Boo-hoo for billionaires

Normally in this blog we nitpick movies and TV shows, but today I'd like to nitpick a story you may have heard or read in a few different places. Yesterday was the deadline to file taxes in America, which is what reminded me of this parable that supposedly demonstrates how unfair our tax code is to the rich. Yes, you read that right, unfair to the rich. Bear with me, please.

So there is this rich man who on a regular basis treats four poorer men to dinner. The men are of different income levels, but they each put a little something towards the dinner: the poorest man puts in $1, while the second richest man puts in $5. Nevertheless, only the richest man truly pays for his own meal.

Then one night, the restaurant owner reveals that, due to a clerical error or a software glitch (depending on which version of the story you've heard), he has been overcharging the men, and, being a man of conscience, issues a refund.

This is where the trouble begins. The men can't agree on how to split the refund. The poorest man says the refund should be split evenly among each of them five ways. The second richest man says the refund should be split proportionately to how much each of them put towards the dinner. Another one of the men points out that each of them is proposing the apportionment that will give him the biggest refund.

But the richest man is disgusted by all this bickering and declares he doesn't want his share of the refund: the others can fight over it but he's never treating them to dinner again. (There is also a racist version in which the poor men are black and beat up the rich white man—but rich people don't want to put it in poor people's minds that maybe they can beat up the rich and take their stuff, so violent versions of this story are rarely heard).

The first time I heard this story I thought to myself, "Well, it does sound kind of unfair when you put it that way." But there are several problems with this parable that don't quite square up with real life.

First of all, there is a big difference between money that gets taken out of your paycheck automatically and money you have to physically remove from your wallet to hand to a waiter, and even more so when the other people getting the refund are people you've come to know over the past few months. Suppose you're the poorest man in the parable. Sure you would want a fifth of the refund, but at the same time you would not want to vex the generous rich man by being too eager to grab up more than your fair share and perhaps lose your meal ticket in the process. In real life, you do know some of the other taxpayers, but you most likely don't personally know taxpayers in significantly different tax brackets. If you're a middle class single parent struggling to make ends meet in the big bad city, would it bother you if you get a tax refund of a few hundred dollars but the millionaire in the Hamptons has to pay a couple grand in taxes?

And that's another thing: do rich people really socialize with middle- and lower-class people? Maybe rich brats are closer to their illegal immigrant nannies than they're to their own parents, but beyond that, not much, really. Maybe a rich guy will occasionally take a homeless man to dinner now and then, but a regular arrangement like the one in the story sounds rather unlikely.

This should also bring our attention to the fact that the federal income tax is not the only tax there is. Consider for example the sales tax. I live in Michigan, here the sales tax is 6%. Most food items are exempt from sales tax. But many basic necessities (toothpaste, soap, clothes, shoes) are subject to sales tax. I seriously doubt that even the most extravagant rich man spends as much on these items as, say, the entire East side of Detroit.

Besides, do the rich really pay their fair share of the federal income tax? The richest 1% control 90% of the wealth, yet they only pay 40% of federal income taxes! Maybe my figures are off a little bit, but not much. Through a variety of loopholes, the rich get all kinds of tax breaks to the point that they only have to pay a few dollars in taxes.

Meanwhile, tax breaks for the poor wind up being usurped by corporations through scams like refund anticipation loans. The confusing instructions for the newer credits don't help matters at all. Subtract line 3a on form J from line 76d on form 20 but if line 4 on the 1040 is less than $500, then you... geez! I'm sure the rich find this just as complicated as the poor. But I won't be shedding any tears for a rich man who paid an accountant a thousand bucks to find him those tax loopholes. That's like a dollar to you or me.

Well, that's enough ranting from me. In the interest of full disclosure, I am getting a tax refund, from a combination of excess withholding, the EIC and the Making Work Pay credit. But with the various expenses on my to do list, my refund is almost all spent before I even get it.

Cry me a Detroit River, Scrooge Moroun

The DRIC people want to build an expensive, unnecessary new bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, a bridge the tolls for which won't justify the expense of building it, and they want to stick you, the taxpayer, with the bill. You should call your legislator right now and let them know you don't want that bridge.

That is, if you believe the load of crap that is the new commercial the Detroit International Bridge Company is running in the Detroit market. This goes way beyond nitpicking, this is shooting fish in a barrel.

Let me tell you what is really going on: billionaire Matty Moroun is worried that competition from another bridge could make a dent in his Ambassador Bridge profits. Never mind that competition is supposed to be one of the cornerstones that makes the whole free market concept such a great system that we need to invade other countries in order to impose it on them—quick poll: how good was the service the last time you went on the Ambassador Bridge? Nor should you worry about terrorists taking out two Moroun-owned bridges with one plane (because at one point he actually wanted to build another bridge right next to the Ambassador). Perhaps more realistically, the Ambassador could crumble apart because it's no spring chicken; I seriously doubt any significant portion of the revenue from that bridge is going to its upkeep.

