Whatever percentage of the electorate Obama needs to win over to stay in office, one thing's for sure: percentages have not been kind to Romney.
Take the 14% he paid in taxes on millions in income. Romney defends by saying that his income was already subject to America's high corporate taxes. It may be unpopular, but he's mathematically in the right here.
Consider two companies. Company A makes $210,000, but pays it all as wages to Al--so it'll make no "profit". The company must pay around 5% in payroll taxes, so Al will get $200k, about 35% of which he'll give back in taxes. Total to (federal, state, local) government: $80,000; total to Al: $130,000.
Company B makes the same $210k but calls it profit, and pays it all to its sole shareholder, Bill (Willard) Mitt Romney. But first it must declare that profit and pay 42% to the government. Then Bill will pay his 10% capital gains tax on the rest. Total to govt: 88.2 + 12.2 = $100,400; total to Bill: $99,600 ($30,000 less than Al, in case you hadn't noticed).
It's hard to feel for the millionaire, but it's clear from these simple sums that America's very high corporate tax rate is unfair and redistributionist (a good illustration of just how much higher it is than other developed countries here: http://www.economist.com/node/21548245), not to mention a drag on the economy and a disincentive to investment, and a driver behind high levels of corporate debt (as interest payments are tax-deductible).
Much was also made of Romney's gaffe-claim that 47% of Americans are takers who enjoy more back than they contribute, and would therefore vote for Obama. Put aside for a moment the insidious class implications of the statement and the sneering contempt for 150m Americans (if you can) and consider this.
If income is taxed equally at all income levels, and the benefits distributed evenly amongst all citizens, then it is a mathematical fact that the lowest 50% on the income scale will get more back out of government than they put in (assuming the government's output is equal to its input) and vice versa the top 50%.
And we know that income is not taxed equally; the top 5% of earners in 2009 paid almost 60% of the nation's federal income tax burden, earning 30% of total income (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0). Or, put another way, the bottom 95% of earners paid just 40% of taxes, on 70% of income.
Nor are benefits distributed evenly, with those in greater need receiving more--rightly so. (Of course, the government may be destroying value, in which case more of us will get less back than we put in.)
This doesn't excuse Romney's contempt for 47% of Americans, but it does support his claim that those at the top of the income scale are already paying their dues.
I admire Obama as an intellectual and a man, and abhor Romney's arrogance and mendacity. If I was a US citizen I'd still vote for Obama, on character alone, and because I don't believe this anemic recovery needs further cuts in government spending.
But it seems to me Romney's been given a hard time where he had good points. Will points mean prizes? Just three weeks to go before we find out!
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Work life imitating fiction?
Devices of literature have real-life applications to working in organizations:
1) The art of storytelling
The way organizations move forward is in large part driven by individuals and teams weaving persuasive stories for each other. Being able to deftly articulate plot, characters, and events--providing only those details absolutely necessary to the story--is a skill a change agent must have or develop.
2) Suspension of disbelief
Making the case for change, such as a project or a restructuring, involves asking your listeners to cast their minds forward into a possible future. The storyteller's skill at evoking that future in a way that makes sense to them--so that the "pictures in their mind" are close enough to the ones you have in yours--involves taking the reader / listener / coworker to a fantasy land of what the future could be like.
3) Plotting
Overall plot direction is usually decided through evaluation of alternatives in strategy (plotting) sessions. This is often best done behind closed doors, to minimize uncertainty to others as all plot alternatives are considered, and to avoid undermining suspension of disbelief.
4) Detailing specifics supports suspension of disbelief
For listeners to pay attention and be taken away by a description of the future, the speaker must articulate clearly and vividly. Once the course is set, she must confidently translate the arc of the story into immediate actions. Providing concrete details helps the reader's mind picture that future. Compare the following two statements, picturing you work for Pam (or Paul):
"We will consolidate Pam's department with Paul's, and create synergies saving the company 10% of it's operating costs two years from now."
"Moved under Paul, Pam's team will eliminate six positions, with affected individuals notified exactly one month from now."
In my experience, most leaders don't do a good job of getting down to the specifics that help the affected individuals to start sketching out their own role in (and reaction to) the storytelling process.
Whether you're a leader or not, you can use some of the same techniques applied over the centuries by Homer, Shakespeare and Joyce to capture your audience's minds and implant in them the pictures they need to help you, follow you, advise you, or give you that important promotion. Just remember--unless you're actually writing a novel, don't take the "fiction" part too far!
1) The art of storytelling
The way organizations move forward is in large part driven by individuals and teams weaving persuasive stories for each other. Being able to deftly articulate plot, characters, and events--providing only those details absolutely necessary to the story--is a skill a change agent must have or develop.
2) Suspension of disbelief
Making the case for change, such as a project or a restructuring, involves asking your listeners to cast their minds forward into a possible future. The storyteller's skill at evoking that future in a way that makes sense to them--so that the "pictures in their mind" are close enough to the ones you have in yours--involves taking the reader / listener / coworker to a fantasy land of what the future could be like.
3) Plotting
Overall plot direction is usually decided through evaluation of alternatives in strategy (plotting) sessions. This is often best done behind closed doors, to minimize uncertainty to others as all plot alternatives are considered, and to avoid undermining suspension of disbelief.
4) Detailing specifics supports suspension of disbelief
For listeners to pay attention and be taken away by a description of the future, the speaker must articulate clearly and vividly. Once the course is set, she must confidently translate the arc of the story into immediate actions. Providing concrete details helps the reader's mind picture that future. Compare the following two statements, picturing you work for Pam (or Paul):
"We will consolidate Pam's department with Paul's, and create synergies saving the company 10% of it's operating costs two years from now."
"Moved under Paul, Pam's team will eliminate six positions, with affected individuals notified exactly one month from now."
In my experience, most leaders don't do a good job of getting down to the specifics that help the affected individuals to start sketching out their own role in (and reaction to) the storytelling process.
Whether you're a leader or not, you can use some of the same techniques applied over the centuries by Homer, Shakespeare and Joyce to capture your audience's minds and implant in them the pictures they need to help you, follow you, advise you, or give you that important promotion. Just remember--unless you're actually writing a novel, don't take the "fiction" part too far!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)