It's a shame the parallel one can see in today's Wall Street events with this comic, illustrated and written by Pat Oliphant. On thing is clear, reckless handouts of tax payer money only amount to a short term patch on a much bigger problem.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Merits of Failure - Sarcastic Comics
It's a shame the parallel one can see in today's Wall Street events with this comic, illustrated and written by Pat Oliphant. On thing is clear, reckless handouts of tax payer money only amount to a short term patch on a much bigger problem.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
First Time Homebuyer Credit – Will It Really Work?
Here is an interesting article from AccountantsWorld.com by Michael E. Mares, CPA/ABV, JD, on the new "first-time home buyer credit" that Congress recently passed. It is not your typical "credit," albeit first glance lends that impression. It is, in fact, an interest free loan that must be re-paid to the IRS ratably over a period of fifteen years.
If you know of anyone or perhaps fall under the eligibility requirements for this credit, please keep in mind this new so-called "credit" implemented to "jump-start" the economy will essentially prove complicated for good faith attempts at compliance later on with said law.
"Leave it to Congress to take a good idea and complicate it beyond all hope of salvation. That's pretty much what happened with the mis-named first-time homebuyer credit passed as part of the Housing Assistance Act of 2008.
The credit was supposedly designed to help jump start the housing market again, but whether it will be effective remains to be seen. While the credit applies to acquisitions of principal residences, some acquisitions are excluded – those acquired by gift, inheritance or a purchase from a related party.
Let's start with the basics. The credit is the lesser of $7,500 or 10% of the purchase price of the home ($3,750 for married taxpayers filing separately) and applies to home purchases after 4-8-08 and before 7-1-09.
For joint filers, each is deemed to receive 50% of the credit for recapture purposes. The credit is phased-out for taxpayers with modified AGI between $75,000 and $95,000 ($150,000 and $170,000 for joint filers). For unmarried taxpayers buying a house together, the maximum credit is $7,500. A bit of good news is that the credit is refundable and applicable against both the regular tax and alternative minimum tax.
That doesn't sound so complicated does it? Unfortunately, the credit is recaptured over a 15 year period. That's right, this "credit" is really just an interest free loan from the government to help middle-income taxpayers purchase a home. The "credit" must be repaid ratably over 15 years, and no interest is charged on the unpaid balance.
The recapture period begins in the second year following the purchase. Thus, the credit recipient's tax for each of the following 15 years is increased by $500, or 1/15th of the maximum credit claimed). If the home is sold before the end of the 15 year recapture period, the remainder of the credit is recaptured in the year of sale. However, any recapture is limited to the amount of gain on the sale. Thus, for example, a seller who has claimed the credit and subsequently sells at a loss, won't have any recapture in the year of sale, but will still have the credit recapture in years before the sale.
Recapture is also accelerated if the home ceases to be the principal residence of the taxpayer or spouse. Fortunately, the new law provides some exceptions to the accelerated recapture rules. For example:
1. There is no acceleration of recapture on death or because of an involuntary conversion.
2. There's no acceleration of recapture where the transfer is incidental to divorce. However, the transferee will be liable for any further recapture. The transferor will have no recapture liability.
The new law also contains an interesting twist. If a taxpayer purchases a residence after 12-31-08 and before 7-1-09, the taxpayer can elect to treat the purchase as if it were made on 12-31-08, thus claiming the credit in 2008. If the 2008 return has been filed, an amended return can be filed to claim the credit. It appears that if the other requirements are met, but the 2009 income exceeds the threshold, an election to treat the property as acquired in 2008 (assuming that modified AGI is less than the threshold in 2008) will permit use of the credit.
Since the new rules apply to a first-time homebuyer, defining that term is important. A first-time homebuyer is one who has not had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date of the purchase of the residence for which the credit is to be claimed. If married, neither spouse can have had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period, which will create some problems in divorce-remarriage situations.
How is all of this ever going to be tracked? The law gives the IRS the authority to require increased reporting of home sales (there's currently an exception for principal residence sales of $250,000 or less ($500,000 where the seller is married) to make sure the recapture is made.
Is it worthwhile to claim the credit? It depends on the client's circumstances. However, the client should clearly understand that this "credit" is really just a loan that must be repaid to the government over 15 years. This credit is no free lunch."
