This is a post-tax reflection.
Why do the pols continue to blow smoke up the asses of the American people? The basic issue of taxes and how to raise revenue are not hard to understand, yet they are never discussed. The reason being that the top 1%-5% benefit from not clarifying what are really simple issues. Keep in mind who is in the top 1-5%.
1) There is a difference between the marginal tax rates (which the President wants to raise on the top 2%) and the effective tax rate which is never mentioned. The effective tax rate is the percentage of taxable income that is actually paid after deductions. So, if you cap deductions at a certain amount (e,g, $30,000) or eliminate deductions (like mortgage interest, contributions, state property taxes, etc.) without raising the marginal tax rates, the effective tax rates will go up and the government can raise more revenue.
2) Now why would the President, the politicians, and the rest of the high earners, who know the difference between effective and marginal rates, dwell on being for or against raising the marginal rates and resist eliminating deductions? If you eliminate deductions (individual and corporate) you will raise the effective tax rate. Could this debate over marginal rates be a big smoke screen to keep from discussing effective rates.
3) Could the silence on this matter be the fact that the Presidents effective tax rate was 26% while his marginal tax rate was 35% (or whatever the top bracket is). Could the answer be in the fact that probably every member of Congress, every major media owner/manager/anchor/etc. also have lower effective tax rates than their marginal rate, and thus do not want to eliminate or cap deductions at $30,000 and keep the marginal rates as is. Why doesn't the President tell Joe the Plumber the difference between effective and marginal tax rates. And by the way, we wonder where Warren Buffet is on this one; he is very concerned about his secretary's income but he is silent on deductions.
4) Our effective tax rate was higher than the Presidents, and probably higher that Romney, Buffet, or any member of Congress.
When we were kids we could always smell the horse manure because there were still horse-drawn vendors on the street. Today, the horses are gone but the smell is still there.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Professional Advancement -- Academic Style
This is a summary of offers for academic positions that were received over a 50-year career. Letters are available.
"No amount of having starred/
Atones for later disregard/
Or keeps the end from being hard." Robert Frost
1963: Faculty position, University of California, Berkeley
1963: Faculty position, Colorado State University
1963: Faculty position, Cornell University
1963: Faculty position, Kent State University
1964: Faculty position, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
1964: Faculty position, University of Waterloo-Canada
1964: Faculty position, Antioch College
1964: Faculty position, University of Nebraska
1965: Faculty position, University of Wisconsin-Madison (visited,
offer received and refused).
1965: Faculty Position, Dartmouth College
1965: Faculty position, University of Delaware
1965: Faculty position, University of Illinois-Urbana
1966: Faculty position, University of California-Santa Barbara
1966: Faculty position, State University of New York-Stony Brook (visited,
offer received and refused).
1967: Faculty position, School of Education, Stanford University
1968: Faculty position, Vanderbilt University (visited, offer received
and refused).
1968: Faculty position, Tufts University
1969: Chair, Illinois State University
1971: Chair, University of Maryland-College Park (visited, offer received
and refused).
1971: Faculty position, Ohio State University
1971: Chair, University of Nebraska
1971: Chair, University of Missouri
1971: Chair, Kent State University
1971: Chair, Lehigh University
1971 Faculty position, Michigan State University
1971: Chair, State University of New York-Binghamton
1972: Faculty position, Boston University
1972: Chair, Tufts University
1972: Faculty position, Indiana University
1973: Faculty position, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
1973: Chair, University of Delaware
1973: Faculty position, University of Maryland-College Park
1973: Chair, University of Utah
1979: Chair, Florida State University
1980: Chair, Michigan State University (Carolyn visited, offer received
and refused).
1981: Dean, College of Liberal Arts, University of Kansas
1982: Chair, University of South Florida
CONCLUSION: After all of the above, we remained at Purdue for 50 years. WHY? It was the age of nepotism in higher education. All offers refused were because RP and CCP could not be on the faculty in the same department; the positions offered were in sociology and something else. Purdue was alone at the time for not having a nepotism rule. So much for conservatism at Purdue!
"No amount of having starred/
Atones for later disregard/
Or keeps the end from being hard." Robert Frost
1963: Faculty position, University of California, Berkeley
1963: Faculty position, Colorado State University
1963: Faculty position, Cornell University
1963: Faculty position, Kent State University
1964: Faculty position, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
1964: Faculty position, University of Waterloo-Canada
1964: Faculty position, Antioch College
1964: Faculty position, University of Nebraska
1965: Faculty position, University of Wisconsin-Madison (visited,
offer received and refused).