Now, I'm a billionaire, too, so I worry about those damn high taxes, and I certainly don't want to pay for another bridge, especially one that is unnecessary. But... didn't Canada offer to pay Michigan's share of the cost for the new bridge? Just Google "canada offers to pay for bridge," it'll come up. Also, why would they even make such an offer if a new bridge was so unnecessary? When was the last time you drove on Fort Street from Rosa Parks to Springwells? It's wall-to-wall trucks! Isn't there enough profit here for two strategically placed bridges?

There's a smart way to be greedy and there's a dumb way to be greedy. A dumb greedhead like Matty Moroun will put short-term profits ahead of not just common decency and our national security interests, but also ahead of commonsense and long-term profits. So call your legislator and let him/her know that you support the DRIC bridge. And maybe also suggest Matty Moroun ought to be hauled into a special congressional hearing.

Charlie Sheen: shut up!

Supposedly, CBS is going to war on Charlie Sheen by trying to take all his money so he can't support his family. Weren't they paying him about $2 million for each episode of Two and a Half Men? Talk about ungrateful. If he should be angry at any institution for taking his money that should be the IRS. Without a good tax accountant, Charlie Sheen could be losing as much as half of each paycheck to taxes. I'm no mathematician, but half of roughly $2 million is still a lot of money. Is Charlie blowing the rest of his money on coke and porn stars?

Besides, there's a way out for stars who don't save their "Back to the Future money": do DirecTV commercials like Christopher Lloyd. I can picture it just now: "With DirecTV, a sober, soulless sex hound like me can watch reruns of my hit TV show anytime I want anywhere: in my at-home rehab, in the car on my way to court to fight for joint custody of my children, etc."

Oh, and what about residuals? Maybe a normal person—with a normal brain that can't process the rock star from Mars that is Charlie Sheen—would live just fine with Charlie's residual checks.

Jay Leno: the millionaire's comedian

So Jay Leno for the most part tries to cultivate this image of himself as an average kind of guy. But in his monologue last night on the Tonight Show he showed his true colors as a rich man who has forgotten his humble roots with one unfunny joke that soured me on the rest of the monologue:

Commenting on Obama's remarks to the private sector encouraging them to hire more people, Leno joked "Because only Government hires more people than it needs." If it hadn't been for that joke, I think I might have actually laughed at his later joke about TSA workers unionizing (something about getting patted down at the airport by one TSA worker while a bunch of other TSA workers just stand around watching). I didn't watch "Headlines," I tuned out at the commercial break.

I don't know if Jay Leno is playing dumb about a little concept known as "overwork and underpay" (or, as it's known to the middle class, "overworked and underpaid") or if he's genuinely ignorant about it. But in case he really doesn't know about it, here's how it goes: say your company actually needs 10 men to properly carry out a periodically occurring assignment. What you do is you lay off 5 of those men but you pay the remaining 5 (get ready for this, because it'll knock your socks off) you pay them exactly the same as when they had those other 5 colleagues. If they complain that they can't do the job like this, remind them that you have plenty of willing workers to replace them, if need be show them a couple of boxes just filled with résumés. Maybe Government really is hiring more people than it needs. But with the private sector not hiring as many people as it needs, Government just can't pick up the slack. And then debt collectors wonder why people have fallen behind on their payments. Gee, you don't have a job, and your family members and your friends don't either? Gee, I wonder how that could have happened? We'll take your house and car anyway.

Maybe I would've laughed at the TSA joke on another night. But if I did laugh at a joke about TSA workers unionizing, it would mean that I have forgotten two very important details: one, that TSA workers are federal employees doing their jobs, and two, that without unions, the rich feel free to walk all over the working man without any remorse whatsoever.

And another thing: if Jay Leno had been in Conan O'Brien's shoes, getting laid off from NBC, do you think he would have made any effort to help the laborers also laid off?

Chocolate War does NOT have a happy ending

The Argo is used as a funeral pyre for one of the fallen Argonauts and Jason (Jason London) and Medea (Jolene Blalock) live happily ever after. That is how the 2000 adaptation of Jason and the Argonauts ends. Hollywood tacking on happy endings to well-known literary works is nothing new.

The Chocolate War is a novel by Robert Cormier I read a long, long time ago, feels like it was in another lifetime. When the Keith Gordon adaptation came out in 1988, I didn't go see it, I can't remember if it was because I heard it was not a faithful adaptation of the novel. Now that I've finally gotten around to seeing it, I am extremely surprised to see criticisms claiming the movie has a "happy ending"!

What I remember of my reading of the book: Jerry is given an assignment by the Vigils, a secret society at the Catholic school he attends, by which he has to refuse participating in the school's chocolate sale for two weeks (I might be off on the exact length of the assignment), but when the assignment is over, Jerry keeps refusing to participate. This becomes a problem for both the Vigils and the acting headmaster as more and more students become apathetic to the sale. Archie, who I think is the president of the Vigils, comes up with a scheme by which the sale is a success (on paper) even without Jerry's participation. At the end, there is a raffle for a 'scripted' boxing match between Jerry and Janza. Jerry definitely loses the match and is badly hurt, but I can't remember if he died or not.