If you know of anyone or perhaps fall under the eligibility requirements for this credit, please keep in mind this new so-called "credit" implemented to "jump-start" the economy will essentially prove complicated for good faith attempts at compliance later on with said law.
"Leave it to Congress to take a good idea and complicate it beyond all hope of salvation. That's pretty much what happened with the mis-named first-time homebuyer credit passed as part of the Housing Assistance Act of 2008.
The credit was supposedly designed to help jump start the housing market again, but whether it will be effective remains to be seen. While the credit applies to acquisitions of principal residences, some acquisitions are excluded – those acquired by gift, inheritance or a purchase from a related party.
Let's start with the basics. The credit is the lesser of $7,500 or 10% of the purchase price of the home ($3,750 for married taxpayers filing separately) and applies to home purchases after 4-8-08 and before 7-1-09.
For joint filers, each is deemed to receive 50% of the credit for recapture purposes. The credit is phased-out for taxpayers with modified AGI between $75,000 and $95,000 ($150,000 and $170,000 for joint filers). For unmarried taxpayers buying a house together, the maximum credit is $7,500. A bit of good news is that the credit is refundable and applicable against both the regular tax and alternative minimum tax.
That doesn't sound so complicated does it? Unfortunately, the credit is recaptured over a 15 year period. That's right, this "credit" is really just an interest free loan from the government to help middle-income taxpayers purchase a home. The "credit" must be repaid ratably over 15 years, and no interest is charged on the unpaid balance.
The recapture period begins in the second year following the purchase. Thus, the credit recipient's tax for each of the following 15 years is increased by $500, or 1/15th of the maximum credit claimed). If the home is sold before the end of the 15 year recapture period, the remainder of the credit is recaptured in the year of sale. However, any recapture is limited to the amount of gain on the sale. Thus, for example, a seller who has claimed the credit and subsequently sells at a loss, won't have any recapture in the year of sale, but will still have the credit recapture in years before the sale.
Recapture is also accelerated if the home ceases to be the principal residence of the taxpayer or spouse. Fortunately, the new law provides some exceptions to the accelerated recapture rules. For example:
1. There is no acceleration of recapture on death or because of an involuntary conversion.
2. There's no acceleration of recapture where the transfer is incidental to divorce. However, the transferee will be liable for any further recapture. The transferor will have no recapture liability.
The new law also contains an interesting twist. If a taxpayer purchases a residence after 12-31-08 and before 7-1-09, the taxpayer can elect to treat the purchase as if it were made on 12-31-08, thus claiming the credit in 2008. If the 2008 return has been filed, an amended return can be filed to claim the credit. It appears that if the other requirements are met, but the 2009 income exceeds the threshold, an election to treat the property as acquired in 2008 (assuming that modified AGI is less than the threshold in 2008) will permit use of the credit.
Since the new rules apply to a first-time homebuyer, defining that term is important. A first-time homebuyer is one who has not had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date of the purchase of the residence for which the credit is to be claimed. If married, neither spouse can have had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period, which will create some problems in divorce-remarriage situations.
How is all of this ever going to be tracked? The law gives the IRS the authority to require increased reporting of home sales (there's currently an exception for principal residence sales of $250,000 or less ($500,000 where the seller is married) to make sure the recapture is made.
Is it worthwhile to claim the credit? It depends on the client's circumstances. However, the client should clearly understand that this "credit" is really just a loan that must be repaid to the government over 15 years. This credit is no free lunch."
Friday, November 30, 2007
Ron Paul Doesn't Need A Nanny
In a recent interview with Ron Paul, he answers the question as to why his supporters show such fervor for his candidacy -- it's essentially because his ideas are based on a solid foundation in Austrian Economics. Here's what he says about these supporters (and rightly so) :
"I think they're sick and tired of what they're getting. They've lost all trust and faith in the government. They believe in the American Dream, and they're getting a nightmare. And they're rallying behind the program I've been working on for 30 years—defending the Constitution, limited government, free markets, sound money, and self-reliance; believing people can take care of themselves better than government can. The nanny state doesn't work, the police state doesn't work, and neither does the warfare. And they know it. "
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Bogus Argumentation, Fluffy Principles, and Fodder for Debate
I attest that a good source of "comedic amusement" is to reflect on lawyer arguments, especially in Supreme Court debates. A recent article I read on a "subtle nuance" (hehe...is that redundant?) in tax law concerns a case currently up for debate and is one which illustrates my amusement quite well. It's also very relevant to individual taxation (corps, trusts, and partnership variations are also a fun-filled circus in themselves, but I won't get into that just yet).
