More Illinois math

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=244
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23034.html
Please reference the sites listed above before reading the following, which was excerpted from a press release.
       Illinois House Republicans introduced a major policy initiative last week to accelerate the repeal of the corporate income tax increase approved last January. According to the Illinois Policy Institute, since the $7 billion tax hike in January, 70,000 more Illinoisans have found themselves on the unemployment rolls. The proposed legislation takes a two-pronged approach to reducing Illinois’ business taxes:
1. Accelerates the expiration of the temporary corporate income tax increase. For income earned during calendar 2013, the rate declines from 7% to 6%, and for income earned during calendar 2014, the rate would further decline to 4.8%.
2. Effective immediately, the corporate income tax would be reduced by 0.25% anytime the Illinois unemployment rate increases by .3% in a four month span. For example, if the unemployment rate in January was 10% and in April it was 10.3% then this provision would take effect. At no point would the corporate income tax be less than 4.8% (the tax before Public Act 96-1496)
       Did you catch that? The tax rate in Illinois, for businesses is a flat 9.5%. Somehow the Illinois House believes it to be 7%. More Illinois math. maybe that is the rate over and above the base rate we all pay? Let's check.
http://tax.illinois.gov/Businesses/TaxInformation/Income/individual.htm
        Nope, that looks like 5% to me. So Where they get their information from is a mystery. So how do we compare? Well Iowa, is higher for some businesses. They increase the tax rate for higher income brackets. "Tax Rate: 6% on first $25,000; 8% on next $75,000; 10% on next $150,000; 12% on all over $250,000" (http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/taxtypes.html#corp) So If your business is earning $150,000 or more you are paying more than Illinois. Pennsylvania and Minnesota are higher, but have much lower costs of doing business, and lower state taxes overall, as does Iowa. That makes Illinois the highest overall tax rate by any count. Even if we are 4th in simple income tax. California and New York are both lower. Why is it we can only lead when it comes to corruption, overtaxing, and unconstitutional gun laws?
       Even the 1% reduction that is proposed would still place us in the top ten for income tax alone. Couple that with an oppressively union run business climate and the state tax rate in general and you still would list Illinois as the least favorable business climate in the country. And that is before factoring in the corruption. (How could you quantify that anyway?)
        So how do the states around us compare, besides Iowa? Indiana is 8.5%. Wisconsin is 7.9%. Missouri is 6.25%, Michigan (only water separates, count it) is 4.95%, and rounding out the states we border, Kentucky is a floating 4-6%. Notice any trend there? All lower than Illinois. Very good. So business would not even have to move far to remove a substantial tax burden.
       The second phase of the plan suggested is to adjust the tax rate down 0.25%, approximately 1/8 pittance, if the unemployment rate is .3 higher in any four month period. So we will attempt to fix our tax burden AFTER businesses have either laid people off, fired them, or fled for greener pastures. So we will fix unemployment retroactively?
       How do retail giants sell product so cheap, but still make more money than small business. They leverage their size to buy lower and sell lower, but at a much greater volume. In short, Illinois could lower the tax rate, thus ATTRACTING business, then collect more in taxes, at a lower rate, from MANY MORE COMPANIES. More companies mean employing more people by the way, so that would fix statewide unemployment numbers.
       Let's not forget that earlier this year the Governors of New Jersey and Indiana were running commercials on WGN to advertise the lower tax rates that their states presented. Yes it has gotten that bad here that the other states are circling our, soon to be corpse, like vultures. Let's get out and vote some of these fools out this time huh?

