The Right Reasons

 

A Kiss From A Rose

Baby, I compare you to a kiss from a rose on the grey
Ooh, the more I get of you, stranger it feels, yeah
And now that your rose is in bloom
A light hits the gloom on the grey.

Before I give you my rose, are you here for the right reasons?

Some rules of thumb which I generally follow when I enter the voting booth, if I do not know the candidate. They are actually identical to the rules of thumb if I do know the candidate. A candidate for office is supposed to represent me to the group. I want someone who is for truth, justice, and the American Way. By that I mean that someone who acknowledges the truth; acts for justice for the group, not for himself; and promotes inclusion in the group (America is known for being a melting pot.).

A plus for being a woman and/or a member of a traditionally excluded group.

Women and others have too long been excluded from the group. Being a woman or a minority member does not mean that you aren’t in favor of exclusion (e.g. Ann Coulter, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Peter Thiel, Clarence Thomas, and Tim Scott) but hopefully you will be more sensitive to those who have traditionally been excluded.

A plus for being rich.

I do not think that the rich are smarter than others in the group. I just think that they have a higher price than anyone else, e.g. they have more to lose if they act for themselves and not for the group, and have a higher price such that only when the bribe is enormous will they act for themselves and not the group. The self-made rich are usually think first of themselves, but this may not be true of their descendants. That means I will give points to the descendants of the Kennedy, Roosevelts, and Rockefellers. E.g. Joseph Kennedy, Senior? No. John F. Kennedy? Yes.

A plus for being a veteran, a member of a non-profit, a teacher, etc.

I want someone who will act for the group, not for themselves. Veterans, Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps volunteers, teachers, etc. have demonstrated that they place the interests of the group over themselves.

A minus for being a celebrity

I expect the Peter Principle to apply, that being good in one job does not mean that you will be good in another job. Being a great football coach does not mean that you will be a great senator. (E.g. Tommy Tuberville)

A minus for being in any form of show business.

I have to trust the positions that are, and will be, supported by the candidate. The art of show business is learning the art of distraction, the razzle dazzle, which means I can’t trust the stated position. That means I won’t vote for a Jane Fonda or an Al Franken, but I also won’t vote for a Ronald Reagan, Doctor Oz, or Donald Trump.

A minus for attending a top school.

This sounds counter intuitive. I attended a top school. Shouldn’t I want someone like me to represent me? Don’t I trust myself? (Uh…not really!). Attending a top school might mean that the person wanted to get the best instruction, but it also could mean that the person is merely doing resumé padding. I attended classes at the Wharton School while at UPenn, but Donald Trump, Donald Trump Junior, Ivanka Trump, and Elon Musk also all also graduated from Wharton.

A minus for being divorced.

Yes, I realize that there are people in unsuccessful marriages and those people are perfectly justified in getting a divorce. However when they married, they took an oath that they would be in that marriage forever. A successful candidate will also be asked to take an oath to support the group. That is an oath that I don’t want them to break.

The candidate who has a higher point total than their opponents, is the one who will probably get my vote. To use a line from one of my wife’s favorite shows, I want to give my rose to a person who is there for the right reasons.

Unconscious Bias

 I Don't Know Why (I Just Do)

I don't know why I love you like I do
I don't why, but I do
I don't know why you thrill me like you do
I don't know why, but you do.

Shouldn’t you want to know why?

Unconscious biases can be long lasting and may be …doh…. unconscious, something of which you aren’t even aware. Case in point. I attended Brown University where the Computer Science Building was funded by one of its alumni, Thomas Watson, Jr, a former CEO and son of the founder of IBM.

In the 1980s, IBM was introducing Personal Computers, PCs. They used a subcontractor to work on its operating system and that subcontractor had a competing version of the BASIC computer language, which ran on those PCs. That version of BASIC was obviously not to be taken as seriously as IBM's since that competing version of BASIC went by the name GW (Golly Whiz) BASIC. So clearly there was no serious reason to invest in that subcontractor when they had their Initial Public Offering. That subcontractor was, at time, a little firm called Microsoft. Being biased in favor of IBM did not work out so well for me.

