FAIR TAXATION

Fair Taxation

Evolution beats revolution in sensible advances in government and policy as well as leading to success in the natural world.  But as the pinnacle, or dominant species, we have greater obligation to be fair to all, including the natural world.  But today, I want to talk about taxes.

What is a fair tax for the rich?

Flat tax enthusiasts may be right that it would bring in more taxes if loopholes were closed.  But I contend that the wealthy have and will benefit more than proportionately as compared to those in lower tax brackets.  Taxes paid to build and maintain infrastructure, services and defense support the activities and property of companies and wealthy so much that their taxes are a real bargain.  This consideration makes it reasonable to tax annual income above ten million dollars at a rate of 50% or higher.  Executives of companies not paying income taxes or dividends should be taxed if their pay and bonuses exceed 100 times the median full time equivalent salary for the company.

The source of wealth deserves consideration in setting rates.  Fairly gotten wealth should not be penalized, although capital gains exceeding the rate of inflation should be taxable for those of high net worth.  Inflation is sometimes viewed as a tax on the rich, although it can be more devastating to those who have difficulty allocating money to savings.

Many high-income people deserve their pay.  That includes many in the entertainment industries, founders of companies, unusually competent managers.  But sources of exorbitant pay based on overcharging customers, underpaying workers, abusing patent and copyright protection, disproportionate legal fees, and other gimmicks should be highly taxed.

Questionable ethical practices such as skimming assets of corporations and sweetheart deals prior to sale or bankruptcy should not have tax evasive loopholes.

Many of the wealthiest individuals in the country not only deserve most of their pay, but they are also generous in philanthropic activities.  Kudos to Warren Buffet for encouraging other billionaires to pledge half their wealth to good causes.  Many of those are worthwhile causes but the money might do as much or more good if put toward reduction of the national debt.

How do social programs for others benefit the taxpayer?

Government sponsored health coverage for all benefits those able to pay for their own coverage by enabling cost effective programs.  But major benefits are: removing the incentive for expensive hospital emergency rooms to be used by charity cases, with costs recouped from others by higher charges, when a clinic visit would have provided adequate care more efficiently; giving greater leverage for health care facilities to negotiate sensible prices for drugs; possibly better distribution of medical facilities; better opportunities for remote consulting and other inefficiencies such as record keeping using the internet; relieving companies of much of the cost of providing health care for employees thus making them more competitive in international trade; improving the health of the poor thus reducing cost of welfare programs.

Most taxpayers would benefit.  Even the ones paying the most taxes would find that ending deficits by paying sufficient taxes would reduce loss of wealth from inflation.  Free education through college for everyone would improve productivity by having more prepared for a better job and, if they don’t get a better job, not be fettered by massive student det.  The overall effect would be an improvement in the economy at all levels.

Capitalism would benefit, especially small business.  Investment results would improve for those stockholders robbed by inflated rewards for top administrators.   Do the CEO’s of the large pharmaceutical firms all deserve annual pay exceeding fourteen million dollars each?  Am I picking on the pharmaceutical industry- no, they are just the tip of the iceberg visible by data shown in the latest AARP Bulletin.  Finance, energy, and health care industries are also among those wielding undue influence with Congress and distorting true capitalism.

Just remember, I’m a grumpy old man that may have it all wrong after looking at too many drug adds for the umpteenth time that are interrupting my favorite TV shows.  You may have a president with the same problem.  But think about it - who gets the benefit and should pay the most for roads, national defense, and other government functions - the indigent sleeping in a dumpster or a billionaire?

Joe Engemann   Kalamazoo, Michigan    May 15, 2017

WHY TRUMP FIRED COMEY

The accusations that Trump fired Comey because -

- Comey felt nauseous for impacting the election over emails, is he a Clinton fan?
- the FBI was getting subpoenas for a Russian collusion investigation that might trap him.
- it was the first time he had the chance with the new Deputy Attorney General's support.
- the news was leaked so it could first be found on TV on the West Coast by Comey when he was addressing FBI agents there.
- its part of his "your fired" mentality.

are all irrelevant.  I saw on TV how Comey towered at least six inches above the president.  How could any self-respecting alpha male let such a thing go on in potential future meetings?

