Mom, he’s looking at me

The Chicago Cubs are suing a bar located near their stadium, because the bar isn’t paying the Cubs for allowing their customers to look at the team while they play baseball. The team is claiming the rooftop bar is misappropriating the team’s property rights because the bar is selling admission to the bar and allowing patrons to watch Cubs games from that vantagepoint. It looks like the courts are going to side with the team. In the meantime, the city is investigating the structural integrity of the roofs, issuing citations to those in danger of collapse. I’m sure those investigations are totally legit and were in no way sponsored or encouraged by the billionaire team owner.

Money talks, I guess.

The Ricketts family, billionaire owners of the Cubs, began purchasing the nearby rooftop properties in order to control the marketable sight lines into the stadium and by the end of the 2016 season, owned (or controlled via agreement) 11 of the 13 rooftop locations that had a view into the nearby baseball field. Wrigley Rooftop is one of the two that has thus far refused to sell.

I don’t care what the court says, if I can see it from my property, then you have no claim to force people to pay for looking at it. This will open all sorts of legal maneuvering. If my neighbor can see into my yard, can I sue him for watching me swim in my pool?

If the Cubs don’t want people in nearby tall buildings watching them play, perhaps they should build a dome. I’m sure they can get taxpayers to foot the bill. After all, teams build sports ball complexes at taxpayer expense all the time. For example, the Tampa Bay Rays are getting a Billion dollars of taxpayer money to build their new stadium, even while the local governments of the state are assuring the taxpayers that property taxes are totally needed to fund things everyone agrees are needed- things like firefighters, police, schools, and roads: “The money we take in from property taxes totally is being used for needed services and is in no way being used to fund billion dollar sports complexes. The money going to build places of business for billionaires to pay millionaires to play children’s games is totally coming from a different line item that was totally taken from taxpayers in a different way, so it doesn’t count.”

If that doesn’t work, perhaps the team could try the Scooby Do method and pay someone to dress a ghost in order to force the owners to sell.

Meanwhile, the shortstop for the Rays is being paid $182 million to play baseball. Jason Heyward is being paid $184 million to play the game by the Cubs. Meanwhile, the bar in question (Wrigley Field Rooftop Bar) is estimated to be making $1 million a year.

This is one of those times where a billionaire is doing something immoral to make more money, and the government shouldn’t be getting involved. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Remember, when the legislature decides what can be bought or sold, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators themselves.

What Kinna Shoes Dem Is?

In case you were wondering why today’s youth complain about the high cost of living…

Spending money on their idea of LOOKING rich for one night.

Circus

We keep being told how eliminating property taxes will mean roads, the fire department, and schools will be unfunded. They tell you so because everyone wants those services, but here is a great example of where property taxes go.

That’s right- Hillsboro county is going to use a billion dollars of taxpayer funds to build a new stadium for the Tamp Bay Rays. That works out to nearly $2,000 per household. They powers that be claim no one will notice, because the billion will come from county reserves. See, you won’t notice how we stole a bunch of money from you so we could pay a bunch of grown men a hundred million apiece to play a child’s game.

Incidentally, the team is worth $1.7 billion, but the taxpayers are expected to build half of the $2.8 billion stadium they will play in. How about instead, we let the taxpayers keep their money, and the team can charge what the traffic will bear for tickets instead of forcing taxpayers to fund your business?

EDITED TO ADD:

If the new field lasts as long as the old one, the stadium will cost $80 million for each year it’s used, or about $1 million per game. There are 25,000 seats in the stadium, meaning the team would have to add $40 to the price of each and every ticket to pay for the stadium themselves. That seems reasonable to me, and if people won’t pay it, then does Tampa really need baseball?

Property Taxes

The standard argument about getting rid of property taxes is always “Who will pay for Fire Dept, Police, Schools, Roads?”

Even so, the proposed law would cut non-school ad valorem taxes for homestead property. Schools won’t be touched, as they are exempt. How about the other services?

