignation around them. They are foundational to society, and our government literally couldn't exist without them. I honestly can't stress how important taxes are. Here's just a smattering of things taxes have paid/pay for:

1. Transportation. This means roads and highways, but also includes tons of facilities in land, air, and water. 
2. The military. The Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and everything else that keeps our nation safe (except from Russian meddling, apparently)
3. Agriculture. Keeps food prices stable and cheaper than they would be otherwise.
4. Education. K-12 and on into higher education, the government provides funding for education at all levels.
5. Department of Labor - the folks who guarantee minimum wage, overtime pay, and pretty much all work-related issues. Their job is to basically look out for the working person.

     I feel like these services (and plenty more, since the government has a budget of ~4 TRILLION) fit the definition of "you don't know what you got 'til it's gone." They permeate pretty much every facet of our lives, whether you realize it or not. If we stopped paying taxes and they all disappeared, you'd notice the difference very quickly. & it makes sense that these services are integral to all of our lives, considering we all contribute, to the tune of ~3.36 trillion, in the form of income tax and social security/medicare tax (all of these come from your paycheck, btw). Yet for something so foundational to society, a great deal of people don't know how taxes are calculated. So this post is strictly to explain how federal income tax is calculated (at its most basic level).
     Before we get into it, I would break up the general population into 3 categories regarding the level of understanding of taxes:

1. Nothing, or pretty close to it (I think the majority of the population falls into this group. Greater than 50%, but realistically as high as 70% of the population). Taxes get taken out of my paycheck, they suck, but I can't do anything about it. I don't really know what determines how much gets taken from each paycheck.
2. Something (a quarter of the taxpaying population, if that, falls into this group). There's a difference between income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. I've heard the term "tax brackets" before. I know people who make more money pay more in taxes. 
3. A lot (definitely less than 10% of the population. Guaranteed. I would bet my life savings that less than 1 in 10 taxpayers could calculate their own federal income tax on a basic level if they were given the appropriate tax rates and a calculator). I know the different tax brackets, the appropriate tax rate for each bracket, and can do rough calculations with the help of a calculator. 

     This post is geared to the first 2 groups - in my estimation, at least 3/4 of the population would benefit if they read this. So without further ado, let's jump in!
     In America, we have a graduated/progressive tax system. In brief, that means the more you make, the more you're taxed. Fair, right? Well... let's do a quick example (using completely made up numbers and tax rates. NONE of these numbers are based on the current tax rate, and are used STRICTLY for example):

Person A makes $80,000 and is taxed at a rate of 25%. This works out to $20,000 in taxes and a take-home of $60,000.
Person B makes $100,000 and is taxed at a rate of 35%. This works out to $35,000 in taxes and a take-home of $65,000

In this made-up scenario, person B makes $20,000 more, but only takes home an extra $5,000. That's pretty lame, right?

RIGHT! This lame situation is NOT how the American tax system works! So pat this country on the back, because we're doing that much right. Here's a conceptual breakdown of how a progressive tax system works (with a very simple example, followed up by the actual rates in the US):

     Let's say we have two rates, 10% and 20%, and we split our population into two income groups: those making $100,000 and under and those making over $100,000.
     That means for the amount of money you make that's $100,000 or less, you are taxed at 10%. And for every dollar beyond that, you are taxed at 20%. Essentially, this means everybody who earns more than $100,000 has two tax rates - one for their money from 0-100,000, and one for the money they earn that's beyond 100,000.
     I know it's still confusing, so let me provide a table to clarify
     0-100k: 10%
     100k+: 20%
     And examples:

• Person A makes $50,000
• At a tax rate of 10%, person A pays $5000 in taxes and takes home 45,000
• Person B makes $80,000
• At a tax rate of 10%, pays $8000 in taxes and takes home 72,000
• Person C makes $150,000
• Is taxed at 10% for the income 0-100k, pays $10,000 in taxes for that part, and then gets taxed at 20% for the income beyond 100k. In this case, person C gets taxed at 20% for 50,000 (because that's the amount they make beyond 100k), or another 10,000 in taxes. So, that's 20,000 in taxes, and a take-home amount of 130,000. 
• Person D makes $250,000
• Is taxed at 10% for the income 0-100k (tax: 10k). Taxed at 20% for the 150k they make beyond 100k (tax: 30k). Pays taxes of 40k and takes home 210,000. 

