NationStates Jolt Archive

Tax cuts - How they really work

Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help. Please share this with your friends as you see fit.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

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 $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, 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.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. 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 each 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.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

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," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 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 the tenth man 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 something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our 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. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

True? I think it is.

This is absolutely true. I have heard it simplified before but not in this manner. This is an extremely simple concept to grasp in these terms. Problem is that the "Liberals" like to use the ignorance of the bottom four to distort this paradigm. I have been in almost all levels of the 10. I can tell you that it isnt very cool to have to pay out a huge chunk of change. Then you hear that your wifes brother on welfare got 5k back which effectively he paid no taxes. Really pisses a guy off. This should be used by Bush when he talks about tax cuts. Reason is that alot of people are extremely ignorant to how the government collects revenues.

A common message filled with omissions and fallacy, passed around the internet as some kind of wisdom.

Its true in the same way most scams are true; they sound good at the time, but closer inspection lets you realize its just a scam.

But people will still fall for scams, or willingly take part in them hoping to profit from it themselves. Its sad how easy it is to fool people again and again, or prey on their greed again and again.

A common message filled with omissions and fallacy, passed around the internet as some kind of wisdom.

Its true in the same way most scams are true; they sound good at the time, but closer inspection lets you realize its just a scam.

But people will still fall for scams, or willingly take part in them hoping to profit from it themselves. Its sad how easy it is to fool people again and again, or prey on their greed again and again.


Thank God you came along with your solid evidence and logic to debunk the article, then. I guess that solves everyone's questions.

Dr. Kamerschen didn't write that btw.

Its still true, but he didn't write it. Indeed I don't think anyone knows who the author is at this point.

Anyone know the real statistics of the income tax based on wage level?

It's interesting... But I'm curious how much the each person earns..

Like the first four, (what income group).

Anyone know the real statistics of the income tax based on wage level?

It's interesting... But I'm curious how much the each person earns..

Like the first four, (what income group).

I believe that if you earn less than around 25K per year, you pay no federal tax. If you earn less than 5k, you don't even need to file. Not sure about the rest though.

Thank God you came along with your solid evidence and logic to debunk the article, then. I guess that solves everyone's questions.

I have to agree...

I was left wondering when he was going to get around to that "closer inspection" that would actually "reveal" all of those falacies he was talking about.

The FACT is, it is so very near the truth that he will find it very difficult to dispute ANY of it.

But I am still hoping to see him give it a shot! A good discussion on such things never hurt anyone, has it?

Regards,
Gaar

Anyone know the real statistics of the income tax based on wage level?

It's interesting... But I'm curious how much the each person earns..

Like the first four, (what income group).

The group is meant to reperest society via 10 percentile groups. First 4 0-10, 10-20, 20-30 and 30-40. 5th is 40-50, 6th is 50-60, 7th is 60-70, 8th is 70-80, 9th is 80-90 and 10th is 90-100.

Top 5% pay 53.25%
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%
The bottom 50% pay 3.97% of all income taxes.

Or for a more detailed breakdown with historical data as well see this site.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
You'll note that the top 1% pay an average tax rate of 27.25%, or more than twice that of the national average.

Cool thanks.. I've always been looking for the facts... great debating tool.

**sigh** Fine. I don't even feel I need to use my own words for this. Its been taken to task so many times over the years I don't know why I both. But in the interest of good debate, I'm gonna line up a few sources online and show you why OTHER people think this is bull. Well, let's start with the Author shall we?

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

Its not even by who you say it was by. How's that for starters?

Then there's this person, who rather than attack its logic, simply goes for the crux of the argument; how unfair it is for the poor rich guy that we keep beating up on tax day.

"Here it is. It’s been going around the Internet for nearly two years now in 2003, but judging from the increasing frequency of late, it seems to have enjoyed new life. [Someone else's comments are in brackets.]

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. [Ah, what a sweet deal that man who cleans the airport urinals for $6 an hour has. He eats for free! Or how about that woman who cleans your hotel room. She, too, eats for free! Except for the payroll tax taken out of their checks and the sales tax they pay. And the tax they pay on their gasoline and their phones if they can afford gas or a phone. Why should the rest of us pay taxes to help educate their kids and provide them with health care? They shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. And if they have them anyway, those kids don’t deserve decent schools and health care. Our first priority has got to be cutting taxes for the top, not providing good schools and health care to deadbeat six year olds.]...

...The nine men surrounded the tenth man 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 something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should 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 any more. [This is why in the 1940s and 1950s, when the top federal tax bracket had been hiked to 90%, in part to help finance World War II and the Korean War, highly productive people all just retired and the American economy collapsed. Or, well, they didn’t and it didn’t – America did pretty well in the 1940s and 1950s – but that’s a minor detail. And this is why in the 1960s, when the top bracket was 70%, highly productive people all just retired and the American economy collapsed. Or, well, they didn’t and it didn’t either – the American economy did pretty well in the 1960s – but that, too, is just a minor detail.]"

*****Then theres this little omission that grates on someone;

"The part of the story that really grates is the premise that all ten men are eating the same dinner. In reality, the first four men receive a crust; the last man, a feast."

"So why, when you look at all the problems and challenges in the world, would you say, “Well, we can’t do everything, so let’s direct most of our efforts and resources toward improving the plight of the rich. Let’s shift the balance further in their favor.” Why would you say that?"

"The most remarkable thing about this idiotic thing about the 10 men having the $100 dinner is that it seems to be passed around the Internet not, for the most part, by people with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $383,000 a year (the top 1%), but, rather, by people so eager for $1,000 and $2,000 tax cuts that they don’t bother to take into account the extra $20,000 or $40,000 in national debt they and their children will be taking on in return – money borrowed largely to give much, much larger tax cuts"

"But let’s leave the macro level and get back to that top tax bracket. It’s worth pointing out that few people if any actually pay the top rate on all their income. In the first place, they pay less on the first dollars they earn, just like anyone else. It is a graduated rate. More important, they pay 0% on their municipal bond interest (while sacrificing much less than 39.6% in yield compared with equivalent taxable bonds) and 0% on their capital gains until they choose to “realize” them – at which point they pay only about 20%."

"Jonathan Levy: “Point #1: We are hardly in a situation where our $100 dinner now costs $80. It is more like the restaurant was firebombed a couple of years ago and now has to charge $120 for dinner in order to pay for the extra security. If we ever find ourselves in a situation where the government needs 20% less money to do the same job (maybe the day we are free from interest payments on the extra $3 trillion in debt run up under Reagan/Bush?), sure, let's look at cutting taxes on everyone. Point #100 (since there must be 98 in-between): The stated threat is that if the rich feel too abused they are going to pack up and leave. Fair enough. This country was built by people who got fed up and quit other countries over economic conditions or oppression. Anyone who feels it is unbearable to be wealthy in the U.S. has a complete right to quit this country and become a citizen of another (assuming it is for real and not just a paperwork trick to get out of taxes). That is a basic human right but one that, so far, few wealthy Americans seem to have felt a need to exercise.”

RandyWoolf: “The ‘dinner analogy’ is hopelessly flawed. The main problem for me is: in the story, the diners are presented with a special $20 bonus, or ‘surplus,’ i.e. cheaper food. But the U.S has a deficit now, not a surplus. Also, in a real society, our fates are all bound together, and the well-off suffer when the poor become ‘too poor.’ A better analogy would be more along these lines: the 10 people are employees in a restaurant. A new restaurant [China] has opened with much lower prices. The 10 employees at our restaurant agree to take a pay cut so the restaurant can compete. The highest paid employees say everyone should share the pain, not just them, so everyone’s pay is cut 20%. This results in the subsistence workers’ being paid below subsistence. So the lowest paid employees are now too addle-brained from lack of food to do their jobs well. Some of them have caught infectious diseases, but cannot afford to go to the doctor, and are spreading these diseases to the customers. All the educated employees who could do so went elsewhere, so the remaining ones are too illiterate to read the health department sanitation signs. A few of the customers get sick and die from e. coli. When the place gets robbed, the security guard decides this pay is not worth risking his life for, and runs away. Business gets worse, and the highest paid decide they must lower prices – and pay checks – a further 20% to attract customers!”

Andrew Tobias: "I believe lower- and middle-income families do bear much of the burden when we add trillions to the national debt:

· Big deficits make a country’s currency weaker than it would otherwise be. That makes prices higher than they otherwise would be. It costs more to buy clothes from China or TVs from Korea or fruit from Mexico if the dollar is weak than if it is strong. Higher prices don’t much hurt the family that just got a $40,000 tax break, but they do hurt the family that is just scraping by.

· Big deficits likely lead, sooner or later, to higher inflation and interest rates. That’s bad news for those who owe and borrow, not such bad news for those who own and lend. Those getting the bulk of today’s tax cuts will be unaffected by higher auto loan rates. We buy our cars for cash. Those of us who already own nice homes won’t mind terribly if inflation drives their prices higher. Those less fortunate will only see their rents rise.

· Big deficits crowd out the possibility for other things, like smaller classroom sizes and a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Not an issue if you can afford to send your kids to private school and are covered by a top-notch health insurance plan, but a very big issue for those “fortunate” four out of ten who “pay nothing” for their dinner in that idiotic story about the 10 men who go out for the $100 dinner.

So I disagree with those who believe that we need to tilt the balance further toward those already best off.

And I am in awe of the Republicans’ skill at persuading so many folks who don’t earn $300,000 or $3 million that huge tax cuts for the best off are something we should go deeply into debt to provide.

How much deeper into debt do the borrow-and-spend Republicans have to bury us before that moniker – “borrow-and-spend Republicans” – finally catches on? Another $3 trillion? Another $6 trillion?"

Need more? I've got plenty. Hell, if you really want, I'll step by step destroy this stupid piece's twisted, backward logic. I hardly suspect that definate proof would slow down anyone's political posturing on the internet, but perhaps I'm too cynical. In the meantime I apologize for having anyone read all this; but hell, you asked for it.

This is one of the worst things I've read all day. It's so embarrassingly stupid that it isn't even funny.

Whoever wrote this should be raped by a Butt Pirate.

-snip-

Almost all of that is drivel that has nothing to do with the actual tax cut/how they work and much more to do with the possible effects of the budget deficit.

Why don't you actually "take the time" to address the article and not copy/paste a bunch of things other people have said that barely have anything to do with it.

Almost all of that is drivel that has nothing to do with the actual tax cut/how they work and much more to do with the possible effects of the budget deficit.

Why don't you actually "take the time" to address the article and not copy/paste a bunch of things other people have said that barely have anything to do with it.in other words, Niccolo Medici has debunked the little fable to the point where you can't think of a single argument in favor of it, so you'll simply deny that he ever addressed the story

in other words, Niccolo Medici has debunked the little fable to the point where you can't think of a single argument in favor of it, so you'll simply deny that he ever addressed the story


You nailed it, there. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Almost all of that is drivel that has nothing to do with the actual tax cut/how they work and much more to do with the possible effects of the budget deficit.