Short Christmas Missive

       We all have better things to do so I will keep this short.  In business there is a practice called "root cause analysis" that is used to find the source of a problem.  Its the equivalent of asking someone you are dating, "What's really bothering you."  (Married people have learned to be more obtuse)  Root cause analysis is useful in real life.  Like next time you ask yourself: "Why do I have so much garbage?"
       Start with buying habits.  You buy things.  regardless of how much or how little you end up with more garbage than you should.  So then turn to the manufacturers.  Most of their superfluous packaging is to prevent theft.  Avoidable by other methods, but not horrible.  Look now to the people who packed that box for the thing you ordered online.  Lots of extra space, lots of foam/air-bags/peanuts/bubble-wrap/corn foam. (real thing, look it up)(http://www.starchtech.com/?gclid=CJCWhJiSkq0CFeQCQAodjmK5lQ)
       Why do they use so much packaging?  Here is the root cause.  Because the people we charge with the safety of our packages, whom we pay for their safe transit from one point to another, are so bad at their jobs.  UPS, The Post Office, Fed Ex, and the others are careless to the point of criminality.  I know you think this is a silly over-reaction, but to compare: if package carriers were the police, we would all be required to wear class four body armor just in case one of them accidentally did something to hurt us.  So the next time you want to blame someone for the trash, blame the real culprits.
       You will note that I did not call this a "Holiday Missive"  That is because I do not celebrate "Holiday"  I celebrate Christmas.  So Merry Christmas.  If my wishing you happiness bothers you that is a reflection of your character, not mine.
       In my time I have worked in the North Shore area of Chicago.  Many times I was wished to have a happy Hanukkah.  Also Chanukah.  Depended on if they were Orthodox or not.  I never once was offended.  I never felt they were just putting my face in it either.  The fact that anyone, of any religious affiliation, wished me to have a happy anything, was heartwarming.  For the record, I always wished them one back.  See goodwill is free.  It can be freely given.  In fact, I felt it meant a bit more from those who knew I was not Jewish myself.  
       So forgive me this silly Christian tradition.  If my wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas bothers you, or in any way troubles your belief system, know that I say it not to be a troll; but rather, because I genuinely wish well to my fellow man.  It doesn't happen often.  Enjoy it.

Merry Christmas
Happy New Year

Sam.

P.S. just found a Google Easter egg.  Try googling Hanuka, or Chanuka.  You will see a garland at the top of the page.  At least today I did.

Only in Illinois.

       For those of you that missed it, on December 7th of 2011, the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, which exists (theoretically) to prevent the duplication of services, voted down two new hospitals for McHenry county.  This was a very contentious vote, as two rival organizations were asking for permission to build.
       Using the states own numbers, that show a need for more than one hundred additional beds, both sides felt certain that someone was going to get permission.  I would like eveyone to note that in any other business it is known that many businesses offering the same service, or product, results in LOWER prices.  In healthcare it is assumed that competition will result in HIGHER prices.  Supply, demand, heard of them?  You are one up on the state of Illinois.  (More than one actually as apparently you can also read.)
       Competing hospital groups Mercy Health System, and Centegra Health System were up for the vote.  Mercy Health system, of Wisconsin, was asking permission to build a hospital in Crystal Lake, Illinois.  They were voted down, for the third time, with a vote of 6-2 against.  Centegra Health System, of Illinois, was asking permission to build a hospital in Huntley, Illinois.  They were voted down 4-4.  (More on that math later.)  In either case it would have meant jobs for many contractors, who currently are sitting at home wishing someone would build something.  The requests were denied because some relatively local hospitals have available bed space.  The problem with that reasoning is that others are quite full.  Almost as if the populace were expressing a preference for one hospital over another.  How dare they exercise choice.  What do they think this is a free market economy?!
       Kiferbaum Construction was a player in a previous corruption issue involving the board.  (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/09/01/corruption-allegations-shake-illinois-government-health-care-market)  The article states that the entire NINE MEMBER board was to be replaced.  This board had initially denied hospitals permission to build, until they named a particular contractor as their choice for the project.
       Yours truly had written a letter to the local paper back then.  It seems a local politician, who is also a lawyer, was representing Mercy Health System in its first attempt to get a hospital in Crystal Lake.  He quickly distanced himself.  Mercy was shaken down by the board as well, but was found innocent of wrongdoing.
       Overall I have a good opinion of this politician, since he called me personally to discuss the issue.  We disagreed, but he made an effort to reach out to a member of his constituency who was unhappy.  He normally seeks input from the people he represents before making decisions.  It seems like strange behavior, but really it should be what is expected.
       Usually politicians only ask for input when they want to be absolved of responsibility.  Usually they don't ask at all.  Usually they don't care what we think.  This person does.  I will not use their name however, just in case there is still bad blood.  (My letter was not exactly kind, and my current opinion may not be cherished.)
       Here we go again.  Politics as usual in Illinois.  The problem is that they got caught.  The bigger problem is that nothing had changed.  While there is no flagrant demand to place a particular contractor in charge of the project, there is still a suspicion of corruption.
       For you see in the event of a tie, the request is denied.  Unlike baseball, in the event of a tie the call does not go to the runner.  In fact we should examine the entire idea of a tie.
       Perhaps you noticed that the Heath Facilities Planning Board has nine members.  Did one abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest?  No.  Was someone dismissed, or arrested?  No.  One member simply did not show up.  Hundreds of jobs on the line.  Two rival groups who are deeply invested.  Every bit of local media present and liveblogging, as well as webcasting.  All of this and one member just doesn't show.
       But perhaps I am rushing to judgement.  Maybe there was a good reason why one member of a nine member board was not present.  Maybe there was a legitimate reason involved.  It had better be a darned good one.