1965: Faculty Position, Dartmouth College
1965: Faculty position, University of Delaware
1965: Faculty position, University of Illinois-Urbana
1966: Faculty position, University of California-Santa Barbara
1966: Faculty position, State University of New York-Stony Brook (visited,
offer received and refused).
1967: Faculty position, School of Education, Stanford University
1968: Faculty position, Vanderbilt University (visited, offer received
and refused).
1968: Faculty position, Tufts University
1969: Chair, Illinois State University
1971: Chair, University of Maryland-College Park (visited, offer received
and refused).
1971: Faculty position, Ohio State University
1971: Chair, University of Nebraska
1971: Chair, University of Missouri
1971: Chair, Kent State University
1971: Chair, Lehigh University
1971 Faculty position, Michigan State University
1971: Chair, State University of New York-Binghamton
1972: Faculty position, Boston University
1972: Chair, Tufts University
1972: Faculty position, Indiana University
1973: Faculty position, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
1973: Chair, University of Delaware
1973: Faculty position, University of Maryland-College Park
1973: Chair, University of Utah
1979: Chair, Florida State University
1980: Chair, Michigan State University (Carolyn visited, offer received
and refused).
1981: Dean, College of Liberal Arts, University of Kansas
1982: Chair, University of South Florida
CONCLUSION: After all of the above, we remained at Purdue for 50 years. WHY? It was the age of nepotism in higher education. All offers refused were because RP and CCP could not be on the faculty in the same department; the positions offered were in sociology and something else. Purdue was alone at the time for not having a nepotism rule. So much for conservatism at Purdue!
Sunday, January 18, 2015
M - Academic Style
Our local newspaper recently published an interesting article on the prophet M and the roots of the prohibition against his "picturing." What was missing in the story is the less well-known fact that M also appears in human form, especially among infidels when they have strayed too far and are in need of re-education. The human appearance is unusual but it is designed to undercut many corrosive secular-modern ideas that are dangerous because they lead mere mortals to believe that they have the right--indeed the duty--to shape their own lives.
In our 50 years as faculty at Purdue University, we believe that M has appeared three times in human form. The first time was in the form of the University President who believed that his special powers required a revision of health insurance without consulting the mere mortals. The second time was when the Dean of Liberal Arts required the mere mortals under her command to vote repeatedly on the same issue until the outcome of the vote was the correct one. The third time was when the Provost believed that he/she possessed special knowledge of the talents of normal people, like the length of their beard, and therefore was empowered to act on behalf of the wishes of M.
We believe that there are many at the University who think they have special knowledge of M. They are found in three groups. Some of them are of low-birth with few followers, but who nonetheless believe that M speaks through them, and their passive nature only strengthens M. A second group is composed of others who are known to be special because of their religious training which took place among many others who claimed special knowledge of M. The third group knows that M is a myth, but they are fearful that a demystification of M would be damaging to the collective good, and harmful to their own careers and their families.
So where does this leave us. We believe that the cuckoo clock will make a reappearance as one of the greatest achievements of our civilization. The cuckoo clock will provide an abundance of new information about M and will inspire the appearance of new followers. What is to be done? Don't invest in razor blades or electric shavers!
In our 50 years as faculty at Purdue University, we believe that M has appeared three times in human form. The first time was in the form of the University President who believed that his special powers required a revision of health insurance without consulting the mere mortals. The second time was when the Dean of Liberal Arts required the mere mortals under her command to vote repeatedly on the same issue until the outcome of the vote was the correct one. The third time was when the Provost believed that he/she possessed special knowledge of the talents of normal people, like the length of their beard, and therefore was empowered to act on behalf of the wishes of M.
We believe that there are many at the University who think they have special knowledge of M. They are found in three groups. Some of them are of low-birth with few followers, but who nonetheless believe that M speaks through them, and their passive nature only strengthens M. A second group is composed of others who are known to be special because of their religious training which took place among many others who claimed special knowledge of M. The third group knows that M is a myth, but they are fearful that a demystification of M would be damaging to the collective good, and harmful to their own careers and their families.
So where does this leave us. We believe that the cuckoo clock will make a reappearance as one of the greatest achievements of our civilization. The cuckoo clock will provide an abundance of new information about M and will inspire the appearance of new followers. What is to be done? Don't invest in razor blades or electric shavers!
Thursday, October 30, 2014
The Triple Revolution: 1965-2015
In the mid-1960s, a committee of 35 academics and social activists sent a memorandum to President Lyndon Johnson describing three broad social forces or revolutions that were reshaping the world. They were: cybernation revolution, weaponry revolution, and human rights revolution. They argued that these "three separate and mutually reinforcing revolutions" called for a "fundamental reexamination of existing values and institutions."