     Understood? I provided 4 examples to make it pretty clear what happens once you pass the 100k threshold. The US system is the same, conceptually, with more brackets and different income levels for those brackets. Here they are:
Income:         Tax rate
0-9525:              10%
9525-38700:      12%
38700-82,500    22%
82,500-157,500 24%
157,500-200k    32%
200k-500k         35%
500k+                37%

Let's look at a few (basic) examples. This is NOT taking into account deductions, exemptions, and anything else that complicates taxes. This is just the barebones framework, which is enough to give you a pretty dang good understanding of how taxes work in America. I've performed all calculations to give you a clear understanding, but that's really for those who like to get into the details. If you read and understand all the bullets for Person A, everything else is just extra:

• Person A makes $30k. Gets taxed ~3400, takes home ~26,600.
• 10% rate up to 9525 (9525 * 10% = $952.5)
• 12% rate between 9525 and 38,700. Since person A only makes 30k, we'd take 30000-9525 = 20475. The reason we subtract the 9525 is because we already calculated the taxes for that chunk - 952.5! Nobody wants to pay extra in taxes, right? So, 20475 * 12% = 2457 in taxes.
• Total taxes: 952.5 + 2457 = 3409.5
• Take home: 30000 - 3409.5 = $26590.5
• Person B makes $70k. Gets taxed ~11.3k, takes home ~53,700
• 10% rate up to 9525 (952.5)
• 12% rate between 9525 and 38,700 (38,700 - 9525 = 29175. Remember to subtract, since taxes are calculated chunk by chunk. 29175 * 12% = 3501)
• 22% rate between 38700 and 82,500 (person B only makes 70k, so 70k - 38700 = 31300. 31300 * 22% = 6886)
• Total taxes: 952.5 + 3501 + 6886 = 11339.5
• Take home: 70000 - 11339.5 = 58660.5
• Person C makes $150k. Gets taxed ~30k, takes home ~120k.
• 10% rate up to 9525 (952.5)
• 12% rate between 9525 and 38,700 (29175 * 12% = 3501)
• 22% rate between 38700 and 82,500 (43800 * 22% = 9636)
• 24% between 82,500 and 157,500 (150k - 82.5k = 67.5k * 24% = 16200)
• Total taxes: 952.5 + 3501 + 9636 + 16200 = 30289.5
• Take home: 150000 - 30289.5 = 119710.5
• Person D makes 350k. Gets taxed ~94k, takes home ~246k.

     So, why did I go through the trouble of all these calculations? When people mention ANYTHING about lower or higher taxes, they RARELY mention tax brackets. Why's this important? Well, tax policies that only impact particular brackets are only relevant to the people in those brackets. Those who refer to higher or lower taxes without elaborating are relying on your lack of understanding to influence your thinking. As an example, what if I proposed a resolution to lower taxes without mentioning that it would only impact the brackets above $82,500? Well, those making more money would be paying less, resulting in an underfunded government. That's just an example, though. Thanks for reading, now go spread your new knowledge!
   

Sources/references:
Government subsidies: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/11/introduction-to-government-subsidies.asp
Department of Labor: http://webapps.dol.gov/dolfaq/go-dol-faq.asp?faqid=478
Federal budget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget
Federal budget: https://www.mercatus.org/publication/government-spending-101/where-does-government-get-money-it-spends
Federal budget: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/
Tax rates and brackets: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2017/12/17/the-new-2018-federal-income-tax-brackets-rates/#4e93051a292a
Federal Income Tax Calculator (this is the most fun to play with, and gives you a great idea of taxes at different income levels): https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#jbzYE4OzgU

On Indecision and Gun Control (Part 2: Potential Solutions)

