Reshared post from +Tim O’Reilly

Capital Gains Cuts: Why the Ryan Tax Plan Goes in the Exact Wrong Direction

As The Atlantic points out, Mitt Romney would pay 0.82 percent in taxes under the Ryan Plan.  (Mitt himself pointed that out in the primaries when it was Newt Gingrich trumpeting the plan.)  And of course, the plan is a non-starter when it comes to funding Federal obligations.  Unless Romney plans to cut military spending in half, and cut social security to boot, there's nothing left to fund anything else.

But the real issue, to me, is the source of the tax cuts: capital gains. We have an economy whose prime dysfunction comes from the fact that financial markets have become a casino.  The fact that the current tax plan favors capital gains over wages (with a 35% marginal tax on wages, but only 15% on capital gains) helps boost the financial economy rather than the real economy.

I haven't done the math on how much additional revenue would be gained, but from the point of view of equity and incentives, I'd leave capital gains rates as they are but greatly extend the time horizon for "long term" capital gains.  (Short term capital gains from financial instruments held under a year are taxed the same as wages (leaving out social security and other taxes added to employment income), but gains for property held longer than a year are considered long term, and taxed at the 15% rate.)

I'd set the threshold for long term capital gains at five years (at least).  There's a big difference between owning a home, or a business, for many many years, and then having a one-time gain that represents a lifetime of investment, and  holding a stock for a year, and juggling a stock portfolio to hold that stock just long enough to get favorable tax treatment when you sell it.  The idea that a year is "long term" is laughable to anyone who really thinks long term.

I'd also tighten down all the loopholes that allow people to avoid paying even capital gains by borrowing against the value of a security.   One rich friend remarked that he's never paid taxes.  He bought a building in Manhattan when he was in college; its value has increased by tens of millions of dollars (perhaps more), which he's taken out as loans against the value of the building.  The same is done with equity in companies, and a whole class of specialized financial instruments have been created to hedge against the downside risk.  I'd bet that many titans of industry have bought their yachts with tax-free dollars taken out in just this way.

The point is that if we want to rethink the tax system, we need to get beyond simplistic models that cut, cut, cut, and figure out all the places where taxes highlight our wrong-headed social strategies, and fix those problems.  I'd start by rethinking the incentives that reward the behavior than nearly broke the world economy, rather than doubling down on them, encouraging even more financial sociopathy.

The Ryan Plan rewards everything that is wrong with our economy, and the fact that Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as a running mate indicates as surely as anything does that Mitt is the wrong guy to tackle today's problems.

But if people don't understand, the answer is not to hide the ingredients, but to educate people.

Reshared post from +Mike Elgan

Is the Public Too Stupid to Understand Food Ingredients?

There has been a lot of debate lately about food and beverage labeling. Should ingredients be listed? Or are people too dumb to understand, so it's better to conceal from the public what they're putting into their own bodies?

I have to admit that I've been pretty shocked lately by public support for the latter idea. Many people will actually argue that certain ingredients should not be on food labels because people don't understand that the ingredients are safe.

One example is genetically modified foods. California's upcoming Proposition 37 would require that GMO foods are labeled as such. Opponents to the proposition argue that people will falsely believe that GMOs are harmful, so they shouldn't be told.

Another debate is raging in the wine industry. There are currently about 200 ingredients you can add to wine without having to list it on the label. Advocates for the status quo argue that some people will falsely believe that ingredients commonly added to wine (clay, acid, lab-cultivated yeasts, enzymes, sugar, gelatin, charcoal, a fish bladder extract called "isinglass" and many others) are harmful or undesirable, and therefore shouldn't know they're there.

Now, I understand why food and beverage companies don't want labeling. They want to add anything they want without losing sales to people concerned about those ingredients. They don't want market advantages conferred on natural food producers who make foods without ingredients that are objectionable to some customers. Customer ignorance is more profitable than customer knowledge.

What I don't understand is the acceptability of that argument among the general public.

In fact, it's outrageous. Why? Because people are trying to win the argument through legislation.

GMOs are controversial. Some people say they're fine. Other's say they might not be. We're all arguing about it. But some people who embrace the "GMOs are fine" opinion want to win the argument by removing knowledge about which foods contain GMOs. They want people who don't want GMOs to eat them without knowing it because they've already decided that their side is right, and the other side is wrong. Argument over.

When food ingredients are controversial, it means by definition that the argument has NOT been settled. Don't let the advocates of ignorance end the argument in their favor by a legally sanctioned suppression of facts. Oppose the advocacy of ignorance argument, especially as it relates to food.

Your right to know what you put into your own body is more important than their right to secretly slip ingredients and chemicals into your body that they've decided you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about.

Californians: Vote YES on Proposition 37. And everybody: Harass your congressmen to stop allowing food and beverage producers to hide what they put into YOUR body.

Over the course of the next four weeks we watched as the robins tended the nest and four babies hatched. Around June 11, four babies hatched and over the next two weeks we observed as they were fed and grew rapidly. June 23, 2004, exactly one month after we first noticed the nest, we watched as the four fledglings climbed out of the now very crowded space they had shared since birth and may their way into the sky.

I wonder how many of those or there offspring are still among the many robins that hang around our yard every year.

Reshared post from +Talking Points Memo

Romney says his business record, taxes should be off the table:

Reshared post from +Kevin Tofel

I typically don't talk politics publicly, but I'm making an exception in this case. And let me preface this by saying, I do not want (nor will I) debate policy or party with anyone. Make your own informed decisions and I'll do the same.

Having said that (and this is the TRUE point of why I'm sharing this), it sickens me that politicians and political action groups treat the American public as if they were stupid. 

This ad is the latest and I saw it on TV yesterday. It's from Americans For Prosperity, who, according to them, "is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process."

If that's really true, why compare the deficit with the debt in a misrepresentation? Deficit is one of three states of a budget: deficit, surplus or balance. Budget states and national debt are completely different and the AFP knows this. Shame on them.

Again – I'm not advocating for or against a party, a candidate or a policy here, so please let's not debate that. Thanks.

Reshared post from +Mike Elgan

How the Olympic Committee Violates the Fundamental Human Rights of Athletes

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), drunk with greed and power, is forcing athletes to cover tattoos, remove headphones, take of wristwatches and generally stop showing any corporate logo of any company that isn't an Olympic sponsor.

For example, the committee is currently investigating whether it will allow Jamaican sprinter Yohan Blake (pictured) to continue to wear his own wristwatch during the games, as the watch maker is not a sponsor.

The IOC required Team USA's track star Nick Symmonds to cover a temporary tattoo on his arm, because it showed the Twitter name of one of his sponsors.

Dr. Dre sent free Beats headphones to some athletes. When a few people on the Great Britain team mentioned it, the IOC "sanctioned" them, and ordered them to wear the headphones provided by official sponsors.

They also sanctioned Australian swimmer Libby Trickett for exercising her right to free speech in a Twitter post, in which she promoted a company sponsoring her.

The IOC justifies this crackdown by citing Rule 40 of the IOC charter.

You like rules and charters? I've got one for you, IOC. It's called Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specifies that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Yes, I know athletes agree to your shameless rules, which are designed to extract the maximum amount of money from mostly unpaid athletes. But they suck, and your enforcement of them is ridiculous and extreme.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/olympics-2012-yohan-blake-359931