Why don't you actually "take the time" to address the article and not copy/paste a bunch of things other people have said that barely have anything to do with it.

What I find interesting is how that "explanation" tries to "equate" what the men "make" to what they "take" from the Government...

The "Meal" is meant to show that the Government gives out to all about equal, and actually "gives more" to those at the bottom.

So when they say the "top guys" meal is so much better than the rest, it is ACTUALLY the "bottom guys" that are "eating" off of the Government MUCH BETTER than the rest at the Table...

Regards,
Gaar

Is that how it is, then? Seems to me like somebody's a bit cloudy.

in other words, Niccolo Medici has debunked the little fable to the point where you can't think of a single argument in favor of it, so you'll simply deny that he ever addressed the story

Why no. In other words, it has nothing to do with the story. The story has nothing to do with investments. It has nothing to do with what kind of meal they are eating. It has nothing to do even with who pays for what and who recieves what. The story is an illustration that the Bush tax cuts were essentially equal to everyone because they were based on a percentage. "You pay more, when tax cut time comes, you get 'more' off."

Need more? I've got plenty. Hell, if you really want, I'll step by step destroy this stupid piece's twisted, backward logic. I hardly suspect that definate proof would slow down anyone's political posturing on the internet, but perhaps I'm too cynical. In the meantime I apologize for having anyone read all this; but hell, you asked for it.

More? No. Some that makes sense, sure!

Municipal bonds? What the hell? Assuming the rich have money in tax-free municipal bonds is a crap retort, like the rest. It has nothing to do with taxation.

Assuming the rich ar eating more of the meal than the poor is ridiculous. 1/3 of the budget is locked up in entitlements, which the rich don't generally dip into, and are not allowed to, other than for social security. Government funding (the meal) is not skewed toward the rich, unless the rich use roads and highways more, drink more public water, etc. If they use more utilities, they pay more. We all pay sales tax and tax on phones, but the analogy is on income tax.

If you want an example of prohibitive taxation stifiling business, look at California. Look at the number of businesses moving to Nevada, Utah, etc. The 90% rate during WWII for the top half percent is irrelevant, since the meal analogy is talking about today.

If we're talking about the tax cuts of 2001, then deficit spending is not the issue. The tax cuts were drawn from part of the budget surplus that existed prior. The government gave back money to the people it took it from. Deficit spending occurred long afterward with war costs. The effects of a deficit have been overstated, and are solvable through cutting the fat, not "taxing our grandchildren." Moderation in spending is proposed to nullify the deficit in 5 years. Kerry proposed to do it in 4. Still think it's impossible? I think it takes more than 4 or 5 yearsw for "our grandkids" to be born.

Why no. In other words, it has nothing to do with the story. The story has nothing to do with investments. It has nothing to do with what kind of meal they are eating. It has nothing to do even with who pays for what and who recieves what. The story is an illustration that the Bush tax cuts were essentially equal to everyone because they were based on a percentage. "You pay more, when tax cut time comes, you get 'more' off."The Bush tax cuts have something to do with investments, who pays for what, and who gets what. They also have something to do with how much the price of that food increases. The story calls the Bush tax cuts as simple as people leeching food off a rich person, which they are not

Why no. In other words, it has nothing to do with the story. The story has nothing to do with investments. It has nothing to do with what kind of meal they are eating. It has nothing to do even with who pays for what and who recieves what. The story is an illustration that the Bush tax cuts were essentially equal to everyone because they were based on a percentage. "You pay more, when tax cut time comes, you get 'more' off."

Why yes, that over-simplistic view does tend to sum up your arguments nicely. My arguments, and the arguments of people I cited point out that the government is so much more than 10 people eating the same meal and one man paying for half of it; that such a petty analogy only glosses over all REAL discussion about a difficult topic in favor of trite phrasings for people to repeat without any real understanding of what they are dealing with.

The story has EVERYTHING to do with investments, it has EVERYTHING to do with what they are eating, it has EVERYTHING to do with who pays and recieves what.

The story is about how the story uses pretty logic to cover those little details up; no mention is made that the meal is NOT the same for everyone, that the meal is NOT being lowered in price because there's a surplus. The story glosses those facts over.

Fact: the taxes were not lowered because we were at a surplus, we at the government resturant were/are in debt, yet the resutrant owner lowered the price anyway. Why? He's already deep in the red. Address that problem please. Why would a resutrant lower the price when not capable of making ends meet?

Why are all ten people eating the same thing in the story?

Fact: The top ten percent and the bottom ten percent recieve very different services from our government; the poorest and the richest recieve different benifits from the government. Why would the poorest 50% need tax breaks and cuts on investments? Why would the top 10% need tighter restrictions on bankrupcy laws, welfare or discounts on child services? The meal is different for every person at the table; address this problem in this article's portrayal of taxes as being one meal for ten people.

Fact: The rich in the US are not being physically assaulted by the poor. Is this untrue? Why do the men beat up the richest man at the table? Are we supposed to assume that the top 10% income bracket fears violent retribution for their monetary wealth? Address this fallacy in the argument; the story CLEARLY indicates that the poor beat up the rich, this has not happened, yet you cite the story as true and demonstrative of the way the world works.

Should I continue?

A common message filled with omissions and fallacy, passed around the internet as some kind of wisdom.

Its true in the same way most scams are true; they sound good at the time, but closer inspection lets you realize its just a scam.

But people will still fall for scams, or willingly take part in them hoping to profit from it themselves. Its sad how easy it is to fool people again and again, or prey on their greed again and again.


Look its a LIBERAL :rolleyes:

The Bush tax cuts have something to do with investments, who pays for what, and who gets what. They also have something to do with how much the price of that food increases. The story calls the Bush tax cuts as simple as people leeching food off a rich person, which they are not

The story deals with nothing but the distribution of the tax cut itself. Nice try though.

The Bush tax cuts have something to do with investments, who pays for what, and who gets what. They also have something to do with how much the price of that food increases. The story calls the Bush tax cuts as simple as people leeching food off a rich person, which they are not

Most Rich people don't mind paying more...

What they DO MIND is when people like yourself ATTACK them for wanting tax cuts, just like everyone else!

You aren't going to be happy until the Top 5% are paying for EVERYTHING not just half of everything, are you!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Look its a LIBERAL :rolleyes:

Interesting. I'm a "liberal" to you? Perhaps you should simply ignore everything I say from here on out then. My arguments bear no weight at all to someone who's dismissed me already as unworthy of being listened to.

A pity.

The story has EVERYTHING to do with investments, it has EVERYTHING to do with what they are eating, it has EVERYTHING to do with who pays and recieves what.

2/3 of Americans are investors, and not just through IRAs or managed accounts. If the President's Social Security plan goes through, all Americans will have an investment option. That'd make customer 4-10 an investor, or all of them depending on the plan. Imagining that the rich all put their money in tax-free bonds is still crap. The average U.S. millionate files bankruptcy 2.5 times, and 90% of millionaires don't inherit any portion of their fortune. TO assume that an entrenched rich class that doesn't care or need a break exists today is a joke.

Why yes, that over-simplistic view does tend to sum up your arguments nicely. My arguments, and the arguments of people I cited point out that the government is so much more than 10 people eating the same meal and one man paying for half of it; that such a petty analogy only glosses over all REAL discussion about a difficult topic in favor of trite phrasings for people to repeat without any real understanding of what they are dealing with.

The story is not about the government. It is about the people who pay taxes.

The story has EVERYTHING to do with investments, it has EVERYTHING to do with what they are eating, it has EVERYTHING to do with who pays and recieves what.

It is solely about how tax cuts were/are distributed.

The story is about how the story uses pretty logic to cover those little details up; no mention is made that the meal is NOT the same for everyone, that the meal is NOT being lowered in price because there's a surplus. The story glosses those facts over.

Story is not about lowering to the price or about what they eat. Indeed the lower you are on the income tax rating the more you benefit from what everyone else is paying in taxes. The bottom rung receives far more in tax money than the top run.

Fact: the taxes were not lowered because we were at a surplus, we at the government resturant were/are in debt, yet the resutrant owner lowered the price anyway. Why? He's already deep in the red. Address that problem please. Why would a resutrant lower the price when not capable of making ends meet?

Fact: The story is not about any particular case of tax cuts, it is about tax cuts in general.

Why are all ten people eating the same thing in the story?

No one is actually eating anything. The "meal" is simply the combination of all their money that is paid in taxes. When it comes down to it, the bottom is eating more than the top.

Fact: The top ten percent and the bottom ten percent recieve very different services from our government; the poorest and the richest recieve different benifits from the government. Why would the poorest 50% need tax breaks and cuts on investments? Why would the top 10% need tighter restrictions on bankrupcy laws, welfare or discounts on child services? The meal is different for every person at the table; address this problem in this article's portrayal of taxes as being one meal for ten people.

Well actually the people who make it to the top declare bankruptcy more than the people on the bottom. BTW, to repeat, The meal is an abstract concept and has little to do with what each ladder of society is receiving.

Fact: The rich in the US are not being physically assaulted by the poor. Is this untrue? Why do the men beat up the richest man at the table? Are we supposed to assume that the top 10% income bracket fears violent retribution for their monetary wealth? Address this fallacy in the argument; the story CLEARLY indicates that the poor beat up the rich, this has not happened, yet you cite the story as true and demonstrative of the way the world works.

The story is abstract smart guy, not literal.

Should I continue?

Not really, you've demonstrated you don't even understand the story. Let alone any ability to refute it.

Look its a LIBERAL :rolleyes:
Look it's a retard who refuses to listen to any other viewpoint for fear that it might actually increase their political awareness and intelligence. Much better (and easier) to dismiss them instantly with name-calling.

2/3 of Americans are investors, and not just through IRAs or managed accounts. If the President's Social Security plan goes through, all Americans will have an investment option. That'd make customer 4-10 an investor, or all of them depending on the plan. Imagining that the rich all put their money in tax-free bonds is still crap. The average U.S. millionate files bankruptcy 2.5 times, and 90% of millionaires don't inherit any portion of their fortune. TO assume that an entrenched rich class that doesn't care or need a break exists today is a joke.

Funny that you latched on to an argument I posted by someone else ;). I never said I trusted fully in all of their arguments, just that the article had been thrown into a dubious light by a large number of people before me.

Don't get me wrong, its good that you took that part of my post to task, I agree with you on that part.

I unhesitatingly conceed that rich no longer place their money in tax-free bonds. I do this because I really don't care about that argument, it wasn't mine and I didn't research that particular issue at all. I invite you to continue to poke holes in my arguments though.

Fact: the taxes were not lowered because we were at a surplus, we at the government resturant were/are in debt, yet the resutrant owner lowered the price anyway. Why? He's already deep in the red. Address that problem please. Why would a resutrant lower the price when not capable of making ends meet?


