I wrote another piece kind of paraphrasing some material that I got from a professional association, aimed apparently at advising unemployed high net worth clients. I, and apparently a few others, found much of it to be out of touch with the situations of most unemployed people:
What To Tell Your Unemployed Clients
But I did get to thinking about the advice that I really do give to unemployed clients, which is really pretty standard advice. It's also pretty general, because the most valuable advice are things that are specific to your situation.
Still, there are some general points that anyone of any income level who is currently unemployed, or who might be unemployed in the future (at some point or other, pretty much all of us). This would include:
*Yes, as has been pointed out, all jobs are temporary. Thus is it, thus has it always been. Whether someone is anticipating unemployment or not, I always advise everybody to try to build up savings equal to at least 6 months earnings. Preferably a year. Most people will never get there, but it's a good goal.
*Send resumes to everybody you can find in your field, and think about allied fields as well. I'm always getting resumes from CPA's and lawyers. Guess what? Contrary to what you might think, if I was going to hire an associate, I'd probably go with a lawyer over a CPA. Most people wouldn't guess that, but CPA's are accountants, and what I do has more to do with law than accounting.
*Look for self-employment opportunities. If you're any sort of engineer, commercial artist or professional (among others), then self-employment is most likely your future. Remember that self employment isn't really any more or less secure than employment, but your earnings will be far more variable, and you have to monitor your own tax situation carefully.
You also have to remember, as my dad always says, that every morning when you wake up, you're unemployed. You just have to do it for a while to fully appreciate that. You also have to be a tough boss for yourself. It is tempting to spend the day in a home office wearing a bathrobe, but that's not how you make money. How you do make money depends on what you're doing. But that ain't it.
*Don't worry so much about "qualified" vs "over qualified" vs "under qualified". Just apply for as many jobs as practical (but do try to stay within your skill set, if not specifically your desired field) and attend as many interviews as you can get. The prospective employer will have their own ideas about who they want to hire, and you shouldn't try to guess. You don't have ESP. Just always put your best foot forward. Dress nice, but don't obsess about it, unless you're trying to get a fashion related job.
Do always bear in mind that a lower paying job still pays more than zero. I have seen people turn jobs down, holding out for a better one. They tend to have a lower success rate eventually finding that better job than do the people that go ahead and take that first job offered, even if it isn't great.
Above all, try to be positive, and always project a positive attitude. That's the one thing that people respond to the most. It's also next to impossible to project a positive attitude unless you really do have one. Try.
That's really the best of it that applies to everyone. This is not meant to be comprehensive, just more representative of what most people in my profession (financial planner) would tell the average client. Most of us give a lot more advice than this, and most of it unique to the clients' situation.
If you asked a hundred other financial planners to list tips for this situation, you'd easily get another 100 suggestions. There is no silver bullet, I'm afraid. But some strategies have been shown to be more effective than others.
If you are currently unemployed and looking for work, then I really do wish you the best. The most important thing to remember when trying to reach a goal is to keep trying. That's what "they say", so it must be right. :)
What To Tell Your Unemployed Clients
As a few of you know, I am a financial planner. Just for preemptive purposes, this does not automatically make me a 1%'er Wall Street Pig Bankster. I wish. It would be cool to even return to the top quintile. I've never worked at any sort of bank, and any former Wall Street connections are long ago.
Anyway, I do fee-for-advice planning. Most of that sort of business these days is budget coaching to help people avoid bankruptcy court. I see a lot of unemployed, self employed and under employed people. I still see people for life and retirement planning, too, but less of it by the year.
In case you're wondering how people with budget problems can pay me, they're usually sent to me by their attorneys, and I get paid out of a trust fund that is set up for every bankruptcy estate. The courts frequently want to see that someone made a real effort to avoid being there in the first place, and I charge a lot less than credit counseling services do. Sometimes they can't be avoided, though, because the judge can insist that you go to one of them first.
At any rate, I see a lot of unemployed people in the course of my work. I'm even one of them. Owning a business is not the same as having a job.
I belong to a couple of professional organizations. One of them sent me an e-mail today about what to say to unemployed clients. So I read it, and thought that I'd share some of their sage wisdom with you.
Be prepared. Make an honest assessment of your job security, preferably before you become unemployed. If your future with your current employer is in doubt, consider setting aside some extra money.
Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds like excellent advice for someone who isn't unemployed. Frankly, setting aside some extra money is always good advice for anyone who can do it. You never know.
“I tell my clients that most can make a 5% change in their budgets with no lifestyle change,” said Joe Q Blow, principal and wealth manager at Wealthy Pig Wealth Management. “At 10%, then you start making lifestyle decisions.”
Disconnected much? Any drop in income results in "lifestyle decisions" for most people. 5% of $50K is $2500, and I don't know anyone who makes $50K who wouldn't have to change something lifestylewise if they lost $2500/yr income. Besides, that isn't how it's going to work for most people. The drop in income if they're laid off is going to be closer to 100%. That'll force some lifestyle decisions on pretty much anyone.
Mac 'n cheese or spaghetti with "meat sauce"? That sort of lifestyle decision.
“You are far better off paying the minimum on your debt, said Jack Sneed of Sneed and Beestly Advisors. “Try to cut them down to interest only, if possible.” Some who are newly unemployed take their severance checks and pay off credit card and other high-interest debt, but that only limits their options in the long run, Mr. Sneed said. “Cash allows you the flexibility of making choices, and allows you the luxury to discriminate between jobs.”
If I said something like that and a bankruptcy court judge heard about it, well...they wouldn't like it much. Severance checks? What a quaint notion. Flexibility? At this point, people are making minimum payments out of necessity, not strategy. Strategy is for people who still have options.
Don’t give up your gym membership. Baby boomer job hunters in particular need to stay in shape to be marketable, said Mr Blow. Quitting the gym is the worst move they can make, unless they have a lower-cost way of staying in top shape. “Stay well dressed and well pressed,” he said.
I just don't know what to say. Yes, you should always dress as well as you can when job hunting, and no, it doesn't hurt to look buff. But cutting a gym membership might just free up enough money to buy a few groceries. You can always run around the block and do sit ups in front of the TV. I should probably try it.
Jack LaLanne made millions selling big rubber bands for a couple of bucks and showing people, for free, how to do like a million exercises with that and a chair. Then he died without even reaching 100, which shows you what a crock "healthy living" is. George Burns drank, smoked and ate good stuff, and lived to 100. He probably never saw a budget coach, either.
Don’t rule out lower paying jobs
No shit. Most people are aware that a bad job pays better than no job. Most unemployed people would take almost anything offered.
Hire a career coach.
Yes, that's right. If you lose your job, go pay someone else money to give you advice that probably won't help you find a new job anyway. But there's more...
Baby boomers are the most educated generation in history, but they aren’t very good at evaluating the talents and gifts they bring to a job, said Daisy Dingle, director of career and life coaching for Dingle Investment People.
Instead, some resort to unhelpful job-hunt strategies, such as applying for jobs that are a level below their old position, thinking that it will improve their odds. It doesn’t, because there is always another candidate who fits the role better, she said.
“The advice that is thrown out all the time is to get clear about who you are and what you want,” said Daisy. “The problem is people need help getting clear. If you don’t have that, you can network till you are blue in the face and it won’t work.”
WTF? The last guy just told me to go ahead and take a lower paying job. Now this lady says starve until you get your dream job, or at least your old job back.
Okey-dokey.
Not only that, but for most people, "networking" means calling Joe at Radio Shack to see if they need extra help for the holiday season.
So, to recap, this is what I'm supposed to tell unemployed clients:
*Be prepared in advance to lose your job.
*If you didn't prepare, tough cookies.
*Don't change your lifestyle unless your income falls at least 10%.
*Make minimum payments on your credit cards.
*Don't give up that gym membership!
*Consider taking a lower paying job.
*Don't consider taking a lower paying job.
Got that? I just gave you hundreds of dollars worth of bodacious advice from real people in the same business that I'm in, except that they're smarter than I am. They must be. After all, they got published.
I gave you this startling secret advice for free, too. You're welcome.
The Tax Cuts That Weren't
Why do I review some history of US taxation here? It isn't the most exciting subject. But it does relate to how our country runs today. Reagan and Congress sold the media and the public on the idea that two tax bills that resulted in huge tax increases for everybody, even the wealthy, were actually tax cuts for everybody.
They weren't. So, even in this current atmosphere of extreme tax rebellion, it would be possible to raise taxes while appearing not to. More on that at another time.
