Another analogy:

There are 10 men living in a village, and there are 8 different jobs available, that are all essential to the welfare of the village but have different pay:
Man #1 has a job that pays $100 a day.
Man #2 has a job that pays $70 a day.
Man #3 has a job that pays $50 a day.
Man #4 has a job that pays $40 a day.
Man #5 has a job that pays $30 a day.
Man #6 has a job that pays $20 a day.
Man #7 has a job that pays $10 a day.
Man #8 has a job that pays $5 a day.
Man #9 has no job.
Man #10 has no job.

Now, there are also different meals:
Meal #1 is bread and water, and costs $5 a day.
Meal #2 is bread and milk, and costs $10 a day.
Meal #3 is bread with cheese and milk, and costs $15 a day.
Meal #4 is potatoes with salad and milk, and costs $20 a day.
Meal #5 is potatoes with salad, meat balls and milk, and costs $25 a day.
Meal #6 is potatoes with salad, pork chops and ale, and costs $30 a day.
Meal #7 is potatoes with vegetables, steak and wine, and costs $40 a day.
Meal #8 is baked potatoes with vegetables, salad, steak, wine and icecream, and costs $50 a day.
Meal #9 is lobster with french bread, potatoes baked in olive oil, italian salad, tiramisu and fine wine, and costs $70 a day.
Meal #10 is caviar, lobster, deer steak, champagne, italian salad, french salad, and strippers, and costs $100 a day.

Now, because man #1-#6 want the best meals they can get, man #9 and man #10 will starve to death. Also, man #7 and man #8 will die of malnutrition. Because of that, the work they were doing won't get done, and since it was essential to the welfare of the village, the village and it's inhabitants will fall to poverty. Also, the sons of men #7-10 will want revenge, and start a war against the other men, resulting in senseless massacre.

Now, wouldn't it have been better if all had given away a portion of their wealth so they could all live and be happy? Was man #1 having meal #10 worth all this?




And, about giving the biggest tax cuts to those who pay the most in taxes:
The difference the money makes for the rich is that they can buy a 10th car.
The difference the money would make for the poor is that they can eat properly, send their children to college or pay for medical costs.

that's got to be the craziest thing I've read since the communist manifesto.

that day will never come in the U.S..... the "working class" will never let it.


:1orglaugh

The thinkers and the movers don't get out of bed earlier and work harder just so the government can "equalize" things with THIER money...

A socity like that would soon stagnate -




:1orglaugh

One other thing that you overlooked....

The 16th amanedment was never ratified..

This means there are no 'income' tax laws..

Watch what happens when this gets into the right hands..

The gov't knows about it, but no chance of them abiding by it..
They make way too much money.. but.. it won't be long before somethin's done about it..

Check it out..

Are you really as stupid as you seem, or are you just really, really good at pretending to be?

Think about what you said again: "that day will never come in the U.S..... the "working class" will never let it."

Keep thinking for a few days, eventually you'll get it.

WHY does #1 make so much more than #8 ?

Does he work harder?
Is he better educated?

Do you think it was just luck?

And why would #8 work as hard as #1 for so much less money?

Why would #1 work harder than #8 if at the end of the day the villagers are going to take part of his money and give it away?

What are the lazy bastards #9 and #10 doing at a restraunt trying to bum a meal with no money.....

Don't the first 8 pay enough taxes so the village has food stamps?



noooo - I just don't think it makes a bit of sense....

I know what I said.... I'm just suprised that you "got it".....

it was sarcasm - means I was making fun of you.

I don't think people whinge about rich people getting higher dollar amounts of tax cuts but higher percentages of tax cut.
Politicians don't say "heres a level 5% reduction across the board" they tinker with tax rate cutoff points and the tax the different rate tiers pay.
It's painfully obvious that if you earn more, an across the board tax cut will give you a higher dollar amount in savings.. anyone that complained about that needs a slap... and a course in junior high mathematics.

The thing is, income tax isn't equal "across the board" now is it? No, it isn't.

Lower income guy pays what?.... 30% of his income?

Middle income guy pays around 40%

Top-level income guys pay close to 50%



yes, let's penalize people for becoming more successful. I can see taxing everyone equally, to pay their fair share, but because a guy is now earning over a million bucks a year he he should pay even MORE? To me that's insane.

Has everyone gone insane but me?

You try that and let us all know how long your sentence will be....


:thumbsup

you know I agree with you....

but your question reminds me of the two old fisherman, one looked at the other and said "All fisherman are liers except you and me..... and I'm not that sure about you".

:1orglaugh

I cant believe I am getting into this....but lets talk about "trickle-down economics" or as I love to call it "Reaganomics...the true reason that Bill Clinton is as popular as he is"......

