The Problem With Getting Rid Of Free Checking

Free Checking. It's one of those wonderful ideas of the last, oh I don't know. However long it's existed. Banks so wanted our money, they'd bribe us with things like coolers and other junk just to get us to sign up for free checking. So free checking was basically free (plus a present!) checking.

But now banks are in a tizzy because they're being "regulated." Personally, I think it's a joke, and they should be more heavily regulated, but that's neither here nor there. The problem is, they claim they can't make money, so they need to axe free checking. After all, how are the banks supposed to make money, now that overdraft fees aren't automatic? You know, I wanted that juice to cost me 35 extra dollars. I can think of very few times when overdrafting makes sense. Even being late on payments usually doesn't cost you $35, buying a soda certainly shouldn't. Then Dodd-Frank cut in half the amount of swipe fees they could charge per swipe on Debit card fees. So now they charge for the privilege of spending your own money.


So let's see. Free checking. How does it work?


In the beginning, I give a bank what money I have. Any future money I might hope to earn will also go in their vaults. I can/will do this up to $250,000.


With my money, and the money of millions of others, they make loans. They loan people my money and charge them interest. Auto loans, mortgages, small business loans, etc. These loans (I'm not a financial planner) will likely vary from 3% to 15%. Maybe even higher, who knows. Lines of Credit, I'm sure, have even higher rates. Many banks even offer credit cards with rates in the 20-30% range.


Now, they don't get my money for free. They actually pay me some interest too. It's an amazingly high rate of .01%. Basically, I could travel in time 10,000 years and I'd still be poor (not even accounting for inflation). They also give me wonderful extras like Bill Pay (oooh) and Customer Service. Also, now that I'm a "customer" I can utilize their other services, like loans and stuff.


But now, this model is apparently unsustainable. The banks just can't turn a profit anymore because of free checking. Well, actually, that's not true. They'll keep your checking account free if you have a minimum balance varying from $1,000-$15,000; utilize direct deposit; or some other stipulations (like using Bill Pay a few times a month).


I don't agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be paid for their services. But the bank isn't exactly doing anything for me here. All they do is protect my money. Well, that's not true, if they are robbed, insurance covers the loss. If they make terrible bets with my money and lose it all, the FDIC will give me what they lost, up to $250,000.


They don't give me checks, either. I don't use them, but if I want them, I have to pay for them. I want to buy something with my debit card? They get money. 


The fact is, simple checking accounts should be free because they aren't worth that much; the value just isn't there. Having a checking account isn't some magical vessel that transforms my money into anything--it just lets me pay people. And 99% of the time I pay people, my bank gets money. The bank uses my money to make money.


But you know what the absolute worst part is? This is a fee for not having enough money. I literally just opened up a piece of mail stating that if I do not maintain a minimum daily balance of $100, I will be charged $15 a month. Sure, I may not be making the bank much money at that small a balance, but I'm not costing them anything either. So if I were living pay check to pay check (which I'm currently not, anyone want to hire me?) and had a balance hovering around $100, it would take five months before my balance was brought down to $10. And anyone living paycheck to paycheck with a small monthly balance could run into this problem, for example, senior citizens.


It's a shame the letter just mentions regulatory changes, but doesn't actually say which. I have a feeling the changes don't affect free checking accounts.

On The "Rich" And The "Job Creators"

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. - Alessio Rastani

To begin with, I'm in favor of taxes, and taxing wealth. I think people deserve to keep what they earn, but earnings are not the result of a windfall, they take time to mature into wealth. My views are unorthodox, but I'd tax exceptional incomes at exceptional rates. Nobody on earth is going to try to earn less money simply because it's taxed more--especially the people who love money the most.

Short term gains should be taxed at the highest rates. Long term investments should be taxed lower. Wages, actual, honest wages should be taxed at the lowest rate since they are the most "earned." I'd still tax income progressively, though, and my top tax bracket would not be $250,000.

A lot of the rhetoric in politics lately talks about the rich and the job creators. Frankly, this gets us nowhere. There's no unilateral definition for "rich." Even job creator as a class is ambiguous. Rich in Connecticut is different than rich in Florida. Rich in Greenwich, Connecticut is different than rich in Derby, Connecticut. Most people would agree that $10 million is rich, but some wouldn't. Some people find this whole conversation irrelevant, because their money is theirs. Period.

Job creator as a title is equally ambiguous. Anyone who has hired someone is a job creator. And referring to a class of people as a job creator doesn't do anything for the national conversation. Should we tax job creators? Absolutely. Should we encourage them to create jobs? Absolutely. Does offering tiny tax cuts to businesses do it? No, not really. But cutting their taxes entirely won't either.

The logic is that if the corporations and rich have more money, they will hire more. The Job Creator Fallacy. The problem with this logic is that corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in loans from the treasury, and they aren't using it to hire people. They are sitting on it. They are buying their competitors with it. And they are buying patents with it. This actually gets rid of jobs with things like consolidation and excessive litigating. Congress recently passed a law to "reform" patents. This did nothing to solve the problem, though. Google shouldn't be spending $12.5 billion on patents, they should reinvest it, or create jobs. The same is true for every other tech company battling over patents.

The problem with this whole conversation is how polarized and politicized it has become, however. Liberals see the rich as a bunch of assholes hoarding the wealth of this country while taking a massive dump on the rest of Americans. Conservatives see the rich as benevolent job creators who want to reinvest their money in their companies and create jobs, if only their taxes were lower. If only America wasn't such a high-taxed, terrible place to house a corporation. Lower their tax burden, and the jobs will come.

Liberals would counter that this "race to the bottom" gains nothing. Sure, there are jobs then (maybe) but what kind of job? All jobs aren't created equally. There are good quality jobs and terrible quality jobs. And wages are only a very small part of the quality equation.

Conservatives would counter that liberals in favor of taxing the wealthy and spreading their wealth constitutes socialism, and socialists are very, very bad. Why should they have to give up what they earn to lazy, incompetent people who don't want to work, they'd argue. It's a valid point, but who says the poor don't want to work? Maybe no one will give them a job. It's one big circle jerk, where the poor man on the totem pole isn't getting his, but ends up with everyone else's "egg" on their face. And I'm not exactly referring to trickle down "economics."