Let’s use Daytona Beach as an example. You will see why I chose Daytona shortly. Daytona Beach has adopted a $379.8 million budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1, 2025), a 4.1% increase in property tax revenue driven by rising property values. The budget holds the millage rate at 5.9300 ($5.93 per $1,000 of taxable value). About a third of the city budget is from ad valorem (property) taxes. However, only a third of ad valorem taxes are from homestead property. The vast majority of property taxes are paid on commercial property like hotels, stores, and rental property. Overall, the loss of homestead ad valorem taxes would only cut city revenues by about 12%.

In Daytona, police and fire take up 55%, roads are about 15%, and schools take up 0% of the city budget. That means expenses that aren’t fire dept, police, schools, or roads comprise 30% of the city budget. In other words, the 70% of the budget for the police, fire, schools, and roads wouldn’t be touched if property taxes on owner occupied homes.

Especially if you consider that those departments are filled with waste, fraud, and corruption. One firefighter in Daytona blew the whistle on the department cooking the books and wasting damned near a million bucks a year. What did he get for his efforts? He was terminated. What’s going to happen there is he will sue the county and will likely get a huge paycheck because it is illegal to take action against a whistleblower. Somehow, my tax dollars will pay for the corruption, and will also pay for the lawsuits resulting from that corruption.

Affordability

Nearly one in four new car buyers are taking out 7 year loans in order to make the purchase affordable. One in three new car buyers make less than $100,000 in household income. The average amount financed is $44,000, meaning that the average payment is between $700 and $900 per month. Pushing it out to 7 years gets that payment below $700.

That amount is “reflective of a market that favors large, expensive vehicles,” said Erin Keating, an executive analyst for Cox Automotive.

All I see now is people claiming how unaffordable it is to own a house or save for retirement, and they blame previous generations for playing life on “easy mode.” When I was growing up, my parents didn’t buy a new car until they were in their mid-40s, and that was a stripped down model with no air conditioning and only the AM radio that came standard with the car. There were manual, hand cranked windows. The only thing powered was the steering. The transmission was a standard.

A $43,899 loan at 6.9% for 84 months would result in a monthly payment of $660 and would cost you $11,575 in interest over the full life of the loan, but a five-year loan at the same rate would mean paying $8,132 in interest over the life of the loan — $3,443 less. But the monthly payment would jump to $867…40.7% of new-vehicle purchases involving negative equity are now financed with 84-month loans

Now, people are buying far more of a car than they can afford. They have all sorts of luxuries, spending on Door Dash, Starbucks, fake nails and eyelashes, streaming services, and sneakers costing several hundred dollars. That’s why life is becoming unaffordable- people got used to low interest rates allowing them to live far beyond their means, and now that rates are near their historical average, people can’t afford to keep that lavish lifestyle.

The historical average for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the U.S. since 1971 is approximately 7.7%. While rates peaked over 16% in 1981 and bottomed under 3% in 2021, current rates in early 2026 have stabilized around 6.23%, close to the long-term historical average, but still a bit lower than the average. I remember the mid 80s, when car dealers bragged they had auto loan rates of 9.9% and people thought that was a great deal.

Gen Z is going to have to learn to live within their means.

Marxism, Labor, and AI

My argument yesterday with the Marxists was rather infuriating, but typical of commies everywhere. When they say:

Capitalism is an employee generating $1,000 of value an hour but being paid $16.

They are talking about the basic tenets of Marxist economics:

  • Workers produce more value than they are paid
  • The difference is called surplus value
  • That surplus goes to owners as profit
  • Therefore, business owners, landlords, etc. are stealing the worker’s value

“Value” ≠ revenue

If a worker “generates $1,000/hour,” that usually means revenue, not pure value created. From that $1,000, a business pays:

  • Materials
  • Rent
  • Equipment
  • Utilities
  • Other staff
  • Risk costs

So the gap between $1,000 and $16 is not all profit. To say that it is ignores the contribution of the business itself. The worker and their labor are useless without the facilities, equipment, and organizational structure needed for the business to run.

In mainstream economics, wages depend upon:

  • supply and demand for labor
  • skills and scarcity
  • bargaining power
  • institutions (minimum wage, unions).