But President Obama would need to be able to sell it to the media and the public as well as Reagan sold his. I don't think he can do it.
Any tax provisions that he or any other Democrat proposes will be denounced by the wingnut noise machine as "socialism". It wouldn't matter what it was, either. An excise tax on caviar would be considered "socialist" by a surprising number of Americans.
There is a conservative meme that states "tax receipts rise after taxes are cut because tax cuts stimulate economic activity".
If you look at the numbers, they would seem to bear this out. The two biggest "Reagan tax cut" bills were TEFRA (1982) and the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA '86). In the years following the "tax cuts" taking effect, tax receipts certainly did rise. But did they rise because rates were cut?
Or did they rise because the "Reagan Tax Cuts" weren't tax cuts at all?
Rates aren't everything. If you tax income, then the definition of income is far more important than the rate.
TEFRA took an obscure item out of the tax code called the "Minimum Tax", and changed it so that it applied to a lot more people. Where the Minimum Tax only affected less than 1% of all tax returns, the Alternative Minimum Tax initially affected almost 10%, and a lot more than that now.
The 77% rate was done away with by deleting the Minimum Tax's cousin, MaxiTax. The top rate on the tax tables was dropped from 70% to 50%, and dropped all the way down the tables. So when tax receipts rose in future years even though the tax rates were lower, it must have been because the tax cuts "stimulated" the economy.
Right?
After all, the economy really was kicking ass in 1983-1985. Or maybe not. Actually, it pretty much sucked. High inflation with slow wage growth. "Stagflation".
It also changed depreciation rules for real estate, decreasing paper losses for real estate investors. Real estate is the original income tax shelter, and TEFRA eroded that somewhat.
Right?
After all, the economy really was kicking ass in 1983-1985. Or maybe not. Actually, it pretty much sucked. High inflation with slow wage growth. "Stagflation".
It also changed depreciation rules for real estate, decreasing paper losses for real estate investors. Real estate is the original income tax shelter, and TEFRA eroded that somewhat.
All told, what happened was basically that this increased the tax on most of the top 10%, even though their marginal rates had been cut. It's really unfavorable to people who get compensated with stock options. It was a stunning example of the 1% shoving a bunch of their tax burden onto the top 10%.
Of course, the payroll tax increase that was also in that bill screwed everyone who works for a living.
TEFRA, billed by the MSM and the American left as "Reagan's tax cuts for the rich" were a big tax increase, mainly on the rich. Which brought tax receipts up.
Interestingly, though, a lot of tax analysts consider TEFRA to be one of the biggest tax increases in US history.
Interestingly, though, a lot of tax analysts consider TEFRA to be one of the biggest tax increases in US history.
But not nearly as much so as the next round of "Reagan's tax cuts for the rich". TRA 86(the Tax Reform Act of 1986) was an almost complete rewrite of the tax code. The title of the tax code was even changed to "The Internal Revenue Code of 1986". Among many other provisions, it imposed something called the "passive activities rules", a term that only a lawyer could love.
Think about it.
Passive.
Activities.
A few simple yet very confusing paragraphs of tax law made almost all existing tax shelters worthless. Again, rates were cut. But this time, billions of dollars of previously sheltered income was now being taxed.
The top tax rate was now 28%, but there was a catch or two. Once you reached a certain level of income, all of your taxable income going down to the 15% bracket level was subject to the 28% rate. In addition, more types of income, including rental income, were subject to a now expanded AMT. After an exclusion, all other AMT income was taxed at a flat rate of 33%.
Think about it.
Passive.
Activities.
A few simple yet very confusing paragraphs of tax law made almost all existing tax shelters worthless. Again, rates were cut. But this time, billions of dollars of previously sheltered income was now being taxed.
The top tax rate was now 28%, but there was a catch or two. Once you reached a certain level of income, all of your taxable income going down to the 15% bracket level was subject to the 28% rate. In addition, more types of income, including rental income, were subject to a now expanded AMT. After an exclusion, all other AMT income was taxed at a flat rate of 33%.
The Clinton tax cuts really were cuts, and didn't have so many sneaky offsetting provisions. But tax receipts kept rising. The reason that time was because the economy really was booming. Which, I am pretty sure, was not because of the tax cuts. But do let me know if you figure that part out. :)
Then the Bush tax cuts, which were absolute cuts with no monkey business, just low taxes, son, were enacted just as the economy was slowing. So what happened? Tax receipts went down. So did the economy.