I don't care where you are on the map of conservative or liberal views, but people like this deserve to be taxed. This person deserves to be taxed at the standard rate up until $75,000 (and I'm being very, very generous. Anything after that should be taxed at 100%.



Some gems in case you don't want to watch the whole five minutes or so:

The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.

The savings of millions of people are going to vanish" in less than a year

This economic crisis is like a cancer, if you just wait and wait thinking this will go away, just like a cancer it's going to grow and it's going to be too late

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.

When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.

For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it

Until next time.

I Don't See How A Flat Tax Solves Anything

I fully admit, I don't understand the arcane art and science that is taxes and their applicable laws. But there's been something that has sort of been on my mind since around October or so.

Back when the Tea Party movement was in full force (not that it isn't now), there was clamoring for an overhaul of our tax system. I think anyone can agree our tax system is far from perfect, and needlessly convoluted. But their solution, I feel, far oversimplified things. I don't think you can take the most complicated of things, and reduce it to the simplest without losing something.

To boil humans, an extremely complicated species, for sure, into an amoeba, for example. So much would be lost in the process. Intelligent thought, for example. And no, I will not use this as an opportunity to insult tea partiers or republicans. =)

So you have our insanely complicated tax system, thousands of pages of tax codes, and thousands of people to help people understand all this. Big companies hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to pay as little as possible, so on and so forth. Poor people pay no tax, because, well, they're poor. Average people pay average tax, and the rich overwhelmingly pay most of the taxes.

Some people want to change this to a flat tax, and I understand the sentiment. Taxes are complicated, and who wants to pay someone to do their taxes. Who wants to employ an entire government agency to collect them, et cetera. Well, I do, for one.

Imagine that there was a flat tax. First of all, it doesn't work, a flat tax is regressive. Flat tax boils down to a very simple set of ideas:

First, the poor end up paying more taxes. The people who can afford it least actually have to pay more and, in effect become poorer.

Second, the rich pay less in tax. The people who need the money least end up with even more money.

The gross side effect of this nonsense is that the middle class basically disappears. The income inequality is already bad enough, with CEOs making hundreds of times what their workers earn, and that is largely due to the fact that our tax system has been slowly regressing more towards a flat tax (in theory).

But, taxes really aren't that complicated. Most people can file a 1040 or 1040EZ which takes only an hour or so of your time, even if you don't know what you're doing. For self-employed people, taxes can in fact be more complicated, but this is largely do to having to do your own bookkeeping, not an overly complex system of tax codes. How much did you spend on gas and electricity? There's a line for that on the form. How much in entertainment and food? Take half of that and slap it on the form. It's basically a boring adult version of color-by-numbers.

As for the people that taxes are really complicated for? The obscenely rich who have investments and the like who pay lobbyists to insert loopholes that they then hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to exploit to the max. Maybe this is a little biased, but when is the last time you took advantage of a tax loophole? I'll bet Exxon-Mobile does it on a daily basis, like monkeys on the discovery channel. Does it make sense that the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment gets paid $800,000 in wages (taxed at 35%) and $20 million in dividends (taxed at 15%). This is why the tax codes are needlessly complicated, because rich people intended it to be so.

Note: I'm being chastised because the other half would like to work out, so I will bring this post to a close. I actually only intended it to be a short little snippet of a post anyway.

Casting aside the irreparable harm that a flat tax would cause to this country's economy and to it's people, I have another extremely large concern. This is my main concern, really, and why I started this post originally.

If we went to a flat tax for everything, and got rid of the IRS, then what? What about those people? They are now not only out of a job but out of a career. They will have been trained for an industry that no longer exists. The IRS workers would all be out of jobs and basically screwed. Would tea partiers be willing to have the government pay to reeducate these people for new careers? Or are they strictly on their own? Would my dad be able to retire? I don't think he can go back to school for a new career at his age. What about my brother and his family? Would they be out of luck too? Would they add to unemployment and homeless statistics? What about Kaulean who does something related to taxes and auditing for the government?

Also, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and the like. Although I don't like them as businesses, certainly they employ at least some decent people who'd be out of work. As would every other CPA or accountant.

So tell me again, how is a flat tax good, and what problems does it solve? Because frankly, my dear, I just don't see it.

Goodbye Keith, We'll Miss You

In the world of news, there are very few people who can make it exciting. While Keith Olbermann may have at times been a little over the top, I think he brought something that the news needed: unrelenting honesty. And I think that with that comes a certain amount of anger, which at times can be hard to control for someone in a  position like that. I can understand many of his frustrations, and I think his show was something of a triumph, if a bit biased.

There are few wordsmiths quite like Keith, though, especially in the news, and that is what really made his show enjoyable; I love words, and clearly Keith Olbermann does too.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So we bid you adieu, for now. I'm sure you'll be back sometime, somewhere, and we'll be waiting. Besides, we don't watch tv anymore anyway, so hopefully you end up somewhere where we can catch up.

Good night and Good Luck. Though, I'm not convinced you'll need it.

Have You Heard Of BlogHer?

I don't think I respond to things the way most people do. Sometimes, I feel bad because of how I respond, because I wonder if I am fair, or just whiny. For the record, I'm not whiny, though I am a critic. I, like most, have an opinion about everything, and I tend to share it.

I don't praise everything, either. I tend to point out the flaws in things. I don't do this because I'm a Negative Nancy (sorry if anyone named Nancy reads this, it's nothing personal.) I just feel that everyone points out what's good. Look at competition shows: what good is telling people on American Idol they are all talented, or bakers on TLC (don't get me started...) that they're all talented. Of course they are. That's like telling someone on Jeopardy that they are all intelligent. The rounds and rounds of testing they need to pass to get on Jeopardy proves that. Only one person can win.

So I point out what is wrong with things, because I think people tend to overlook them. Not that flaws are bad, mind you. I like flaws, they add character. But sometimes, these grievances need to be aired.