Bargaining power flows from supply and demand, which flows in turn from skills and scarcity. If you are the only person who can do a particular job and that job needs to be done or can generate profit, your wages will be high. See Michael Jordan. If literally anyone can do your job or the job itself doesn’t produce much value, your pay will be low.

Let’s say I am buying a hamburger. I have choices. I am going to buy the burger fitting my needs and requirements, but I am also going to do so at the lowest price point that I can. For the most part, that’s how consumers shop. It’s no different when a business is shopping for labor. That business is going to buy the product (labor) suiting its needs for the least amount of money that it can.

Example: A person is skilled in this job:

  • Pull a frozen hamburger patty from the freezer
  • Put that patty on the grill
  • Push the start button on the timer
  • When the timer beeps, flip the patty over
  • when the timer beeps again, put the patty on the bread
  • Pass the bread/patty assembly to the next person on the line

Note this is a skillset that nearly anyone can do in a competent manner. In fact, the most difficult part of this job is finding an employee who will show up to work as scheduled and not steal everything in the building. That being the case, the employer doesn’t have to pay a high wage. No employer will hire someone for $100 an hour to do a job they can find someone who will do that job in a suitable manner for $12 an hour. The business is going to offer the lowest amount it can that will attract a person with the requisite skills.

However, let’s say you are very competent for this job. You are a Michelin star chef. You still won’t get $100 an hour, because the product you are making (grilled hamburger patties) can’t be sold for enough to recoup your wages.

So that takes care of bargaining power, supply and demand, and skills and scarcity. What about institutions? That’s merely a term for artificial price controls. Call it what you want, whether that be unions, minimum wage, overtime laws, requirements for health insurance, or whatever- it’s an external body attempting to place constraints on the cost of purchasing labor. Price controls don’t work. We are seeing that now in real time with the influx of illegal immigrants to industries most vulnerable to price controls. Why hire a legal construction worker or farm hand when an illegal will work under the table for a fraction of the cost?

The market will always seek ways around price controls. Let’s say the government sets a minimum wage. They can do that with legislation or by requiring a business to deal with a proxy like a labor union. For whatever reason, a business is now required to pay a certain price for labor and no less. Some businesses will hire non-Union or illegal immigrant labor to circumvent this restriction. That will permit them to sell at a lower price on the black market, which gives that business a competitive advantage.

So let’s say the minimum wage is $100 an hour for our fabled burger flipper. The business needs to sell that burger at $85 in order to make money. However, there is a guy selling burgers in a back alley for $4. He has a competitive advantage and will likely sell all of the burgers he can make at that price.

So why doesn’t the government step in? In many cases, they do. When that happens, assuming prices are higher than the consumer wants to pay, people just cook their own burgers at home. Now there are no more businesses selling burgers, and the jobs disappear, making an effective wage of $0, regardless of what the minimum is.

The market always sets the price. There is a demand curve here- as your price increases, the people willing to pay that price steadily decreases. The trick is to maximize profits by balancing production capacity with price.

That excess value Marx claims the business owner is stealing ignores the contribution of the business owner. That owner took financial risks in creating that business and expects to get money (profit) in return. If there is no profit, there is no business, and then there is no job for the worker to perform in exchange for wages. That’s why communism fails- it ignores this truth, even as communist policies destroy every economy that has tried it.

So let’s move on to price gouging. There is no such thing: what is referred to as price gouging is merely the market’s response to increased demand. Let’s say that there is a massive power outage in your area. People rush to buy generators, and the local supply is quickly used up. There are some people who drive 100 miles away, outside of the affected area, to home depot. They buy 100 generators, drive back the 100 miles, and sell the generators for double or even more than what the normal price is. Many people would scream price gouging, but that is merely the market responding to demand and filling it. If you make that illegal, then no one will be willing to make the drive, and now there are no generators available at any price.

We see that all of the time with respect to surge pricing on Uber, the fact that the soda machine outside your office sells at a higher price than the supermarket 10 miles down the road, or even the tickets to that concert you wanted to see that’s been sold out for months, but are selling on resale sites for double their face value.

In each case, the “excess value” that Marx claims isn’t profit to be had, but a business owner taking advantage of workers, isn’t excess. It’s the cost of getting things done. That worker’s value is useless if there isn’t a facility that has the equipment, marketing, management, and other conditions required for that labor to mean something.