Understand that I love politics, but I don't debate them in an open forum normally because it always seems like I am bashing when I am simply pointing out my opinions....but here goes nothing :)

The problem in your little senario Punkworld is that this is what would have happened in a real world scenario....

Man #3 would eat Meal # 5 for one year while he saved his $25 per day.....at the end of a year he would start a new company called "Man #3's Half Priced Meals" because he figured out a way to grow the Meals for pennies on the dollar instead of buying them from the neighboring village like they had done for the last hundred years. Then he would hire Men #8, 9, and 10 and still pocket $132.50 at the end of the day for himself.

In this scenario, with the same amount of money everyone is living better off......

It is deep....think about it.....


--T

ahahahaa.......



:::looks sideways suspiciously at Daveplays:::

Then, man #3 would be taxed about $60, which would got to new men 11, 12 and 13 who choose not to work now that the village has instituted a nice new welfare program. Men 11, 12 and 13 tell their relatives from other villages, who move in and also claim a share of this wonderful thing called welfare. Man #3 must then think about downsizing, or maybe going partners with man #1 in some way.


Which brings us to mergers and aquisitions.


Cont'd....... (by someone else)

You are a sad individual....

Let companies decide wheter they want or not to give you a raise.... (and thats is whether you BADLY need it or not... )
Let companies decide to pay or not their retired employees...

When the government can tax those rich corporations and distribute the money to those who needs it!!

As for giving money to little league... dude... damn... I'm in tears....

AS far as your pathtic TV-phone.... yeah thats so cool... lets invest in that while there's around 13% of americans living under the poverty level.... mmh.. about 35 millions... alot of kids and single mothers...!

You are pathetic... seriously...

no it's not equal across the board, but the post was in relation to the point of the thread and 12click's post.
btw guys earning over a million here pay less % tax than guys on $60,001 - it reaches a point then heads back down.
anything I earnt over 60k last year I paid 48.5% tax on. (because I wasn't a member of a private health fund the conservative government slugged me with an extra 1.5% which only the 20% (at the time) of "rich" people earning over 50k pay - trying to push me into private enterprise.

I know. Sorry about that, my reply was more directed to the masses rather than in direct reply to your post. Holy shit.

No really, holy shit. And people say that taxes are insane in Canada.
Well, I suppose we have it similar, because the higher up the income food chain you go, the higher you are taxed here too.

But someone earning $500k a year is taxed amazingly heavily, and if the communists had their way they would be taxed at probably 60% or more.

Because after all..... all men are created equal, so everyone should be given an equal share, right?
Right xxxpaydesign? yeah, sure komrade.

and let me guess....

We'll all let YOU decide who is "in need" and who isn't?

and who gives their money away - and who doesn't....?


....and you think I'M Nuts?


:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Socialism looks good on paper....

It has never, nor will it ever work - but it does look good on paper.

It denies the basic human desire to excell -
to do better, work harder for greater benefits is how we excell.

It's true in sports and in life.

And that's a good thing.

We do not progress by trying to make everyone equal.

We are not all created equal - thinking we are looked good on paper too - but it isn't the case.

Some people are going to fail - it's been that way since we lived in caves - the strong shall survive - you know.... it's the nature of the beast.

xxxdesign-net, your inability to comprehend the most understandable tax analogy i've ever seen, is almost dumbfounding. You sir, are an idiot.

Jesus you're really a dumb fuck.

Of course, there is no way to disagre with you without appearing to oppose what is decent and humane. To criticize socialist ideals is to place oneself in opposition to a world in which social justice and harmony will previal.

Socialists have always contrived to demonstrate by example what everyone else already knows: Equality and freedom are inherently in conflict. This is really all that socialist efforts have shown, over the dead bodies of millions of people. In talent, intelligence, and physical attributes, individuals are by nature different and unequal; consequently, the attempt to make them equal can only be achieved by restricting - ultimately eliminating - their individual freedom. For the same reason, economic redistribution can be carried out only be force. Socialism is theft.

you must be new around here. Calling me dumb is like putting a bulls eye on your undersized brain. Now we'll have fun over your stupidity.

No, you're too dumb to earn more than $14.50
The rest of the people who ARE smart enough to earn more shouldn't have to waste it on low lives like yourself because, for whatever reason, you can't make it in this world.

Says who? the poor ass *you* who can't make it?
By giving people like you who can't make it in this world, you weeken the entire population by sucking the wealth from the successfull and throwing it down the piss hole that is you.

Or are you too dumb to get that?:1orglaugh

Who talked about equality here?? :helpme

Stop making assumptions... and go buy yourself some IQ points.. here.. :2 cents: :2 cents:

Re-Read the thread closely... read my posts.. and maybe.. just maybe... you'll get what I meant... DumbDumb :Hollering


Im out... no challenge here.... losing my time...