Did tax cuts and declining government revenues ruin the economy? Definitely not by themselves. But they didn't help, either.
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Reagan raised taxes.
Clinton cut taxes, and the benefits went mainly to the middle class. Even though welfare programs became more restrictive during his administration, he signed tax bills that had very generous credits for having children. The Child Tax Credit was created, the Earned Income Credit was expanded.
During the Bush years the Child Tax Credit became refundable. As a result, the Treasury pays out $90 billion or so in refundable tax credits.
Bill was right. It's not welfare as we knew it. It's different.
But it's still a welfare program.
But the Bush tax cuts were also of great benefit to the wealthy.
Everybody pays less. Nobody pays enough. It isn't creating jobs, either.
Clinton cut taxes, and the benefits went mainly to the middle class. Even though welfare programs became more restrictive during his administration, he signed tax bills that had very generous credits for having children. The Child Tax Credit was created, the Earned Income Credit was expanded.
During the Bush years the Child Tax Credit became refundable. As a result, the Treasury pays out $90 billion or so in refundable tax credits.
Bill was right. It's not welfare as we knew it. It's different.
But it's still a welfare program.
But the Bush tax cuts were also of great benefit to the wealthy.
Everybody pays less. Nobody pays enough. It isn't creating jobs, either.
Reality is not just complicated.
It's passively active.
It's passively active.
I Wanna Be
Anarchy!
Don't get me wrong. I think that it's actually a very good album. But the band was somewhat musically--challenged. The lyrics are also a bit strained. It was like they wanted to bring down scathing critiques against the system and the government, but didn't know enough about politics. So the best they could come up with is espousing anarchy and calling the more or less powerless queen a fascist.
It was 1977.
I was 16. A rebellious youth with not a hell of a lot to rebel over. The war was over, Jimmy Carter was President, and weed had been seriously decriminalized already. So we decided to smoke a whole bunch of it.
We laughed at the posers from England. Punk wasn't like that. The Pistols were a caricature of punk. Iggy Pop was punk. Iggy was from Detroit.
But the Pistols were symptomatic, really, of a generation that didn't really have enough to rebel against. Punk culture emerged from boredom, basically. No wars to protest, the economy wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad, either. Especially if you were a teenager.
No reason to be mad at Wall Street in 1977. Especially if you were a teenager and hadn't seen your investments stay flat for almost a decade.
The Cold War was a subject of some concern. But no reason to march on the Capitol. Those cruise missiles looked cool. Who knew how the bills would add up?
So, lacking any serious focus of revolution, we decided to dress funny instead. And use drugs. And listen to loud music.
It's not like we weren't political. Politics came up in conversations frequently. Once in a while the subject of anarchy would come up. All because of that stupid Sex Pistols song. On at least one occasion, it was decided that a dictatorship would be better, as long as the dictator was somebody cool.
Maybe Iggy Pop.
In 1979, we had the Iran Hostage Crisis. When the hostages were freed, a friend and I did 52 bong hits in their honor. Reagan had been elected. Some of my fellow punk culture/metalhead types had helped. Just getting into our 20's, and a bunch of the rebels were already Republicans. Actually a rather conservative bunch in a lot of ways. Many mohawks had to be grown out.
In 1984, I DJ'd my brother's 16th birthday party. His teenage friends were dressed like some caricature of the punk culture of just a few years earlier. A bunch of them had an "A" in a circle on their jackets. A couple of them looked sort of like the logo for the band Aerosmith. Which confused me. Aerosmith was washed up. Then it hit me. The Sex Pistols. Anarchy. Punk culture as dress-up costume. Emulate big brother.
They bought the manufactured culture then, then a huge proportion of them became FOX News watching independent voters. Independent because the Republican Party is far too liberal for them.
I guess the anarchy thing didn't really work out for them after all.
People a few years older than myself had Vietnam, the civil rights struggle, JFK, LBJ, RFK, MLK and LSD. A time of true social upheaval. Those of us born a few years later saw punk vs disco.
The hippies had more to rebel against. So now, more of them are liberal than the general population.
People my age are more heavily conservative. One of us is even President.
The anarchy thing never did catch on. Maybe the current generation will figure it out.
