Why can’t we run an AI check on AI output, asking it to evaluate the output for bias? It can review the output for racial, sexual, gender, socioeconomic, political, and any other number of potential biases, then put out a summary chart so you have overview of the inherent bias in the report.
You should be able to submit any article or post you are reading for this treatment.
Interesting, Word Press has added an AI Assistant to preview what you are about to publish. This is what it provided for this article.
The idea of using AI to evaluate the output for bias is intriguing. It could be helpful to:
1. Conduct thorough research on existing AI models for bias evaluation.
2. Collaborate with AI experts to develop a system that can detect and summarize potential biases.
3. Test the system extensively by submitting various articles and posts for evaluation.
4. Consider integrating the AI Assistant into the publishing process to provide users with a comprehensive overview.
5. Ensure transparency by clearly communicating the limitations and scope of bias evaluation to users.
The addition of an AI Assistant to preview content in WordPress is indeed an interesting development.
The Social Security Trust Fund is running low and may not have enough income to to pay the expected outflow and it will then need to start reducing payments such that income and outflow balance. Sometime in the 2030’s is projected.
Currently an employee contributes 6.2% of income up to $160,200 (in 2023), with the employer matching that 6.2%. If they really can’t get rid of the cap on the employee’s side of the equation, why don’t they get rid of the cap on the employer’s side and let them continue to contribute 6.2% of income with no cap? That should put a bit more money into the trust fund.
I heard a story the other day about how states are looking at ways to tax EV to pay for the road taxes they no longer collect on the lost gasoline sales. There is also the issue of declining gas tax revenues because of improving fuel efficiencies without the reduction of the wear and tear on the roads themselves. Some of the ideas included charging an EV tax on annual registration renewal or taxing at the charging station (but if you charge at home and not at a charging station, no taxes?)
Why not just tax the tires? Add a certain tax based on the expected mileage of a set of tires. The actual usage of the roads will be captured by how often the tires are changed.
If we look at consider the average car gets @ 16 MPG and the gas tax is $.18 per gallon then the average tax is $.01125 per mile. So a set of 4 -40,000 mile tires would be taxed $450. A set of 60,000 mile tires would be taxed $675.
Heavy Duty Vehicles and their tires can be taxed at a different rate since the heavier vehicles put more where and tear on the roads.
It might be easier to collect the tax at the annual registration time and ignore the difference between the the folks that only put 3,000 miles a year on their cars and those that put 30,000 miles a year on them. If we assume the average car is getting 12,000 miles a year, then an average $135 a year can be collected in the registration fee.
All this is in lieu of the gasoline tax and could be applied to all types of vehicles. Although the registration tax could just be used for EV and gas taxes can stay until the last pump dies.
I forget though. The $.18 gas tax is the federal tax rate. The same process can be used for states gas taxes to add on to the figures above.
I see that the average State Gas Tax is $.31 per gallon. That comes to $ .019375 per mile additional state tax and a total of $.030625 per mile combined Fed and State Taxes. Tire taxes would be $1225 for a set of 40,000 mile tires and $1837.50 for a set of 60,000 mile tires. I can see that would cause a bit of sticker shot for the consumer. The registration cost, using 12,000 miles as the average, is $367.50 per year.
If there was a way to spread out the tire tax over a period of years, it may be a more appropriate way to tax for actual road usage. Those of us who only drive 5,000 miles a year will only be getting new tires every 10 years or so. (Do tires actually last that long?) Or maybe a combination of registration tax and tire tax such that it isn’t such a big hit at once.
Either way, the EVs do need to pay their way for road maintenance.
Rather than trying to put caps onto salaries, in an attempt to prevent runaway wage growth, why don’t we just set up a progressive income tax such that: the more you make, the higher your tax bracket?
Everyone can start out with a base deduction plus social security insurance, health insurance and state/local tax costs, and then pay a flat rate at various steps thereafter.
My steps would be tied to the median household income (MHI) . For every multiple of the MHI, the tax rate would increase. The actual tax rate should be set such that the federal budget would be balanced i.e. the government will collect enough money to cover its expenditures for the year.
The base deduction for a single individual should be 40% of the MHI. For a household, the base deduction should be the MHI.
In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
They argue that by distributing all the command and control of the Executive functions across wide and diverse groups of faceless bureaucrats who are writing, executing and adjudicating the rules that make our society work, that we are reaching that stage of tyranny. Instead, they want to consolidate all this into a more compact group of ideological political appointees and put the career bureaucrats out to pasture.
They are concerned that the “Radical Left” are running the bureaus, agencies, and departments with some sort of agenda to weaken America and it’s standing in the world. I believe Barry Goldwater is part of the Radical Left as well.
It will take a while get through all this. They have detailed breakdowns for the various Cabinet departments and independent agencies, and, how the incoming “conservative” president can fix it all.
I like the proposal to fix the term of a Supreme Court Justice to 18 years. A new Justice would be appointed every 2 years. In the event of a vacancy in the court, a new Justice would be appointed to fill the term of the vacated seat.
This would allow each President to appoint 2 Justices per term (minimum, for a 4 year term). This also allows Justices to achieve emeritus status while still able to enjoy life. Emeritus Justices may be called upon for other duties as determined by the Chief Justice.
Looking at some figures, the median net worth of an American household in 2020 is ~$121,000. If you look at older households (65+) which have had a chance to build up equity, the median net worth is ~$266,000. So rather than imposing a wealth tax, let us impose a 90% estate tax on any amount of estate over, say, 100 times the median net worth of the older household. So, any portion of an estate over $26.6 million would be taxed at 90%. Under $26.6 million, that can be tax-free inheritance.