Specifically I refer to this: Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, No. 06-666.
That sounds sexy already, doesn't it? If I also threw out the random fact we are dealing with a 2.5 trillion tax dollar market, and this revenue concerns 38 states in question, does that help the mental shift (read: kind of important) at all?
In tax law, there is a general rulestating that interest on municipal bonds (i.e., "bonds" just being long-term debt issued by a state, city or other local government) from a state will be exempt from income taxation within its own state of issuance. If an investor wishes to invest in bonds outside of one's residence state, the interest on these non-resident bonds will be taxable within that investor's resident state. Muni-bonds are also tax-free for Federal purposes, but that element is not the issue in question. Instead, the interstate impact of this rule is the focus.
Amid the captivating display given last week on Nov. 5th, I must sarcastically admit our resources were once again well spent to serve the greater good. That is, for the sole purpose of achieving justice, and setting straight the constitutional clarity of our times. In all seriousness, these reasons are precisely why the Supreme Court felt it necessary to saunter through a muck of nearly 50 years of "unclearly dictated conclusions" in precedent law only to find that the most relevant case rulings for the general bond rule above are a discussion over the essence of "garbage" versus "milk."
....huh?
Let me clarify how this kind of makes sense:
a) "Garbage," is an extensively pliable product (by-product?) to states in terms of its consideration for preferential tax treatment. States would like to say that non-resident bond interest can be taxed on the state level, since the commerce clause doesn't govern activities engaged in solely "on behalf of its people."
b) "Milk," however, is a commodity product of the dairy market, which in turn is a part of agriculture, an industry which has historically been protected by states through heavy Federal subsidization. Individual state treatment has been to exempt the dairy market from protectionism between states, also citing the commerce clause.
Here comes the fun part:
If munis are like "garbage," the rule should remain as it currently stands. Simply because the state has the ability to discriminate in favor of itself. This is the current position of 49 states, regardless of whether or not they actually have a state income tax. Why do states favor this decision on how to treat muni-bonds? It's not counter-intuitive. Discriminating in favor of oneself will most likely have the best outcome for oneself, at least in the short term. Here is where the annual $2.5 trillion comes into play. It's also useful to know that the current treatment of muni bonds is based on a particular garbage case where "rates charged by a state created monopoly in
On the flip side (and the one to which I agree), if munis are like "milk," they shouldn't be given preferential treatment, since "preferential" means either they are taxed or exempted based on the outline to the general rule. According to state policy, munis cannot have protectionist barriers, similar to the treatment of agriculture. If bond interest is not protected by certain states through inter-state transactions then the only viable options under this assumption are to either tax all muni bond interest at the state level, including resident bonds, or exempt all muni interest altogether from any form of state-level taxation.
Is individual exploitation of labor a necessary wedge between determining the public good and the public's tax dollars? Obviously it shouldn't be, but the latter creates this exploitation. That is why I argue that all muni bonds should be exempted from taxation at the state level. It is, simply put, the only feasible way to eliminate the barriers existing between inter-state commerce. If state monopolies were not allowed to exist in the first place, they wouldn't have the option of choosing in favor of itself (whatever the elusive conglomerate of "state" is we speak of, anyway) even though it's not the best for all, as in the New York garbage case. There is way more to write here, but I'm sooooo sleepy.
For more on this, see here and here.
Ah, the sweet solace of sleep will shortly be upon me. I'm so there…….
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Save The X Industry, Save The World.
A recent issue of BusinessWeek raises interest in the classic debacle economist Henry Hazlitt outlined so clearly years ago in chapter XIV of his book, Economics in One Lesson.