--------------------------------------------
Addendum:
I've never considered myself either a boomer or an X-er. Those of us born between maybe 1957 and 1967 grew up in a different world. We were the baby busters, those born during the declining birthrate years. We went to half-empty schools where everything was 10 years old. Watching the protests on TV, too young to go, maybe more likely to accept our parents' assertions that the protesters were dirty hippies who needed a bath and a job.
Sounds familiar.
Our teachers were mostly pre-boomers. After Vietnam, most boomers were otherwise occupied. I remember at the State Capitol sit-ins in the mid to late 70's, which were about marijuana decriminalization and environmental issues, particularly Rocky Flats, which the state really couldn't do anything about, the participants were mostly pre-boomers (old enough to already have established careers) and busters (we were still in K-12 at the time).
Not as many boomers, 'cause they were finishing college and establishing careers. But there were plenty of them at the few larger demonstrations at Rocky Flats.
I guess a larger point is that the political leanings of large groups are highly influenced by lifecycle position relative to political problems. A lot of us were badly affected by the war, losing male relatives, including fathers and brothers, left and right. But we weren't old enough to do much of anything. By the time we were, the war was over, and social upheaval had been largely replaced by a boring stability
The X-ers came along with that next birth boom that started in the late 60's, and my brother is one of them. They're now in their mid-30's to mid 40's, and probably the most conservative generation since my parents'. My dad turns 75 today. There's a lot of conservatives his age, and a lot in that sub-55 age group. It looks like today's 20-somethings are the next generation that will have a larger liberal contingent.
I'm not blaming pre-fab British pretend punk on any sort of cultural decline. Just a symptom. I was just surprised to realize that, as the X-ers reached back to try to build their own culture, they latched onto the Sex Pistols rather than, say, MC5 or the Ramones. It was the same as if someone had tried to reconstruct 60's pop culture around the Monkees.
I am an antichrist"Anarchy In The UK" by the Sex Pistols. All of the Sex Pistols' songs are credited as self-written, but I've always suspected that the late great Malcolm McClaren had a professional songwriter ghostwrite the music. The lyrics are bad enough to be the genuine product of John Lydon and the boys.
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer-by
'Cause I wanna be
Anarchy!
Don't get me wrong. I think that it's actually a very good album. But the band was somewhat musically--challenged. The lyrics are also a bit strained. It was like they wanted to bring down scathing critiques against the system and the government, but didn't know enough about politics. So the best they could come up with is espousing anarchy and calling the more or less powerless queen a fascist.
It was 1977.
I was 16. A rebellious youth with not a hell of a lot to rebel over. The war was over, Jimmy Carter was President, and weed had been seriously decriminalized already. So we decided to smoke a whole bunch of it.
We laughed at the posers from England. Punk wasn't like that. The Pistols were a caricature of punk. Iggy Pop was punk. Iggy was from Detroit.
But the Pistols were symptomatic, really, of a generation that didn't really have enough to rebel against. Punk culture emerged from boredom, basically. No wars to protest, the economy wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad, either. Especially if you were a teenager.
No reason to be mad at Wall Street in 1977. Especially if you were a teenager and hadn't seen your investments stay flat for almost a decade.
The Cold War was a subject of some concern. But no reason to march on the Capitol. Those cruise missiles looked cool. Who knew how the bills would add up?
So, lacking any serious focus of revolution, we decided to dress funny instead. And use drugs. And listen to loud music.
It's not like we weren't political. Politics came up in conversations frequently. Once in a while the subject of anarchy would come up. All because of that stupid Sex Pistols song. On at least one occasion, it was decided that a dictatorship would be better, as long as the dictator was somebody cool.
Maybe Iggy Pop.
In 1979, we had the Iran Hostage Crisis. When the hostages were freed, a friend and I did 52 bong hits in their honor. Reagan had been elected. Some of my fellow punk culture/metalhead types had helped. Just getting into our 20's, and a bunch of the rebels were already Republicans. Actually a rather conservative bunch in a lot of ways. Many mohawks had to be grown out.
In 1984, I DJ'd my brother's 16th birthday party. His teenage friends were dressed like some caricature of the punk culture of just a few years earlier. A bunch of them had an "A" in a circle on their jackets. A couple of them looked sort of like the logo for the band Aerosmith. Which confused me. Aerosmith was washed up. Then it hit me. The Sex Pistols. Anarchy. Punk culture as dress-up costume. Emulate big brother.