Just for kicks I'll actually present you with the business idea behind a resturant lowering prices.

A restaurant owner could wish to lower prices to draw in more customers. Figure each customer who spends on average 17 dollars in the restaurant. Figure they get 4,000 customers a month. 68,000 dollars in revenue. Figure that the average material cost per customer, in food, is 5 dollars. 20,000 dollars in food cost. Figure they need a total of 3,360 hours of labor per month paid on average 10 bucks/hour. 33,600. The restaurant also pays 16,000 dollars in other fixed costs (rent, electricity, security, cameras etc…)

That revenue of 68,000 puts them in the red by 1,600 dollars. The restaurant owner figures he can get an additional 4,000 customers if he drops the average price from 17 to 13 dollars. Assuming that happens his new revenue is 104,000. His food cost has gone up to 40,000 but his labor remains the same because he was overstaffed originally. His other fixed costs naturally stay fixed. Now he's in the green by 14,400 dollars.

/edit- had to re-play the numbers due to a math error and correct spelling
/edit again- had to change red to green, damnit.

Funny that you latched on to an argument I posted by someone else ;). I never said I trusted fully in all of their arguments, just that the article had been thrown into a dubious light by a large number of people before me.

Don't get me wrong, its good that you took that part of my post to task, I agree with you on that part.

I unhesitatingly conceed that rich no longer place their money in tax-free bonds. I do this because I really don't care about that argument, it wasn't mine and I didn't research that particular issue at all. I invite you to continue to poke holes in my arguments though.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain exactly why you would post an argument to defend YOUR POSITION that you don't agree with?

Regards,
Gaar

How about.

Members of a corporate board meeting in New York City decide that it should be held at the resteraunt down the block. The poorest members point out that they can't afford to go. A fancy Manhattan resteraunt like that charges $50 just to fill a seat.

One of them is the unpaid intern. Past experience has taught the people at the meeting that its easier to have him on hand to make their calls and flag down the waitstaff, so it's cheaper to pay for his seat than to do his chores for themselves.

Another is the secretary who takes the minutes of the meeting, after a 3 martini lunch no one else can remember what they decided so they agree to pay for her seat too. The terms of the interns "employment" specifiy he is to be given lunch breaks, and since they can't let him bring his bag lunch into the resteraunt they agree to buy them each an appetizer, because they know what happens when the secretary thinks that the interns are more higly valued than they are. It's all going to go on the expense account anyway.

Once they get there the manager informs them that they've instituted a "lunch special" and that one course meals are being offered for a reduced cost. The executives know it looks good to have efforts to save show up on their expense accounts so they take the manager up on his offer.

When the intern and the secretary (they're a bit behind everyone else as they're carrying the stenotype machine and everyone elses paperwork between them) arrive they're informed that during the lunch special appetizers are not offered as there is only one course, but they'll be paying 20% less, the same savings as everyone else. And no, they can't go back and get their bag lunches. That's stealing from the resteraunt. The resteraunteurs have a right to make a living too you know!

That's a bit more like it as most people end up paying just as much in state and local taxes to make up for the cuts in federal funding and many more are hurt by the cuts in services that state and local governments can't make up for.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. [Ah, what a sweet deal that man who cleans the airport urinals for $6 an hour has. He eats for free! Or how about that woman who cleans your hotel room. She, too, eats for free! Except for the payroll tax taken out of their checks and the sales tax they pay. And the tax they pay on their gasoline and their phones if they can afford gas or a phone. Why should the rest of us pay taxes to help educate their kids and provide them with health care? They shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. And if they have them anyway, those kids don’t deserve decent schools and health care. Our first priority has got to be cutting taxes for the top, not providing good schools and health care to deadbeat six year olds.]...

This is nothing but class warfare. You're asserting things that no one is even suggesting, except you and your poor victimized 4 restrant customers.

...The nine men surrounded the tenth man 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 something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should 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 any more. [This is why in the 1940s and 1950s, when the top federal tax bracket had been hiked to 90%, in part to help finance World War II and the Korean War, highly productive people all just retired and the American economy collapsed. Or, well, they didn’t and it didn’t – America did pretty well in the 1940s and 1950s – but that’s a minor detail. And this is why in the 1960s, when the top bracket was 70%, highly productive people all just retired and the American economy collapsed. Or, well, they didn’t and it didn’t either – the American economy did pretty well in the 1960s – but that, too, is just a minor detail.]"

The man who started IKEA (Ingvar Kamprad) is a billionaire and is from Sweden. Guess where he lives . . . NOT Sweden! Sweden's tax rate is so high that the man would have very little of his fortune. As a direct result, he currently resides in Switzerland.

*****Then theres this little omission that grates on someone;

"The part of the story that really grates is the premise that all ten men are eating the same dinner. In reality, the first four men receive a crust; the last man, a feast."

Most of the government's services are for those who are under the poverty level. The top 10% don't use WIC, welfare, medicare/medicaid, social security, food stamps, HUD and the myriad of government programs specifically designed to assist those at the bottom of the economic ladder. It is 4 men who eat for free who get the meal and the 1 man who pays most of the bill who gets a glass of water with his saltine crackers.

Point #100 (since there must be 98 in-between): The stated threat is that if the rich feel too abused they are going to pack up and leave. Fair enough. This country was built by people who got fed up and quit other countries over economic conditions or oppression. Anyone who feels it is unbearable to be wealthy in the U.S. has a complete right to quit this country and become a citizen of another (assuming it is for real and not just a paperwork trick to get out of taxes). That is a basic human right but one that, so far, few wealthy Americans seem to have felt a need to exercise.”

Yeah, instead they just park their money in off shore accounts where they can't be taxed TOO heavily beyond what they're already carrying.

I don't disagree with the idea that the current tax cuts were poorly planned and executed, but we're not talking about the current tax cuts, rather an abstract lesson.

Funny that you latched on to an argument I posted by someone else ;). I never said I trusted fully in all of their arguments, just that the article had been thrown into a dubious light by a large number of people before me.

Don't get me wrong, its good that you took that part of my post to task, I agree with you on that part.

I unhesitatingly conceed that rich no longer place their money in tax-free bonds. I do this because I really don't care about that argument, it wasn't mine and I didn't research that particular issue at all. I invite you to continue to poke holes in my arguments though.

yet when you posted someone elses argument to make your point, you passed that off as an argument you supported and was willing to propagate.. How could this fellow have known that was not a position you held yourself.

And as I see it, your over complicating a rather simple analogy.. the story simply spoke of tax cuts, and the percentages by which the tax cut was made... just to illustrate that of course the rich will recieve more money because they as a percentage of a whole pay out more money.. Yet people see this and immediatly equate more money with tax cut for the rich.. while techinically taxes were cut in a proporational manner

in other words, Niccolo Medici has debunked the little fable to the point where you can't think of a single argument in favor of it, so you'll simply deny that he ever addressed the story
At the time that was written, Niccolo Medici had only posted, "that's so stupid and full of holes," and left it at that. It's perfectly appropriate to call "bullshit" on someone who makes a bunch of naked assertions.

At the time that was written, Niccolo Medici had only posted, "that's so stupid and full of holes," and left it at that. It's perfectly appropriate to call "bullshit" on someone who makes a bunch of naked assertions.

No he had copy/pasted his long list of other people's statements (with no links). I stand by calling it drivel for the same reason I listed in my post.

Why no. In other words, it has nothing to do with the story. The story has nothing to do with investments. It has nothing to do with what kind of meal they are eating. It has nothing to do even with who pays for what and who recieves what. The story is an illustration that the Bush tax cuts were essentially equal to everyone because they were based on a percentage. "You pay more, when tax cut time comes, you get 'more' off."

Running scared? I think you are ;)

Running scared? I think you are ;)

Hey maybe you should actually read the posts instead of making dumbass remarks? I think you should.

So I am to understand from the argument presented before me that this story only represents people eating a meal; and that taxes being paid to the government can be only be compared with this idea if you ignore all "outside" factors?

Thus; the meal is a meal, don't read into it by discussing how the meal would be a different size for different people.

Thus; the meal represents tax cuts, but no specific tax cut should be compared to this example.

Thus; the story is a loose analogy, and as such the scene with poor people beating up on the rich people should not be discussed.

Okay, so we're left with the interesting analogy that people who pay less for their food still pay more than those who don't pay. Is that your argument? That the story is so utterly basic and meaningless that there's no point to it?

Because if that's not your argument, what is?

No he had copy/pasted his long list of other people's statements (with no links). I stand by calling it drivel for the same reason I listed in my post.

I posted the snopes link, if you want, I can dig up the others. I'll get on that; in the meantime, consider that my point was not that these people were undisputed masters of the economic sciences; rather that they had arguments against this article that should be addressed. I apologize if you thought I was going to lay down god's own judgement on the issue, but I am a mere mortal, and as such subject to certain key limitations.

These were other people's arguments. Sometimes they held overlap with my own. Other times, not so much. Am I to be held to account for everything other people say who agree with me on one issue? Certainly not.

My own arguments stand as such. Refute them or agree with them on a point to point basis.

What that little ditty doesnt account for is the fact that the richest man has five hundred million dollars while the rest are essentially middle class.

he doesnt need tax relief proportional to the people with less money, in fact the 20$ shouldnt have been factored out of what he payed at all.

So I am to understand from the argument presented before me that this story only represents people eating a meal; and that taxes being paid to the government can be only be compared with this idea if you ignore all "outside" factors?

Thus; the meal is a meal, don't read into it by discussing how the meal would be a different size for different people.
If you did try to "read into" the meal by comparing the size of the meal, you'd have to read into it very differently than how you are. the poorest, who in the meal are paying noting, receive far more money than the rich, who are paying the most for the meal. So if you were to try and read into the meal and how it is paid for the example would be that the rich are getting shafted.

And do try to remember that the "meal" is only taxes and is not the rest of the world around them.

Thus; the meal represents tax cuts, but no specific tax cut should be compared to this example.

No you don't understand the argument. The story does not represent a meal. The story represents the "meal" of taxes and how that meal (ie taxes) are paid for.

In non allegorical terms the story is a description of how taxes are paid, and how a proportional tax cut is not "a tax cut for the rich" but is indeed a fair tax cut.

Thus; the story is a loose analogy, and as such the scene with poor people beating up on the rich people should not be discussed.

The scene with the poor people beating up the rich is not literal, it is figurative. IE, it does not say poor people will beat up the rich causing the rich to physically leave. It says that the poor continue to "bitch and complain" about the rich receiving more cash back on proportional tax cuts and that if the poor decide to get together and beat up, ie raise taxes on, the rich the rich will "leave." Which the rich are doing via offshore accounts etc...

Okay, so we're left with the interesting analogy that people who pay less for their food still pay more than those who don't pay. Is that your argument? That the story is so utterly basic and meaningless that there's no point to it?