When search engines were being developed, Scientific American did a review of two competing, innovative search engines. One was IBM's CLEVER. The name of the other search engine is the punch line. Needless to say, I was much more impressed with IBM’s search engine and saw no reason to invest in its no-name, fly-by-night competitor. The name of that competing Search Engine... GOOGLE. Another case of where being biased in favor of IBM led me to back the wrong horse.

As to how long-lasting unconscious bias can be, my father’s parents saw two of their children die in the Spanish Flu Pandemic, before my father was even born. My father had an abiding fear of public spaces, anything shared, that I am fairly sure that he learned from his parents, but he never acknowledged why. When I reflect on my response to the COVID pandemic, which was influenced by my own upbringing by my father, I had to reflect on this incident that happened before my father was even born.

A coincidence. The firm at which I worked since 1998, had its HQ less than a mile from where my Uncle and Aunt died and were buried. I do not know, but suspect, that their deaths were why my grandparents moved from Cambridge, MA to Providence, RI where both my father and I were born.

Economics IV

 

Everybody Needs Somebody To Love

Everybody needs somebody to love
I'm not afraid to be by myself but I just need somebody to love
All the time

In economics, maybe you need two somebodies.

Economics is a three-party game. There is a buyer, a seller and the goods being exchanged.

It is a mistake to think that you will always be a seller. At some point, every seller will have to be a buyer. (Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug.)  If a seller has acquired all of the goods, (or the currency, if that is being used as a medium for the transaction in lieu of some of the goods), has eliminated all of the other sellers, and there are also no buyers, then those goods will have no value. They only have a value if there is a buyer.

Economics thus should not be viewed as a game of domination, where the seller tries to accumulate all of the goods at the expense of the buyer. Eventually the seller may “win,” accumulate all of the goods, eliminate his competing sellers, and all buyers, but in doing so he will have "lost".

If the seller does not try to dominate each buyer, then there will be more buyers and the goods that are accumulated will have a value. It makes no difference whether the accumulation is of goods or the currency that can be exchanged for goods. If there are no other buyers or sellers, then that accumulation is worthless.

There is a reason for the infamous triangle trade. At a minimum it takes three buyers and three sellers to have a set of successful economic transactions. Thus there have to be three participants, parties, for those three transactions. In Transaction One, Party One is the seller, and Party Two is the buyer. In Transaction Two, Party Two is the seller and Party Three is the buyer. In Transaction Three, Party Three is the seller and we have come full circle and Party One is the buyer. If there are only two Parties, and Party Two does not want to buy what Party One is selling, then there is no economic transaction. If there is only one Party, then there is no one with whom to trade, and thus there can be no economic transaction.

Impulse Control II

 

Incident on Rogers Creek

Were you lost?  No, just bewildered,
Were you caught? No, just surrounded.
Were you brave and were you courageous?
Well, wait and see.

Are we there yet?

If you are a boomer like me, you might remember the lyrics in the song from an animated featurette on Captain Kangaroo. ( the song is by Bing Crosby, which I don’t remember the Captain ever saying). The Captain was trying to teach his audience the virtue of patience.  The toddler’s cry “Are we there yet?” is an indication that the toddler in the back seat has not yet learned patience.

“Marry in haste, repent at leisure” is an adage that is taught to children.  A related saying is "Look before you leap".  Something that sounds good at the moment, because you have no impulse control, might not look so good to you once time has passed.  An important step in growing up is learning patience and not to giving into your first instinct. Learn to wait and see.

Tax Brackets III

 

Do You Hear The People Sing

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the song of angry men?
It is the music of the people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes

Fool me once shame on me.  Fool me twice shame on you.

In an ideal world, the income tax debate would go like this. What is the lowest acceptable income tax rate. The Bible might call this a tithe, 10%. If that is the lowest rate, then according to the laws of normal distributions, the mode/mean/median rate should be 20%, and the highest rate should be 40%. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, TCJA, sets the lowest tax rate at 10% and the highest tax rate at 37%, which is not exactly normal, but is arguably close enough. It also confuses marginal tax rates and effective tax rates, but that will be discussed later.