     When I published my last piece about a week and a half ago, it was to bring attention to the issue of guns and call for action. I didn't throw out any policy suggestions, but I personally feel as if the issue still is not getting enough attention or inspiring serious action. In this post, I'll lay out a few proposals, and my take on them.
     Proposal #1: We don't need less guns - we need MORE guns. We need to encourage more people to undergo training to responsibly handle firearms. This way, we are increasing the number of "good guys" with a gun, further discouraging "bad guys."
     My opinion: The Secret Service, in the interest of maintaining the safety of Vice President Mike Pence, did NOT allow guns in when those men gave speeches at the NRA convention. Again: at an event designed to be the summit of good guys with guns, the Secret Service (some of the best in the biz @ protection) deemed that a bunch of good guys with guns was NOT sufficient "protection." Not only that, but these officials did not protest this policy. Let me spell it out for you: Mike Pence knows that having more guns in their vicinity makes an environment less conducive to living. I agree - more good guys with guns is not the answer (in my opinion).
     Proposal #2: Ban guns entirely.
     My opinion: I'm pretty okay with this. In 1996, Australia implemented stricter gun laws. The deadliest mass shooting (7 deaths) since then occurred in May, after 20+ years. 7 people died. This is NOT to say those were the only shooting deaths since 1996. Just to say that in that time frame (~21 years and a few months), the deadliest shooting was when 7 people died.
     Let's take a look at America. Within the past decade, there have been 13 mass shootings in America that have resulted in ~280 deaths and 1000+ injuries. The one that resulted in the least deaths still resulted in 10 deaths (2015). The worst resulted in 59 (2017).  So... our "safest" mass shooting in the last 10 years is worse than the worst mass shooting in Australia in the past 21 years. If that divide isn't enough to make it obvious to you, I truly don't know what to say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . I'll still try one more shot. Bringing it back to the Secret Service: when they want someone protected, they create gun-free zones (outside of themselves, obviously). How do you create a gun-free zone? Ban 'em entirely. & before you mention Prohibition: please don't fool yourself into thinking that that many people know how to make working firearms at home. If you don't believe me, just go ahead and list all the people that you know can make a gun at home.
     Proposal #3: Make the process to buy a gun more difficult. A few examples might be more stringent background checks, more required coursework, more safety testing, etc. etc.
     My opinion: While I definitely favor the outright ban, I know that a compromise leaves everyone unhappy. This way, you gun-lovers get to keep your guns (I lose), but you have to do it more deliberately (you lose). If you're of a more optimistic nature, you can read that as: you gun-lovers get to keep your guns (you win), but you have to do it more deliberately (I win). Whichever way you look at it, I'd support policy that entails greater restrictions for any gun sales/purchases hereafter while grandfathering in whatever gun possessions are in place. That way the change is gradual and there's not much room to argue (unless you're a scumbag who's not about that problem-solving life, but if you're good with the blood of innocents on your hands, that's on you).
     This is all just food for thought, but whatever you think, you should reach out to your representatives with policies that you would support, whatever they are. If you're interested on why I think the way I do, I linked relevant articles/Wikipedia pages that influence my thinking on this matter.

     Sources for my opinions: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/01/607054795/nra-bans-guns-during-convention-speech-by-president-vice-president
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
     https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iceland-gun-loving-country-no-shooting-murders-2007-n872726

On Indecision and Gun Control (Part 1: The Problem)