BlogHer is a blogging network of sorts. Basically, it's a collection of blogs that they think women would be interested in. I don't like this. I don't like a men's version either. They are stilted. I'm willing to bet I like more websites on the BlogHer network than the College Humor or Asylum network of sites.

Apparently, men like the following things:

- Women. Lots of them. The less clothing, the better. Some sites offer scantily clad one, others offer naked ones, while others offer celebrities.

- Vehicles. The more horsepower, the better.

- Tools, clothing, video games, movies, music, et cetera.

I don't agree with this. I don't care about looking at things like AskMen or Maxim and seeing women in them. And anytime I click a link to one of those websites that does interest me, I'm inundated with women everywhere, and Krissy facetiously asks me why I'm looking at sexy ladies. But I'm not; she's my sexy lady, so I look at her.

Then there's cars. I don't really care about cars. I have one, it gets me from A to B. I don't need a cat that costs a million dollars, or goes 200 MPH. I don't need to tow a house through the Grand Canyon. I just don't. I have an interest in tools, but I'll get what works and what's needed, it's not an obsession. The rest are really applicable to anyone. In fact, it all is.

Women like movies. Women like music. They even, gasp, play video games. Not just wussy ones, either. They play things like Halo and Call of Duty. True story.

It is in this vein that I disagree with BlogHer. Here is their information page for bloggers and what it says:

• over 90 days old
• open to comments
• that are updated weekly (preferably twice a week, or more)
• free of any advertorial or sponsored posts, and compensated product reviews
• that are not password-protected
• without profanity in the title and/or URL
• that don’t publish adult content
• that don’t belong to another ad network, requiring “above the fold” placement
• hosted by a service that allows advertising (some do not)
• not hosted by a service that places graphic banners at the top of the page
• written by women, or with a demonstrated female audience
• that adhere to our Editorial Guidelines

First, I must add that they randomly made some words bigger than others. Much bigger. This hurts my eyes, and is obnoxious. This is not dynamic, it is stupid. Reading is not a roller coaster ride, it doesn't need to be more exciting. They are guidelines, treat them as such.

They want blogs that have been around for a bit, I understand, they want people to be able to comment, fair enough. They want people who actually blog, and that people can actually see. This all makes sense.

But here's what I don't get. adult content, profanity, and written by women for women. I'm sure there are women that like adult content. They are alienating a large group of women with this. Adult content is exceedingly vague, too. Does this mean no penis? No vaginas? Women love vaginas though, they are beautiful, like childbirth. What about breasts, is that "adult content?" Is a woman grabbing her breasts adult, but checking for breast cancer okay? If so, what is the difference, a woman is touching herself either way.

Profanity. Women curse. Yes, we curse too much as a whole, but profanity hardly should be censored. Women, or anyone else for that matter, do not need to be shielded from language, coarse or otherwise. Fuck isn't going to hurt anybody. Shit, either, unless someone flings poo and it gets into your eyes. But not the word; it's just letters. Maybe copulate and excrement are more suitable. But we all know they just mean fuck and shit. Even women; especially women.

The big one: written by women for a demonstrated female audience. I don't qualify, I'm not a woman. Apparently, men do qualify, though, because David Lebovitz is a member. They just appear to emphasize  women writers, literally, "women" and "female audience" are several sizes larger. I get wanting female writers, though. Women are interested in other women, and simultaneously hate every single one of them. But how does one demonstrate a female audience?

Does blogging about food do it? What about politics, does that do it? Does one need to post about feminist ideas, or emasculate men? Can you write about sex without breaking the earlier rules about adult content? Jezebel certainly doesn't apply, because their writers use profanities and talk about all kinds of adult content, yet they are a blog about and for women. In fact, Krissy makes fun of me when I read it. Blogging for a female audience seems awfully vague about a very specific idea.

Then there are the editorial rules, most of which are fair, and the heart of why I started this post. Their editorial guidelines stipulate:

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that:

Contains editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, and/or contains paid advertising links and/or spam. 

except, they actually encourage it through their reviewer program. Let me explain. BlogHer has advertisers. These advertisers give BlogHer money and products for their bloggers to review and give away. This clearly violates the whole "no sponsored posts" rule, and is, frankly, disappointing.

Here's an example: Right now, BlackBerry is a sponsor, so if you head here you get a page of BlackBerry ads. Also on that page are links to blogs, like this one, which are really just advertorials. Maybe that's not fair, or being too fair. Advertorials are written by the ad agency to look like editorials, and we recognize them as such. No, these paid reviews are more like payola in the music industry.

I clicked one of the BlackBerry posts which led me to a site about baking. What does a baking blog need to review a cell phone for? Computer magazines don't review chocolate. Of course, this isn't really a review either, it just praises the phone.

Uh, I couldn’t be more wrong. This new BlackBerry Style phone is rocked. It features a full QWERTY keyboard and it’s one of two BlackBerry(s) to run on the BlackBerry’s latest OS 6, the best part—it is the only one to sport a 5 megapixel camera. How’s that for being dead wrong? I’m a BlackBerry user and always have been. I love its functionality for work and for play—most importantly, it’s a hardy phone. No cracked glass screen when I drop it. Yes, I know there are sleeves to prevent that, but I firmly believe a phone should be able to withstand a drop without going bust. I’m also a working mom who needs functionality and form to work hand in hand.

Okay, so first impressions are that...it's one of two BlackBerrys with the new OS? That excites her? oh, and a full QWERTY keyboard, because that's unique. It also has a 5 megapixel camera, because when it comes to cameras, megapixels is all that matters.

Here are the things that I look for when I’m phone shopping:
Size
Yes, size does matter. I love that the BlackBerry Style is even smaller than my work issued BlackBerry Bold. That means I can easily slide it in my back pocket for convenience and since it’s a flip phone I don’t have to worry about any accidental butt dials!