Just had to break away from the news and get that off my chest.

Joe Engemann     Kalamazoo, Michigan    May 9, 2017

Returned: Muhammad Ali and Donald Trump

[This post from June 23, 2016 was deleted in mid-October, 2016]

MUHAMMAD ALI and DONALD TRUMP

IMPERSONATORS

Just as Elvis had his impersonators, Muhammad Ali will likely have more than Donald Trump now that he has gone to his eternal reward.  If you Google Muhammad Ali, you will find a quote of his that that may well be uttered by Donald Trump if he sees it.  The quote - "I am the greatest, I said that even before I knew I was,"

If you notice in the quote, the claim of greatness precedes acceptance of it as truth.  In the political world it seems that repetition of a lie often leads to it becoming truth to many.

MUHAMMAD ALI

Cassius Clay showed the depth and sincerity of his beliefs several times in then unpopular ways: changing his name first then refusing service in a war he considered unjust.  Whether he was right or wrong, he had a depth of sincerity that deserves admiration.  Later, his philanthropy continued in spite of declining health.

Thirty-six years ago I was with a small group visiting oases in the Libyan Desert portion of the Sahara.  We were there as part of a doctoral student's advisory group for help in studying what could be helpful in controlling blood flukes, a major health problem in the area which involved snail hosts in the springs as part of their life cycle.  A small group of children followed along, curious about the group of adults investigating the aquatic weeds harboring the snails.  One of the children wore a t-shirt with Muhammad Ali written beneath his picture.  I had to be impressed by his fame.

DONALD TRUMP

He may have discovered "I am the greatest" on his own.  If so, he was unobservant of popular culture of the time when Ali was saying it.  He has built up an abundant supply of his statements covering all occasions and views so he could well believe he has said whatever is appropriate for the occasion.

Unfortunately, he appears to screen out all who risk telling him when he is wrong.  I am sure there are many good things about Donald, but are there enough to keep the Republican Convention from becoming a Trump Dump?

Joe Engemann    Kalamazoo, Michigan   June 23, 2016

Disclaimer:  I decline all responsibility for the above due to probable low oxygen supply to the brain after blood loss from minor surgery earlier this month.

[I'm not quite sure why I deleted and now returned this post, the only one of 170+ posts to be deleted.  Perhaps I thought I would give Donald a chance, he has shown some ability to change.  But he is not likely to do things scientists have found to be better choices.  J.E. May 3, 2017.]

CAN SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD?

CAN SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD?

“Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Believe in God?”

[That was a title of a colloquium organized by Dr. Richard Malott for the Psychology Department in its 1993 version for his Behavior Analysis Classes at Western Michigan University.  In 1992, the title was “Can Scientists and Other Smart Guys Believe in God?”  It was an annual event for a few years with two Psychology Faculty presenting a more skeptical view and a Religion Professor and a Biologist (me) presenting different perspectives.  The main text of a handout I provided was as follows.]

Rather than be defensive about it, I note that from my perspective it is more reasonable to pose the question – “Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Not Believe in God?”

I take the affirmative and state that I believe in God.  If that is accepted at face value, then proof that I am a scientist or intelligent goes a long way toward supporting the affirmative position.

Intellectuals and/or scientists before me have believed in God.  Aristotle is credited with being the founder of numerous sciences and is an authority in natural theology providing a number of proofs of the existence of God.  Let’s consider some of Aristotle’s proofs.

Proof from causality is that we note from inductive reasoning that everything has a cause, but it stretches the imagination or credulity to think that there could be an infinite number of causes leading to the present event, therefore there must be a First Cause, uncaused, otherwise known as God.

