Is Taxation OK?

You hear a lot about taxes in the news, and I wanted to give my opinion to the nobody that reads this blog. At least I can get my ideas out there.

I don't have a problem with taxation, but I do have a problem with it in its current implementation.

Taxes need to be transparent.

In this age of technology, it should not be difficult for anyone to go online and track where every penny of their taxes goes. If its too complicated to track, then it should not be legal. The tax system as it is set up currently is purposefully complicated so money can be moved as used with out the American people's consent.

How much of your taxes are being used to fund the education of your children or improve the roads where you live? I bet you don't know, and I bet if you tried to find out, you couldn't. But shouldn't you know? If you pay $10,000 a year in taxes, and discover 3¢ of that goes to your child's education, while $4,000 of that goes towards developing a new stealth plane, wouldn't you want to know? Shouldn't you have the right to know?

Each year Americans are asked to vote on how their taxes should be spent. Prop A1 asks for $10 million to build a new railway station. Prop B2 asks to open a new prison. Prop C3 asks to increase a teacher's salary. But what do those numbers really mean? Is $10 million really a lot of money? It's more than I make in a year, but is it a lot to the state, county, or federal government? The answer is, I don't know! But shouldn't I? Shouldn't we be able to see that our elected government is spending our money wisely?

In short, a tax system that is not transparent limits the liberties of the people.

Vote with your wallet.

Continuing with that train of thought, if people can see exactly how their money is being spent, then they should also be allowed to vote with their wallet. Using the example above, I discover that 3¢ is going towards my child's education, while $4,000 is going towards the latest stealth plane. Well, I don't think that properly represents my priorities.

I should be able to adjust how my taxes are spent accordingly. I should be able to go online and alter my tax spending so $3,000 goes towards education, and $1,000 goes towards military research. What if someone disagrees with me though? My neighbor doesn't have any kids, and fears for the safety of the nation. He may look at my spending and think its wrong. OK, cool! Rather than get into a big argument about it, how about he go online and put $5,000 towards military research.

You know what? There's nothing wrong with that! My neighbor and I just voted with our wallets. Of the $20,000 that the government collected from us through taxation, $6,000 went towards military research, and  $3,000 went towards education, which represents the people's exact desire to contribute to each program. We have just voted to and compromised on how our tax money should be spent.

Think about it for a little, and the subtleties work out quite nicely. If one person really wants something that most others do no want, they don't have a larger voice quashing them. They can at least put what they want where they want to put it. If something is important to the people then it will be represented in their contributions.

But what about the scenario where I really want that stealth plane, and I believe strongly that with out it our nation is vulnerable to attack, while your contribution to saving the kittens is absolutely wrong! I mean with out a country, those kittens are doomed anyway. Under our current system, I could make a proposal, or try to put into law that my money and your money should go towards military research. The problem with that is it violates your liberties. No person should have control over another person. I should not be allowed to tell you how to spend your money.

Taxation for Social Change

This image was taken from a site advocating that people stop
smoking. I think it drives the point home. First add taxes to
cigarettes, making them more expensive, then tell people to
save money by not smoking.

Another way taxes are used, which I believe is wrong, is to encourage social change. One example of this would be the "Sin Tax." This is when the government wants to raise money for something, so they try to get people to stop (or start) doing something by changing the associated taxes.

You know, smoking really bothers me (and I bet half the people that read this are suddenly feeling defensive). BUT, I don't think I have the right to make you stop smoking. I don't like, but I should not be allowed to infringe on your liberties. Putting a tax on nicotine products to encourage others to stop smoking is wrong. Just like putting a tax on alcohol. If this is ok, then it's not a long step to put a tax on gay marriage, just people certain people don't approve of it. Maybe we could put a tax on those saggy pants that hang around someone knees (Actually, that might be a good idea ^_~), or plus sized bikinis.

Another example of taxation for social change is when taxes are lifted to encourage behavior. For example, a company is taxed less when they use green energy. What this is really doing, is driving down the cost of products that were developed with green energy. When you go to the store, and see a bag of Nestle Cheesy Poofs for $3.49 and a bag of Mother's Cheesy Poofs for $3.99, all things being equal you might buy the less expensive product, there by rewarding the company that was able to provide their product to you at a lower cost. How did they do that? They use renewable energy in their factories, so they weren't taxed as heavily as their competition.

With a little hyperbole, the more expensive brand would go out of business unless they switch their production process. But doesn't that fly in the face of capitalism? In a proper capitalistic society, should the brand that provides the better product be the one to succeed, as opposed to the brand that responded to the government's desire for social change?

Summary
So, in the end, I think taxation is OK so long as the people know how their money is being used, and can change how their money is being used, and as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others.

But Can it Run Crysis?

Genre: First Person Shooter
Released: 2007

OK, so this review is 4 years late. I don't care! In 2007 Crysis was released with hardware requirements that put the game out of reach for just about everyone. In the years to follow the game was updated to further push it out of reach of its potential fan base.

This was a good thing.

If people were able to play the game they would have discovered how awful it really way. OK, it wasn't the worst game out there by a long shot, but for a game with such a reputation, it was quite a disappointment.

The game starts off well enough. In the near future, you're a special-ops soldier with a special suit that can alter your physiology, allowing you to run faster, jump higher, or become invisible. When the story begins, you're running through the Korean jungle hunting down some missing scientists. As the story evolves, it turns out the scientists have unearthed and awakened an alien species. Let the mayhem begin.

The premise is fun, if not a little over-used. Where the game fails is its unfun difficulty. I don't play on the hardest level, but I do like a challenge. I often had to restart an area twenty or thirty times to I could practice and get it right. That actually never bothered me. I enjoyed needing to fine tune my skills, and discover new ways to approach a difficult area.

When I refer to unfun difficulty I'm talking about getting 1-shotted from behind by an invisible enemy. Not having an opportunity to defeat my enemy, let alone be aware of my enemy's existence just isn't my idea of a good time. In one part of the game, all weapons are taken away, and you have to search through a 3D maze in zero-g. All the while you are surrounded by enemies that typically ignore you. But once in a while when you're not looking, one of those enemies will suddenly take notice, and charge you from behind. You don't take damage, you just die. Game Over. Insert Quarter to Continue.

I learned that the only way to get through these parts was to save frequently, so I could start over, and hope the randomization gods would roll in my favor, and let me get another thirty seconds with out an instant, unexplained death.

Watch out for those mine fields. You allies can walk through them with out taking damage, but if you try, you'll just die. No damage. No warning that a mine killed you, just die.

In another part of the game, I had to get into an Anti-Aircraft vehicle and shoot down fast moving aliens, using sluggish controls. Of course, that AA Cannon can be 1-shotted. It took me a while, but I discovered that if I ignored the cannon, I could shoot down the aliens with conventional weapons. My allies yelled at me for 15 minutes to use the AA Cannon, but at least I didn't get any more unexplained deaths. In one experiment, I literally saved the game, jumped into the Cannon and died with in 2 seconds. I then reloaded waited a minute, jumped in the cannon, and died with in 2 seconds. I found that simply being in the cannon, I would die instantly, but taking direct fire from the aliens, I could withstand an attack.

As the game progresses, it only gets worse. The enemies get faster, the controls get slower, and the reasons for instant death become more numerous. If you're looking for a first person shooter. I suggest taking a nail gun to your leg. It's a lot more fun, and you have a greater chance at survival.