Robert Perrucci and Marc Pilisuk took the idea of the triple revolution and elaborated its implications for understanding institutional social problems in the United States, publishing it in a collection of papers with the title: The Triple Revolution: Social Problems in Depth, Little Brown, 1968. Three years later, they published an expanded version with the same publisher under the title: The Triple Revolution Emerging: Social Problems in Depth, 1971. The expanded version contained about 200 pages of new text by the authors in the form of chapter introductions.
The main thrust of this early work was that America's social problems should be understood as institutional problems and not as failures or deficiencies of individuals. The significance of this work was that the thrust of the analysis of social problems was shifted from individual pathologies and individual deficiencies to a focus on the larger structures of power and inequality that were themselves social problems.
Carolyn Cummings Perrucci and Robert Perrucci are now working on a project that returns to the themes of the original works in 1968 and 1971 to update the argument with new data and an assessment of what has or has not changed. We will identify those forces contained in the three revolutions -- technological militarism, cybernation, and human rights -- that remain significant today in modified form or in new institutional structures, and those forces and conditions that no longer hold today. We also propose to examine why there are both continuities and changes over the 50-year period.
Robert Perrucci and Marc Pilisuk took the idea of the triple revolution and elaborated its implications for understanding institutional social problems in the United States, publishing it in a collection of papers with the title: The Triple Revolution: Social Problems in Depth, Little Brown, 1968. Three years later, they published an expanded version with the same publisher under the title: The Triple Revolution Emerging: Social Problems in Depth, 1971. The expanded version contained about 200 pages of new text by the authors in the form of chapter introductions.
The main thrust of this early work was that America's social problems should be understood as institutional problems and not as failures or deficiencies of individuals. The significance of this work was that the thrust of the analysis of social problems was shifted from individual pathologies and individual deficiencies to a focus on the larger structures of power and inequality that were themselves social problems.
Carolyn Cummings Perrucci and Robert Perrucci are now working on a project that returns to the themes of the original works in 1968 and 1971 to update the argument with new data and an assessment of what has or has not changed. We will identify those forces contained in the three revolutions -- technological militarism, cybernation, and human rights -- that remain significant today in modified form or in new institutional structures, and those forces and conditions that no longer hold today. We also propose to examine why there are both continuities and changes over the 50-year period.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Rebuilding America
We recently published an article entitled: "The Good Society: Core Social Values, Social Norms, and Public Policy" (Sociological Forum, vol. 29, March 2014). Our basic argument was that the politicians and political pundits have been focused on the "one percent" of Americans and we could expect little from Washington in the way of solutions to key problems of unemployment and inequality. We suggested that real solutions could only come from the American people if, and when, they recognized and embraced a set of core social values, and a set of guidelines for their behavior. This post is designed to briefly summarize our key points in the published article.
Core Social Values:
Greed is Good: Use It or Lose It: Instead of attacking the one percent of wealthy Americans, we should recognize the many ways in which they contribute to the economy and are responsible for employment, income, and employee benefits. Thus, Gordon Gecko (from the movie Wall Street), the epitome of greed, should be honored and encouraged to pursue a life composed of seeking new entrepreneurial ventures and a path of personal consumption involving multiple homes, autos, and Learjet airplanes. All of these activities are beneficial to the broader economy and contribute to employment opportunities.
So instead of turning Gordon Gecko into a despicable person, and risk killing the goose that may lay the golden egg, we recommend that we let Gordon Gecko be Gordon Gecko and give him the social honor of recognizing that his lavish personal consumption style, or entrepreneurial projects or philanthropic gifts do serve the common good. But, and it is a big but, we proposed that a major proportion of the wealth that Gecko does not consume or give away in his lifetime must be returned to the public treasury upon his death. In short, use it or lose it. No more family dynasties.
The other core social values included: Achievement in All Things (emphasis on an achievement orientation in everyday life, whether in school, work, sports, or hobbies); All Work Has Value (all work that serves some common good, from physician to garbage man, should be respected and compensated with a living wage, security, and retirement benefits; A Culture of Responsibility (families help to provide for members' well-being).
We argue that the four core social values must be transmitted and reinforced, and we identify a pattern of social norms that identify those behaviors that will reinforce the core social values. The social norms that we identify include the following.
Buy American to Create Jobs. When Americans call upon their government to create jobs, they must be prepared as consumers to take the lead and to exhibit behavior that is consistent with job creation.