     When it comes to picking a place to eat, have y'all ever had that (girl/boy/annoying)friend that shoots down suggestion after suggestion without ever having the mind to suggest a replacement? It's rather annoying when it happens, and I feel like that's where a lot of people stand with regards to gun control today - a strong unwillingness to even hear out any proposed solution.
     Where my analogy falls apart is that, when it comes to dining, a decision is always eventually made and food is obtained. When it comes to guns, though, the seemingly inevitable outcome is that... nothing happens. Which is really strange to me, because, y'know, in December of 2012, after 20 six- and seven-year-old children were gunned down AT SCHOOL, the country didn't do shit (Sandy Hook). Which really goes to show how we value our education, our children, and our guns (unfortunately).
     I am now realizing that what first looked to me like inertia/laziness (which is already appalling: you seriously can't give enough fucks to protect children?? I hate to say it, but as Helen Lovejoy put it: won't somebody please think of the children!?) is, even more tragically, willful obstinance and cowardice. In a recent discussion I had with this older man, when I threw out a proposal on how to deal with guns, he said something along the lines of "It doesn't matter, it's not gonna solve the problem. You're trying to solve a problem that can't be solved!"
     & boy, if we weren't in a public setting playing cards - I would have lost it. I mean shoot, I'm writing about this because, internally/mentally, I DID lose it! I would have (and should have) asked him when he lost his spine. If you're someone who agrees that this is a problem that can't be solved, don't stop reading: you're a craven, unimaginative sack of meat, and you should be ashamed of yourself. If we're still going with my analogy from before about eating out: I've just uninvited you. The rest of us are going somewhere to eat, but you can't come - no food for someone who wants to drag the rest of us down with hopelessness and despair. If you don't have the mind to propose a solution and the conviction to stick with it, you're the exact type of nonparticipant that ruins democracy. You shirk the obligations of citizenship while reaping the benefits paid for by previous generations. It absolutely kills me that there are enough people in this city, county, state, and country with the same mindset that little, if anything, has been done regarding guns. You dopes are so self-defeating that you've lost any will to try - look in the mirror and ask yourself when you became so gutless, 'cause it's honestly disgusting.
     Now that I've got my rant in, I can move on: if you read back over this post, you'll notice I didn't spell out my proposal or advocate any particular position. That's not the purpose of this post - I'll write about that in Part 2. Before I do, I just want you to think enough to answer this question: if you were the POTUS, US Congress, and Supreme Court rolled into one mega power-wielding authority, how would you deal with the issue, and why?
     The honest truth is, if you haven't set aside even 5-10 minutes to think about this policy issue, YOU are contributing to the death of shooting victims in this country (similar to those Germans that weren't Jew-hating Nazis but, y'know, weren't going to do anything about the Holocaust either). & before I let go of your attention, I want to take it one step further: the exercise does not end with you thinking about the issue. You are morally obligated to make a decision - as in, if you had a gun pointed to your head, you better be able to commit to your story, whichever way you happen to swing.

Snowflake Kid Talks Shit, (Sort of) Gets Hit

     This happened earlier, so I wanted to write about it while it's still fresh in my mind. Today is the 1-year anniversary of Spartan Taco Truck (home of the absolutely delicious crispy taco) opening their storefront. To celebrate, they discounted tacos and beer for the day. I figured the combination of a delicious product and such close proximity to San Jose State University would create quite the demand - lo & behold, there's a line stretching out the door by the time Daisy & I arrive. Most of the folks in line appear to be students - young Asian Americans in their late teens/early 20's. However, the man we get in line behind is a middle-aged (40-something?) Caucasian male (tbh, he's reminiscent of Brett Favre).
     After Daisy and I gripe to each other about the long wait, the guy in front of us turns around and starts commiserating - apparently, his girlfriend's been calling them for the past hour and a half to no avail, so he was sent as the procurer of tacos. All in all, waiting in line sucks, but since we want the tacos we just wait it out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. After some more time in line (we ended up waiting a little over half an hour to place our order), the guy's had enough - he leaves the line and walks away. After a few seconds, some college-aged kid immediately in front of us shouts something along the lines of "Good! Fucking redneck!" Either the guy doesn't hear or is just letting it go - I think it's the latter - so the kid shouts out even louder "Get the fuck outta here! *pause* CRACKER!!" & this is where keeping it real (which, btw, that kid definitely wasn't keeping it real) went wrong.
     The guy turns around and starts briskly making his way back, shouting "You wanna fuck with ME?!" The older guy comes up to the kid and shoves him into the door pretty hard. That would be the first and final blow, though. They hold onto each other and swing each other around in circles (in hindsight, it's rather comical - in the moment, I think the kid was holding onto the guy to prevent any punches, and the guy was not trying to get into serious trouble over some punk ass kid) - the kid rips the older guy's shirt, and eventually they are separated. A worker comes outside and assumes the older guy is in the wrong, asking him what he did and gesturing in a protective manner towards the instigating kid. The older guy briefly explains himself, but leaves all the same.
     After the older guy leaves, the friends that this kid is with are talking about it so animatedly. I'm stunned because for the whole 10-15 minutes I was in line with the guy, we just griped about the long wait - absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. I didn't want to open my mouth without knowing the whole story, though, so I just listened to these people talk. Here are some snippets:
     "That was so fun!"
     "I wish I recorded it!"
     "He was such a racist! & a homophobe!" 
(At this point, I'd like to remind that the guy came off totally normally to me.)
After listening to more of their conversation, this is the only thing concerning race OR sexuality that they mentioned:
     "He said, 'the whole continent of Asia is cutting in front of me'!"
     In my head, the only reaction I can muster up is ...really? You let THAT get to you?