The story is, as I said before, is solely about how tax cuts were/are distributed. The argument presented by the story is that the rich will obviously get more money than the poor when it comes to a proportional tax cut because they pay more of the taxes. Therefor proportional tax cuts are not "tax cuts for the rich" but are indeed fair and equal tax cuts for everyone.

Because if that's not your argument, what is?

It is apparently far beyond your ability or desire to comprehend it because you manage to apparently deliberately misinterpret or plain lie about what is being said to you.

What that little ditty doesnt account for is the fact that the richest man has five hundred million dollars while the rest are essentially middle class.

Sod off, the tenth guy "needs" and deserves the tax relief as much as the rest.

These were other people's arguments. Sometimes they held overlap with my own. Other times, not so much. Am I to be held to account for everything other people say who agree with me on one issue? Certainly not.

My own arguments stand as such. Refute them or agree with them on a point to point basis.

When YOU USE THEM to support YOUR argument you are!

Regards,
Gaar

Sod off, the tenth guy "needs" and deserves the tax relief as much as the rest.

Maybe YOU need to READ the analogy...

The 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th guys ALL DIDN'T PAY!

So exactly what type of "relief" would you have them get?

Regards,
Gaar

So I am to understand from the argument presented before me that this story only represents people eating a meal; and that taxes being paid to the government can be only be compared with this idea if you ignore all "outside" factors?

Thus; the meal is a meal, don't read into it by discussing how the meal would be a different size for different people.

Thus; the meal represents tax cuts, but no specific tax cut should be compared to this example.

Thus; the story is a loose analogy, and as such the scene with poor people beating up on the rich people should not be discussed.

Okay, so we're left with the interesting analogy that people who pay less for their food still pay more than those who don't pay. Is that your argument? That the story is so utterly basic and meaningless that there's no point to it?

Because if that's not your argument, what is?


The point of the story was to demonstrate why a general cut on income taxes numerically favors those who pay the most without being unfair per se. But whatever.

As I imagine you don't pay a penny in income tax, I am sure the point escapes you.

Maybe YOU need to READ the analogy...

The 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th guys ALL DIDN'T PAY!

So exactly what type of "relief" would you have them get?

Regards,
Gaar

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 $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

You were saying?

Just for kicks I'll actually present you with the business idea behind a resturant lowering prices.

A restaurant owner could wish to lower prices to draw in more customers. Figure each customer who spends on average 17 dollars in the restaurant. Figure they get 4,000 customers a month. 68,000 dollars in revenue. Figure that the average material cost per customer, in food, is 5 dollars. 20,000 dollars in food cost. Figure they need a total of 3,360 hours of labor per month paid on average 10 bucks/hour. 33,600. The restaurant also pays 16,000 dollars in other fixed costs (rent, electricity, security, cameras etc…)

That revenue of 68,000 puts them in the red by 1,600 dollars. The restaurant owner figures he can get an additional 4,000 customers if he drops the average price from 17 to 13 dollars. Assuming that happens his new revenue is 104,000. His food cost has gone up to 40,000 but his labor remains the same because he was overstaffed originally. His other fixed costs naturally stay fixed. Now he's in the green by 14,400 dollars.
You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions there:
How does the owner work out how many staff are needed, and how many hours to pay them for?
How does the owner know that he'll get 4000 customers at $17 a head?
How does he know that he'll get a further 4000 customers if he drops his prices to $13?
Why does he have such a huge restaurant that can accomodate an extra 1000 customers p/week without needing to make alterations?
Why didn't he consider reducing his fixed costs by moving into a smaller place and shedding staff (since you said he was overstaffed already)?
Why are you assumig that these extra ppl will come along at times convenient to the restauranteur - that they won't all turn up in the evenings along with the first lot, and then need to be turned away?
Why does his overheads stay exactly the same? Surely he needs to at least factor in more tables, chairs, cutlery and crockery (unless you're suggesting the extra ppl eat off the same plates), as well as electricity costs going up for the extra cooking and cleaning and probably longer hours to cope with the extra customers (which also raises wage cost)
Why is he overstaffed originally, and why doesn't he do something about this?
Why do you think the staff will be happy to now have to work twice as hard as previous, for no extra pay?
Why are there an seemingly unlimited number of potential customers out there who are so price conscious they will only use price and nothing else as the basis of their decision as to where to eat?
Why isn't competition factored into this?
If there are so many people out there with money to spend on restaurants, why hasn't there been other restaurants starting up in direct competition to your man?

In other words, like the original article that started this thread, your example falls apart when examined seriously and compared to the real world.

[QUOTE=Salvondia]If you did try to "read into" the meal by comparing the size of the meal, you'd have to read into it very differently than how you are. the poorest, who in the meal are paying noting, receive far more money than the rich, who are paying the most for the meal. So if you were to try and read into the meal and how it is paid for the example would be that the rich are getting shafted.

The rich recieve less than the poor from the government then. I was under the impression that induvidual outflow-inflow assessments are hard to track through empirical means. The government gives out many services and incentives; many of which are hard to calculate. Can you show me a clear or even a complex illustration of how much each person recieves from the government? Please include a "typical" example from the varied tax brackets.

"And do try to remember that the "meal" is only taxes and is not the rest of the world around them."

I'm curious, where did you obtain this rather crucial understanding of the article? I admit I did not see anything like that in the article itself; or is it obvious that we are supposed to forget the entire outside world when discussing tax equality? Did I miss something that crucial?

"No you don't understand the argument. The story does not represent a meal. The story represents the "meal" of taxes and how that meal (ie taxes) are paid for."

If that's the case, then your first agrument is invalid. Although I assume that was kinda you point huh?

"In non allegorical terms the story is a description of how taxes are paid, and how a proportional tax cut is not "a tax cut for the rich" but is indeed a fair tax cut."

And I argue that what seems fair on the surface is only fair on the surface. This argument is flawed by its sheer simplicity. It fails to take in key mitigating circumstances.

"The scene with the poor people beating up the rich is not literal, it is figurative. IE, it does not say poor people will beat up the rich causing the rich to physically leave. It says that the poor continue to "bitch and complain" about the rich receiving more cash back on proportional tax cuts and that if the poor decide to get together and beat up, ie raise taxes on, the rich the rich will "leave." Which the rich are doing via offshore accounts etc..."

Perhaps we might gain insight if we look at the issue from the viewpoint that sometimes taxes should not rise, but they also should not fall. That the concept that taxes can only rise or fall, and that they should or rise or fall based on this principle of "tax fairness" that you are supporting.

"It is apparently far beyond your ability or desire to comprehend it because you manage to apparently deliberately misinterpret or plain lie about what is being said to you."

Not really; I'm stating that you are oversimplifying the case; and that such oversimplifications will lead to fatal flaws in your understanding of tax systems. Its not misinterpretations, I honestly question why you have this interpretation to begin with, because I do not share your interpretation of the issue. Rather than blindly believe that you are right and I am wrong (or vice versa) I am trying to argue that taxes cannot be looked at in a vacuum if you expect to understand WHY they are the way they are.

The point of the story was to demonstrate why a general cut on income taxes numerically favors those who pay the most without being unfair per se. But whatever.

As I imagine you don't pay a penny in income tax, I am sure the point escapes you.

Interesting. So to you I am poor? Perhaps then you should not bother to listen to anything I'm saying. After all, poor people cannot be educated about such matters, right?

A pity.

When YOU USE THEM to support YOUR argument you are!

Regards,
Gaar

Please read my post again. If you do so, you might find out that I did not in any way shape or form posit those examples as "correct" or "true" nor even "good/well expressed/supporting any induvidual argument of my own"

I merely presented the case that this example has been attacked at numerous times before. That was the reason I posted those people's opinions.

Your only point of contention should be my conclusion that the article is junk; is this conclusion faulty or not? Please base your answer off of my arguments. For that I present my OWN arguments, which I have been debating since then. Really, these are two seperate issues:

1) I post other people's attacks on this article, demonstrating that it is not widely accepted

2) I post my own attacks on this article, and invite others to critique them.

#1 was merely an example of what is out there in this world. #2 is my own take on the issue.

2) I post my own attacks on this article, and invite others to critique them.


So where is YOUR "#2"?!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

So where is YOUR "#2"?!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

...?

Everything I've posted since that cut/paste thing. Can you not see my other posts?

How does the owner work out how many staff are needed, and how many hours to pay them for?

It is assumed in the example smart guy. Knowing the method by which the owner makes these decesions isn’t needed.

How does he know that he'll get a further 4000 customers if he drops his prices to $13?

Careful market study.

Why does he have such a huge restaurant that can accomodate an extra 1000 customers p/week without needing to make alterations?
Why do you think the staff will be happy to now have to work twice as hard as previous, for no extra pay?
Why are there an seemingly unlimited number of potential customers out there who are so price conscious
Why isn't competition factored into this?
If there are so many people out there with money to spend on restaurants, why hasn't there been other restaurants starting up in direct competition to your man?
Why is he overstaffed originally, and why doesn't he do something about this?

He will be going from an average of 11 customers an hour to an average of 22 customers of average. His restaurant formally did 30 customers an hour until competition came in and under-cut his pricing.

Why didn't he consider reducing his fixed costs by moving into a smaller place and shedding staff (since you said he was overstaffed already)?

He did and he decided that he would rather try to save their jobs than put them out on the street.

Why are you assumig that these extra ppl will come along at times convenient to the restauranteur - that they won't all turn up in the evenings along with the first lot, and then need to be turned away?

His restaurant has a very adequate over-flow capacity and at no time will customers need to be turned away.

Why does his overheads stay exactly the same? Surely he needs to at least factor in more tables, chairs, cutlery and crockery (unless you're suggesting the extra ppl eat off the same plates), as well as electricity

Food cost incorporates cutlery and plates and the direct costs of gas/electricity associated with cooking.

costs going up for the extra cooking and cleaning and probably longer hours to cope with the extra customers (which also raises wage cost)

Hours remain the same; extra cooking is simply using the capacity already in existence.

How does the owner know that he'll get 4000 customers at $17 a head?

This is the business he is currently doing.

Interesting. So to you I am poor? Perhaps then you should not bother to listen to anything I'm saying. After all, poor people cannot be educated about such matters, right?

A pity.

It's not interesting at all. I am merely suggesting as a non-participant you are not fully able to appreciate the equity of any reduction in the marginal rate of income taxes.

It is easy to declare that the cuts are fundamentally flawed as an outside observer when one has no stake in the restructuring. However, active participants may differ as to your perspective. (And indeed, if one adopts the frequently touted leftist notion in respect of the marginal utility of money, any income tax cuts which did not result in a disproportionately large reduction in actual dollars of the amount money paid by higher income earners would be prima facie inequitable.)

Also, I doubt that you are really au courant in respect of title 26 of the USC. So you are attempting to speak knowledgeably about a subject to which you probably know very little.