They bought the manufactured culture then, then a huge proportion of them became FOX News watching independent voters. Independent because the Republican Party is far too liberal for them.
I guess the anarchy thing didn't really work out for them after all.
People a few years older than myself had Vietnam, the civil rights struggle, JFK, LBJ, RFK, MLK and LSD. A time of true social upheaval. Those of us born a few years later saw punk vs disco.
The hippies had more to rebel against. So now, more of them are liberal than the general population.
People my age are more heavily conservative. One of us is even President.
The anarchy thing never did catch on. Maybe the current generation will figure it out.
--------------------------------------------
Addendum:
I've never considered myself either a boomer or an X-er. Those of us born between maybe 1957 and 1967 grew up in a different world. We were the baby busters, those born during the declining birthrate years. We went to half-empty schools where everything was 10 years old. Watching the protests on TV, too young to go, maybe more likely to accept our parents' assertions that the protesters were dirty hippies who needed a bath and a job.
Sounds familiar.
Our teachers were mostly pre-boomers. After Vietnam, most boomers were otherwise occupied. I remember at the State Capitol sit-ins in the mid to late 70's, which were about marijuana decriminalization and environmental issues, particularly Rocky Flats, which the state really couldn't do anything about, the participants were mostly pre-boomers (old enough to already have established careers) and busters (we were still in K-12 at the time).
Not as many boomers, 'cause they were finishing college and establishing careers. But there were plenty of them at the few larger demonstrations at Rocky Flats.
I guess a larger point is that the political leanings of large groups are highly influenced by lifecycle position relative to political problems. A lot of us were badly affected by the war, losing male relatives, including fathers and brothers, left and right. But we weren't old enough to do much of anything. By the time we were, the war was over, and social upheaval had been largely replaced by a boring stability
The X-ers came along with that next birth boom that started in the late 60's, and my brother is one of them. They're now in their mid-30's to mid 40's, and probably the most conservative generation since my parents'. My dad turns 75 today. There's a lot of conservatives his age, and a lot in that sub-55 age group. It looks like today's 20-somethings are the next generation that will have a larger liberal contingent.
I'm not blaming pre-fab British pretend punk on any sort of cultural decline. Just a symptom. I was just surprised to realize that, as the X-ers reached back to try to build their own culture, they latched onto the Sex Pistols rather than, say, MC5 or the Ramones. It was the same as if someone had tried to reconstruct 60's pop culture around the Monkees.
Political Style Boxes
Since reality consists of shades of gray, rather than black and white, many attempts have been made by people to evaluate and quantify everything from the concrete to the ephemeral, and everything in between. In the investments world especially, there have been many methods developed to show an overall picture of how an investment is manged or performs. Also, the style of investing. Nothing is entirely "growth" or entirely "income".
One of the better tools that business has come up with to illustrate attitudes, style, and even performance is the "style box", which are used to generate scatter charts in response to queries of different attributes. They consist of two axes, each of which are differentiated by a zero point. Before they're filled out, they look like this:
Obviously, the criterion listed on this chart are political. But what does it mean?
All policies have some element of liberty vs authority. They also have an element of liberal vs conservative political theory. Liberal policies can have authoritarian elements, or libertarian elements.
Liberal authoritarianism is reflected in safety regulations, for example.
Liberal libertarianism is reflected in universal suffrage.
Conservative authoritarianism is on our coinage. We shall trust in god or else!
Conservative libertarianism is reflected in lax gun laws.
Everybody will still define these terms as they see fit. We all have different perspectives, and sometimes the differences are too big to be demonstrated with style boxes.
Here are examples of policies, and where I believe each fits in the "political style box":
1. Imposition of social programs requiring mandatory participation and taxation.
Liberal/Authoritarian
Why? Collection of any tax requires governmental authority to collect, and additional governmental authority is needed to enforce participation.
2. Repeal of prohibition laws.
Liberal/Libertarian
Why? Rejection of governmental authority in areas where governmental authority should never have been granted in the first place.
3. Taxes? No way, man! Well, maybe a little consumption tax and service fees.
Conservative/Libertarian
Why? You're kidding, right?
4. Travel restrictions ostensibly to "fight terrorism".
Conservative/Authoritarian
Seeks to increase governmental authority for the specific purpose of limiting citizen movement.