These days, most telecom companies are moving away from traditional copper wiring, and instead looking to move to more efficient fiber networks. To complete the move is a multi-billion dollar jump, and giants like Comcast and Verizon (and customers alike) will benefit from the investment. The old copper lines are "obsolete and expensive" in terms of the efficiency of the fiber networks and smaller companies are protesting vitriolically to the FCC (which could take months...maybe years to get around to a decision), especially as more and more copper lines these small companies lease through the giants mentioned above are shut down.
Most individuals are familiar with the ideas of farm subsidies and steel tariffs -- things set in place to artificially "protect" some groups at the expense of others, but Hazlitt makes no exception and telecom industries are not excluded. The idea of "saving the X Industry" applies to all industries and products across the board, and for good reason.
Actually, he says it best here:
"Improved methods of production must constantly supplant obsolete methods, if both old needs and new wants are to be filled by better commodities and better means" (86).
Thus, as long as the fiber network transition is put on hold, heavy costs will only continue to burden companies, especially those refusing to do a simple net present value analysis of the long term benefits of investment now as the technology advancement arises for better quality lines, rather than a rocky, hindered, ugly and government-involved transition later --which is no doubtthe slowest most painful way to succeed in offering anything that's better for everyone including companies and customers alike.
The long term production horizon offers more in the way of knowing what's best all around, rather than sticking to what's familiar merely because it works now. Simply because the "familiar" works only until it falls apart, and no one ultimately wants to be left with their pants down.
These days, most telecom companies are moving away from traditional copper wiring, and instead looking to move to more efficient fiber networks. To complete the move is a multi-billion dollar jump, and giants like Comcast and Verizon (and customers alike) will benefit from the investment. The old copper lines are "obsolete and expensive" in terms of the efficiency of the fiber networks and smaller companies are protesting vitriolically to the FCC (which could take months...maybe years to get around to a decision), especially as more and more copper lines these small companies lease through the giants mentioned above are shut down.
Most individuals are familiar with the ideas of farm subsidies and steel tariffs -- things set in place to artificially "protect" some groups at the expense of others, but Hazlitt makes no exception and telecom industries are not excluded. The idea of "saving the X Industry" applies to all industries and products across the board, and for good reason.
Actually, he says it best here:
"Improved methods of production must constantly supplant obsolete methods, if both old needs and new wants are to be filled by better commodities and better means" (86).
Thus, as long as the fiber network transition is put on hold, heavy costs will only continue to burden companies, especially those refusing to do a simple net present value analysis of the long term benefits of investment now as the technology advancement arises for better quality lines, rather than a rocky, hindered, ugly and government-involved transition later --which is no doubtthe slowest most painful way to succeed in offering anything that's better for everyone including companies and customers alike.
The long term production horizon offers more in the way of knowing what's best all around, rather than sticking to what's familiar merely because it works now. Simply because the "familiar" works only until it falls apart, and no one ultimately wants to be left with their pants down.
Monday, March 05, 2007
The Miniature World
This video utilizes economic and demographic data reproduced to simulate a community of 100 people as if it represented the entire world. The video is actually a production from The Miniature Earth Project. Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Methodological Individualism
Assert individualism as correct. That society is a mere label applied in social situations to account for an entity that has no rights in itself. Rather, the individuals carry the rights and responsibilities in their actions. They alone are the arbiters of their productive and worthwhile futures based on the choices they make. How then are members of the family unit treated? Are children treated as property until a certain age? Or are they immediately treated as individuals capable of their own decisions? Or does this only happen at a certain period (varying from individual from individual) when that person learns to think for him or herself?
If children are viewed as property until a certain age before they become rationally acting beings, wouldn’t abortion be permissible up until that point? How would libertarian justify this either way? If a pro-life advocate wanted to defend abortion, wouldn’t they merely say that they had self-ownership of her own body and that any violation of this would be aggression against her freedoms of self, assuming that the fetus within her is merely property until becoming a rational being in itself with the rights of self-ownership. If that is not the case and both beings are entities with self-ownership abilities how would one even attempt to make a case for or against abortion?
If children are viewed as property until a certain age before they become rationally acting beings, wouldn’t abortion be permissible up until that point? How would libertarian justify this either way? If a pro-life advocate wanted to defend abortion, wouldn’t they merely say that they had self-ownership of her own body and that any violation of this would be aggression against her freedoms of self, assuming that the fetus within her is merely property until becoming a rational being in itself with the rights of self-ownership. If that is not the case and both beings are entities with self-ownership abilities how would one even attempt to make a case for or against abortion?
