A little something for the liberals......
 

"This is a very simple way to understand the tax laws," says Professor
Davies. "Read on, as it does make you think!" Here's his analogy:

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.
"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day,
the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut). "'Since you are
all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your
daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So
the
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what
about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the
$20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth
man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to eat for free. "But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,'
declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'.
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too;
it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'

'"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when
I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the
first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system
exploits the poor!'

"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he
didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But
when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was
very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill.
Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how
the
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

"Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities
anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic."


Sadly, he is right, it seems that few, if any, Democrats in Congress have
grasped the concept.

Your only flaw in this otherwise genius theory is that lately those 4 or 5 guys that were eating free before are now going hungry or borrowing very heavily from #10 and making him alot more money. :( And then there's another 1000 angry alien motherfuckas that want to crash planes into the buildings of all 10 guys when they're really only pissed with #10 again..hmm

I suggest you re-read or take a comprehension class. :1orglaugh

This is called a flaw?

your alteration makes your post less relevant.



i wonder what happens to your beliefs when you make it to #10?

Power and $$$ corrupts of course

yes, and going by the above comparison, it holds the world together, too.

said like a boy who has neither.

all balanced out for eternity so why do we still have posts like this bitching about this?

Is that what it takes to be a 'man' in your world, 12clicks?

nice out.

See this is why I'm a LIBERTARIAN.

http://www.lp.org

We laugh at the nazi republicans and the communist democrats.

At least I do.

Though I don't have any exact numbers....

But I'll guess that if EVERY Country in the world that owed the U.S. money, would pay it back, with the agreed interest, Counting the untold trillions we've already wrote-off (forgiven)...

I think we've have more fucking money than we'd know what to do with and the economy would be the last of our worries....

:winkwink:

Yes. what's it take to be a man in yours? just born with a dick?:1orglaugh

interesting now im hungry

So, to you, being a Libertarian means believing that all Republicians are nazi's and all democrates are communists?

Wanna bet it isn't?

And 99% of of Libertarians would be highly insulted by such a foolish remark and would certainly not want to be associated with you in any way.

You claim to be a menber of a party you obviously know absolutly nothing about.

:1orglaugh

Man lighten a little, I think it was in jest..

this liberal believes in a flat tax.

oh, i will say that the concept that the working poor pay no tax is misinformed. what they really do is LOAN the government a certain amount of money every year and if they want it back, they have to file a return to get it. :thumbsup

Thus the words "At least I do." at the bottom.

My personal belief is that anyone who WANTS to be a politician should never be elected. The best politicians we have ever had are people that got pushed into it from being a normal person. Career politicians are all crooks on some level. Anyone who would voluntarily run through that election gauntlet to win the ultimate prize of a $80k - $300k job is obviously crazy, and usually after something larger.

Main reasons for politicians to run include corruption/kickbacks/whatever, or personal power. In either case I don't want them in power.

But then again, I want everyone to carry a firearm except those who WANT to carry a firearm.

I'm a fan of the old old school politics - you do what you have to because it's your duty to society. I don't like paid career politicians.

can't think of a more simplistic way of looking at it

This conservative does too.

does this mean we can live together in peace and harmony or will you still be an asshole? :Graucho

oh no! you said P-word

heehee. I loved it when the French UN dude said he was willing to "Give Peace A Chance". :winkwink:

mmmh... now thats twisted! :helpme

Lets try this....
I pay $5 (35% of salary)... and I have $9 left... to buy foods he needs for the rest of the week....
THe other guy pay $52 (50% of salary) and have left $52 for the rest of the week....

Now... there's a tax cut... of $9
Should one get $3 break and the guy that pay $52 a $6 break...??

THE $52 GUY DONT NEED A $6 BREAK !!! Are you too dumb to get that???? :helpme

Tax break is not about redistribuing money proportionally based on what you already pay... but to give back to those who needs it!!!!

He actually said that? Awesome.

Lennon lives on!

Interesting perspective. Sadly, to the masses of people who believe this, you're all idiots. Sorry, you are. All of you.

That guy that pays the $52 represents the guys who are the employers, to whom many of the lower-income guys work for. Give the $52 guy his rightful tax break and maybe come salary raising time he can afford to give the others a wage increase, or maybe a little bit better boost to their benefits package, whatever. But penalize him AGAIN for being "the rich guy" and probably come pay raise time one of the other dipshits has to be layed off (thus another mouth is added to the ranks of those eating free).