The rich recieve less than the poor from the government then. I was under the impression that induvidual outflow-inflow assessments are hard to track through empirical means. The government gives out many services and incentives; many of which are hard to calculate. Can you show me a clear or even a complex illustration of how much each person recieves from the government? Please include a "typical" example from the varied tax brackets.

It is very hard to track. Simple reasoning can illustrate that the expenses on education/healthcare/social security etc... out weighs any direct cash being spent on the rich alone.

I'm curious, where did you obtain this rather crucial understanding of the article? I admit I did not see anything like that in the article itself; or is it obvious that we are supposed to forget the entire outside world when discussing tax equality? Did I miss something that crucial?

The article has nothing to do with "tax equality" but with the equality of a distribution of a tax cut. To debunk the term "tax cut for the rich."

If that's the case, then your first agrument is invalid. Although I assume that was kinda you point huh?

Duh.

And I argue that what seems fair on the surface is only fair on the surface. This argument is flawed by its sheer simplicity. It fails to take in key mitigating circumstances.

Which you can hopefully explain in clear and concise terms, rather than copy-pasting other peoples words whom you apparently don't agree with?

Perhaps we might gain insight if we look at the issue from the viewpoint that sometimes taxes should not rise, but they also should not fall. That the concept that taxes can only rise or fall, and that they should or rise or fall based on this principle of "tax fairness" that you are supporting.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what it was quoting nor the story. The story is about tax cuts. Not about leaving taxes alone.

Not really; I'm stating that you are oversimplifying the case; and that such oversimplifications will lead to fatal flaws in your understanding of tax systems. Its not misinterpretations, I honestly question why you have this interpretation to begin with, because I do not share your interpretation of the issue. Rather than blindly believe that you are right and I am wrong (or vice versa) I am trying to argue that taxes cannot be looked at in a vacuum if you expect to understand WHY they are the way they are.

If you want to argue why taxes are the way they are I suggest you start another thread seeing as this one is supposed be about nothing other than debunking the notion of a "tax cut for the rich."

It's not interesting at all. I am merely suggesting as a non-participant you are not fully able to appreciate the equity of any reduction in the marginal rate of income taxes.

It is easy to declare that the cuts are fundamentally flawed as an outside observer when one has no stake in the restructuring. However, active participants may differ as to your perspective. (And indeed, if one adopts the frequently touted leftist notion in respect of the marginal utility of money, any income tax cuts which did not result in a disproportionately large reduction in actual dollars of the amount money paid by higher income earners would be prima facie inequitable.)

Also, I doubt that you are really au courant in respect of title 26 of the USC. So you are attempting to speak knowledgeably about a subject to which you probably know very little.

**laughs** So your opinion is that no one who is actually paying into this system would defend it? I'm sorry, that IS interesting.

My status as a participant/non-participant is utterly unknowable. I could say I pay nothing in taxes and I could say I pay in the highest bracket; over a computer you cannot find out and I cannot prove myself. You dismiss my arguments and yet you have done nothing to refute them directly.

You assume that I pay nothing; why? Because doing so allows you to dismiss my every argument and persuasion as "non-participant, not fully able to appreciate" your arguments. Its a common tactic in debate, a common tactic when you do not wish to tackle the arguments head on. Have the audience assume the worst about your opponent, belittle them as unworthy while adopting an air of authority on a subject. You win the argument by defeating your opponent, not his argument.

Interestingly enough, you have just done EXACTLY what you accused me of; funny how that works.

You have chosen not to refute my arguments based on your assessment of the probability of my being an authority in this subject. You are gambling away your argument because you assume there is little chance that I actually AM an expert.

The main problem with this, what I saw, was the fact that they had the same bill after the top guy paid. Unless they are eating his food too, the bill would go down to their level. The story would have been more accurate if the guys who gained less money back were getting less money back by percent paid.

The main problem with this, what I saw, was the fact that they had the same bill after the top guy paid. Unless they are eating his food too, the bill would go down to their level. The story would have been more accurate if the guys who gained less money back were getting less money back by percent paid.

The meal cost 80 bucks when the rich guy left. Assume the cost per meal is the same for all of them, ie 8 bucks a piece. Using the amount they were paying before all 9 of them can only pay for 30 dollars of the now 72 dollar bill.

The problem you see does not exist.

Sod off, the tenth guy "needs" and deserves the tax relief as much as the rest.

Not at all, he has a moral and legal debt to the country in which he lives.

There is no "right not to pay taxes."

**laughs** So your opinion is that no one who is actually paying into this system would defend it? I'm sorry, that IS interesting.

My status as a participant/non-participant is utterly unknowable. I could say I pay nothing in taxes and I could say I pay in the highest bracket; over a computer you cannot find out and I cannot prove myself. You dismiss my arguments and yet you have done nothing to refute them directly.

You assume that I pay nothing; why? Because doing so allows you to dismiss my every argument and persuasion as "non-participant, not fully able to appreciate" your arguments. Its a common tactic in debate, a common tactic when you do not wish to tackle the arguments head on. Have the audience assume the worst about your opponent, belittle them as unworthy while adopting an air of authority on a subject. You win the argument by defeating your opponent, not his argument.

Interestingly enough, you have just done EXACTLY what you accused me of; funny how that works.

You have chosen not to refute my arguments based on your assessment of the probability of my being an authority in this subject. You are gambling away your argument because you assume there is little chance that I actually AM an expert.

You are clearly incapable of understanding what I wrote. You are also, therefore, clearly a non-participant. Most notably, I never indicated that a non-participant would be unable to appreciate my arguments. However, I did suggest that a non-particpant would be unable to appreciate the true equity of any readjustments in the tax code - for obvious reasons. If indeed you were, in fact, a participant you would have instantly grasped the distinction. Your own words damn you sir!

And if you had the slightest grasp of the rationale for the current structure of the tax code, you would have addressed my argument in re marginal utility. (Which is a complete refutation of any argument that general reductions which disproportionately effect the rich are inequitable).

But whatever.

It is very hard to track. Simple reasoning can illustrate that the expenses on education/healthcare/social security etc... out weighs any direct cash being spent on the rich alone.

The article has nothing to do with "tax equality" but with the equality of a distribution of a tax cut. To debunk the term "tax cut for the rich."

Duh.

Which you can hopefully explain in clear and concise terms, rather than copy-pasting other peoples words whom you apparently don't agree with?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what it was quoting nor the story. The story is about tax cuts. Not about leaving taxes alone.

If you want to argue why taxes are the way they are I suggest you start another thread seeing as this one is supposed be about nothing other than debunking the notion of a "tax cut for the rich."

Simple reasoning again, eh? How flawed is that simple reasoning on closer inspection? You assumed a great deal about who's getting what from the government in your argument. I ask you again; please provide me with some evidence to support your claim. I frankly don't know why I should believe that the poor recieve more money from the government without proof of any kind. Thats a very dangerous leap in logic.

Ah, so the entire article was to debunk the induvidual phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" and should in no way reflect attitudes about tax burden placement beyond this simple clarification.

Duh? No need to get testy now ;).

I've covered that little "argument" problem in previous posts. Sorry if I got you all ready to debunk arguments that weren't being made by myself. I only wished to set the stage.

Wait, first you tell me that the poor people are "beating" on the rich by asking for tax raises, then tell me that the story has nothing to do with leaving taxes alone. So, are you arguing that taxes must go up or down? Or that the poor people in the article have no concept that taxes can stay the same, and thus their "beating" was ONLY indicitive of a tax raise? I'm very confused by this complex assertion.

You said:
"It says that the poor continue to "bitch and complain" about the rich receiving more cash back on proportional tax cuts and that if the poor decide to get together and beat up, ie raise taxes on, the rich the rich will "leave.""
Then you say:
"That has absolutely nothing to do with what it was quoting nor the story. The story is about tax cuts. Not about leaving taxes alone."

So the story is only about tax CUTS, except when its about the poor RAISING taxes? I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.

And I assert that my argument do belong here because this particular attempt to debunk that notion places the very basis of our tax system's status quo into question.

Not at all, he has a moral and legal debt to the country in which he lives.

There is no "right not to pay taxes."

He has no such moral, and definitely not a legal, debt to the country in which he lives. Furthermore the legality of the federal income tax is questionable in of itself.

You are clearly incapable of understanding what I wrote. You are also, therefore, clearly a non-participant. Most notably, I never indicated that a non-participant would be unable to appreciate my arguments. However, I did suggest that a non-particpant would be unable to appreciate the true equity of any readjustments in the tax code - for obvious reasons. If indeed you were, in fact, a participant you would have instantly grasped the distinction. Your own words damn you sir!

And if you had the slightest grasp of the rationale for the current structure of the tax code, you would have addressed my argument in re marginal utility. (Which is a complete refutation of any argument that general reductions which disproportionately effect the rich are inequitable).

But whatever.

Tell me, how many participants do you believe are actually capable of doing what you just described to me as the only way to "prove" themselves to you? How many of those people can be found on this board do you believe?

Why is your way the only possible way to refute the argument? And why is my apperant inability to understand the "true equity", as you term it, reasons for dismissing my comments as futile?

For the record you did say exactly this:
"I am merely suggesting as a non-participant you are not fully able to appreciate the equity of any reduction in the marginal rate of income taxes."

And I said exactly this: "You assume that I pay nothing; why? Because doing so allows you to dismiss my every argument and persuasion as "non-participant, not fully able to appreciate" your arguments."

Thus, I said that you believe I would not be able to fully appreaciate your arguments because to you I qualified as a "non-participant." Now you tell me this:
"I never indicated that a non-participant would be unable to appreciate my arguments."

Lets put them together shall we? You just told me you didn't tell me what you just told me. Which is it? If my own words damn me, surely your words confuse the very fires of hell out of you!

He has no such moral, and definitely not a legal, debt to the country in which he lives. Furthermore the legality of the federal income tax is questionable in of itself.

Hear, Hear!

Simple reasoning again, eh? How flawed is that simple reasoning on closer inspection? You assumed a great deal about who's getting what from the government in your argument. I ask you again; please provide me with some evidence to support your claim. I frankly don't know why I should believe that the poor recieve more money from the government without proof of any kind. Thats a very dangerous leap in logic.

Someone else mentioned 1/3 of tax revenue is spent on the poor via healthcare/medicare/social security etc. Why don't you show that person how the rich recieve anywhere near that much from the government.

Ah, so the entire article was to debunk the induvidual phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" and should in no way reflect attitudes about tax burden placement beyond this simple clarification.

pretty much.

I've covered that little "argument" problem in previous posts. Sorry if I got you all ready to debunk arguments that weren't being made by myself. I only wished to set the stage.

:rolleyes:

Wait, first you tell me that the poor people are "beating" on the rich by asking for tax raises, then tell me that the story has nothing to do with leaving taxes alone. So, are you arguing that taxes must go up or down? Or that the poor people in the article have no concept that taxes can stay the same, and thus their "beating" was ONLY indicitive of a tax raise? I'm very confused by this complex assertion.