Yeah - I don't blame you -

Come back anytime - we enjoyed making fun of you !!


:thumbsup

Smartest thing you've said in this entire thread, idiot.

uh, once you reach that level where you are considered rich, you'll realize how untrue your fairy tale above is.
When I'm not busy paying 6 figures in taxes, I'm paying 7 and I have the best accountants money can buy.
This silly clap trap about the rich getting a free ride is what keeps you from intelligent debate on the subject.

it's a lot I know.. but to be honest I mind less about the 47% tax rate than I do about the 1.5% trying to force me into private enterprise. I actually voted against the last tax cut we had here because it was the sweetener for the goods and services tax...

I don't mind paying tax if it keeps people from stealing my car or whatever. but in all honesty the top marginal tax rate of 47% should kick in a lot higher than 60k.. The other thing is that If you get a second job it's immediately taxed at 47% regardless of what income you're on which is plain retarded.. I don't believe the tax rates are a big disincentive.. no one turns down a payrise or can't do with extra money.. but the second job thing is stupid. No one should be taxed extra for taking on a second job and working that much harder.
When I started lecturing I set up a family trust so i'd pay fuck all tax on the extra income.

Rush Limbaugh had this on his show friday. It sounds better than it reads for some reason.

i should get some lawyers and see if i can be tax-free, too!

I want to go work with 12Clicks :thumbsup

A bunch of us are considering buying an island somewhere and setting up shop. If we can convince 12clicks to join us, we will have a large enough economy that we can declare ourselves a country.


50 residents ---- no tax. :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

There are lots of Carribean Islands with no income taxes, they earn theirs by sheltering money for tax evaders from around the world.

I would have a lot less trouble paying taxes if we paid for health care, child care, preschool education and broke the cycle of poverty in this country. It is amazing how Canada and Western Europe can deal with these things and the US cannot.

The US economy has instututionalized slavery, we just call it the minimum wage; a wage no one can live on. You can be of any race and be a slave now, no discrimination at all.

Fuck.... count me in.

:thumbsup

Once we are a country, we can start sending teams to the Olympics.


Whose up for bobsleigh?

Who's paying for the infrastructure?

Sewerage, cabling, roads, etc etc?

Or will you be living in grass huts, shitting in a hole in the ground, riding pushbikes and washing your dishes in water from your own personal wells?

Back breaking hard work, sweat and dedication -

or we'll just pay someone to do it.

:winkwink:

Bobsledding? - Like in the Snow?

Where exactly IS this island anyway? :eek7

I think that you can redefine the scope of the issue by greatly reducing the waste in the system. Granted there will always be significant governmental waste. Human nature is for everyone to feel that their job is the most important. People will always sucker people into laziness at the expense of taxpayers.

Imagine how much more there would be to squander if we stopped squandering!

We don't need $1200 hammers. We don't need a federal budget to ensure that all federal forms are in both English and Spanish. We don't need to be paying farmers to not grow food. We don't need a huge well budgeted justice department to fight free speech. We don't need to be paying millions to study mating habits of fruitbats.

We do need to pay for an adequate national defense. We do need roads.

If we kept spending down, we would need to charge less in taxes. Let the people decide what to do with their money. If I want the homeless to be fed I'd volunteer at a soup kitchen. I am astounded to see the sheer amount of waste in the simplest of things. The thing that really pisses in my wheaties is that every other day I work I put money in someone else's pocket, and it's generally for no good reason. Besides, I've never even seen a friggin fruitbat.

You don't seem to comprehend the analogy. The "food stamps" you are talking about are exactly what would change the situation for the better - the rich giving up wealth to feed the poor.

Also, did I ever say the rich should give up all their wealth? I mentioned in my post that extra wealth would mean a 10th car for the rich, while it would mean food or education for the poor.

Personally, I have no problem with certain people being richer than others. However, the richer you are, the more you can spare while still being rich. It's not about equal distribution of property/income, but about providing the basics for those that need it. Ofcourse, the rich will still have way more money available for luxury goods, there´s nothing wrong with that. But first the basics for everyone need to be taken care of.

The point with providing the basics for those that need it is that it also benefits the rich. The rich don't get rich all by themselves, they require employees, consumers, infrastructure, etc. The poor are essential for this. Let the poor starve and the whole economy will suffer.

Besides that, the whole idea of the rich being rich because they work harder is fundamentally flawed. Wealth is primarily caused by wealth - the rich can get their children a good education, a good social network, money to start up companies, carreer opportunities etc. The poor can´t. So, for most of the rich their wealth isn´t something they achieved by themselves, but something they achieved because of the chances that were given to them.