Expanding Worker Voice Beyond Income and Pensions. Here we argue for the expansion of co-ops and worker ownership that will help to create and save jobs, and expand opportunities to create realistic solutions to social and community problems.
Beyond Consumerism. We discuss alternatives to economic metrics, like the gross domestic product, to determine how people feel about their daily lives. Feelings about well-being and happiness are often tied to non-economic activities, and we discuss how these alternative paths to happiness may be pursued.
After discussing these core social values, and the social norms that contribute to their realization, we look at what the politicians in Washington can do. We propose three new public policies that are consistent with the core social values and social norms. They are:
Raising New Revenue: Targeted Philanthropy, Choice tax, and Jobs Tax
Affordable Tuition: Making Core Achievement Values a Reality
Family as the Primary Unit of Society Must Be Supported
If you want to know more, please read the article.
Core Social Values:
Greed is Good: Use It or Lose It: Instead of attacking the one percent of wealthy Americans, we should recognize the many ways in which they contribute to the economy and are responsible for employment, income, and employee benefits. Thus, Gordon Gecko (from the movie Wall Street), the epitome of greed, should be honored and encouraged to pursue a life composed of seeking new entrepreneurial ventures and a path of personal consumption involving multiple homes, autos, and Learjet airplanes. All of these activities are beneficial to the broader economy and contribute to employment opportunities.
So instead of turning Gordon Gecko into a despicable person, and risk killing the goose that may lay the golden egg, we recommend that we let Gordon Gecko be Gordon Gecko and give him the social honor of recognizing that his lavish personal consumption style, or entrepreneurial projects or philanthropic gifts do serve the common good. But, and it is a big but, we proposed that a major proportion of the wealth that Gecko does not consume or give away in his lifetime must be returned to the public treasury upon his death. In short, use it or lose it. No more family dynasties.
The other core social values included: Achievement in All Things (emphasis on an achievement orientation in everyday life, whether in school, work, sports, or hobbies); All Work Has Value (all work that serves some common good, from physician to garbage man, should be respected and compensated with a living wage, security, and retirement benefits; A Culture of Responsibility (families help to provide for members' well-being).
We argue that the four core social values must be transmitted and reinforced, and we identify a pattern of social norms that identify those behaviors that will reinforce the core social values. The social norms that we identify include the following.
Buy American to Create Jobs. When Americans call upon their government to create jobs, they must be prepared as consumers to take the lead and to exhibit behavior that is consistent with job creation.
Expanding Worker Voice Beyond Income and Pensions. Here we argue for the expansion of co-ops and worker ownership that will help to create and save jobs, and expand opportunities to create realistic solutions to social and community problems.
Beyond Consumerism. We discuss alternatives to economic metrics, like the gross domestic product, to determine how people feel about their daily lives. Feelings about well-being and happiness are often tied to non-economic activities, and we discuss how these alternative paths to happiness may be pursued.
After discussing these core social values, and the social norms that contribute to their realization, we look at what the politicians in Washington can do. We propose three new public policies that are consistent with the core social values and social norms. They are:
Raising New Revenue: Targeted Philanthropy, Choice tax, and Jobs Tax
Affordable Tuition: Making Core Achievement Values a Reality
Family as the Primary Unit of Society Must Be Supported
If you want to know more, please read the article.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
American Exceptionalism
This is a delayed response to the recent outpouring of commentary about "American exceptionalism" which was undoubtedly inspired by the exchange between Obama and Putin on the subject. Obama believes that the US is special because of its willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure to help others. Putin's response was to warn that it is dangerous to encourage people to think of themselves as exceptional because it may encourage dangerous behavior in international affairs.
We think that neither Obama nor Putin understands the one true meaning of American exceptionalism. It has nothing to do with jingoistic feelings of superiority or sentiments of national feel-good or cultural pride. Put simply, it is the belief, grounded in the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution that there is a person called a "citizen" and that citizen is the sovereign who controls all rights (whether they come from God, or Nature's God) about how to live one's life. To secure individual rights, and adjudicate conflicting rights, sovereign citizens rights are loaned on a temporary basis to organized entities like governments, and they may be withdrawn whenever citizens feel that their sovereignty is being ignored. We believe that the Occupy Movement and Tea Party Movement are examples of citizens acting to take back their sovereignty.