Public Space
Assume that one has the right to ownership of him or herself—that one’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions belong to oneself. Then, if one has ownership of his or her thoughts actions and beliefs, and the application of these things also consist in the labor of one’s thoughts and actions into a product that can be economically exchanged in the market. Further, that this created product is also owned by the person that acted to create it. If all things are construed in this way in the market, and products may be applied also to intangible things (i.e., as described in property law) such as land, how is it that there may be public space at all if we needed one? When would we ever venture outside of our property—wouldn’t we get bored if there weren’t things to enjoy publicly? Wouldn’t there be the possibility that we’d be confined to our own space and that there wouldn’t be any thing at all such as a public space (i.e., parks, unclaimed oceans, resources). But if we decided there were such things we needed as the maintenance of public space, who would take care of it?
On Non-Coercion
If anything within the scope of non-coercion is permissible, under what circumstances are social relations established and maintained? That is, what would motivate one to engage in a social contract? Or is it merely assumed (i.e., through competitive advantage) that one would benefit more through engaging in forms of exchange? Also, when a contract is broken wouldn’t this be considered a violation to the violated party’s liberty? How would the justice be served in a libertarian society (i.e., would it be confined to methods such as arbitration, or would there be other options available)?
State of Nature
Assume humans in a “state of nature” naturally commit bad acts because this would be the worst case scenario (i.e., violence runs rampant, forceful action, sexual violence, and theft are common). We then emerge from this “state of nature” with the knowledge that we have a right to self-ownership, and ownership of our labor or property (assume this is as we are today, although these values have become somewhat convoluted). And the “state” was eventually created in order to keep us from anarchy. However, in a “perfect libertarian” society, the state does not exist at all.
If the government or the “state” is problematic (even in the limited sense), how are we to prevent another state of anarchy? Shouldn’t we assume the worst case scenario that it’s possible this could happen? And, wouldn’t this also be awful if it happened? That is, how do we “know” that in a “perfect libertarian society” that human nature will assume a rational/cooperative stance (i.e., adhere to the axiom implied with non-aggression, and a rational belief in natural rights)?
If the government or the “state” is problematic (even in the limited sense), how are we to prevent another state of anarchy? Shouldn’t we assume the worst case scenario that it’s possible this could happen? And, wouldn’t this also be awful if it happened? That is, how do we “know” that in a “perfect libertarian society” that human nature will assume a rational/cooperative stance (i.e., adhere to the axiom implied with non-aggression, and a rational belief in natural rights)?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Ambient Chaos
Where are all of my bats (i.e., chiropterans) when I need them?
Echolocation capabilities would be nice right about now.
Edit: This clearly has to do with how much I'd rather be contending with Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" than studying for mid-terms right now. Fleghhh.... oppression of the ivory tower consumes me!!! Let freedom be had!
Echolocation capabilities would be nice right about now.
Edit: This clearly has to do with how much I'd rather be contending with Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" than studying for mid-terms right now. Fleghhh.... oppression of the ivory tower consumes me!!! Let freedom be had!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
On Class Struggle & Literature
I'm going to quote a bit of Hazlitt from a passage I particularly like - read the full article here.
I want to be careful I don't take anything out of context - so I'm just going to keep this in mind and comment more on it later. In the mean time I must say (especially to myself) : read and think about it.
~
It may be well at this point to ask just how much a culture is invalidated or suspect because it is a "class" culture. We are led to suppose, under extreme interpretations of the doctrine of economic determinism, that our economic status inevitably determines our opinions, that those opinions are mere rationalizations of our class status. Let us admit the element of truth in this; let us admit that our economic status influences the opinions of each of us, in various unconscious and subtle — and sometimes not so subtle — ways.
"Those who seek to dismiss practically all existing culture by the mere process of labeling it 'bourgeois' are not necessarily Marxists. They are simply new barbarians, celebrants of crudity and ignorance."