Pretty basic.

That's where you are fucking up.....

Who the hell are you to determine one person's "need" over another's?

Don't you think that kinda makes you full of shit?

Maybe that guy worked twice as hard as the other all his life?

More likely that guy worked twice as smart. Hard work is for the two-dollar guys in the example. Grunts.

I don't feel like giving via my taxes, where 70% of the money will be wasted in bureaucracy and red tape, 10% will be squandered on cheaters and people that don't deserve a fucking dime and only 20% will actually find its way to people who need it.

mmmh.... oh yeah.... banks are making billions a year in profit and they are even cutting jobs.... yeah.... so forget about any raise...

Hey.. how can a RICH company decide not to give a raise to its employes... but then, after a little tax break (added to their hundreads of millions of profits).. decide that now they have enough money to do it.... hahah give me a break!! :1orglaugh

And that is when we talk about company's profits...
Alot of rich individuals have salaries...!!

And where did you read THAT ???

And, uh... they earned it. Sometimes it's the difference between person A quitting school in grade 11 to go to *work* and pump gas or be a gopher in a manure plant etc, and person B who took an extra 5 years of school to get a degree in computer science or whatever. Person A makes $20k a year, while person B makes $80k a year.

OR... Person B was smart enough to leverage someone else's money to build a successful business of their own.


In most cases, person B comes out ahead because they earned it through education or pure smarts.






Someone educate this guy with the communistic thinking. I'm too busy working smart today.

Common guys, Enron executives walked away with millions, while millions of americans kissed good bye their pentions and now are FORCED to depend on your generous tax break.

If the government here would have left the phone company alone in the 60's - we would all have picture-phones right now.

We don't because when they were forced to split up, and profits dropped - Research and Development went out the door.

Companies don't always rob and steal - sometimes they build some pretty cool stuff - and some make a lot of the people that work for them a lot of money - and pay retired employees - and taxes - and domate to little league baseball teams....

and on and on with the reasons your theory doesn't hold water.


Not everything is bad in America - accept it.

Are you kidding me? What was Lucent? An entire R&D corporation with huge budget and profit (ehm last I checked). I really don't see how breaking up a monopoly stops technological advance, it's the other way around actually. That's why they break them up.

I definitely think that analogy is way over simplistic. It didn't account for the fact that :

1. the guy paying $59 is taking the entire bill of $100 and writing it off on his taxes

2. his accountant found some creative way to claim the other 9 as dependents

3. The owner of restaurant is giving the rich guy free perks to bring the other 9 into his restaurant that he isn't or doesn't have to pay taxes on

4. the rich guy is writing off the gas to the restaurant cuz it's for a 'business meeting'

5. the rich guy is writing off his car payment and insurance cuz he's using it for business purposes

6. the rich guy is writing off the $200 he's been paying the waitress for blowjobs in the bathroom as 'insurance for getting better service'.

Obviously, this was over simplistic too and some exagerated. but it still remains that as being people who are better off, we have more opportunities available to us, and don't pay nearly the tax % than that of less fortunate people.... If we derived our net income like most people do - then hell yeah i'd want the same tax breaks...but we don't!

I agree that as you make more money sometimes we start to rethink our stand on these type of issues....but trickle down economics simply don't work. And we'd end up losing money in the long run if our entire econoic system was based on that. Not to mention, an extra $20/month i know means more to some families then $500 means to me.

Well... in the late 60's I saw the AT&T phones of the future. My Step-Dad was a big wheel at C&P and I got to see a lot of that stuff. I saw the phones - real TV screens (about 5 inch), not LCD - and talked on one they had set up.

This was the 60's - there was no Lucent in the 60's - Lucent was almost 20 years away.

What kept these phones from being done was losing their monopoly - they saw the billions they'd spent in R&D literally given away by the Government that helped to build it, and standards went out the window.

Thier priorities shifted to making a profit - because they lost their monopoly - for example -

We were able to buy a $10. phone made in China at Kmart instead of leasing those one's from the phone company - but we paid for it in advancements.

I'm not for monopolies in any way what-so-ever.

But that's why we don't all have picture phones today.

I think everyone missed the most enlightening post of this thread.....

;)