Okay, it's smaller. This is a plus? It's smaller, has a full QWERTY keyboard and a 5 megapixel camera?  Anyway, the real benefit here is that the camera is smaller than her old BlackBerry, so she can place it in her back pocket no problem. I can thus only reach one conclusion. Her old BlackBerry must look like this:

Zack Morris, you have a phone call.

The best thing about flip phones? You can totally put them in your back pocket, sit on them all day and not dial old ex-boyfriends with your ass. You might have a nasty case of hemorrhoids, though, so I don't think the back pocket is the ideal place to put a phone. Just sayin'

Camera
Camera. Lights. Action. Go. Okay, so my son doesn’t get this kind of preamble, usually it’s me just shoving my phone’s camera in his face to capture a moment. I don’t carry a point and shoot everywhere but I do carry my phone everywhere. Having said that, I’m loving the 5 megapixel with flash. That’s right five-five megapixels on a phone!

Lights! Camera! Action! Wait, this camera does video? Oh, no, it doesn't. Now I'm confused. Okay, so maybe she confused video and still photography, no biggy. She does have an amazing camera in her phone though. I mean, it's five megapixels! That is unheard of in a phone. Wait, didn't the Nokia N95 have a 5 megapixel camera? When did that come out again? Oh yeah, that's right, 2007. 

Speed
This BlackBerry-baby is fast. For a working mom, time is a commodity—so yeah, I need speed. The load time for switching between web based applications is nil and the search time on the web browser moves at the rate in which I can inhale a cupcake—Ahem, that pretty much means a little under a nano second.

It's fast. Blazing! But the Torch (AT&T) is faster. And then there's the iPhone and many Android based phones with a processor nearly double this ones speed. And the BlackBerry app platform is hardly robust compared to that of Apple or Google. This sounds like total pandering, and I don't like it.

Needless to say, I love this BlackBerry Style phone, so I’m excited that in conjunction with Blogher, BlackBerry is offering this phone with Sprint’s network to (2) lucky winners.

Great! except, they are only giving you the phone, you're on your own for service. And it only works on Sprint. How much does this phone retail for? $399. Yikes! This must be a pretty good prize, no? What's that? You're telling me this phone is only $20 when you sign up for a contract with Sprint?

You can enter thusly:

• Leave a comment letting me know the most important feature you look for when shopping for a mobile phone.
• Tweet about this promotion and leave the URL to that tweet in a comment on this post. 
• Blog about this promotion and leave the URL to that post in a comment on this post.
• For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules for alternate form of entry.

Commenting is easy, although clearly this is so BlackBerry knows what people want. That's fine, we all want better phones. Maybe they can give us a phone that the wireless providers can't cripple with their own software? Android is supposed to be open, and it is, but AT&T and Verizon cripple them with their own, closed software. We shouldn't be at the mercy of the providers.

Tweet! That way, #BlackBerry #Style can be trending on #Twitter and people will  be #curious about this #Payola! As they say, any news is good news.

You could also blog about it. I wonder if this counts? Does a blog criticizing the company, the product, and the network count? After all, there was not one flaw reported in that entire "review" Maybe she could have mentioned how the app market is poor compared to competitors. Or that the browser is slower than Apple or Android. How web pages look tiny on the itty-bitty screen? The incessant scrolling and zooming you need to do to read the pages could have been pointed out.

FYI: I just checked, it actually does do video. How could she leave this out?


Here's a real review on the camera courtesy of PCMag:

The Style's 5-megapixel camera could be better. Its awkwardly placed, so it's easy to cover it with your thumb. The continuous autofocus can make for some blurry pictures if you don't wait a second or so for it to lock in. And images are a little bit dark, and show slightly too much color noise. It's not hideous by any means, but there's better out there. The video mode takes 640 by 480 videos at 20 frames per second with a slight pulsing effect; that's behind the 30fps we see on top-of-the-line Android and Apple phones.

 So the camera is actually just okay, and can be kind of annoying.

Anyway, I'm done. I just wanted to dissect BlogHer and their advertorial/Payola system, because this kind of stuff really bothers me. I don't like pandering to companies, and how mommy blogs were kind of founded on it. I'd hate for someone to have read a less then genuine review on a blog only to buy that product and be disappointed.

On Undermining Professional Photographers

Being unemployed has its pitfalls, but it also has it's benefits. One such bonus is that I get to read a lot. Perhaps too much, in fact. I have kind of avoided reading about photography opinion for a few months. Aside from the constant bickering over HDR, Canon vs. Nikon, first party versus third party lenses, stock versus micro stock, et cetera, very little was offered. I just got sick of reading about people complaining. Most egregious, though, are people complaining about others ruining the trade by diluting the market.

I understand their plight. Really, I do. They have been taking photographs for years, and getting a certain wage for that. And now, with digital cameras everywhere, everyone is a photographer, of sorts. Now, everyone can take photos, and we can all get better, because practice is free now. 

The fact is, there are tiers of artistry. I can take a photograph. I can take a better photograph (subjective, I know) than someone. And someone else can take a better photograph than I can. I am not Joe McNally. I could buy all the gear and hire all the help I wanted, I still wouldn't be Joe. I'm not Louis Pang either. I don't know the first thing about photographing a spread for National Geographic or photographing a wedding. So why do I read everywhere that people like me are ruining the field by driving prices down? 

For the record, I'm not, I haven't taken photos for anyone, but let's say I did. According to what I read online, I should charge roughly what  an experienced photographer charges, maybe a little less. But wait, charging just a little less hurts their bottom line, so I shouldn't do that. I'm not as experienced as they are, so I should charge a lot less, right? 

Say I wanted to be a wedding photographer (true story), prices range from $500 all the way to $10,000 or more. On average, prices tend to be $1500 on the low end and $5,000 or so on the higher-than-average end. So what about me? After all, I'm getting married, so I'm going to need a photographer. But I don't exactly have money, so what am I supposed to do? Go without photos? Hell no. So then what? 

What about other people in my situation? What about young couples (or old ones!) who want to get married but don't have a lot of money, but want photos of the event? Is it really hurting anyone for us to pay someone a few hundred dollars to take our photos? Does this really hurt someone charging three, five, or ten times this amount? Does Prada worry about Wal*Mart hurting their clothing sales?