Is it impossible for the individual to surmount these limitations? Is it impossible for him, once he has recognized this prejudice, to guard against it as he guards against other prejudices? Is the limitation of class necessarily any more compelling than the limitation of country, of race, of age, of sex? Because Proust was a Frenchman, his writing is naturally colored by his French environment; it is different from what it would have been had he lived all his life in England. But does Proust's Frenchness diminish, to any extent worth talking of, his value to American readers?
Shakespeare, as a seventeenth-century writer, was naturally limited by the lack of knowledge and many of the prejudices of his age; his age colors his work. Does that mean that he is of little value to the twentieth-century reader? Because Dreiser is a man, does he lose his value for women readers? Does Willa Cather lose hers for men readers? The answers to these questions are so obvious that it seems almost childish to ask them. The great writer with great imaginative gifts may universalize himself. If not in a literal sense, then certainly in a functional sense, he can transcend the barriers of nationality, age, and sex. And certainly he can, in the same functional sense and to the same degree, transcend the barrier of class.
I want to be careful I don't take anything out of context - so I'm just going to keep this in mind and comment more on it later. In the mean time I must say (especially to myself) : read and think about it.
~
It may be well at this point to ask just how much a culture is invalidated or suspect because it is a "class" culture. We are led to suppose, under extreme interpretations of the doctrine of economic determinism, that our economic status inevitably determines our opinions, that those opinions are mere rationalizations of our class status. Let us admit the element of truth in this; let us admit that our economic status influences the opinions of each of us, in various unconscious and subtle — and sometimes not so subtle — ways.
"Those who seek to dismiss practically all existing culture by the mere process of labeling it 'bourgeois' are not necessarily Marxists. They are simply new barbarians, celebrants of crudity and ignorance."
Is it impossible for the individual to surmount these limitations? Is it impossible for him, once he has recognized this prejudice, to guard against it as he guards against other prejudices? Is the limitation of class necessarily any more compelling than the limitation of country, of race, of age, of sex? Because Proust was a Frenchman, his writing is naturally colored by his French environment; it is different from what it would have been had he lived all his life in England. But does Proust's Frenchness diminish, to any extent worth talking of, his value to American readers?
Shakespeare, as a seventeenth-century writer, was naturally limited by the lack of knowledge and many of the prejudices of his age; his age colors his work. Does that mean that he is of little value to the twentieth-century reader? Because Dreiser is a man, does he lose his value for women readers? Does Willa Cather lose hers for men readers? The answers to these questions are so obvious that it seems almost childish to ask them. The great writer with great imaginative gifts may universalize himself. If not in a literal sense, then certainly in a functional sense, he can transcend the barriers of nationality, age, and sex. And certainly he can, in the same functional sense and to the same degree, transcend the barrier of class.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Re: “A lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense”
So there’s a convention…and then more conventions… and oh wait – more conventions. Let’s blindly keep following them because, well, they are conventional. Forget about intellectual freedom. Equality. You know, those basic rights. Not to mention the rational foundation on which we make choices. Nah.. it’s just how it always has been and so it should remain so. But wait, there was this thing recently called the Civil Rights Movement. What did that have to do with anything?
He doesn’t get into that. Instead, he wants to talk about “Career Women” with a capital “C.” Michael Noer is his name and he's the executive news editor for Forbes magazine.
In his much debated article originally published August 22nd 2006 (a revised version and with co-response is linked under "Career Women" above), he gives a word of marriage advice to today’s modern man: “Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.”
What exactly does that mean? Well, he goes on to define his terms. “To be clear, we're not talking about a high school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a ‘career girl’ has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.”
According to Noer, marriage is a “stressful” situation and [based solely on that idea] “professional” career women are more likely to suffer a greater chance of divorce, be more likely to cheat on their husbands, and have less kids. Marriage is merely an “exercise in economic labor specialization.” Even more to the point, he says “Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect.”
Tell me Noer, why should women be stripped of making their own choices for what role they choose in a marriage? Better yet, why should they alone carry the burden for what makes a happy marriage? I suppose these notions struck the core of me when reading this, as when I was a child, frankly, I didn’t dream of sitting at home having a bunch of kids and playing house like that was my destiny in life. Instead, I saw having a happy family and a career. I guess it meant kind of like having an identity, or something to define me outside the home. To me that fundamental idea was, and still is important to me. Just how to carry that out from a female perspective [and that’s a complex subject for another day] is not at all what he gets into. In fact, the way I see it he’s got the whole situation backwards.