In the movie, Archie (Wally Ward) is forced to replace Janza in the ring. Archie can certainly throw punches, but he can hardly take them. After Jerry (Ilan Mitchell-Smith) is allowed to get his first punch in, he goes 'off script' with a non-stop barrage that quickly knocks Archie down to the deck. The whole school applauds and cheers Jerry. Even at this point I have a hard time considering this a happy ending. But if you're not convinced yet, consider how Jerry's facial expression changes after he basks in the glow of the accolades: he sees the ghost of his mother and she's not happy about this development. Nor is his friend who had been off from school due to sickness and came by in case Jerry needed him. Listen also to the conversation they have when almost everyone else has left: "I played their game," Jerry says, "I should have sold the chocolates." Since when is the protagonist expressing remorse over his actions constitute a happy ending?

Consider for comparison a nearly contemporaneous film, Back to the Future Part III. The reason it is so satisfying to see Marty "Clint Eastwood" McFly (Michael J. Fox) knock out Buford Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson) is because violence is the only thing Buford will listen to. The movie even makes sure to emphasize that Buford will not listen to reason. "I thought we could discuss this like men," Marty says. No cigar, Buford shoots anyway. Luckily, Marty is wearing a makeshift bulletproof vest, and when Buford approaches to gloat over Marty's corpse, Marty knows he has ruled out all reasonable recourse and the only option is to knock Buford out.

I would actually feel sorry for Buford if he lost a chess match to Marty or indeed anyone. And that is why I feel sorry for Archie when he gets his lights knocked out: it is on the metaphorical chessboard that Archie is a formidable foe. On the boxing ring, he needs the protection of a scheme of his own devising to succeed. An honorable man should get no lasting satisfaction from defeating such an enemy, even one who on the chessboard tortured him so cruelly.

And, as the director is at pains to emphasize in the featurettes, the real tragedy of The Chocolate War isn't any individual's victory or defeat, but the fact that a system which permits and even encourages lopsided fights continues to exist.

Are you sure they would have lost anyway?

By now you've heard of Gabe Okoye and Brittany Mayti, the contestants on Million Dollar Money Drop who correctly answered a question about Post-It notes and still lost $800,000 anyway. Now the host Kevin Pollak is saying that the couple would have lost on the next question anyway. It seems that Pollak has doctorate degrees in causal quantum mechanics, game theory and behavioral neurochemistry.

Seriously, though, as sensible as Pollak's premise sounds, it is quite flawed. For one thing, even if Pollak has himself experienced losing $800,000 in the blink of an eye (such as at the casino), he does not exactly understand the demoralizing effect such a loss can have on an ordinary person.

If the contestants had had $800,000 to bet on the next question instead of just $80,000, perhaps they might have had a more intelligent discussion as to whether Brian Williams or Jon Stewart was "the most trusted broadcaster of 2009." Maybe they knew the right answer was Jon Stewart in the back of their minds, but with the horrendous loss of 800 grand fresh in their minds, they would surely have second-guessed themselves, thinking something like "If we were wrong about Post-Its, we might also be wrong about Jon Stewart."

And let's not forget that on Million Dollar Money Drop contestants get a choice of two categories on each question. If Okoye and Mayti had gone on to the next question with the 800 thou, would they have made the same choice for the next category?

In the end, however, despite my disagreeing with Pollak's premise, I must admit that I agree with his conclusion. The fact is that Million Dollar Money Drop is designed to make sure contestants go home with nothing. Even Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? allowed contestants to bow out of the game at certain points and go home with a decent amount of money. On Drop, whatever few thousands you might have left on the final question (if you even get that far) must be placed on only one answer, you can't hedge, it's all-or-nothing. Who knows, you might actually have a better chance of winning a million on your state lottery.

The magical sleigh

Last night's full hour Family Guy episode, "Road to the North Pole," was brilliant, especially in comparison to the other episodes so far this season. Nitpicking Family Guy had gotten to be very unpleasant, because it was practically beating up on a lousy show.

But this latest episode was a pleasure to watch. I don't feel like a bully when I point out that Stewie didn't have time to make those modifications to Santa's sleigh that get Brian and Stewie out of a rough spot just in the nick of time. One minute Brian is declaring that he will take care of Santa's deliveries, the next Brian and Stewie are off on the sleigh, up in the air. And if Stewie really did make modifications to Santa's sleigh, where was Brian at? So here we have a deus ex machina, with Stewie being the deus and the sleigh being the machina.

The episode takes a very serious turn for its last few minutes, almost bordering on preachy. This was the point at which I remembered my reason for sitting down to watch this episode at all (after the very obnoxious episode "Brian Writes a Bestseller" I thought I was done watching Family Guy): I wanted to see how it meshes with the pre-cancellation episode "A Very Freakin' Special Family Guy Christmas": for the most part, pretty well. The only thing is that the earlier episode leads us to believe that Lois would have taken care of getting the presents, and not relied on Santa Claus completely. Recall that in that episode, Stewie is disappointed by the first gift he opens, but then Chris prompts him to open the other present, which has that strong green glow that stands for nuclear materials; presumably the first gift Lois bought and the second is from Santa.

It feels good for Family Guy to once again be worthy of nitpicking.