A variant of the proof from causality is the proof from motion.  If there were an infinite series of motions leading to present observed motion the movement would not yet have occurred.  Therefore, there must have been a first mover or Prime Mover, another name for God.

The order in the universe begs a source of that order; we do not have true chaos but order and direction due to its creator, God.

Some observers look at diverse human populations and cultures and see that these all exhibit similar moral themes and behavior that leads them to believe in a source, God.

Are Aristotle’s 2300 year old proofs still valid?  I think so.  Does the new knowledge science gives us have anything to contribute?  Time has not diminished Aristotle’s arguments because they are based on reason and abstractions from the real world that have not changed.  But I think there are some modern proofs for the existence of God that science has made possible.  Most modern proofs have their roots in the ancient proofs from causality, but consider the following.

The Big Bang theory of origin of the universe, if correct, implies a start that seems to require a creator.

The second law of thermodynamics means there must have been a starting point or an infinity of time would have us now at an ultimate state of entropy.

Forces acting across vacuums as do gravity and various electro-magnetic forces defy reason for existence in an uncaused system.  This caused me to hypothesize a new mechanism for gravity: an infinity of cosmic particles (perhaps photons) randomly streaking or bouncing around the universe and forcing things apart but forcing them together as does gravity when proximity to another body shades the adjacent sides.

My own consciousness and understanding of biology leads be to a belief in God.  How I function mentally is reducible to a physical mechanism that could be simulated by a computer.  But I have a self-awareness that transcends the physical process.  The human activity could be simulated by a computer; but would it be aware of its activity, I think not even though it could be programmed to tell you otherwise.

I don’t see that any of the “proofs” compel belief in God because I see other intelligent people that understand the arguments but do not believe.  I also believe that belief in God is a gift from God, but a gift that will be given to one seeking that belief.  Part of my belief structure includes a belief in an eternal life that can be much more joyous than the present life and may be dependent upon belief in that life.  I think that is why God does not intrude his presence upon us in a way that would compel our belief and deprive us of our free will.  As a corollary of this I believe he lets natural laws operate most of the time and the temporary misery and suffering that results is minor in the overall scheme of things.

My personal belief has been strengthened by experiencing or knowing of numerous instances of what I think are divine intervention, both personal and public miracles.  Reasonable alternate explanations could be given for many of these, but I think not for all.

As a scientist, my belief in God and thus causality strengthens my performance as a scientist.  It gives me confidence that there are reasons for all things and causes that can be found.  When you are convinced there are answers it I easier to continue the search.

I remember returning to Wood Hall [then home to Biology, Psychology, and some other departments at WMU] after an intense religious renewal weekend [in 1964] and entering it with a sense of awe or reverence for Wood Hall and other buildings and thinking that they somewhat represented temples where both believers and non-believers join in a goal of discovering and teaching about the various aspects or truths of God’s Creation.

A scientist cannot as a scientist deny the existence of God without a suspicion that his/her sample size is too small for such a negative conclusion.  A scientist can possibly be agnostic as a scientist by not having motivation to either examine possible reasons to believe or seek belief.  Scientists can really be happy scientists when they believe in God and know that the truth of whatever their research reveals will not hurt God but only bring them closer to understanding the Creator through God’s Creation.
__________________

Just as bad science does not invalidate good science, abuses in the name of God do not invalidate God.

All major theistic groups believe in some form of the “Golden Rule”, i.e., treat others as you would like them to treat you.

That has not prevented some adherents from becoming extremists that think their beliefs justify atrocities to support their objectives that show little resemblance to the “Golden Rule”.  Although I think one should respect the teaching authority of their religion, I also think an individual should not abandon their own conscience in evaluating the pronouncements of religious leaders.  Divine inspiration claimed by others should not be accepted at face value without serious tests of its truth.

The above was not presented in my biology classes because it did not seem to be appropriate content.  The context of both views being represented in an event outside of a classroom did seem to make it appropriate.