How to cheat a prospective employer.

       I recently read a helpful article on how to get your resume past the robo filters that most employers now... er... employ.  See, when you submit an electronic resume, or even when you don't, they are filtered by a computer program that looks for certain key words.  There are some legitimate reasons for this.  we will examine those first.
       In the early days of this technology being employed, it was used mostly for technical positions.  The filters would look for specific names, acronyms, or programming languages, so as to filter out those who did not have the required proficiency.  It then became applied to every type of position at every company, and as such, is now quite detrimental.  How can such a powerful tool work against you?  Let's see.
       We have all been there.  Surfing Youtube looking for lolcats or whatever, when you stumble on a video, usually adult, that is somehow in the mix with the "I can haz cheezburger" videos.  After the shock wears off you look at the "tags" associated with the video and see that there are many tags for lolcats, etc.  Now ask yourself: could not someone add such a list to the end of their resume?
       I bounced this off of someone with a bit more computer know how than myself, and he asked why have the "keyword paragraph" at all.  You see, you can insert something called a meta-tag to most documents.  Like the salmonella virus; it is invisible to the naked eye, and yet the hero of our story.  The computer would read these key words, and yet the person calling you for the interview could not see them.  This effectively means you could list the entire friggin' dictionary as key word set if you felt like it.
       Since the type of person who would embellish, enhance, or jargon-load their resume is likely also good at gaming any variety of rating system; as an employer you are showing a preference for the people who will do the least amount of work, but which looks best on paper.
       This will undoubtedly skew payroll in favor of those people, and away from the truly deserving.  Or as a co-worker put it:  "Numbers are b------t.  You want me to make 'em sing, I'll make 'em sing.  You want'em to dance, I'll make 'em dance."  Sound like the guy you want getting the biggest raise?  (For the record, he did exactly that.)
       What do you think the rest of us did when we saw that system working?  We had no choice.  Game the system, or be left behind, bitter about not getting a good raise.  That is what the modern American employer is buying with their reliance on filtering technology.  This is especially true when you are filtering for management buzzwords, marketing non-words, or any of the other crap you are likely to find being made fun of in the funny papers.
       As a side note, some of you no doubt, have noticed that I like to flex my vocabulary from time to time.  Honestly it is because it makes me feel like I'm better than you.  Kidding.  That's not why I'm better than you.  My point is that someone who has a big vocabulary, and is not in a field where filters should be used, may choose to employ words that the filter will not be looking for, but which a human would see, recognize, and accept.
       In short, corporate America, you are filtering out the people with a bigger vocabulary, (not necessarily indicative of a greater intellect, mind you) in favor of those willing to game your system.  Game here being synonymous with cheat.  Human Resources is the last place that computers should be used instead of people.  Also the most dangerous place to allow this level of laziness.
       Enjoy the workforce you have purchased for yourself corporate America.

American's Elect is a scam

       American's Elect (http://www.americanselect.org) is a scam.  I had, in the past, recommended those with a dissatisfaction in either or both parties, to head to their website and check them out.  That was than.  I will state, for the record, A: that the organization I recommended is a scam that had taken me in, and B: no longer exists, as such.
       You see, in its early days it was an organization that claimed to want to represent a candidate, not a party. They claimed they would get their candidate, chosen by an online process, (should have been alarm klaxons) on the ballot in all 50 states.  They had some start up capital provided by some rich guys, but assured everyone that all of our interests are the same.  A dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
       Well there are certain rules that political parties are required to play by.  One of them is that they have to disclose funding.  Now I have seen, on both sides, how easily this is faked, but at least they are making the effort to fake it.  When American's Elect was asked to provide the sources of their funding, as required by any 527 organization, (its a class of charities or non profits) they first balked.  Then they delayed.  Then the Re-filed themselves as a 501 c(4) charity, which is not required to disclose its funding sources.  That alone legally precludes them from backing a political candidate.  But as you will see, they don't feel the rules apply to them.
       A quick search shows that they were initially funded (no such records are available for the present time, of course) by a group of hedge-fund managers.  So, rich people playing at politics.  I don't know if they got tired of trying to buy one side or the other, or if they just felt they could hijack an election, but theories abound.
       One is that they are working for the Democrats, trying to split the conservative vote.  Possible.  Rich guys, power, Possible.  Doubtful.  Another is that they are working for the Republicans trying to split the liberal vote.  Possible, youth oriented, demographics show liberal tendencies, Possible, Doubtful.  Another is that they are just trying to win an election directly for the hedge fund managers so they can directly change the tax structure in their favor.  Possible.  More likely.  Any way you slice it, it is the lowest form of rich people, claiming to be aligned with the disenfranchised poor.
       Why do I say the lowest form of rich people.  Industrialists build things and provide jobs.  Even the green movement creates hard goods and creates jobs.  Wall street, to a degree helps creation of jobs.  Hedge Funds though:

