"Carried interest" is when you get compensated for your labor out of the capital gains associated with a project you're working on. It's controversial because it's taxed as capital gains, rather than as "earned income" (which has a higher tax rate). Some people think it's complicated, but the basic principle clearly should be: if you weren't exposed to a potential capital loss, than your proceeds from the deal are not a capital gain.
The special treatment of carried interest is in some sense another example of capitalists giving capitalism a bad name by privatizing profits while socializing losses. In this case, the losses aren't actually socialized, but it's still a case of profits and losses getting differential treatment by the government.
People who consider themselves opponents of capitalism recognize that "capitalists" have too much control of the government, yet their only prescription for this problem is to increase the power of government. The results are sadly predictable.
Friday, May 03, 2013
Thursday, May 02, 2013
9/11 Conspiracy Confirmation Futures Contract
Consider the many conspiracies in history that have enjoyed sudden revelation/confirmation, such as
There are allegedly almost 1700 architects and engineers who support the controlled-demolition findings of Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth. AE911T claims that "most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true". If AE911T is right about how compelling their evidence and arguments are, then the truth of controlled demolition will spread inexorably in the technical community, and will eventually reach a tipping point and become the consensus view.
Here is an opportunity to profit handsomely from your personal insight and conviction that truth of 9/11 controlled demolition is obvious and compelling and must eventually triumph in the marketplace of ideas.
- 1920: player confessions reveal the 1919 World Series was fixed
- 1957: Apalachin Raid confirms the existence of the mafia
- 1967: Ramparts Magazine exposes Operation Mockingbird
- 1971: burglarized FBI files expose COINTELPRO
- 1974: White House tapes confirm Watergate cover-up
- 1975: Church Committee exposes MK-ULTRA and CIA assassination plots
- 1986: Congress exposes Iran-Contra
- 1997: National Archives reveals Operation Northwoods
There are allegedly almost 1700 architects and engineers who support the controlled-demolition findings of Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth. AE911T claims that "most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true". If AE911T is right about how compelling their evidence and arguments are, then the truth of controlled demolition will spread inexorably in the technical community, and will eventually reach a tipping point and become the consensus view.
Here is an opportunity to profit handsomely from your personal insight and conviction that truth of 9/11 controlled demolition is obvious and compelling and must eventually triumph in the marketplace of ideas.
Sunday, October 07, 2012
My Candidate Ballot Statement For Purissima Election
You own a share of Purissima's two main assets: $20M of pipes/tanks,
and the right to buy 800K units/year of water from SFPUC. For each
household, that's $10K and 780 gallons/day. I defend those property
rights, including the right to use the water you buy as you wish
(without harming the rest of us). I defend close local control of the
district while seeking savings via alternative arrangements for water
supply and district operations.
SFPUC is raising water costs to pay for overdue seismic upgrades. These upgrades mean we can cancel an expensive project to make Quarry Lake an emergency water source. That insurance is not worth the price. I also voted against subsidies for candidate statements and a museum water exhibit.
A Sacramento law was going to make the Hills adopt 33 pages of default irrigation rules. I proposed an alternative that added a simple water budget to the town's permitting process, leaving property owners free to decide how to meet their budget. The town adopted my alternative.
For more (including Purissima budgets and audits), see holtz.org/water.
SFPUC is raising water costs to pay for overdue seismic upgrades. These upgrades mean we can cancel an expensive project to make Quarry Lake an emergency water source. That insurance is not worth the price. I also voted against subsidies for candidate statements and a museum water exhibit.
A Sacramento law was going to make the Hills adopt 33 pages of default irrigation rules. I proposed an alternative that added a simple water budget to the town's permitting process, leaving property owners free to decide how to meet their budget. The town adopted my alternative.
For more (including Purissima budgets and audits), see holtz.org/water.
Purissima Candidate Answers For Town Crier
How long have you lived in Los Altos Hills? 6 years
What is your background experience in local government and community leadership?
In addition to my four years on the Purissima Hills board, I served on the town council's Water Conservation Advisory Committee. I've also been a classroom volunteer in a local public elementary school. I've been active in the county Libertarian Party, and have helped the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association draft ballot arguments against tax increases.