So what is this really about?

I think it's about innovation. I don't think there's been much innovation until recently. Wedding photos have always been pretty boring and staid. But now, they are dynamic. Even the more traditional photos of weddings are more inspired now than in the past. But there are all kinds of wedding photographers now, and that is truly inspiring. Does it matter if some of them charge $500 on Craigslist? I don't think so. 

If you're a photographer who has been in the business, and you have not evolved, that is your problem, not everyone else's. You've missed the boat, and now you need to catch up, like me.

But I can't help but think of people who are far worse than we. I can't help but imagine what child workers in other countries would think of this complaining. What would these photographers do if they made seven cents an hour? Because I bet the people who make our clothes would be more than happy to switch wages, since I don't think many of them can even imagine $500, much less thousands.

I feel like I could have said this all better and more effectively, but the words aren't coming to me. Maybe because I've stopped reading about it, maybe because I'm tired or mentally fatigued. But my point stands. Complaining is not going to fix anything. If someone is undercutting your business, figure out why. Don't just whine and give up. If people are hiring them and not you, it's for a reason. Either they can't afford you, or don't value your work for your price. Reflect. I think you'll find that reflection offers all of the answers. Just keep an open mind. Oh, and one more thing. Innovate, for crying out loud!

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

On Censorship, Specifically Why It's Unnecessary

Recently, the northeast got pounded with snow. From what I understand, most of the country now has gotten at least some snow.

Which leads me to this:



I don't understand. I really, truly don't.

Seriously, I try to understand why some of the most innocuous things offend people the way they do, but I just don't get it. So a couple of kids made a penis snowman.

At the beginning, there is a kid who seems absolutely terrified of having saw it. I feel bad for him, honestly, I do. But I think his parents put him up to it. What does he do every time he needs to pee or take a bath? Does he wallow in his tears, feeling offended that he has to look at a penis? I mean, it's just a penis.

Parents were offended, the town was offended, but it's a penis. Every boy has one. Every mother has seen some. You know what, I'm willing to bet every single person in that town has willingly seen a penis.

Then there is the mother who says her two-year-old doesn't even know what it is. Only, she says it like it's a travesty that her child may now know what it is. I bet her kid doesn't know what mayonnaise is either. Or Wolves. Or Velociraptors. Velociraptors would cause much more harm than a penis.

If you think about it, this town should be celebrating the penises, not crucifying and, more importantly, censoring them.

Why is a penis "obscene" but a foot isn't? There is absolutely nothing in our culture that maintains any sense of purity with that body part. Nor a woman's. I understand there are cultures in other parts of the world where showing a foot is basically a full-on seduction. But here? No. In America, nothing is sacred. And that is kind of the beauty of the USA.

Only, we're not really all that free. America is built on freedom, and any time we fight someone we are told it's for our freedom. But it's bullshit. Because you can't say bullshit on television. You can't create art and put it in your yard if someone else deems it offensive.

Well, actually you can. That, too, is the beauty of America. We actually are free to do whatever we want, with one minor caveat, however: we pay the consequence. Make a penis sculpture? Go to jail. Say "fuck" on television (Cable, I might add), pay an exorbitant fine.

But wait, how exactly is this freedom? This is no different that castrating all the statues in the Vatican city-state. This is no different from any other country in the world. No one can stop you from doing anything, and if you do it, you face the consequences. Spit gum on the streets in Singapore? pay a fine. Steal in Iran? Lose your hands. and so on.

Yes, we have more freedoms than some countries, notably the press, although that point can be seriously argued, especially as of late. But in regards to censorship, we are seriously lacking. And we are seriously lacking because art is disappearing. We pour trillions of dollars into financial firms, billions into sports, and practically nothing (relatively) into art and education. Want an example? Republicans trying to take away funding for the CPB which funds NPR and PBS.

I never took art in school. Well, I did the normal elementary school garbage like cutting and pasting. But once I was in middle school, art was relegated to two two-week sessions. Hardly what I'd consider supportive of the arts. Physical education, too, was equally punished (but that's a whole different blog).

In high school, we were free to make our own choices (except freshman year) which was refreshing, and something I definitely approve of. I don't wish I was forced to take X number of classes in art, though, I do wish I'd taken art. I wish before high school I'd been subjected to art-- to a lot of different subjects to be better prepared for high school and college.

My three biggest interests, photography, art, and baking/cooking were completely inaccessible in school. To say I was initiated to art in school would be laughable. two weeks cannot even be considered an introduction or a survey of a course. Especially in middle school. Cooking is obviously never done in school, at least not any I've been to. And photography was most definitely never offered as a course either. I wish they had been.

So why must we censor everything? Does hiding curse words from children really do them any good? Does the word fuck instantly transform a good kid into a deviant? Does seeing genitals on television, or in art create sexual deviants? No. I'm guessing it's the opposite.

Maybe I am wrong, but what is the difference? Imagine you are a blank slate, like a child. Imagine you don't know what lettuce is. Or what a hand is. Or a breast, yes, a breast is a good example. Now imagine flashcards. On one flashcard is a photo of lettuce and on another is a breast. Is one naughty? Is one bad? Is one of those photos going to do something terrible to your psyche? No, because you don't know the difference.

Imagine, now, flashcards of breasts. One card has male breasts, and one has female breasts. Is one naughtier than the other? Is one more vulgar? Why? What if you are a blank slate? Is it because they are covered up? I don't go shirtless outside, does that make my breasts more vulgar than a guy who live in South Beach? Is a roly poly, hairy man shirtless more vulgar than my shirtless breasts? What about a woman who's had a double mastectomy and doesn't have breasts anymore? Is that no longer obscene? I mean, no longer will she have milk-giving breasts, or anything resembling what a woman's breasts are typically. No, they're much more akin to a man's. But no, that's probably not right either. That's probably more obscene in reality. What parent would show their child a woman's breasts post operation? No only would the child be subjected to breasts, but these are no ordinary breasts. They're different. They'd have scars.