The question is how to transition from a rate of 10% to a rate of 37% in a fair manner. One suggestion might be to pick an arbitrary amount and transition at that income. However establishing that transition income would be contentious politically, but mathematically it should be such that the median tax rate is paid by the median income.  Since it is a tax on income, not a tax on individuals, if income is not normally distributed among individuals, then arguably the transition should follow the distribution of income not people. The distribution of income is not normal (a statistical term, not an ethical term). If incomes were distributed normally, then the mean would be equal to the median would be equal to the mode, the most common value. According to the US Census for income, the mean is definitely not the median. One of the most common non-normal distributions is the exponential distribution. Without debating why incomes are not normally distributed, the transition from the lowest tax rate to the highest tax rate should arguably follow this existing distribution of income. (Interestingly, a flat tax also implies that everyone has the same income. To be mathematically consistent, those that argue for a flat tax must also be also communists who argue that every individual should have the same income.)

Any non-linear distribution can be approximated by a series of straight lines of EQUAL intervals, which is how calculus works. There are seven brackets in the TCJA. Assuming that the top bracket is the full amount, and the first bracket is the lowest amount, then there are five brackets in which to make the transition (e.g. the total tax paid in the highest income in the sixth of seven brackets should have an effective rate of 37%, the highest rate). The effective tax rate at any income x is 10% + 27%*(1-e^-λx), where 1/λ is the mean income according to the exponential distribution. This can be approximated by a series of straight lines, tax brackets, as:

a=λ*10%= 10% λ
b=λ*(10% + (1-e^-.2)) = 28.1% λ
c=λ*(10% + (1-e^-.2) + (1- e^-.4)) = 61.1% λ
d=λ*(10% + (1-e^-.2) + (1-e^-.4) + (1-e^-.6)) = 106.2% λ
e=λ*(10% + (1-e^-.2) + (1-e^-.4) + (1-e^-.6) + (1-e^-.8)) = 161.3% λ
f= λ*(10% + (1-e^-.2) + (1-e^-.4) + (1-e^-.6) + (1-e^-.8) + (1-e^-.1) ) = 224.5%  λ

This means that the tax brackets are a simple problem given the highest tax rate, 37%, the lowest tax rate, 10%, and the number of brackets, in this case seven. The only variable in the table above that needs to be specified is the mean income. This should be computed for each tax filing using the tax status (e.g. Single, Married Filing Jointly, Married Filing Separately, Head Of Household, etc.). As an example, the US Census specifies the mean household income as $102,316 in 2021 according to Income in the United States: 2021: Current Population Reports. With this amount, and the actual percentages substituted in place of the exponential equations, the table would be: 

Bracket	Lower income	Upper Income	Fixed Tax	Marginal Tax Rate  (on amount above lowest income in bracket)	Lowest Effective Tax	Highest Effective Tax
1	$0	$102,316	$0	10%	10%	10%
2	$102,316	$204,632	$10,232	18.13%	10%	14%
3	$204,632	$306,948	$28,751	32.97%	14%	20%
4	$306,948	$409,264	$62,515	45.12%	20%	27%
5	$409,264	$511,580	$108,660	55.07%	27%	32%
6	$511,580	$613,896	$165,036	63.21%	32%	37%
7	$613,896	No Limit	$229,699	37%	37%	37%

 The 2022 TCJA Tax rates for Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow (Widower) are: 

Bracket	Lower income	Upper Income	Fixed Tax	Marginal Tax Rate  (on amount above lowest income in bracket)	Lowest Effective Tax	Highest Effective Tax
1	$0	$20,550	$0	10%	10%	10.0%
2	$20,550	$83,550	$2,055	12%	10%	11.5%
3	$83,550	$178,150	$9,615	22%	11.5%	17.1%
4	$178,150	$340,100	$2,055	24%	17.1%	20.4%
5	$340,100	$431,900	$9,615	32%	20.4%	22.8%
6	$431,900	$647,850	$2,055	35%	22.8%	26.9%
7	$647,850	No Limit	$9,615	37%	26.9%	35.7%*

*The highest effective tax rate in the highest tax bracket is not reached until the income is infinite. This is the effective tax rate at an income of $5,000,000.