You said:
"It says that the poor continue to "bitch and complain" about the rich receiving more cash back on proportional tax cuts and that if the poor decide to get together and beat up, ie raise taxes on, the rich the rich will "leave.""

Why don't you go get the actual quote before I bother with debunking your idiotic statement.

Then you say:
"That has absolutely nothing to do with what it was quoting nor the story. The story is about tax cuts. Not about leaving taxes alone."

And so it is. The point of the story is about tax cuts, or at a minimum movements in the tax rate. It is not about leaving taxes alone.

So the story is only about tax CUTS, except when its about the poor RAISING taxes? I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.

I'm afraid you are very stupid and have no understanding of context.

And I assert that my argument do belong here because this particular attempt to debunk that notion places the very basis of our tax system's status quo into question.

Such an attempt does not exist.

What I find interesting is how that "explanation" tries to "equate" what the men "make" to what they "take" from the Government...

The "Meal" is meant to show that the Government gives out to all about equal, and actually "gives more" to those at the bottom.

So when they say the "top guys" meal is so much better than the rest, it is ACTUALLY the "bottom guys" that are "eating" off of the Government MUCH BETTER than the rest at the Table...

Regards,
Gaar

Ahh yes, But liberals will say likewise. If people really want to live in a socialist society. Then move to one. The United States was never founded to serve as a socialist model. The revolution was funded by business. It wasn't a popular people uprising. It was business men conspiring to not pay taxes to the king. So they funded a revolution to get there agenda through. We live in a capitalist/corporate democracy. We dont live in a socialist state. Tax cuts are porportionate to what you pay into them. I have lived in a few tax brackets. I can say first hand that the more I made the hell of alot more taxes I paid. When I was making 50k a year my federal tax bill was 3.5k. Which equals out to less than 8% tax bracket. That was damn low for a single guy. It isnt hard to figure out. Dont let Liberals try and tell you otherwise.

I'm afraid you are very stupid and have no understanding of context.

Oh dear! You've resorted to personal attacks. Damn, and I was really having a good time debating you on this issue.

I'm really sorry if you find me stupid, I find that asking questions about difficult subjects to be something OTHER than stupidity, perhaps you feel otherwise. Try to console yourself with your overwhelming intellectual superiority, eat some chocolate or something; whatever smart people do in this situation.

Perhaps I am stupid, perhaps my questions about context in this article only displayed for the entire world that I am unfit to discuss serious issues with other, "better" people. Its a real shame if that's the case. Perhaps if you could consent to spelling out just WHY I am stupid, I could try to emulate you, and your smart ways.

Perhaps if you...I don't know...showed me exactly where this statement could be found, the one which tells you and other smart people not to take their interpretations of this article any father than you seem to believe it should be taken. Perhaps if you addressed my stupid questions with answers that would allow me to awaken from my stupidity I would come around to your viewpoint.

Is that too much to ask of you? I hate to busy you with such a laborious task, but I feel I am too stupid to find such obvious answers on my own. I fear that in my great stupidity I might miss something that you might otherwise be able to bestow upon my poor self.

A thousand apologies for taking up your time, oh smart one! I hope that my foolish nature and stupid mind do not offend you so much that you leave me benighted by my own folly!

The article has nothing to do with "tax equality" but with the equality of a distribution of a tax cut. To debunk the term "tax cut for the rich."


The only problem is that the story requires a fantasy world where government expenses (the bill) are magically reduced by 20% while services (the meal) remain the same, and no one has to worry about credit card debt (the deficit). As such, it has no bearing on the real world, and debunks nothing.

Now, if we made this story realistic, the owner would come out and say "Great news! I've reduced the cost of your meal 20%! But I'm also giving you 20% less food!" At the very least, the four guys who weren't paying anything to start with are getting shafted on this deal. The fifth and sixth guys are probably unhappy about it, too; in absolute terms, they're not paying much less for the meal, but they're getting considerably less food. The only people who really benefit are the three wealthiest guys; while they're getting less food, they're saving enough money that they can buy a burger at the drive-thru on the way home, and still have some cash left over.

Or, to put it in real-life terms: when you cut taxes and cut government services, the people who benefit are those for whom the value of the tax break exceeds the value of the services they're losing. And guess who that's going to be?

It's a simple fact that in a progressive taxation system, wealthy individuals pay more into the system than anyone else; consequently, they receive the most money back from an across-the-board tax break. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class receive less money back, and lose the benefit of some of the services which had been funded by the richer people's taxes. So how would a straight 20% tax reduction (as posited by this parable) NOT equal a tax break for the wealthy?



That has absolutely nothing to do with what it was quoting nor the story. The story is about tax cuts. Not about leaving taxes alone.



And as we've seen, it's a pretty poor analogy for what actually happens when taxes are cut. In fact, you've defined the meaning of this little allegory so narrowly that it's now essentially meaningless. So why are you still bothering to defend it?

Oh dear!

A thousand apologies for taking up your time, oh smart one! I hope that my foolish nature and stupid mind do not offend you so much that you leave me benighted by my own folly!


Heh, Dont be to hard on yourself we all still love ya. Even if you arent perfect. Someday it will all make sense. At least thats what the doctors tell me. :confused:

Oh dear! You've resorted to personal attacks. Damn, and I was really having a good time debating you on this issue.

I'm really sorry if you find me stupid, I find that asking questions about difficult subjects to be something OTHER than stupidity, perhaps you feel otherwise. Try to console yourself with your overwhelming intellectual superiority, eat some chocolate or something; whatever smart people do in this situation.

Perhaps I am stupid, perhaps my questions about context in this article only displayed for the entire world that I am unfit to discuss serious issues with other, "better" people. Its a real shame if that's the case. Perhaps if you could consent to spelling out just WHY I am stupid, I could try to emulate you, and your smart ways.

Perhaps if you...I don't know...showed me exactly where this statement could be found, the one which tells you and other smart people not to take their interpretations of this article any father than you seem to believe it should be taken. Perhaps if you addressed my stupid questions with answers that would allow me to awaken from my stupidity I would come around to your viewpoint.

Is that too much to ask of you? I hate to busy you with such a laborious task, but I feel I am too stupid to find such obvious answers on my own. I fear that in my great stupidity I might miss something that you might otherwise be able to bestow upon my poor self.

A thousand apologies for taking up your time, oh smart one! I hope that my foolish nature and stupid mind do not offend you so much that you leave me benighted by my own folly!


Thanks for demonstrating your inability to comprehend context.

Tell me, how many participants do you believe are actually capable of doing what you just described to me as the only way to "prove" themselves to you? How many of those people can be found on this board do you believe?

Why is your way the only possible way to refute the argument? And why is my apperant inability to understand the "true equity", as you term it, reasons for dismissing my comments as futile?

For the record you did say exactly this:
"I am merely suggesting as a non-participant you are not fully able to appreciate the equity of any reduction in the marginal rate of income taxes."

And I said exactly this: "You assume that I pay nothing; why? Because doing so allows you to dismiss my every argument and persuasion as "non-participant, not fully able to appreciate" your arguments."

Thus, I said that you believe I would not be able to fully appreaciate your arguments because to you I qualified as a "non-participant." Now you tell me this:
"I never indicated that a non-participant would be unable to appreciate my arguments."

Lets put them together shall we? You just told me you didn't tell me what you just told me. Which is it? If my own words damn me, surely your words confuse the very fires of hell out of you!


I could parse you post in detail. It is not worth the effort. I would put it to you that you should re-read what you have just said. I will grant that it is well written, but it is also disingenuous. As I have clearly stated, a non-participant may well be able to appreciate my argument. Notwithstanding, that does not mean that they can appreciate the equity of any re-adjustment as they are not participants in the scheme. This is a clear distinction which you either fail to grasp, are unwilling to grasp or are attempting to conceal in order to further your myopic perspective in respect of income taxes and their coincidental burden.

Fundamentally, the current system is a progressive income tax predicated upon the notion of marginal utility. As such, only a participant is able to asses the relative equity of any general reduction in marginal rates as only participants can truely assess the value of their last dollar. Obviously, a non-participant can grasp this point - as indeed it is the very basis of the current system as we know it - yet that does not mean they are qualified to opine on the equity of the outcome.

In other words, unless you can provide concrete examples of how the set of reductions under discussion have effected you in toto then any specualtion is meaningless, other than to further pointless debate.

You attacked the first poster on the basis that it was not a true appreciation of the true nature of the tax system and its effects upon its participants. I have just explained to you how it is impossible to do so meaningfully to counter the first post absent concrete examples of personal experience. The very notion of marginal utility precludes it. Does that explain it now?

(Unless you are willing to stipulate that marginal utility is a flawed conception).

Wow. There certainly is an abundance of $2 words in this thread. A little bit of advice across the board that I'm sure is going to be ignored: We can all use big, flowery words. Some of us are not pretentious enough to use them to hide an otherwise flawed argument.

Wow. There certainly is an abundance of $2 words in this thread. A little bit of advice across the board that I'm sure is going to be ignored: We can all use big, flowery words. Some of us are not pretentious enough to use them to hide an otherwise flawed argument.

It maekes me sound noligible.

Now emial lacadeamon munny. I liek munny. :)

QUOTE=Caffeinneburg]The only problem is that the story requires a fantasy world where government expenses (the bill) are magically reduced by 20% while services (the meal) remain the same, and no one has to worry about credit card debt (the deficit). As such, it has no bearing on the real world, and debunks nothing.[/quote]

The story is abstract, it will natuarlly end up being in some sort of fantasy.

Now, if we made this story realistic, the owner would come out and say "Great news! I've reduced the cost of your meal 20%! But I'm also giving you 20% less food!" At the very least, the four guys who weren't paying anything to start with are getting shafted on this deal. The fifth and sixth guys are probably unhappy about it, too; in absolute terms, they're not paying much less for the meal, but they're getting considerably less food. The only people who really benefit are the three wealthiest guys; while they're getting less food, they're saving enough money that they can buy a burger at the drive-thru on the way home, and still have some cash left over.

Still not very realisitc but eh whatever.

How exactly would the first 4 be getting shafted? By still not paying anything for the food they're eating? They've got nothing to complain about. The 5th, 6th and 7th are still getting more food than they are paying for and the 8th, 9th and 10th are paying less, but still paying far more than their "share."

Or, to put it in real-life terms: when you cut taxes and cut government services, the people who benefit are those for whom the value of the tax break exceeds the value of the services they're losing. And guess who that's going to be?

Ah, so just because the rich will benefit makes it wrong? The people who still don't pay taxes, can't benefit from the tax cut itself, but they still recieve far more money from the government than they pay in taxes.

It's a simple fact that in a progressive taxation system, wealthy individuals pay more into the system than anyone else; consequently, they receive the most money back from an across-the-board tax break. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class receive less money back, and lose the benefit of some of the services which had been funded by the richer people's taxes. So how would a straight 20% tax reduction (as posited by this parable) NOT equal a tax break for the wealthy?

