Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. All writers must include their address and
daytime phone number (for confirmation only).
A Few
More Minutes of Depression
Regarding Michael Kinsley's
"Readme" about
the Internet and its links to depression: Maybe people who use the Internet a
lot get depressed because the Internet is just more interesting than their
regular lives. They meet people who share their preoccupations, quirks, sense
of humor, and sexual fantasies, people who like to argue about politics and
religion (still taboo subjects in much of real-life America), who are experts
in fascinating subjects, and who like to explain them. They can take on a
pseudonym and express parts of themselves that they have to repress in their
ordinary lives. They can play bridge and chess and mental footsie with people
in Russia and Japan. Then they come back to real life, and the contrast makes
them feel bad. Same old, same old.
Don't
forget--the subjects of the Internet depression study lived in Pittsburgh. They
may already have been anxious, bored, dissatisfied with their lives. But they
thought that was just the way life was, so when social scientists asked if they
were happy, they said, "Sure." After a year on the Net, they know it doesn't
have to be that way--but they're still living in Pittsburgh.
--Katha Pollitt New
York City
The IRS
Has Been Berry, Berry Good to Me
In the
Sept. 9 "Today's Papers," Scott Shuger had this little tidbit:
The one problem with all
this: Despite the apparent oddity of the home run ball case, not one of these
horrified public servants has shown why it isn't a perfectly straightforward
application of the gift tax. So shouldn't they rethink the whole idea?
Actually, I think it
is a straightforward application of the tax code not to tax the gift of
the ball, since there is no income to the person giving the ball away. Since
the person who caught the ball gave nothing to receive the ball and received
nothing in return, even if the ball has some inherent value of $1,000,000,
there is no "realizing event" that would trigger taxation. People are only
taxed on income that is actually received, otherwise you would pay income tax
on the increased value of your home every year (you only pay when you
sell).
A rough analogy: Suppose Mark
McGwire threw a blank check for $1,000,000 into the crowd. If I caught it,
returned it, and received nothing in return, I have nothing to tax. If I fill
in my name and cash it, I pay tax. If I fill in the name of my best friend and
he cashes it, he pays income tax, and the person who signed the check (not me,
since I am simply the conduit and never received any benefit) pays gift
tax.
In short,
this should not lead us to revisit the idea of a gift tax. The "IRS spokesman"
quoted by the AP story simply misstated the law. There is no reason to change
the law, Shuger's evident wish to do so aside.
-- Michael
Carr Washington
Plugging
Leaks
I enjoy
Slate
's humor, but I just finished reading the "leaked" Starr
report ("Starr
Lush," by Art Levine) and found it amazingly stupid and insulting. Yes, the
Lewinsky affair deserves ridicule in many ways, but I can get lurid guesses
about the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship anywhere. From
Slate
I
expect and am paying for serious attempts to assess what happened and what the
consequences might be. Leave the idiotic romance novel accounts to others.
-- Greg
Weeks Carrboro, N.C.
Address
your e-mail to the editors to All writers must include their address and
daytime phone number (for confirmation only).