So that's the general idea.
I have written a short political attitude quiz, using some popular subjects picked at random. If you want to take it and "score" it yourself, that's great. If you want to share it with us, even better.
If you don't mind me scoring it, or don't understand quite how it works, or would like a printable copy of your chart, then you can e-mail me your answers to jmadison.files@gmail.com.
With your permissions, I would also like to display your "style boxes" here, either anonymously or by user name and avatar.
Anybody with questions, comments, or other feedback is encouraged to leave them in the comments or tell them to me via e-mail.
And now:
JMadison's Political Style Quiz
1. Do you believe that the US social insurance program (currently Social Security and Medicare) should be expanded to include univcersal health insurance?
a. Yes
b. No
2. If yes, then which system do you believe would be most desirable:
a. Single provider
b. Single payer
c. Public private hybrid.
3. Do you believe that freedom of religion means that we sometimes must allow religious denominations to make public displays of their religious values or laws on public property?
a. Yes
b. No
4. Do you favor the current Federal Reserve system, or would you rather restore Congress' authority to set interest rates and precious metals prices, and require the Treasury to maintain banks' cash reserves directly?
a. Yes, leave the system as is
b. No, let's transfer the authority to Congress and the Treasury
c. I'm open to possibly reforming the current system
d. Other--Please provide a short explanation.
5. Do You believe that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution establishes a personal right to own firearms?
a. Yes
b. No
6. Do you feel that the government has gone too far or not far enough to prevent future terror attacks?
a. Too far
b. Not far enough
c. Too far, but they can't abandon the current system altogether
d. Not far enough, but the system can still be improved
7. Do you support ending the individual income tax?
a. Yes
b. No
7a If yes, then what would you favor replacing it with?
a. A national sales tax, or a VAT
b. Increased excise taxes and import duties
c. A corporate gross receipts tax
d. A capital transcations tax
e. Other--Please provide a short explanation.
7b If no, then which of these reforms would you support?
a. Raise marginal rates
b. Eliminate breaks for investment income
c. Eliminate tax credits
d. Other or None--Please provide a short explanation.
8. Which of the following military expenses do you feel should be cut early and deeply?
a. New toys (new planes, missiles, ships, etc)
b. Overseas bases and invasions
c. Personnel
d. Disband the military, except for a small security force
e. Do not cut the military budget. Cut the budget elsewhere first.
9. Do you support ending any of the following prohibitions:
a. Marijuana
b. Prostitution
c. Amphetamines
d. None of the above
10. Do you believe that prison sentences in the US are generally:
a. Too lenient
b. Too harsh
c. Just about right in most cases
11. Do you believe that most American business sectors are:
a. Over regulated
b. Under regulated
c. Properly regulated
12. Which business sectors do you believe are most in need of regulatory reform, either for more or less regulation:
a. Investments and insurance
b. Health care
c. Banking
d. Mining/extraction
e. Energy production
f. Manufacturing
g. Agriculture, fishing and timber
h. Other
13. Do you believe that the Federal Government is:
a. Too small, and inadequately able to influence state and local laws and regulations
b. Too large, and has too much authority
c. Is acceptable as currently composed
14. Do you believe that American foreign policy is:
a. Too active
b. Too isolationist
c. Balanced
15. Do you actively support and of the following political parties?
a. Republican
b. Democratic
c. Green
d. Any Socialist Party
e. Any Libertarian Party
f. Any "Constitution" Party
g. Prohibition
h. I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passerby
'Cos I wanna be anarchy
JMadison's "Style Box"
One of the better tools that business has come up with to illustrate attitudes, style, and even performance is the "style box", which are used to generate scatter charts in response to queries of different attributes. They consist of two axes, each of which are differentiated by a zero point. Before they're filled out, they look like this:
Obviously, the criterion listed on this chart are political. But what does it mean?
All policies have some element of liberty vs authority. They also have an element of liberal vs conservative political theory. Liberal policies can have authoritarian elements, or libertarian elements.
Liberal authoritarianism is reflected in safety regulations, for example.
Liberal libertarianism is reflected in universal suffrage.
Conservative authoritarianism is on our coinage. We shall trust in god or else!
Conservative libertarianism is reflected in lax gun laws.
