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