1. If I was getting cut by a bunch of people, I'd be annoyed too
2. If a bunch of Asians cut me in line, and I use exaggeration to express that a bunch of Asians are cutting me in line, is that racism or just... exaggeration? Also, if you're so offended that he's a homophobe, how come you couldn't actually describe what he said or did that made him come off homophobic?

     If you can't tell, I'm writing about this incident because it really upset me for a number of reasons. 1 - I mean, this idiot kid was being a jackass. Not only that, but he was surrounded by a bubble that reinforced and encouraged his train of thought - so really that's 6 people being idiots, at least.

2 - I'm ashamed I didn't say or do anything in the moment to set the record straight, at least from my POV. Anyone listening in to the group (and they were being loud, mind you) would think the kid was in the right and the guy was in the wrong, which is just flat-out wrong. 

3 - Not only was the kid being a jackass - he was being a total coward! He waited for the guy to leave the line before he started running his mouth, which is just really disgusting considering the content of his speech. 

     Later after my meal, the kid happened to be standing outside the bathroom after I had finished washing my hands (and while Daisy was washing hers, so he couldn't go in quite yet). I couldn't miss my chance at some 1-on-1 conversation, so I asked why he waited for the older guy to start walking away before he started talking shit. He replied "I didn't think he would come back." I'm stunned by this kid's stupidity, because the guy WOULDN'T have come back... if this kid didn't open his mouth for no damn reason..?! In these situations, to avoid letting my shock and disbelief come across, I just respond with a generic, "Hmmm, ok." I can't let this kid get away without at least something to chew on, though, so I said "Man, if you felt so strongly about it, I wish you had said something sooner." My intent was for him to think about his willingness to open his mouth before shit spewed forth next time around, couched in supportive language so he might be more receptive to it, but alas, who knows if he got the message  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ?

     In any case, I'd love it if I could develop a spine and pipe up in future situations like this, because "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In other words, my silence feels like complicit agreement with what came out of that young man's mouth, which couldn't be further from the truth. But since I didn't say anything at the time, that doesn't really matter, does it? 

What Are Our National Values?

     Everyone knows that actions speak louder than words, and I think that's a good starting point to realizing what our country is and isn't about. I think it's also important because, like it or not, the country is a reflection of you and me both.

Things I think we are about:

• Money
• Money is power, plain & simple. & because we value hard work, I think we equate $$$ with work (ignoring things like the advantages of timing and plain dumb luck), but in a world where it's estimated that "eight men own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world" (https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/an-economy-for-the-99-its-time-to-build-a-human-economy-that-benefits-everyone-620170), that train of thought is just wrong and invalid. It's physically impossible for 8 dudes to outwork 3.5 billion people. & if you're gonna shoot back with something clever like "work smart not hard," you're an ignorant prick.
• Leisure
• I know everybody enjoys their comforts (myself included), but I think a lot of people in America take for granted the leisure and forsake the responsibilities that got us here. The biggest responsibility being civic engagement, which can take the form of protest, voting, and even responsible consumption (like supporting orgs/businesses that align with your beliefs *ahem* http://www.complex.com/music/2018/01/coachella-owner-donated-187-thousand-dollars-republican-party) 

Things I wish we were about:

• Education 
• I've talked about it with friends before, but if one of the wealthiest countries with no shortage of brilliant minds doesn't have it right while others do, it isn't an accident
• People paying their fair share
• As recently as 1981, the highest bracket (those making the most, by far) had a marginal tax rate of 70%. From '82-'86, it was 50%. Starting in '87, that dropped to 38.5%. Since then, we've fluctuated, but never even hit 40% again. So think about that - all those uncollected taxes from 3 decades of growth. Here's a bonus: if you think dropping from collecting 70% in taxes to 37% is crazy - for ~20 years from 1943-1962, the highest tax rate was ~90% (all numbers courtesy https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/). To make it all concrete, you can use this tool to compare tax payments across the years. For example, someone with taxable income of $1,000,000 in 1945 might have to pay taxes of $664,000, while in 2011 they would pay $320,000. So, that's 300,000+ that isn't getting redistributed via government. 
• Meritocracy (or more sensible lawmaking, somehow)
• I'm all for having elected officials make decisions, but I think there's got to be more room within the framework of government for people with expertise to call the shots, or to limit the influence lawmakers get from people who are strictly profit motivated. Some egregious examples are how smoking marijuana is still a federal crime, or the way prison contracts can be drawn up to require the beds be filled, otherwise states are obligated to pay fees. Those are just a couple examples that are quite mind-boggling. & in 2018, after decades of having both drugs and prisons around, something tells me that these laws aren't just archaic - they are also completely intentional. I'm gonna throw it out there because it's a big one too: gun policy. I'm a teacher, so you can go ahead and guess my stance on this one.