Joseph Engemann, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.    April 13, 2017

WHERE IS GOD IN SCIENCE?

It may be an impossible question because the relationship of God to science encounters some of the same concerns that make the separation of church and state such a valuable part of life in our country.  It is just as important that scientific principles are independent of spiritual considerations.  But  it is reasonable for legitimate governmental processes to apply and enforce moral/ethical principles when science impinges on human welfare.

Scientists, who accept God as the Creator of the world responsible for the physical/chemical principles of matter endowed with forces that interacted to produce the universe with the world as we know it, have no basis for finding the principles of science to be different from those denying God's existence.

Some who believe in God depart from evidence based science to rely on literal interpretation of biblical stories.  "Creation Science" is flawed by such a departure from valid science.  They are like the "flat earth" scientists of a few generation before them, skewing science to fit scripture.

CAUSALITY

A proper understanding of causality is important in science.  Advances in science are often tied closely to finding causes.  Projecting back in time to earlier and earlier causes, it seems like the "Big Bang" creation of the world has no understandable preceding  cause for those not believing in God as the Creator.  Even a repeated sequence of big bangs does not satisfy our reason as well as does an infinite spiritual being, infinite in goodness, power, knowledge, love, and not bound by time or any other constraints as the same Creator's will provides the good things of creation.

GOOD AND EVIL

It seems to me that good and evil did not exist in the material world until humans came along by the evolutionary process God directed in the original instructions for creation.  The celestial fireworks of heavenly bodies cooled somewhat as planets formed and the evolutionary process produced beings capable of sensing awe of the wonders of the world.  When the social structure and relationships reached a stage planned and pleasing to God a touch of spiritual life gave us the ability to understand values including good and evil.

I don't presume to speak for God.  God has left a message to us via a series of prophets and ultimately His Son.  The books of the New Testament are the clearest record of his message.  It seems that the touch of the Spirit of God reaches even those without knowledge of scripture.  The touch of God is sometimes visible in the material world as miracles that are unrecognizable by those not believing in God.

Each miracle is a unique event and as such is not accessible to a scientist to meet the criterion of repeatability needed for scientific proof.  The unbelieving scientist "knows" some of the data is missing or flawed.  Not all of them can expect  to be given a dramatic awakening such as the way St. Paul had a personal introduction to Jesus Christ.

GOD AND SCIENCE

God and Science will occupy two irreconcilable aspects of our knowledge until we personally accept God.  The acceptance may come gradually, intermittently, or instantly.  I will probably make my next post one that may help bring that acceptance for some.

Joe Engemann          Kalamazoo, Michigan      April 7, 2017

LIFE WELL LIVED

A LIFE WELL-LIVED

I often learn something at funerals.  It may be the good things about the guest of honor, in this case, a former student being eulogized by the clergyman, on the basis of second-hand knowledge recently gained from his family and friends.  The deceased was in his late fifties, he had no wife nor children, a fact of life that the octogenarian priest noted he shared with him.  He pondered the meaning of a premature death as others have done.

He related the story of a Jewish scholar in Alexandria, Egypt, pondering the question about a hundred years before the birth of Jesus Christ.  The scholar did not arrive at an answer but reflected that a life well-lived is more to be desired than a long life.  I think most of us would concur.  If you believe in an eternal reward for a life well-lived, the length of life becomes somewhat irrelevant.

The greatest life was only about 33 years long; today is an anniversary of his miraculous conception over two thousand years earlier.  More recently, Martin Luther King showed what a person can achieve before forty.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

The fact that I did not remember the former student did not bother me too much.  I was at the funeral because his mother was a friend of my wife from working together on some charities years previously.  But I realized how few students I still remember from the hundreds taught in the thirty-six years of teaching plus twenty-one years of retirement.  Even fewer names from that sub-group are remembered.