"A hedge fund is a private pool of capital actively managed by an investment adviser.[1][2] Hedge funds are only open for investment to a limited number of accredited or qualified investors who meet criteria set by regulators. These investors can be institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund)

Further:

"Because hedge funds are not sold to the public or retail investors, their advisers have historically not been subject to the same restrictions that govern other investment fund advisers, with regard to how the fund may be structured and how strategies are employed. Hedge funds must now comply with many of the same statutory and regulatory restrictions as other institutional market participants.[8] Regulations passed in the United States and Europe after the 2008 credit crisis are intended to increase government oversight of hedge funds and eliminate any regulatory gaps.[9]"

(Ibid)

Seems we have a winner as to the motivations of this particularly sleazy group.  Recent changes to the law will regulate the back-door dealings of hedge fund managers.  We can't have that now can we?  This is not politics as usual.  This is far worse.  This is people willing to do anything, to preserve a good old boy network of legalized insider dealing, at the expense of those who can least afford it.  And they don't even feel it is worth falsifying donation records.  We are so far beneath them as to be not even worth lying to.

All or Nothing.

       No, despite the title this is not about the idiocy of the Super-Committee.  I want to discuss a topic that I have devoted a lot of thought to, that is contentious, and that might make some of you think I wear a tinfoil hat.  I have from time to time, but only for dramatic effect/Halloween costumes.  I was reminded of my need to share this when I watched a video that was posted on Facebook.  (Thanks C.P.)
       The right to vote in this country, like any of our rights, is an all-or-nothing proposition.  We all possess an equal say in who represents us in government.  Some, through negligence, apathy, disenfranchisement, or laziness choose to have less of a say by failing to exercise the right to vote.  They choose to be among those who do not participate.  Remember that distinction.  This is something they chose to do.
       Now for the tinfoil hat...  The reason everyone has a right to vote is that; say we exclude one class of people.  Not based on race, creed, color, or religion; but on something we can all agree is their own fault.  For this example we will use convicted Felons as being excluded from having the right to vote.  Now I needed time to process the argument here because, frankly, it was against what I was saying so the first few times I heard: "the constitution blah-dee blah, blah, blah.  And the founding fathers blah-dee blah, blah, blah, blah."  For the record, that is counter-productive.  You can't effectively argue against something if you aren't paying attention to it.
       The reason you can't pull voting rights from even a group like convicted felons is that one thing would occur.  (hats on)  Politicians could make all kinds of things felonies, and jail all who disagree with them.  The other side of that is to allow felons to vote, and having politician still make all kinds of things felonies, but promise the felons things that would make them vote for you.  Pander to the "prison class" you have created.  The person who promised, and delivered the greatest prize would win elections.
       There are those who argue we have been doing that for years with the "underclass" that politicians have created.  We have people who would have a lower income by working than they do by collecting public aid.  Many would point at the left for this, but I disagree.  Many times, in recent history, the Right has been in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, yet the issue persists.  That means both sides must want this.  (I told you, you would need a hat)
       Thus we have a system where those on public aid will vote for the person promising the biggest increase in payments.  Or as Benjamin Franklin put it, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."  There is an obvious solution, don't give people on public aid the right to vote; but as stated, the right to vote is all-or-nothing.  Perhaps, but again, there is a leap of reason that would allow such a thing to occur, even in our republic.
       Remember the people who chose not to vote.  By accepting public aid, or being convicted of a felony, you would simply be considered someone who chooses not to vote.  No one made the felon commit a crime.  The people in need of aid can go to charities for help.  At very least this would keep politicians from buying votes at the taxpayers expense.  Speaking of charities, they would have more money because tax-payers would have more money.  Freed from the burden of those who would abuse the system, those who vote for the biggest promises, they would have more disposable income.  When that goes up, so do charitable contributions.  So does wasting money on stupid crap you don't need, but I digress...
       I realize that many of you will cease reading my posts at this point.  But I encourage you, please, if you find I am mistaken, write a rebuttal.  Provided it is clean, not insulting, and above all, well reasoned, (I know its subjective, but really, have you seen what some people write?) I promise I will post it with all credit given to the author.  I would love it if someone presented a better solution, because when the only solution I see is removing someone's rights, I would love to be wrong.
      I will however, not publish; hate speech, someone parroting something they heard on Fox news, or someone who didn't realize that Jon Stewart was being sarcastic.