This post is far from exhaustive, but it's been a long time since I sat down and penned some thoughts, so I just wanted to put this out there to share.

IS Learning a Language Cultural Appropriation?

At some point in my class last week, the topic of foreign languages some how came up (I really don't remember the context), and I said, with some exasperation and incredulity, "Can you imagine that there are people in America that think it's okay to know just one language?" to which a student replied, "It's not?"


Cue my eye roll/face palm/spontaneous combustion. I think my class could feel the "are you fucking kidding me?" emanating from my body language alone, haha. I was really quite taken aback for a few reasons. First, if you're in the Bay Area, chances are pretty high that you know a language besides English for a big reason - to communicate with your parents. Second, it's a UC/CSU requirement to study a foreign language for 2 years - as in, if you're trying to be an educated adult, the state of California has declared that you need to know another language. Third, it's not even the most widely spoken language in the world (counting native speakers only, that goes to Mandarin then Spanish according to this. Counting natives and non-natives, then English is second, according to Wiki). Fourth, there are 7 billion people in the world - why would you intentionally shut yourself off from communicating with a vast majority of them by limiting yourself to one language?


Of course, in the brief span of time between the kid asking that and me having to respond, those thoughts just briefly ran past my mind as I asked back - "Why would it be?"
      Here are some of the answers is the only answer I expected:

• "because everyone knows English!"

Even as I'm writing this up, I can't think of any other reason why someone would think what that student thought. The only excuse has got to be plain ignorance or oblivion, right? 

Unfortunately, wrong :/.

The student said "I don't know, I feel like it's not my language to learn. Like I would be appropriating culture" - at which point my mind, if not my physical head, exploded. If you're familiar with it, picture the Jackie Chan meme where he's clearly perplexed - that was me. I responded, "What do you think people have been doing this whole time??"

At this point, I'm going to step back from the exchange and go in another direction - namely, what the hell happened to this kid? I don't doubt the existence of cultural appropriation, but to have even gotten the idea that something so simple as learning another language counted as that just left me stunned and honestly questioning the world we live in.

The optimistic part of me understands that it's possible, even likely, that this student just misunderstood the concept of cultural appropriation. Still, though, I think if one kid could misunderstand, so could many others. And it just got me thinking - how twisted are things in the world we live in?  It's 2018 and we got at least one person (if not many more) that is worried about how learning a language could be considered appropriating culture.

This is just incredible on quite a few levels - one thing I think of is, how can you even construe learning a language as anything besides respectful and well-intentioned? Another thing is - did she misunderstand, or did someone actually plan to convey that idea to her? A third - how sensitive do you have to be to let that consideration override the importance of shared communication with other people?

There's a host of other thoughts I'm not verbalizing because it all just seems so surreal, but the point I want to get to is - where are we supposed to draw the line between consideration and pragmatism?


Something that's off the top of my head is the gender-bathroom "issue" (which, if you can't tell, I'm flat-out embarrassed I have to even label it an issue. Hence the quotes). Some people are offended, while others feel the need to have a space where they can shit and piss in peace. Meanwhile, I'm like... the fact that we have workable sewage throughout the country is impressive enough - who cares who goes where? You can say I'm coming from a place of privilege as a male who has never had to worry about which restroom I'm going to (which, btw, ask me about this some time if you like to hear a funny aside about it) - but that doesn't make me wrong on principle. In a more egalitarian society, we'd probably just have shared facilities with a trough and, like, 6 stalls.

So, please help me figure it out - are we being too sensitive? Is basic human decency not enough - must I also recognize every facet of your identity which I (frankly) don't care much about? What are we even doing with our lives that we get bogged down by these considerations regarding identity that can genuinely be solved if we all just treated each other the way we like to be treated, and held others to the same standard?