Michael Jordan is useless without a court, basketballs, teammates, and opponents, each of which has to be paid for. Each of us makes pay based upon our skills in producing something, the scarcity of that skill, and the demand for the product we produce. If you don’t like how much you make, increase your skill set, gain a skill that is scarce and has value, or assume the risks of starting your own business. Each of those choices has its own risks, pitfalls, and rewards.

Just don’t sit around and complain how someone is holding you back and keeping you from being rich. The only person holding you back is-

you.

Just getting a degree isn’t going to automatically make your labor worth more. If your degree is in gender studies, outdoor recreation, or 14th century French poetry, you have skills, but those skills aren’t in demand. Likewise, if you are an expert craftsman who makes buggy whips, you likely aren’t going to see a high demand for your products.


As a side note, I tried using ChatGPT as an editor to find logical deficiencies in this post. What that AI told me is a great example of the built in biases of these computer programs. It took particular umbrage with the statement “Communism fails.” It argued that true communism has never been tried, so we don’t know if it will fail.

That’s a bullshit leftist talking point- “true communism hasn’t been tried, but we are smarter than those other people and we are going to do it correctly.”

They aren’t true Intelligence. These programs are merely parroting the opinions and thoughts of those who wrote the program. For that reason, they have the same problems and shortcomings as the humans who created them, and that is their greatest weakness.

Thought Experiment

First, $100k to every US citizen would cost $38 trillion, meaning a doubling the current national debt. That would also instantly insert $38 trillion into the economy. The current world wide money supply is around $150 Trillion. Adding an instant $38 trillion to that would cause an increase in the demand side of our economy, coupled with the loss of production from the idiots who quit their jobs lowering the supply side would cause inflation rates of 30-50%, collapsing the economy.

Keep in mind that the COVID stimulus and PPE loans combined were only $4.6 trillion spread over 2 years. Now take that inflation, multiply it by a factor of 15 or 20, and see what the result is.

within 18 months, it would be cheaper to wipe your ass with $100 bills than it would to buy toilet paper. The only good news is that the national debt could finally be paid off, because paying off that now $80 trillion in US debt would only require two goats, a tank of gas, and a blowjob from a toothless hooker in Georgetown.

The coolest part of all this is the opportunity to add a nearly worthless billion dollar bill to my collection of dead currency.


But let’s carry this idiotic thought through to the end.

Now every house has $100,000 in fresh money. First, every luxury item would be bought the next day, reducing the supply of gold teeth, double wide trailers, and Escalades to nothing. Now you can’t buy any at any price.

An hour later, people are hungry, but since the morons who thought they were now rich all just quit their jobs, there is no food to be had anywhere because every store and restaurant is closed for lack of employees.

To get someone to make a sandwich is going to require him to get off his ass. So now a hamburger costs $10,000.

In fact, everything is more expensive. I know people are generally too stupid to get this, but when everyone is a millionaire, being a millionaire means nothing. That’s why the COVID stimulus coupled with the COVID shutdown caused this inflation everyone is crying about.

  • Businesses closed for two years, restricting supply
  • Landlords being forced to allow tenants to stay without paying, meaning costs need to be recouped
  • Everyone getting large stimulus checks and PEP loans, increasing demand

I honestly believe most leftists have no knowledge of economics, and the rest of them know, but are using it to keep the retards on the farm.

SovCits Enter the Discussion

There are the people (mostly women, and disproportionally black) who think arguing with the cops while demanding to speak with a supervisor will get them out of legal trouble.

Then there are the dumbasses who have taken the “don’t fight on the road, fight in court” advice to heart, and do some studying on the Internet. They don’t understand legal terminology, so they attempt to fake it by spouting a bunch of big words arranged into nonsensical phrases, using them as if they were the magic words in a spell that will make the bad consequences of their actions go away. Some of them even comment on this blog.