Everybody will still define these terms as they see fit. We all have different perspectives, and sometimes the differences are too big to be demonstrated with style boxes.
Here are examples of policies, and where I believe each fits in the "political style box":
1. Imposition of social programs requiring mandatory participation and taxation.
Liberal/Authoritarian
Why? Collection of any tax requires governmental authority to collect, and additional governmental authority is needed to enforce participation.
2. Repeal of prohibition laws.
Liberal/Libertarian
Why? Rejection of governmental authority in areas where governmental authority should never have been granted in the first place.
3. Taxes? No way, man! Well, maybe a little consumption tax and service fees.
Conservative/Libertarian
Why? You're kidding, right?
4. Travel restrictions ostensibly to "fight terrorism".
Conservative/Authoritarian
Seeks to increase governmental authority for the specific purpose of limiting citizen movement.
So that's the general idea.
I have written a short political attitude quiz, using some popular subjects picked at random. If you want to take it and "score" it yourself, that's great. If you want to share it with us, even better.
If you don't mind me scoring it, or don't understand quite how it works, or would like a printable copy of your chart, then you can e-mail me your answers to jmadison.files@gmail.com.
With your permissions, I would also like to display your "style boxes" here, either anonymously or by user name and avatar.
Anybody with questions, comments, or other feedback is encouraged to leave them in the comments or tell them to me via e-mail.
And now:
JMadison's Political Style Quiz
1. Do you believe that the US social insurance program (currently Social Security and Medicare) should be expanded to include univcersal health insurance?
a. Yes
b. No
2. If yes, then which system do you believe would be most desirable:
a. Single provider
b. Single payer
c. Public private hybrid.
3. Do you believe that freedom of religion means that we sometimes must allow religious denominations to make public displays of their religious values or laws on public property?
a. Yes
b. No
4. Do you favor the current Federal Reserve system, or would you rather restore Congress' authority to set interest rates and precious metals prices, and require the Treasury to maintain banks' cash reserves directly?
a. Yes, leave the system as is
b. No, let's transfer the authority to Congress and the Treasury
c. I'm open to possibly reforming the current system
d. Other--Please provide a short explanation.
5. Do You believe that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution establishes a personal right to own firearms?
a. Yes
b. No
6. Do you feel that the government has gone too far or not far enough to prevent future terror attacks?
a. Too far
b. Not far enough
c. Too far, but they can't abandon the current system altogether
d. Not far enough, but the system can still be improved
7. Do you support ending the individual income tax?
a. Yes
b. No
7a If yes, then what would you favor replacing it with?
a. A national sales tax, or a VAT
b. Increased excise taxes and import duties
c. A corporate gross receipts tax
d. A capital transcations tax
e. Other--Please provide a short explanation.
7b If no, then which of these reforms would you support?
a. Raise marginal rates
b. Eliminate breaks for investment income
c. Eliminate tax credits
d. Other or None--Please provide a short explanation.
8. Which of the following military expenses do you feel should be cut early and deeply?
a. New toys (new planes, missiles, ships, etc)
b. Overseas bases and invasions
c. Personnel
d. Disband the military, except for a small security force
e. Do not cut the military budget. Cut the budget elsewhere first.
9. Do you support ending any of the following prohibitions:
a. Marijuana
b. Prostitution
c. Amphetamines
d. None of the above
10. Do you believe that prison sentences in the US are generally:
a. Too lenient
b. Too harsh
c. Just about right in most cases
11. Do you believe that most American business sectors are:
a. Over regulated
b. Under regulated
c. Properly regulated
12. Which business sectors do you believe are most in need of regulatory reform, either for more or less regulation:
a. Investments and insurance
b. Health care
c. Banking
d. Mining/extraction
e. Energy production
f. Manufacturing
g. Agriculture, fishing and timber
h. Other
13. Do you believe that the Federal Government is:
a. Too small, and inadequately able to influence state and local laws and regulations
b. Too large, and has too much authority
c. Is acceptable as currently composed
14. Do you believe that American foreign policy is:
a. Too active
b. Too isolationist
c. Balanced
15. Do you actively support and of the following political parties?
a. Republican
b. Democratic
c. Green
d. Any Socialist Party
e. Any Libertarian Party
f. Any "Constitution" Party
g. Prohibition
h. I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passerby
'Cos I wanna be anarchy
JMadison's "Style Box"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