Genitals are utilitarian, just like hands and feet. No more, no less. Hands are used to open doors, cabinets, build things, et cetera. Our feet take us from point A to point B. Genitals expel waste and create life. They are surrounded by our pelvic bones, which support our entire upper body. Butts expel waste, too, and there's nothing obscene about them; they're pretty tame and usually get a laugh.

So maybe instead of condemning penile sculpture, we should be embracing them. They do, after all, create life. What has a snowman ever done for you? Besides, find me a kid who's never drawn a penis and giggled. It's fun because we're told its taboo, for no other reason than it's taboo. That's like saying your morals come from morals, with no other rationale. "Why is murder bad?" "Because it's immoral!"

I'd like to ask those people (and the FCC) why they find these so offensive, and so obscene. I wonder if the woman in the video was disgusted when she was having the sex that gave her her two year old child. Maybe that is the real triumph, and she wants to protect her child from making the same mistake she did: seeing a penis. Pray that baby isn't a boy, though.

And why is it okay to show a naked baby but not an adult?

Causes I Believe In (Especially For The Holidays)

It's Christmastime, among other holidays, and it's a time when we often reflect on the year, and look forward to the year ahead. Granted, we also freak out about the fact that we still haven't finished our shopping, fret over gifts that need wrapping, and convulse at the mere thought of all the food that needs cooking; but all in all, it's a happy time. Even in the worst of times, we've got it pretty good here.

While we may spend our days pinching our pennies, wondering when things are going to get better (in about five years, if you're curious; sorry), there are people in the world in far dire straits than we. In honor of the season, and being thankful and hopeful, here are some of the causes I believe in because the reality that they need to exist kind of makes me sick.

charity: water is a pretty new charity; I believe they've only been around for a few years, but it's one I believe in. It's on the top of my list, actually. I've already decided that when I can start taking pictures for money, that the first $5,000 (every year) will go to charity: water so they can build a new well where it is needed.

charity: water exists to bring water to areas that have no access to clean water. To me, this is a travesty (that people don't have access to clean water, not the charity). If there is one thing that we take for granted in life, I think it is water. We use tons of water. We boil potatoes in it, make pretzels in it, boil bagels in it, take showers with it, wash our cars with it, et cetera. And yet, there are people who can't even get a glass of water, much less the gallons upon gallons that we use on a daily basis.

I don't know all of the statistics, but I also don't particularly care; ten people without water is too many. but according to charity: water, there are almost a billion people without access to water-- that's one in eight people. Almost every death resulting from unsafe, unhygienic water is a child. Bad water keeps children out of school and parents out of work. The walk to a water source can take a woman (because it's always the woman) three hours, the return trip carrying a forty pound jug of water, where they are extremely vulnerable to violence and sexual assault (among other things).

With a well in their community, this walk is transformed to only fifteen minutes (hooray! No more back pain!). Building wells employs local people, providing them with work. The wells also provide women with jobs, namely leadership positions which would otherwise be pretty much impossible. Wells allow for children to have safe drinking water, saving thousands of lives a year and allowing them to go to school because they are healthier. charity: water also provides the communities with latrines to emphasize sanitation and hygiene.

I really like this charity, and its rare to find a charity where 100% of your contribution actually goes to the charity's mission. Every single dime they get goes to building projects because all of their overhead is sponsored.

Twenty dollars can give one person with water for twenty years. This isn't one of those creepy "just thirty cents a day to sponsor Eli. You'll receive pictures and updates, et cetera" type deals. People are dying because they can't have a basic human necessity. Clean, safe water ought to be a human right, not a privilege, so give them money. Every $5,000 well provides water for 250 people. If you want to get something in return for your contribution (I understand, no worries), there are many gifts you can receive (or give to others). I'm partial to the Thermos. For $40 (that's, like, two DVDs) you can provide clean water to two people for 20 years and you get a sweet Thermos: win-win, no? I think the Photobook would make a good present too. Sitting on your (or someone elses) coffee table, it's sure to start up a conversation. The right kind of conversation.

Here's a video from a completed project:

Toms Shoes

This one isn't a charity; I'm just going to get it out there. But that doesn't make their mission any less worthwhile. Essentially, Toms is a company that will provide a pair of shoes for someone in need every time they sell a pair. They are for-profit, but there's no harm in that. I really like their shoes; they are extremely different from what we find here. They are (I believe) based on a shoe style from Argentina. The shoes are all pretty affordable, usually in the range of $60, some costing around $100.

I like these. They seem warm and fuzzy, but still stylish and masculine.



If you are looking for something more substantial for winter, they also offer boots. I like these ones, but these are also pretty agreeable.

We all buy lots of shoes every year, why not pick up a pair of unique, stylish shoes simultaneously helping someone desperately in need of shoes? (By the way, they have shoes for the ladies and children, too!)

K.I.N.D. (Kids In Need Of Desks)

I was watching The Last Word last night when I saw a segment on this charity run by UNICEF with MSNBC to provide desks to children in need of them in Africa. The segment started with a clip of Ann Coulter arguing that America is the most charitable country in the world, but that this is thanks to conservatives and not liberals, because liberals are apparently stingy or something. (Nevermind that progressive causes tend to focus on spreading wealth around, et cetera). Lawrence O'Donnell then went on to say that in a day his viewers had donated around a million dollars.

Regardless, kids need desks. Have you ever studies on the floor? Taken a test on the floor? It's not easy, I imagine, and is probably pretty discouraging, wouldn't you think? Each desk costs $48. That's probably what a nice bottle of wine costs. $48 provides a desk for two kids (hopefully they don't peek during those tests!), which is kind of a trivial amount, if you think about it. Want to outfit an entire classroom of thirty with desks? Only $720.

If you want to help provide desks to children in Malawi, head over to UNICEF and donate.
Here's the link.

Some statistics:
In Sub-Saharan Africa, forty-five million children don't go to school.
Only 20% of students who do go have desks.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kids need desks, no matter where or who they are.

Be kind this holiday season (and beyond). There are people far worse off than we, and they can use some help.

On Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is kind of misleading. One would think, by its name, that it is the very least you could make and survive, but that's just over $17,000 before taxes in Connecticut, and ours is higher than the rest of the country's. I can't think of a single place you could live in Connecticut on that. Maybe you could hope to find a couch to sleep on at someone else's home, and hope they don't charge you rent?

I understand the argument people will make; minimum wage isn't meant to live on, it's for 16-year olds who are working their first job. Maybe that's true, but I believe there's a better way to go about it. Technically, for the first forty-five days (give or take, I'm not an HR person) they don't even have to pay minimum wage.

So how about we make the minimum wage something a person could actually survive on? Connecticut is expensive. Our taxes are high (we have the third highest tax burden of the country, go us!), homes cost a fortune, and land is exorbitant. So make the minimum wage something like $20/hour. Don't think I don't understand what that means though. Believe me, I know that people would argue that that wage would crush small businesses, but I think those people are wrong.

I realize that that is a lot of money; it's a bit over $41,000 before taxes, and I understand that costs three times more per employee than it does now. I can add up the numbers and figure what that would do to our local grocery store (who pays minimum wage) and realize the costs that would add on. I do realize that this would cost billions of dollars across the country and cost large companies like Target and Wal*Mart millions. But that's okay. I don't mind.

For what it's worth, if I ever employ someone, I am going to pay them a fair wage, not minimum wage, and here's why. Do I want someone doing the bare minimum for me? Say I owned a grocery store, does paying my employees minimum wage inspire them to care? There are a lot of theories in running a business, and I don't know any of them, but I know how I'd run mine: I want everyone to care. When I see school pictures from Lifetouch (or any of the other studios) I can tell the photographer doesn't care. The entire process is filled with people who don't care.

Lifetouch could actually use a pre-school photographer right now; let's look at what they want:

Requirements
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Customer service experience strongly preferred
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Previous experience working with children preferred
• Ability to work with minimal supervision as well as in a team environment
• Willing to work a varied seasonal schedule, including early mornings
• Demonstrate a positive and professional image
• Ability to effectively interact with preschool age children and adults
• Accessibility to reliable insured transportation to reach assigned locations. Vehicle insurance must be current and in compliance with state law.
• Must have a valid driver’s license
• Ability to operate camera equipment
• Ability to travel up to 75 mile radius

First and foremost, they want someone who graduated high school, fair enough. They want someone who has customer service experience. I can see that being useful, but for pre-school kids? I kind of don't think customer service helps you deal with pre-schoolers. Communication and interpersonal skills are great, too, but four and five year olds require far different approaches with regard to interpersonal skills than, say, teenagers or adults. Just sayin'. Finally, they get to working with children. I think this is more important, personally. Children are very fickle, and can see right through you; knowing how to approach them and deal with them is paramount, in my opinion. The next few make sense and are basically par for the course with any job. Eighth on the list is the ability to interact with teachers and students, really? Again, I'd suggest this would be more appropriate at number two or so, certainly not eight. Astonishingly, though, is that second to last is the ability to operate a camera, which unto itself is incredibly vague.

If you think about it, though, you realize what their priorities are. Lifetouch doesn't want to hire photographers. No, photographers are expensive. They want someone who can take a picture the way they tell them to. Notice, they don't look for photography experience, just the ability to operate a camera. My niece is four and can operate a camera; alas, she doesn't have a high school diploma though, their number one priority. It doesn't talk about pay, but I'm going to assume it's not a lot; they're looking for, arguably, the bare minimum.

Think about when you go to retail stores and how unhelpful people are. Sure, you get that one really helpful kid that you always look for (that was me!), but most of the people seem like they could care less, right? Well, why should they? These kids generally get treated like garbage (I've seen it, and it's been me), they need to do the jobs of three people, and they have to deal with customers who are usually upset for a reasons that aren't their fault. So for $8.25 an hour, how much do you think they are going to care? Not much, they just want their shift to end.

Imagine if they were paid $20 an hour though. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth it. Consider how expensive training employees is; companies hate having to hire people because of that cost. Most of the time they have to go through the pain that is hiring someone because someone quit or was fired. If a business owner needs to hire someone new because business is going so well, I doubt they'd be unhappy. I bet business owners would treat that process better if it cost them $20 an hour, but more importantly, they'd put more effort in because the quicker their employee can work, the better.

Anywhere I have ever worked, training has been an afterthought. They stick you in front of a computer, or have you listen to a CD, or watch a video. That's hardly effective training. It's like going to college. Book knowledge is great, but the real learning is the first six months on the job (from what I hear, I wouldn't know). You had better believe anyone I hire, will be trained by me. I want to know them and I want to trust them. An employee for your company represents you; would you want that person to honestly care, or be there for spending money, because that's what minimum wage is at its current rate.

At this point, I've discussed why I would pay someone a fair wage, but am I right? Moral obligations to your fellow man aside, what about financially? It is awfully expensive to be a human being sometimes, you know. Maybe I am a dreamer, and what I envision in my mind is utterly wrong, but this is how I see it.

I live in Woodbury, it is a small, but affluent town. We have a lot of elderly people here and probably more antique shops than I can count. But let's pretend it's your town. Think of all the business and workers in your town, think of the people spending money. Imagine they all made $40,000 minimum. Most who retail jobs shop where they work. It's convenient because they are there all the time and they know where everything is. Plus, I bet if they were paid well, they'd like the store more (and care about being there more). There are a lot of little shops here in Woodbury. We have a really awesome indie toy store, Geppetto's, but it's expensive. That is, I can't afford it, unless I really think the recipient will appreciate the gift. But I'd rather shop there than K-Mart. Actually, I wouldn't buy a toy from another store (unless it was similar in style). I do this because their toys are well constructed and will last, unlike those from most stores.

There's a grocery store here too. It's different than your average grocery store, though. There are two checkout lanes, they use a wood stick for an order divider. They offer local produce, and local handmade items. I can buy chocolate goat milk there (yum!), along with all kinds of spices and baking goodies I've not found elsewhere. But I can't afford it, although I really wish I could. I want to give them my money (and indeed I sometimes do), but just not enough of it.