Presumably, there will be those out there who will figure ways to game the system. We need to be vigilant and find ways to block the gamers. The primary reason for such a severe tax on large estates is to prevent the build up of an entitled aristocracy through the accumulation of generational wealth.
As I was looking at the wealth figures, I noticed that while the median net worth was $266,000 for 65+, the average, or mean, net worth was ~$1.2 Million, 4.5 times the mean.
Here is a table showing that more than 99% of households won’t even be affected by the 90% estate tax I have proposed, since they are only at $11 million. Maybe we should use the median household of $121,000 as our basis?
I discussed how to set a living minimum wage in an earlier post. Upon further reflection I would like to amend my approach. I was looking at two separate measures to determine a minimum wage: the poverty level of the nation or of an area, and the median household income for an area. The national median household income is $68,700, in 2019.
For the national minimum wage we will use 40% of the median annual income (rounded to the nearest $500)- $27,500. Working 2000 hours a year will result in a hourly wage of $13.75. This should be the national minimum wage which will be adjusted annually as the Census Bureau updates the median income.
In my earlier post I was looking at the HUD Median Family Income Calculation to derive a minimum wage for the more expensive Metro Areas around the country. My initial idea was to use the Extremely Low Income Level (30% of the Median family income) as a basis. Upon reflection, using a 40% value is more appropriate and balances with the national baseline.
Metro Area
Median Family Income (HUD)
Minimum Wage (40% MFI/2000 hours)
National
$68,700
$13.75
New York City
$78,700
$15.75
Los Angeles
$77,300
$15.50
Denver
$100,000
$20.00
Colorado Springs
$81,600
$16.25
Chicago
$91,000
$18.25
San Francisco
$143,100
$28.50
Seattle
$113,300
$22.75
Boston
$119,000
$23.75
DC Metro
$126,000
$25.25
Minneapolis
$103,400
$20.75
San Jose
$141,600
$28.25
Minimum Wage Table
Several other areas that should be addressed are piece work, gig work and personal service work.
For piece work I am thinking of jobs that pay per unit produced rather than the actual time needed to produce the units. This will require some historical information on the time it takes to produce a batch of units. If, on average, it takes 8 hours to produce 100 units then a minimum per unit wage will be 8*$13.75/100 = $1.10 per unit and earn $110 for the eight hour day. As a minimum. Now if a worker is just learning the trade they might produce only 80 units in 8 hours and only earn $88 for the day. An experienced worker may produce 120 units and earn $132 for the day. Of course, this will require honest reviews of how long the actual unit production time is. The same process can be used for filling bushels of produce, painting ‘art’ works, etc.
Gig work is another area that needs to be reviewed. Gig workers are like piece workers in that the work is on demand and produced as needed over a possible indeterminate time. If you don’t produce there is no income. One of the problems with the ‘gig’ economy is that the Ubers and Lyfts claim to be intermediaries connecting the customer with the driver and they will be glad to handle the monetary interchange, for a cut. And they set the rates. I suppose a driver could set a bottom limit to what they would drive for, but I don’t know if they would get many calls after that. I think the gig intermediaries need to have realistic rates for the amount a time their gig “contractor” will take to do a job and ensure their rate is sufficient to cover a minimum wage for the worker and all the withholding and mileage rates that accrue.
Another category of work I am trying to define are the folks who act as rafting guides, tourist guides, people who have to be on-the-job 24 hours a day, travelling and away from home. At a minimum they should be earning the equivalent of a 16 hour day, or $220 a day.
Salaried people must make at least the median family income per year. Below that they should be paid an hourly wage plus overtime as incurred.
Corporations that are paying for labor need to withhold SSA and Medicare from laborers be they employees, contractors, gig workers, piece workers or whatever. If the corporation is paying for the labor they must match the SSA and Medicare and remit the monies to the appropriate office.
Given that someone working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, 2000 hours a year, should be earning, at least, a minimum, LIVING, wage, then a minimum hourly wage of $13.25 is justified. I suggest that this should be considered a minimum living wage for an individual-nationally. *
Again, we will use the “family of four” as our baseline. In my home county of El Paso, Colorado, the Median Family income is $81,600. 30% of that is $24,500 (rounded to the nearest 100). Divide by 2000 hours, that would create a Minimum wage of $12.25. Since the National Minimum is higher, the higher one applies. Any Metro area with an median family income of less than $90,000 will use the national minimum wage. (rounding results to nearest $.25)
Metro Area
Median Family Inc
Minimum Wage
New York City
$78,700
National Minimum
San Francisco
$143,100
$21.50
Boston
$119,000
$18.00
DC Metro
$121,000
$19.00
Chicago
$91,000
$13.50
Seattle
$113,300
$17.00
Los Angeles
$77,300
National Minimum
Metro Area Minimum Wages
Rather than going with a flat $15 an hour minimum wage that is being bandied about, I propose this model as one that will change as the local economy changes, growing as needed, rather than waiting for Congress do to anything. The current annual wage of a Congressman is $174,000, ~6.6 times the Poverty Level we are basing our minimum wage on. Why don’t we keep that ratio in place and tie the Congressional wages to 6.6 times the national poverty level for a family of four?
*note this applies to the lower 48 states. Alaska and Hawaii have higher baseline poverty levels.
** The FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act changed the definition of extremely low-income to be the greater of 30/50ths (60 percent) of the Section 8 very low-income limit or the poverty guideline as established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provided that this amount is not greater than the Section 8 50% very low-income limit. Consequently, the extremely low income limits may equal the very low (50%) income limits.
Rather than make DC a state, why not give the residential section of the District back to Maryland and leave the mall and non-residential area as the District of Columbia?