Because it is a tax break for everyone. BTW: This little parable gives a greater percentage back to the poor and less back to the rich. The rich only get 16% while the poorest taxpayer got back 100% and the poorest remaining tax payer got back 33%/

And as we've seen, it's a pretty poor analogy for what actually happens when taxes are cut. In fact, you've defined the meaning of this little allegory so narrowly that it's now essentially meaningless. So why are you still bothering to defend it?

It still has a great deal of meaning. It simply has meaning you don't like to acknowledge so you pretend it is meaningless to support your fanciful notion that someone who doesn't pay taxes gets shafted when they receive less than they used to.

Thanks for demonstrating your inability to comprehend context.

Your humble servant stives only to learn from you. I prostrate myself before you, bowing my head to the ground in appreciation of your masterful words; I beseech you again to lay before me the root of your wisdom, leave me not stranded as I am.

If you could only find it within yourself to spell out before this base and insiginificant one your vast knowledge I would gladly lay my pride aside and declare you my teacher.

Your arguments must flow from heaven itself, I feel like meeting you is stumbling from the woods into a clearing. I only now see the sun that is your intellect shining before me. I bow to it, as now I bow to you.

I curse the darkness that was my past, yet even now I crave more of your sage guidence. Three times and more I plead with you, grant me the knowledge that would release me from the purgatory of ignorance!

The meal cost 80 bucks when the rich guy left. Assume the cost per meal is the same for all of them, ie 8 bucks a piece. Using the amount they were paying before all 9 of them can only pay for 30 dollars of the now 72 dollar bill.

The problem you see does not exist.

The problem with that is, they wouldnt be eating the same share in real life. The rich have more money, and get taxed more. If they werent eating, so to say, they wouldnt be ordering their lavish food either, and the bill would be reduced dramatically.

The problem with that is, they wouldnt be eating the same share in real life. The rich have more money, and get taxed more. If they werent eating, so to say, they wouldnt be ordering their lavish food either, and the bill would be reduced dramatically.

While that makes sense if we assume its a real dinner, taxes work the oppisite way. The rich pay in far far more than they take out. If the rich were to leave the bill wouldn't change much.


Your humble servant stives only to learn from you. I prostrate myself before you, bowing my head to the ground in appreciation of your masterful words; I beseech you again to lay before me the root of your wisdom, leave me not stranded as I am.

If you could only find it within yourself to spell out before this base and insiginificant one your vast knowledge I would gladly lay my pride aside and declare you my teacher.

Your arguments must flow from heaven itself, I feel like meeting you is stumbling from the woods into a clearing. I only now see the sun that is your intellect shining before me. I bow to it, as now I bow to you.

I curse the darkness that was my past, yet even now I crave more of your sage guidence. Three times and more I plead with you, grant me the knowledge that would release me from the purgatory of ignorance!

I would be quite intersted in knowing how you think it makes any sense to pretend that the poor do not recieve far more than they pay in? If 1/3 of tax money is spent on medicare etc... than they will by default be getting at least 10 times more than they put in because they only pay 3.5% of taxes in the first place.

I could parse you post in detail. It is not worth the effort. I would put it to you that you should re-read what you have just said. I will grant that it is well written, but it is also disingenuous. As I have clearly stated, a non-participant may well be able to appreciate my argument. Notwithstanding, that does not mean that they can appreciate the equity of any re-adjustment as they are not participants in the scheme. This is a clear distinction which you either fail to grasp, are unwilling to grasp or are attempting to conceal in order to further your myopic perspective in respect of income taxes and their coincidental burden.

Fundamentally, the current system is a progressive income tax predicated upon the notion of marginal utility. As such, only a participant is able to asses the relative equity of any general reduction in marginal rates as only participants can truely assess the value of their last dollar. Obviously, a non-participant can grasp this point - as indeed it is the very basis of the current system as we know it - yet that does not mean they are qualified to opine on the equity of the outcome.

In other words, unless you can provide concrete examples of how the set of reductions under discussion have effected you in toto then any specualtion is meaningless, other than to further pointless debate.

You attacked the first poster on the basis that it was not a true appreciation of the true nature of the tax system and its effects upon its participants. I have just explained to you how it is impossible to do so meaningfully to counter the first post absent concrete examples of personal experience. The very notion of marginal utility precludes it. Does that explain it now?

(Unless you are willing to stipulate that marginal utility is a flawed conception).

I'm assuming you are General William J Donovan?

You post was very impressive, but I fear I find the same faults with it as you do with mine. I find your post lacks certain key explinations as to WHY you have come to your conclusions; why you feel that is is needed to know an induvidual's personal situation in order to discover their value in the discussion.

For the sake of the argument, perhaps you could assist me in testing your theory, unless I am truly mistaken about your argument (which, seeing as it is now 3am where I live, is a distinct possibility). Could you provide me with an example of your theory in action? Perhaps assessing the effect this would have on a unmarried man with 2 dependent kids, both currently in college, who makes...um, 85k a year, who tends pays an additional 1k a year a tax time?

Could you perhaps exaplain to me how someone can be qualified to opine on the equity of the outcome in your situation?

Assuming I'm not missing something very basic in your argument (which I am feeling increasingly certain that I am; either that or there is a fundemental disconnect in our value systems); can a person not believe that something that is equitable for himself personally can be unequitable for another induvidual?

I would be quite intersted in knowing how you think it makes any sense to pretend that the poor do not recieve far more than they pay in? If 1/3 of tax money is spent on medicare etc... than they will by default be getting at least 10 times more than they put in because they only pay 3.5% of taxes in the first place.

That 1/3 number, where did it come from? How do we know that number is well-researched? If that number is accurate, you a certainly right. However, perhaps my mind IS fading; when did I say the poor pay more to the government than they get out of it? I can't seem to find it.

I think that perhaps what I meant to say (if indeed I did say that), was that its possible that the RICH get significantly more than the poor out of the government. That various government programs allow the rich to get services and such, far beyond what a poor person gets. That doesn't mean to suggest that they are not still paying in more than they get out; but instead that they enjoy more benifits than the average or typical lower income bracket tax payer. Again, this is a question, a theory of mine that I would like disproven before I discount it. I really don't know if its the case.

One possible example of how my example my come to be; our government takes part in a fairly large amount of "pork" spending. This could certainly lead to induvidual cases of government outlays to the rich being higher than reported. With the actual number of people in the top income bracket being rather small, its possible that the top income brackets do get more government services total.

Its been fun guys, but its late and I have much to do tomorrow. Perhaps we can continue this later. I apologize if I've left you in the middle of the debate; but I have guests to entertain and it won't do for me to be yawning in their faces.

I should be back online sometime late Sunday or Monday, I hope to see your responses then. Until that time, feel free to lay into me while I'm gone ;)

That 1/3 number, where did it come from? How do we know that number is well-researched? If that number is accurate, you a certainly right. However, perhaps my mind IS fading; when did I say the poor pay more to the government than they get out of it? I can't seem to find it.

I think that perhaps what I meant to say (if indeed I did say that), was that its possible that the RICH get significantly more than the poor out of the government. That various government programs allow the rich to get services and such, far beyond what a poor person gets. That doesn't mean to suggest that they are not still paying in more than they get out; but instead that they enjoy more benifits than the average or typical lower income bracket tax payer. Again, this is a question, a theory of mine that I would like disproven before I discount it. I really don't know if its the case.

One possible example of how my example my come to be; our government takes part in a fairly large amount of "pork" spending. This could certainly lead to induvidual cases of government outlays to the rich being higher than reported. With the actual number of people in the top income bracket being rather small, its possible that the top income brackets do get more government services total.

I can sit here and start naming services that are dedicated to the poor probably till I need to take a rest due to exhausting my fingers. At the same time I can't think of a single service that is expressly dedicated to the rich, except perhaps the salary of senators.

Oh and this (http://www.americandaily.com/article/1656) guy puts it at 75% of our current budget being dedicated to welfare programs.

You were saying?

Something about 4 of them not paying that YOU don't understand?

So because I didn't get the RIGHT 4 YOU are going to make THAT a point of dispute?!?!

I have seen some silly arguments in my day, but this one...

I am also wondering why those trying to "prove" it wrong are trying to make it about something besides what it was said to be, a "metaphore" on how taxes ARE PAID! Not on how they are distributed, which is what the argument about "what they ate" would be.

Why is it some don't get that? Why do they HAVE to "change" the "subject" in order to divert the discussion from the POINT?!?!

In case some actually missed the point, it is that when a "tax break" is given, if it is "equal" you end up giving back MORE to those who PAY MORE!

Why is that so hard to understand for some?

Can we PLEASE get to THAT discussion, since it seems we have discussed ALL OTHER matters that have NOTHING to do with the Topic of this Thread?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Something about 4 of them not paying that YOU don't understand?

So because I didn't get the RIGHT 4 YOU are going to make THAT a point of dispute?!?!

I have seen some silly arguments in my day, but this one...



You started that argumeny buddy. All I said was that the tenth guy (the guy who paid the most) deserved the tax cut and told New Garanada to sod off. You started some crap about that guy being the one who didn't pay anything. You got it wrong and I called you on it. Tough.

You started that argumeny buddy. All I said was that the tenth guy (the guy who paid the most) deserved the tax cut and told New Garanada to sod off. You started some crap about that guy being the one who didn't pay anything. You got it wrong and I called you on it. Tough.

So YOU are denying 4 people didn't pay?

Or what about my POINT didn't YOU understand?

Regards,
Gaar

So YOU are denying 4 people didn't pay?

Nope

Or what about my POINT didn't YOU understand?

You didn't make a point in regards to me. You stupidly attacked a post that had nothing to do with you, and you got it wrong.

Is English your native language?

Nope

You didn't make a point in regards to me. You stupidly attacked a post that had nothing to do with you, and you got it wrong.

Is English your native language?

You are correct, in re-reading the posts I see I missed YOUR point, not the other way around...

I apologize for my ranting.

As for "nothing to do with me"...

I believe the discussion here is for anyone to join, and they don't need an invitation to do so.

Please correct me if I am wrong...

Regards,
Gaar

You are correct, in re-reading the posts I see I missed YOUR point, not the other way around...

I apologize for my ranting.

As for "nothing to do with me"...

I believe the discussion here is for anyone to join, and they don't need an invitation to do so.

Please correct me if I am wrong...

Regards,
Gaar

Cheers. Here's a virtual beer.