How does your professional experience compliment your work on the Purissima Hills Water District board?
In my software engineering career in Silicon Valley, I've experienced first-hand the importance of customer service and controlling expenses. Analytical and problem-solving skills have also proved useful in my board service. However, the main qualification for a candidate is having a policy compass of governance principles, along with the diligence to apply those principles.
To a new resident of Los Altos Hills or someone from outside of our area, how would you describe what the Purissima Hills Water District does?
The District provides potable water and firefighting levels of water pressure to every address within its boundaries.
Why are you running for re-election to the Purissima Hills Water district?
To help ensure that the District runs efficiently and respects the property rights of the ratepayer-owners of the district.
There are four candidates for three open seats. Why should voters choose you?
Voters should choose me if they agree with my principles and priorities. My principles are rooted in property rights. You as a ratepayer own a share of Purissima's two main assets: $20M of pipes/tanks, and the right to buy 1.62M gallons/day of water from SFPUC (the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission). For each household, that's $10K and 780 gallons/day. I defend those property rights, including the right to use the water you buy as you wish (as long as it doesn't harm the rest of us). Ideally, I would like you to be able to sell the water you don't use to community members who want to buy more than their share, so that you could profit from your conservation efforts.
My priorities are to maintain reliable and cost-effective water supply while exploring alternative arrangements for water sourcing and district operations.
What are the greatest challenges associated with water supply locally?
Purissima's entire supply currently comes from SFPUC's Hetch Hetchy system. We've spent years pursuing other potential sources: well water, Quarry Lake water, recycled water from Palo Alto to our North, and county water from Cal Water to our South. None of these options has yet proved workable, though we are still talking to Cal Water.
In recent years Purissima was using nearly 125% of its SFPUC allocation, even as the overall Hetch Hetchy system was approaching its capacity limits. However, as SFPUC has raised wholesale rates to pay for long-deferred seismic upgrades, the rising prices have caused system demand to fall sharply, and there is no longer any imminent prospect of Purissima being limited to just its allocation. Nevertheless, we've tried to buy additional allocation from other agencies that are SFPUC customers, but none is for sale at a reasonable price.
We also consider conservation to be a valid water "source", and so we continue our conservation programs and tiered pricing. We've successfully cut our usage to 105% of SFPUC allocation.
Can you highlight your accomplishments on the PHWD Board?
A Sacramento law was going to make the Hills adopt 33 pages of default irrigation rules. I proposed an alternative that added a simple water budget to the town's permitting process, leaving property owners free to decide how to meet their budget. The town adopted my alternative.
Another accomplishment has been to question an expensive project to make Quarry Lake an emergency water source. When you look hard at the range of scenarios in which that water could actually be useful, it seems that this insurance is just not worth the price.
Why do you deserve to be re-elected to the board?
Re-election should not be considered a reward for past performance. Voters should vote for whomever they expect will best implement the voter's principles and priorities. Of course, past performance can be a useful predictor of those principles and priorities.
What goals would you like the PHWD board to set for the next four years? Are there any long-term goals?
Our goals over the next four years should be to 1) continue our capital spending program to improve seismic reliability and operational efficiency, and 2) explore alternative arrangements for water supply and district operations.
For the long-term, I would like to see Purissima extract itself from the unsound CalPERS retirement system, or at least remain vigilant about keeping our retiree obligations explicit, cost-contained, and fully funded. I would also like Purissima ratepayer-owners to have explicit ownership of their shares of the system -- i.e. the infrastructure buy-in share and the right-to-buy share of Purissima's SFPUC allocation. Ratepayers who buy less than their share could potentially turn a net profit on their water bill. This would promote conservation, and would get the District out of the business of setting conservation prices.
What is your background experience in local government and community leadership?
In addition to my four years on the Purissima Hills board, I served on the town council's Water Conservation Advisory Committee. I've also been a classroom volunteer in a local public elementary school. I've been active in the county Libertarian Party, and have helped the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association draft ballot arguments against tax increases.
How does your professional experience compliment your work on the Purissima Hills Water District board?