 As can be seen for the TCJA tax brackets, the brackets are not equal AND the effective tax rates are confused with the marginal tax rates. This second error is like confusing speed and acceleration, since both are first and second derivatives.  The combination of these two errors results in a tax code that does not transition between the lowest rate and the highest rate according to the distribution of income. As can be seen in the figure below, this means  the incomes below ~$300,000 are currently paying effective tax rates that should be charged only at higher incomes. The basic errors were made beginning with the “Reagan” Tax Cuts of 1981 and have resulted in an over taxation of the poor and middle class and an under taxation of the rich for over 40 years. If the intent were to transition from the lowest tax rate to a maximum tax rate according to the distribution of income, a math professor would give these tax codes a failing grade.

 

Tax Brackets II

 

Tax Man

Should five percent appear too small

Be thankful I don't take it all

'Cause I'm the taxman

Yeah, I'm the taxman

But  the Taxman should also be the Math Man

I was just preparing to file my taxes when I realized that the Tax Brackets violate the basic Laws of Math. Mattel’s old Talking Barbie doll might be correct, “Math is Hard,” (personally I don’t think it is), but Math also does NOT permit lies. That is why there are Laws and Proofs in Math. The current Tax Brackets are NOT equal. The tax is on the income of individuals, not on individuals. The distribution of income is not equal among individuals. The distribution of income is nonlinear. That is an acknowledgement of fact, not a judgement. According to the laws of calculus, any nonlinear curve can be approximated by a series of straight-line segments, as long as each line segment is of an equal interval. And IMHO, that is where the current Tax Brackets fail.

Without addressing what the marginal tax rate should be in each bracket, a basic principle should be that each bracket be of the same size. And by inspection it is not. Without arguing what the lowest income in the top bracket should be, let’s just accept that amount. The equal interval, size of the tax bracket, should be that income in the highest bracket divided by the number of brackets before that income. In the current tax code that upper income varies by tax filing status (Single, Married filing jointly, etc.) but it is a specified amount. To calculate the size of the brackets correctly according to Math is simple. Divide the lower income in the highest bracket by 6 (the number of brackets before that highest bracket.)

Because the brackets are not equal, the median ( and the median should be used, NOT the mean)  taxpayer is paying a higher tax than would be expected. And the upper income bracket is paying a lower tax than would be expected.  I suspect that the Debt Limit and the federal budget would be less likely to be an issue if the Tax Brackets properly acknowledged basic Math.

Random II

 

Fine and Dandy

Honey, I'm so keen on you
I could come to lean on you
On a random bay, give you your way
Do what you say

And not only a bay, but life is random

"Rule #1 is young men die. And Rule #2 is doctors can't change Rule #1.  So goes one of my favorite lines  from the TV sitcom M.A.S.H.  And while it was dealing with the inability of doctors to prevent death in the Korean War, it sums up the random nature of life and how humans can’t change that randomness.  We can bemoan randomness. We can try to deal with the impacts caused by randomness. But we can’t change the fact that it is random.

And the fact that life is random, and that a human life is short, is why there is free will.  The fact that we are free to choose is why it is random.  The fact that a human life is short and will end is why those choices matter.  We can pretend that solutions are deterministic and repeatable, but that does not make them less random, it only means we are picking the optimal random solution.  In my profession of Traffic Forecasting, if we are not using a maximum entropy/maximum likelihood/most probable process to pick the most probable solution and are instead picking a random solution from a list, we often use a pseudo random number generator to  make it repeatable.  But the fact that appears to be deterministic, does not make it deterministic. In fact, it proves that it is random.