I started reflecting on the people that were part of our lives in the past.  A next-door neighbor, some fifty years ago, had been very good to us and we had visited her after she retired and moved away, but I couldn’t think of her name.  Well, I finally did a dozen or so minutes later.  I was telling that to my wife and she said, “you couldn’t remember my name when we were first married.”  Unfortunately, that was true several times when stressed by making introductions.

Your name does not have to be known to me in order for me to pray for you, but it helps.  I don’t pray for invertebrates, but it was exciting for me to see one for the first time as a specimen in some pond water on a microscope slide a student was examining.  It was a tardigrade and it looked just like the line drawing of it in a textbook.

BUCKET LISTS

I doubt that tardigrades would make the bucket list of things to see or do before dying for very many people.  They are not quite as spectacular as the Grand Canyon, Denali, a volcano, Waikiki, or the skyscrapers of many cities.  Celebrities and famous people and their homes, historical sites, and related tours appeal to many.

One thing that stands out upon reflecting about the many places I’ve visited are the encounters with people.  For some reason, when you are traveling it is sometimes easier to talk to strangers.  When you are older, I hope you do not regret not getting to know the people you find close to home better.  That is one thing travel often makes you realize- people are people and each one has an interesting story to tell.  The hazard of that is that if told every time it may get boring.  The joy of it is you can have an interesting life just staying home.

A bucket list is not essential.  I discovered this most convincingly when I was completing my trip around the world on the way back from Tasmania.  Although making new, interesting friends on different segments of the trip; I mostly missed doing it with someone or a group that was part of my normal life.  So, wherever you are, be happy.

Joe Engemann       Kalamazoo, Michigan     March 25, 2017

WATER

             WATER

Water-
     drop, splash, trickle, dash
     torrent, stream, creek, meander
     turbid, clear, precious, dear
                                               water

Water-
     river, stream
     ocean lake
     pond, marsh
     gulf, bay
     fountain, fall
     channel, quay
     oasis, sluice
     salt, fresh
     stagnate or use
                                            water

Water-
     hydrogen, oxygen, hydrogen
          hydrogen, hydrogen
                oxygen
                                      is water

Water-
     bathing, cleaning
     cooking, steaming
     cooling, quenching
     boiling, blanching
                                          water

Water-
     vapor, dew
     mist, rain
     hail, sleet
     ice, snow
     freeze, thaw
     sizzle, drizzle
                                         water

Water
     fished, squished
     polluted, drained
     eutrophic, stained
     chemically maimed
                                        water

Water
     saline, pure
     limpid, clear
     tossing, frothing
     churning, turning
     smooth, placid
                                       water

Water
     surf, shore
     wave, breaker
     feelings of closeness
       to our maker;
     needed, soothing
     renewing, laving
     tears, sweating
     baptizing, saving
                                       water

Water
     softened, piped
     distilled, wiped
     tanked and drank
     pumped, dumped
     leaked, sumped
     flushed, floated
     bridged, boated
                                    water

Water
     studied, muddied
     channeled, dammed
     crudded, flooded
     swum and skied
     Aquarians and all
     will ever need
                                  -water

Joseph G. Engemann
August 10, 1977

as a tentative forward to a
proposed limnology text

Copyright 1981 Joseph G. Engemann
[permission to reproduce is granted for non-profit use and/or for printings of less than 1,000 copies.]

The above was found when looking in my limnology notes from long ago to find something about "Langmuir circulation".  I gave up and looked in Wetzel's limnology textbook.  It is the seeming cylinders of alternating clockwise and counterclockwise water that, where they converge, push bits of debris or oils into surface streaks paralleling the wind direction.  I was thinking it must operate in the atmosphere on a much larger spatial scale and be responsible for some of the streaky weather patterns at times seen in rain, snow, and clouds.  I was going to send an email asking the weatherman for the Kalamazoo Gazette if they use that type of phenomenon to explain small scale weather patterns.

Joe Engemann   retired, Western Michigan University,  Kalamazoo, Michigan   March 16, 2017