In my software engineering career in Silicon Valley, I've experienced first-hand the importance of customer service and controlling expenses. Analytical and problem-solving skills have also proved useful in my board service. However, the main qualification for a candidate is having a policy compass of governance principles, along with the diligence to apply those principles.
To a new resident of Los Altos Hills or someone from outside of our area, how would you describe what the Purissima Hills Water District does?
The District provides potable water and firefighting levels of water pressure to every address within its boundaries.
Why are you running for re-election to the Purissima Hills Water district?
To help ensure that the District runs efficiently and respects the property rights of the ratepayer-owners of the district.
There are four candidates for three open seats. Why should voters choose you?
Voters should choose me if they agree with my principles and priorities. My principles are rooted in property rights. You as a ratepayer own a share of Purissima's two main assets: $20M of pipes/tanks, and the right to buy 1.62M gallons/day of water from SFPUC (the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission). For each household, that's $10K and 780 gallons/day. I defend those property rights, including the right to use the water you buy as you wish (as long as it doesn't harm the rest of us). Ideally, I would like you to be able to sell the water you don't use to community members who want to buy more than their share, so that you could profit from your conservation efforts.
My priorities are to maintain reliable and cost-effective water supply while exploring alternative arrangements for water sourcing and district operations.
What are the greatest challenges associated with water supply locally?
Purissima's entire supply currently comes from SFPUC's Hetch Hetchy system. We've spent years pursuing other potential sources: well water, Quarry Lake water, recycled water from Palo Alto to our North, and county water from Cal Water to our South. None of these options has yet proved workable, though we are still talking to Cal Water.
In recent years Purissima was using nearly 125% of its SFPUC allocation, even as the overall Hetch Hetchy system was approaching its capacity limits. However, as SFPUC has raised wholesale rates to pay for long-deferred seismic upgrades, the rising prices have caused system demand to fall sharply, and there is no longer any imminent prospect of Purissima being limited to just its allocation. Nevertheless, we've tried to buy additional allocation from other agencies that are SFPUC customers, but none is for sale at a reasonable price.
We also consider conservation to be a valid water "source", and so we continue our conservation programs and tiered pricing. We've successfully cut our usage to 105% of SFPUC allocation.
Can you highlight your accomplishments on the PHWD Board?
A Sacramento law was going to make the Hills adopt 33 pages of default irrigation rules. I proposed an alternative that added a simple water budget to the town's permitting process, leaving property owners free to decide how to meet their budget. The town adopted my alternative.
Another accomplishment has been to question an expensive project to make Quarry Lake an emergency water source. When you look hard at the range of scenarios in which that water could actually be useful, it seems that this insurance is just not worth the price.
Why do you deserve to be re-elected to the board?
Re-election should not be considered a reward for past performance. Voters should vote for whomever they expect will best implement the voter's principles and priorities. Of course, past performance can be a useful predictor of those principles and priorities.
What goals would you like the PHWD board to set for the next four years? Are there any long-term goals?
Our goals over the next four years should be to 1) continue our capital spending program to improve seismic reliability and operational efficiency, and 2) explore alternative arrangements for water supply and district operations.
For the long-term, I would like to see Purissima extract itself from the unsound CalPERS retirement system, or at least remain vigilant about keeping our retiree obligations explicit, cost-contained, and fully funded. I would also like Purissima ratepayer-owners to have explicit ownership of their shares of the system -- i.e. the infrastructure buy-in share and the right-to-buy share of Purissima's SFPUC allocation. Ratepayers who buy less than their share could potentially turn a net profit on their water bill. This would promote conservation, and would get the District out of the business of setting conservation prices.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Info About Purissima Hills
- 2011 LAFCO review of PHWD - 21pp overview of PHWD by the Santa Clara County agency that oversees county special districts
- 2012 rate hearing presentation - 42pp PDF of the slides we presented
- 2012 review by Los Altos Hills - 11pp PDF presentation Sep 20 by town's ad hoc review committee
- finances summary 1995-2011 - 60-row Excel spreadsheet summarizing PHWD finances 1995-2011
- 2010 financial audit report - 38pp PDF of balance sheets, etc.
- 2015 BAWSCA annual report - 154pp PDF about the peninsula agencies like PHWD that buy water from SFPUC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