We think that neither Obama nor Putin understands the one true meaning of American exceptionalism. It has nothing to do with jingoistic feelings of superiority or sentiments of national feel-good or cultural pride. Put simply, it is the belief, grounded in the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution that there is a person called a "citizen" and that citizen is the sovereign who controls all rights (whether they come from God, or Nature's God) about how to live one's life. To secure individual rights, and adjudicate conflicting rights, sovereign citizens rights are loaned on a temporary basis to organized entities like governments, and they may be withdrawn whenever citizens feel that their sovereignty is being ignored. We believe that the Occupy Movement and Tea Party Movement are examples of citizens acting to take back their sovereignty.
Crime, Color & Cops
We are reluctant to get into the thicket of crime, color, and cops because there are many scholars who have devoted their careers to the subject. But we are willing to comment on media coverage of the topic and to try to be more analytical.
(1) Crime statistics indicate that non-whites commit more crimes than whites. Why this is so would take you into a literature worth 10 dissertations. But basically, if cops spend more time in non-white, poor neighborhoods they will detect and report more criminal behavior by poor and non-white subjects. What is presented as evidence of police racism may be situational.
(2) The cop-offender relationship has to be understood as a relationship between isolated offenders and organized cops. That means that one side has no collectively-based rules of engagement and the other side has extensive rules of engagement. This means that offenders may not realize that they are provoking an unwanted response from a cop who has memorized the rules of engagement and for whom self-protection is essential.
(3) Why does a cop shoot an offender six times? (Ferguson question). If you have ever fired a handgun you know that it is very inaccurate. So once a decision is made to fire at an offender, a cop will fire until the clip is empty. Handguns are very ineffective tools, which is why automatic rifles and shotguns have become popular.
(4) What constitutes a crime should not be a matter of culture, but is often discussed as if it may be. Drinking at home or in a bar is not a crime. But public drunkenness is a crime, as is driving under the influence. Smoking pot at home is not a crime, but smoking pot in public is a crime. Carrying a closed bottle of spirits is not a crime, but an open bottle is. Whether or not the amount of drugs in ones possession is a crime may depend on the situation. The cops have very clear guidelines telling them what do, but offenders seem to have no collective guidance. This difference may be the basis for many drug-related arrests.
(5) To account for police racism we are often given the statistic that whites use pot more than non-whites, but non-whites are more likely to be arrested for doing so. Even if true, this difference may be irrelevant to crime statistics if whites use their drugs in private places and non-whites do so in public places.
(6) Why police tend to kill mentally ill men seems too obvious to require comment. Cops respond to situations in ways that protect themselves first, and then the public. If police kill black men, mentally ill men, and poor men (what they data indicate), is it possible that these three categories of men may be exhibiting provocative and threatening behavior without realizing they are doing so and thereby provoking the defensive behavior of cops.
(1) Crime statistics indicate that non-whites commit more crimes than whites. Why this is so would take you into a literature worth 10 dissertations. But basically, if cops spend more time in non-white, poor neighborhoods they will detect and report more criminal behavior by poor and non-white subjects. What is presented as evidence of police racism may be situational.
(2) The cop-offender relationship has to be understood as a relationship between isolated offenders and organized cops. That means that one side has no collectively-based rules of engagement and the other side has extensive rules of engagement. This means that offenders may not realize that they are provoking an unwanted response from a cop who has memorized the rules of engagement and for whom self-protection is essential.
(3) Why does a cop shoot an offender six times? (Ferguson question). If you have ever fired a handgun you know that it is very inaccurate. So once a decision is made to fire at an offender, a cop will fire until the clip is empty. Handguns are very ineffective tools, which is why automatic rifles and shotguns have become popular.
(4) What constitutes a crime should not be a matter of culture, but is often discussed as if it may be. Drinking at home or in a bar is not a crime. But public drunkenness is a crime, as is driving under the influence. Smoking pot at home is not a crime, but smoking pot in public is a crime. Carrying a closed bottle of spirits is not a crime, but an open bottle is. Whether or not the amount of drugs in ones possession is a crime may depend on the situation. The cops have very clear guidelines telling them what do, but offenders seem to have no collective guidance. This difference may be the basis for many drug-related arrests.
(5) To account for police racism we are often given the statistic that whites use pot more than non-whites, but non-whites are more likely to be arrested for doing so. Even if true, this difference may be irrelevant to crime statistics if whites use their drugs in private places and non-whites do so in public places.
(6) Why police tend to kill mentally ill men seems too obvious to require comment. Cops respond to situations in ways that protect themselves first, and then the public. If police kill black men, mentally ill men, and poor men (what they data indicate), is it possible that these three categories of men may be exhibiting provocative and threatening behavior without realizing they are doing so and thereby provoking the defensive behavior of cops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)