Conceptually the fundamental assumption he holds is that the status quo should be maintained since there simply is no way around the “traditional” fact that women typically have stayed home to raise a family and men have gone out to work. In other words, there is no alternative, since “statistically” working outside the home does not affect men in the same way as it does women. But much of his purported argument doesn’t even get off the ground because of the high flying assumptions he attempts to make rational.
In my opinion, any one of these ideas could be replaced with “either spouse” and the logic would work the same. Simply because a marriage [ahem… it’s intuitive here] involves two people and not one. So in sorting out the few specifics he actually gives for not marrying career women (i.e., don’t marry..b/c of increased cheating, divorce, less kids) he doesn’t even acknowledge or anticipate the potential weaknesses to his reasons or even recognize the exclusivity of his claims. I agree with his idea that marriage is indeed something you have to “work” at, and it’s hard work. But he must know this… every marriage is not the same in regard to "cookie-cutter" roles, but any marriage can be a happy one. And the rewards for that work are not only satisfying, but ten fold. Or, you know, even more than that. There simply is no limit. I'd like to know how many times he's been divorced. But let’s be realistic about his claims. Marriage is for a long time. So inevitably there are going to be an abundance of temptations to “cheat” on a spouse. But what he doesn’t even come close to saying is that in any role, traditional or not, either spouse is prone to these risks. But we all know that’s where the importance of love and commitment come into play; maintaining and meeting each other’s needs and desires. So in a stable marriage the issue of whatever either spouse is doing career-wise or not doesn’t make a bit of difference, as long as each spouse consistently makes a concerted effort to maintain the relationship. Likewise, then there will also be no need for divorce if these things are upheld, so his second reason is also thrown to the wind. Finally, the issue of being faced with having fewer kids brings up several points I’d like to contend with. In my experience with young newly married working women, I don’t know any of these working “career” women that don’t wish to have children of their own one day. While I agree it may be more difficult while the children are young to raise them while working, it doesn’t seem impossible, or even illogical to not be able to have both kids and a career. There are many ways to work around this, and companies are making it [albeit slowly] easier to happen. And to use this situation to the best advantage - if both spouses are working, why can’t that extra income be used to pay for private school for the kids, save for their kids college education, or chuck a hefty bit of money away for both spouses to have a comfortable retirement. I mean, if you have the extra income why not spoil your kids to the N-th degree? In my mind, this should be just as much an option as either spouse choosing to stay home with the kids. And realistically, all of these financial things would be more difficult to achieve with only one spouse working. And of course there are the reasons for the traditional role, mainly more time spent between parent and child, greater ease with breastfeeding, less daycare costs, housekeeping costs, etc. etc. In short, (and this has turned to be everything but that, hehe.) I think every couple should be afforded the option to have choices, and weighing the pros and cons are important in any marriage. The structure of each marriage is a function of the individuals themselves, including all the unique characteristics and factors that go along with that. And these are the reasons marriage is so exciting [Remember Noer?] Thus the answer to the equation simply cannot be churned out by a simple formula for all, and my comments have been aimed to show that this is precisely what Noer has intended to suggest.
Monday, July 17, 2006
The Time Value of Money (in the literal sense)
The "penny" has recently come into the spotlight over whether or not it should continue to be a U.S. coin. Analysts have determined that because of rising inflation, by the end of this fiscal year the penny's production costs will exceed its actual value (approximately 1.23 cents, to be exact). Not to mention, the cost of making a nickel will be 5.73 cents.
Are we on the rise of an updated monetary system? Is the real solution to simply "throw" money away, or perhaps should we find a way to strengthen the economy and thus increase the penny's value ? I'm leaning towards the second idea, although I must admit, its based on my affection towards that humble piece of zinc and copper.
Are we on the rise of an updated monetary system? Is the real solution to simply "throw" money away, or perhaps should we find a way to strengthen the economy and thus increase the penny's value ? I'm leaning towards the second idea, although I must admit, its based on my affection towards that humble piece of zinc and copper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