I could do a lot with $40,000 a year, though. Combined with Krissy, we'd make no less than $80,000 pre-tax. That's a number I like, and it's just above the number surveys have shown is what it takes to make people happy. (Technically the survey is $75,000 a year per person). We could do a lot with that money, we could, you know, actually live a life. We could, and would, spend money at local businesses. We would buy handmade crafts from local (and not-so-local, thank you Etsy) crafters. We might go out to eat at one of the few nice local places once a week instead of cooking. Ayla's is good for lunch, too. What I'm trying to say is that we would inject a lot more money into the economy, specifically, the local economy. So while it may cost businesses more to pay $20 per hour, in the long run they will reap the benefits.

I wonder what's better for the economy, money circulating or sitting in stocks. Does it really help small businesses when people own billions of dollars in stock? I'm pretty sure if we all had more money, we'd be likely to spend it, no?

Good For Youth?

Something that I think might be even more important, though, is for the younger workers. Teaching kids financial sense aside, a higher minimum wage is common sense. There's no denying that we've become indebted to credit card companies. But what might surprise you is that student loan debt has surpassed that of credit card debt.

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion

Yeah, we have a combined $1,656,285,000,000 (that is, one trillion, six hundred fifty six billion dollars) in debt between the two. Considering also that 84% of students had credit cards in 2009 with an average debt of $3,173, maybe having the option of saving is a viable one. I figure even working part-time, a student could feasibly save quite a bit before school, and work some during school part-time as well. I don't see how slapping graduating college students with anywhere from $50,000 to $400,000 in debt is a good idea. Perhaps a better, more honest, minimum wage could alleviate some of that. (The larger problem of tuition costs and banks shelling out awful loans could use a revamp, too).

Good For The Elderly?

I've had the pleasure of working with some amazing older folks. Granted, some were a bit ornery and obnoxious, but most of them were happy people who I'm glad to have worked with. But I don't think we ought to have people working until they die. I'm all in favor of people working because they want to, but they shouldn't have to work to pay bills at seventy or eighty.

Let's face it, the older we get, the more our health, and that of our loved ones, suffers. Healthcare is, regrettably, far too expensive. Social Security isn't exactly an amount one can live on, so we have to use savings. Healthcare can obliterate savings in a matter of months to a few years. Increasingly, people are working longer than they have to just to survive. What if those older people, instead of making a paltry $8 or $9 per hour made over twice that. They are capable, and work harder than most people I've worked with. And, hey, they may even enjoy going to work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening. Minimum wage has stayed the same for fifty five years once adjusted for inflation, but the cost of living has skyrocketed. Minimum wage is supposed to combat poverty, but politicians who decide minimum wage don't have to worry about ever earning such a pitiful wage. Maybe they should.

Perhaps having public service jobs pay minimum wage could make a difference. Public service is, after all, a service, not a career. (FYI: most members of congress are actually millionaires). At minimum wage, politicians wouldn't be doing the job for the money, but for the people they represent. It's hard for me to imagine that a millionaire can understand my plight and where I am coming from on a daily basis.

For what it's worth, poverty, in Connecticut, is defined as $21,027 for a married couple with two children. I'm not even going to address how ridiculously low that is. I actually kind of wrote about it here, with some caveats. First, the numbers I used are for a married couple with no children. Second, I used $40,000 in annual salary, almost double the poverty level. My question is, if a married couple in Connecticut can't survive on $40,000 a year, then how can we expect a family of four to survive on $21,027?

Be Kind.

Tax Cuts Don't Always Result In Paying Less Taxes

It really bothers me that the tax cut deal will actually increase taxes on poor people. It's kind of ironic, considering that of all the people who could use the money, they are the only ones who will pay more.

I don't think billionaires need the million-upon-millions of extra dollars. Sure, for the poorest, taxes may only go up by a very small amount, but that very small amount is a much larger percentage of their income. (Fun Fact: The Walton Family would save over 23 billion dollars with the estate tax portion alone. That doesn't even include the income tax portion.)

Anyone making $20,000 or less a year, or married couples making $40,000 or less will actually pay more taxes this upcoming year. Beyond being unfair, it just doesn't make sense. Consider that in Connecticut $20,000 is already hard enough to live on. A married couple making only $40,000 for the most part cannot survive.

Let's do some simple math:
$40,000 a year equals $769.23 a week for two people pre-tax.
Taking out takes would leave that couple with around $30,600 a year or $588.46 a week.

That brings us to around $2,353 a month. Let's pay some bills and, hopefully, buy some groceries.

Rent: $1,000 ($1,000)
Electricity (Second highest in the nation): $100 ($1,100)
Internet: $$40 ($1,140)
Cell Phones: $60 ($1,200)
Car Insurance: $200 ($1,400)
Car Payments: $350 ($1,750)
Gas: $160 ($1,810)
Groceries: $160 ($1,970)
Monthly necessities: $100 ($2,070)

That leaves about $300 a month leftover, and I am sure I am forgetting things. Of course this doesn't include buying new clothing, gifts, entertainment, or other necessities. Nor does it include renter's insurance, property insurance for two cars (probably $750-$1,000), or other random miscellany. This doesn't include doctor's appointments, prescriptions, car repairs, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly though, this offers no room whatsoever in a budget to actually save money for a future. This doesn't include having children and their associated costs. This doesn't account for buying furniture or anything else like televisions or kitchen gadgets.

Fact is, in Connecticut, a couple cannot live on $40,000 dollars just as a single person can't live (on their own) on $20,000. It just doesn't add up. At best, you'd spend exactly what you take in, living week-to-week praying that nothing goes wrong. No chance at having a family and no chance to save towards a future. No vacations or getting sick.

But these are the only people who will pay more taxes; the people who can afford it the least. To call the fact that the very richest of Americans would pay less goes so far beyong a slap in the face. It kind of feels more like a door mat. But not a nice, fuzzy new one; no, an old ratty one they just want to throw away. That's us: garbage.