It’s tiresome and I can’t imagine how much restraint some of those in the courthouse have to put up with. Heck, I have problems dealing with it on this very blog. Let me illustrate:

Look, I make no bones about being more than disappointed with how our government does business. However, the things some of these outright morons come up with are simply incorrect and won’t work. They haven’t worked. No, you can’t get out of paying income taxes by casting a magic spell using vague Latin sounding phrases in court. Wesley Snipes tried using the 861 argument, and he went to prison for four years. He tried making the argument that he isn’t obligated to pay taxes. He has an outstanding $23 million tax bill. They have been fighting this in court since 2006. The IRS offered to settle it for $9.5 million, but Snipes refused.

This argument has been ruled frivolous in DOZENS of appellate cases. It just isn’t a thing. Proving that everything that comes up on this blog has been discussed already, I posted on this back in 2008. As I said then:

I agree that progressive income taxes are [morally and ethically] wrong. I agree that taking my money to give to someone else in a socialistic redistribution of wealth is the equivalent of armed robbery. I disagree that the tax code has such ludicrous loopholes.

I will not entertain any argument to the contrary in the comments to this post, unless that comment comes with a valid citation to an appellate case verifying your position. I am not going to turn this blog into a Sovereign citizen sounding board.

However, in the interest of fairness, anyone who wishes to set up their own blog to espouse those theories is perfectly welcome to do so. Just contact me, and I can set you up on this very server for the low, low price of $15 per month. The only rule I have for server space here is no porn. It takes up too much bandwidth and invites accusations of child porn and all of the scrutiny that comes with it.

Last Time This Year, I Promise

Last rant for income taxes for the 2025 tax year. I finally filed my taxes this year. My wife and I made $17,000 more in 2025 than we did in 2024. Thanks to changes in our tax situation, we lost $28,000 in tax deductions and another $12,000 in credits thanks to changes in the tax law, with the result of us paying $20,900 more in taxes for 2025 than we did in 2024.

That’s right- we got a $17,000 raise, but wound up taking home $3,900 less. Thanks a lot to the government.

Meanwhile, there are millions here in the US who don’t work, don’t pay taxes, and still hate me for paying their bills…

The Butcher’s Bill

My second post of the day has been delayed, on account of myself and Turbo Tax trying to get my taxes done. This is a project I thought was (nearly) complete two months ago, but there was more left to be done than I realized. This post will have to do, I guess.

Alas, the BBB passed by Trump has skinned away many of my deductions of past years, thus forcing me to pay more in taxes. I am trying earnestly to keep that number to a minimum, but many deductions begin to phase out or become eliminated at an income of $146,000 for a couple, and that really isn’t a very high number.

The final bill is that I still owe slightly less than $3,000. In total, I paid more than $61,000 this year in taxes. The report from Amazon alone says I paid $1400 in sales taxes. It’s infuriating to see those numbers, then see people on Social Media saying taxes need to be raised. Why, I asked one of them, should someone who makes more pay a higher rate? If the percentage is the same for everyone, a person making $100k would pay 5 times in taxes what a person making $20k. That isn’t enough though. Some say that no one should have more than X amount of money.

The answer? Because, he said, they can afford it.

So because someone has more than you, you feel it is your place to steal what they have earned.

  • If someone takes my money for his own benefit, he is a thief.
  • If someone takes my money to feed his child, he is still a thief.
  • If someone takes my money at gunpoint, he is a robber and a thief.
  • If ten people take my money at gunpoint, they are a gang of thieves.
  • If a thousand of my neighbors take my money, they are no better.
  • If they all vote to have someone else take my money at gunpoint, at some point the left feels that this is legitimate.

The answer I get is “well, that’s called taxes.” I say bullshit. Taxes are so the government can provide for the general welfare. Taking someone’s money so courts, the military, and other services everyone benefits from is providing for the general welfare. Taking that money so Sharkeesh’a Negron and Juan Illegal* can sit at home and pop out a dozen kids without having to produce anything is not. It’s theft.

OK, I’m just working myself up, thinking that it takes me several months of work to pay my taxes.

To say the least, I am pretty grumpy and there will be some alcohol involved this evening. Of course, it will be taxed.

* As an example, see this post from 2010 where I outline just how profitable it can be to be an illegal immigrant.