Bet you didn’t know …
… that 20 percent of tax revenue in New York state comes from Wall Street. Now that government officials have capped pay at some financial firms and discouraged bonuses, the money that would have gone to individuals will instead stay on the corporate books as profit. However, corporations are taxed at significantly lower rates than individuals — meaning that cash-strapped New York (which already has a $3.2 billion state budget deficit) will sink even deeper into the hole. If you were a New York resident, would you be OK with a tax increase to make up for the revenue shortfall caused by the pay limits imposed on rich people? (Source here.)
… that in the first nine and a half months of his term, President Obama authorized the CIA to launch at least 41 drone missile strikes in Pakistan. In contrast, it took George Bush his final three years in office to reach that same level of strikes (which are considered by some to be violations of international law). Estimates of the number of people killed in Obama-sanctioned missile strikes, a significant number of which were civilians and children, range from 326 to 538. Examine your feelings about Bush and Obama, then adjust accordingly. (Source here.)
… that if football players didn’t wear helmets during games, they’d suffer fewer head injuries. Players in the Australian Football League — who play American-style football, but without helmets or extensive padding — suffer far fewer blows to the head. Studies have shown that helmet-wearing NFL players are 25 percent more likely to suffer head injuries than their bareheaded Aussie counterparts. (Source here.)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Those Aussies will also be able to remember more too.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/concussions_promote_dementia_in_retired_football_players_9059
November 18th, 2009 at 10:40 am
This is why a subscribe to WAW in the first place. Thoughtful, provacative, insightful. Thanks G.D. and I mean that in the good way this time. Money well spent.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“If you were a New York resident, would you be OK with a tax increase to make up for the revenue shortfall caused by the pay limits imposed on rich people?”
Gearino, I don’t know who deserves a good cuffing more: you or the nimrod who authored the article that seems to charm you so.
You’re certainly not above smugly poking a sharp stick in the eye of populism if will help you make a point:
Be careful what you wish for, oh you of the ignorant and braying masses! We who truly understand high finance and unbridled capitalism have an object lesson for you. And we’ve even provided a nifty line graph that we reasonably believe to be within the limits of your comprehension.
This Berman guy dishonestly darts back and forth between private sector wages and total tax revenues without distinguishing between the two. As if to say that all the freaking money conveyed as salaries paid top management at all these NE securities firms equates to total tax revenues because wages are taxed at a higher rate. And that public outrage against the former somehow negatively impacts the latter.
His points about NY, NJ and CT relying on these sources of TOTAL tax revenue is well taken, and yes, goverment is wasteful and innefficient. Duh! But he creates a false premise that it’s the public’s outrage at exhorbitant compensation as the main reason for the drop in tax revenue.
I got news for you, the public is sick of what’s been transpiring for the last 30 years. Wall Street has a heyday while real jobs leave America in droves.
I’ve exhausted my righteous indignation, you friend of the fat cat, you.
Peace out.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
John: So … I take that as a “no”?
November 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I don’t remember the question. OK. Yeah I do. If I’m a New York resident, I’m sick of both Wall Street excess and the tax and spend ways of inefficient government. I’m the poor schmo stuck in the middle. I’m the victim.
Heck no, I’m not OK with more taxes. I’m for sweeping reform that incents big business to do something besides cutting expenses (i.e firing employees) to realize a short term boost to their bottom line. I’m the guy getting the pink slip. Me and those like me pay taxes too - or at least we did until ACME Multinational Corp outsourced our jobs to Malaysia.
This country needs an enema, one gastrointestinal tract at a time. I say we start with you and Berman.
Dan, you’re a Great American, but I miss IC and Sheila. This blog of yours is becoming a sausage-fest.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
You don’t write nearly often enough …
November 18th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
If you were a New York resident, would you be OK with knowing that the companies largely responsible for this financial mess continued to be taxed at significantly lower rates than individuals?
Bush gave Obama a significant head start.
Have you watched much American football lately? The way helmets come off and roll around the field, it shouldn’t be too long until one comes off with a head still inside it. (The thought gives new meaning to the expression “wardrobe malfunction.”)
November 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I found the middle article - sanctioned missile strikes - the most troubling. On one hand, public sentiment against torture and imprisonment of suspected terrorist seems to bring us to trials in US courts for 911 suspects. One the other, the US government is killing other suspected terrorists and other innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It appears that the desired outcome is to reduce US casualties and reduce the role of US troops in combat. Fewer casualties and a smaller US role seems to be an attempt to keep the problems with a messy war out of the headlines.
So…. how are we fighting terrorism under this administration - trials in the US legal system with constitutional rights for the accused or remote assassinations with the killing of innocent people mixed in? I guess it’s both.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:24 am
John, I’m with you. In my fantasies, both Sheila and IC are MILFS! Where’d they go?
Seems like there are far fewer impassioned rants here lately. What happened to that narcissist, Deborah?