Tax cuts for the wealthy may be "fair," due to their paying more taxes to begin with, but it's not truly ethical. After all, the rich are rich, so they can afford to pay more taxes, so it would make sense that they should pay more, but the poor often can't pay them as much, which means they are the ones who truly deserve a tax break. Giving tax cuts to the poor gives them a chance to not be poor forever, whereas giving the cuts to the rich means that, since the rich own all the corporations, they'll cut wages and lay people off and so forth to make up for the extra money that they have to pay. This leads to the classic phrase "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer." And the phrase is entirely correct here in America. And this, ladies, gentlemen, and everybody in between, is why I am moving to Norway someday, a nice socialist nation. After all, compare (these statistics are from the CIA World Factbook):
NORWAY
Population below poverty line: NA
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 4.1%
highest 10%: 21.8% (1995)
USA
Population below poverty line: 12% (2003 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)
As you can see, wealth is distributed far more unevenly in the US than in Norway. Why? Because the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. And take a look at poverty in the two nations. Norway's percentage of population in poverty is low enough that it's not even listed. As for the US? 12%. Twelve freaking percent. That's about one-eighth of the entire country. Why? Becasue in America, if you're not on the board of a Fortune-500 company, you're just going to get squashed underfoot like so many insects. Cutting the taxes for only the rich can be summed up in this nice little phrase: The more money you have, the more money you get; the less money you have, the more money the government takes away. Give the poor a tax cut! We are people, too!

If you remember back to your days in American History class you'll recall that the colonist rebelled from the King because of something called 'Taxation without representation". They fought bravely against the king and against incredible odds won.

Te first citizens who could vote were landowners - who were also the only ones to pay taxes. Taxation with full representation.

The USA has moved further and further from that ideal every since. What we have today is not necessaei;y taxation without representation, but it is darn close.

The majority federal taxpayor (50% of taxes paid by 5% of people) now accounts for only 1/20th of the votes - for the politicians who get to spend the taxes they pay! Meanwhile NONtaxpayors receive SIX TIMES the voice! No wonder the government is fiscally irresponsible! The people least capable of managing money get the single largest voice!

In this example the 'meal' is the vote.

I can find no problem whatsoever with the logic of the initial story; the only thing I could possibly bring up is that nine of the men seem awfully violent. I doubt most people who were eating for free would physically beat a man who was paying for their dinner because he didn't pay them to eat it.

The problem I have with the story is that it appears that it purports to be analagous to some sort of real-world situation, which it is not. The problem here seems not to be a problem of internal logic, but of false analogy. It's sort of similar to how, in my economics classes, every "rule" of economics was ended by the phrases "all else being equal" (I believe it was in latin, but I have forgotten the latin.) In real world application of these rules, of course, we find that all else is never equal, which is why even the most respected economists are frequently incorrect and why I put the quotation marks around "rule"

There are several problems which divorce the fictional account from real life, including (as has been pointed out earlier) the fact that the men are not eating the same meal, and the fact that the top 60 percent (at least in america) do not actually pay for the bottom 40 percent's food. The most important problems, however are that a)

Tax cuts are rarely (I would like to say never, but I'm sure there is an exception or two.) divided equally between rich and poor, and

b) the issue of disposable income...once you realize that these people are not simply eating at a resturant, you have to account for the quality of life problem...that people near the lower brackets often work 60 hours a more a week of physical labour, with no job security and in positions that have a high risk of physical injury (which they cannot afford insurance for) just to pay for rent and food, while the people in the top 10 percent are able to own multiple residences and hire help for daily tasks, while getting paid vacations and working less.

So yes, when applied to 10 men in a resturant, the logic is perfect. When applied to the real world, well, its not very descriptive of any sort of actual scenario.

Tax cuts for the wealthy may be "fair," due to their paying more taxes to begin with, but it's not truly ethical. After all, the rich are rich, so they can afford to pay more taxes, so it would make sense that they should pay more, but the poor often can't pay them as much, which means they are the ones who truly deserve a tax break. Giving tax cuts to the poor gives them a chance to not be poor forever, whereas giving the cuts to the rich means that, since the rich own all the corporations, they'll cut wages and lay people off and so forth to make up for the extra money that they have to pay. This leads to the classic phrase "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer." And the phrase is entirely correct here in America. And this, ladies, gentlemen, and everybody in between, is why I am moving to Norway someday, a nice socialist nation. After all, compare (these statistics are from the CIA World Factbook):
NORWAY
Population below poverty line: NA
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 4.1%
highest 10%: 21.8% (1995)
USA
Population below poverty line: 12% (2003 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)
As you can see, wealth is distributed far more unevenly in the US than in Norway. Why? Because the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. And take a look at poverty in the two nations. Norway's percentage of population in poverty is low enough that it's not even listed. As for the US? 12%. Twelve freaking percent. That's about one-eighth of the entire country. Why? Becasue in America, if you're not on the board of a Fortune-500 company, you're just going to get squashed underfoot like so many insects.

If you're below the poverty line in the US chances are you own a house and two cars. I feel oh so sorry for that bottom 10% :rolleyes:

And hey, you can "afford" to give food to starving people in Africa. Whats your excuse?

Cutting the taxes for only the rich can be summed up in this nice little phrase: The more money you have, the more money you get; the less money you have, the more money the government takes away. Give the poor a tax cut! We are people, too!

IF you paid taxes, you got a tax cut.

Tax cuts for the wealthy may be "fair," due to their paying more taxes to begin with, but it's not truly ethical. After all, the rich are rich, so they can afford to pay more taxes, so it would make sense that they should pay more, but the poor often can't pay them as much, which means they are the ones who truly deserve a tax break. !

I see, so then you also feel it is more ethical (less unethical?) to steal from, rob or mug a rich person also.

I have no problem with the concept of progressive tax rates (gasp!) as I mentioned in another thread dedicated to the topic. The problem is the definition of 'rich' and the scope of the scale.

The rates go up too soon and too fast. The difference between people who ears $50k and $100k is far greater proportionally than the difference between people who earns $200,000 and $400,000. I hardly consider a $100k income 'rich'. The steps between tax brackets should be narrowed considerably, but there should be more of them.

There is no reason any American should be denied th opportunity to fund the government they vote for, even those of modest means. I say eliminate the zero tax bracket in facor of a very nominal tax bracket. I say raise the income limit of the highest tax bracket and create (and spread out) many many many more steps in between.

It'd also be nice to see payroll tax collection eliminates. Taxes are OUR money first, it should go through our hands before the government gets it. Maybe then people would pay more attention to the governments fiscal irresponsibility.

There are several problems which divorce the fictional account from real life, including (as has been pointed out earlier) the fact that the men are not eating the same meal, and the fact that the top 60 percent (at least in america) do not actually pay for the bottom 40 percent's food. The most important problems, however are that a)

Um if the top 50%, who pay 96% of the taxes don't pay for the poor, who do?

Tax cuts are rarely (I would like to say never, but I'm sure there is an exception or two.) divided equally between rich and poor, and

Neither was this one, which was skewed in favor of the poor. As are most tax cuts I'd imagine.

b) the issue of disposable income...once you realize that these people are not simply eating at a resturant, you have to account for the quality of life problem...that people near the lower brackets often work 60 hours a more a week of physical labour, with no job security and in positions that have a high risk of physical injury (which they cannot afford insurance for) just to pay for rent and food, while the people in the top 10 percent are able to own multiple residences and hire help for daily tasks, while getting paid vacations and working less.

# Among poor families with children, one-quarter to one-third have zero employment throughout the year. Over one-fourth of poor families have full-time employment through the year (2,000 or more hours of paid labor) but remain poor. The rest have some employment but less than full-time/ full-year. Overall, among all poor families with children, the median hours of adult employment are between 650 and 1,000 hours per year.

# Moreover, evidence strongly suggests that the amount of work performed by poor families is substantially over-reported in the CPS. When adult earnings are divided by number of hours of work reported per*formed by adults, over 40 percent of working parents appear to earn less than the minimum wage; about one-quarter appear to earn less than $4.00 per hour. This strongly suggests that, in the CPS, hours of work are over-reported, earnings are under-reported, or both.

# The fact that nearly three-quarters of all poor families with children have less than full-time/full-year employment indicates that child poverty could be sharply reduced if adults in these families worked more. Indeed, if all currently poor families with children had full-time adult employ*ment throughout the year (at least 2,000 hours), the child poverty rate in the United States would be cut by 72 percent.

# The increase in work to a minimum of 2,000 hours per family would nearly dou*ble the average income among families with children currently living in poverty. The aggregate income of these families would increase by nearly $36 billion.[1] The median income of families with children currently living in poverty would rise from $9,826 to $17,488.

source (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm)

So yes, when applied to 10 men in a resturant, the logic is perfect. When applied to the real world, well, its not very descriptive of any sort of actual scenario.

I disagree.

If you're below the poverty line in the US chances are you own a house and two cars. I feel oh so sorry for that bottom 10% :rolleyes:


err...lets see some figures here. This looks highly doubtful.


And hey, you can "afford" to give food to starving people in Africa. Whats your excuse?


what does the fact that america is the richest nation in world overall have to do with the problem of wealth distribution and taxation? There are far poorer countries with a much more even distribution of both wealth and tax. Look at japan, the world's number 2 economy, for one example.

err...lets see some figures here. This looks highly doubtful.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group the poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above recommended levels. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, on average growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 13% of poor families and 2.6% of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases their hunger is short-term. Overall, 84% of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 3% say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, stove, clothes washer and dryer and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not over-crowded.

source (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm)

what does the fact that america is the richest nation in world overall have to do with the problem of wealth distribution and taxation? There are far poorer countries with a much more even distribution of both wealth and tax. Look at japan, the world's number 2 economy, for one example.

His argument is that the rich can "afford" it. Well he can afford to do the same with the rest of the world. Why doesn't he live up to the moral duty he claims the rich have?


/edit/changed source to the proper one.

err...lets see some figures here. This looks highly doubtful.

what does the fact that america is the richest nation in world overall have to do with the problem of wealth distribution and taxation? There are far poorer countries with a much more even distribution of both wealth and tax. Look at japan, the world's number 2 economy, for one example.

ok...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

-Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

-Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

-Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

-The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

-Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

-Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

-Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

-Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

-snip-
-snip-

Now thats funny. :D

Um if the top 50%, who pay 96% of the taxes don't pay for the poor, who do?



There is, first, a difference between the "poor" and the lower forty percent income earners. I refered to lower income brackets; please keep your rebuttals in context. I would hope you realize that "poor" means below the poverty line, not below the 40th percentile. most of the money goes to infrastructure, like roads and airports, police, military, homeland security, diplomacy, etc. Combined, the department of the interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development use 12 percent of the federal budget, while the Departments of defence and homeland security alone, not counting other forms of "everybody uses" infrastructure, use the same amount. This is from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/, which is of course next years budget.





# Among poor families with children, one-quarter to one-third have zero employment throughout the year. Over one-fourth of poor families have full-time employment through the year (2,000 or more hours of paid labor) but remain poor. The rest have some employment but less than full-time/ full-year. Overall, among all poor families with children, the median hours of adult employment are between 650 and 1,000 hours per year.

yes, and lots of children in the United States live in single parent families, according to this source. It is extremely difficult to work full time while raising a family. however, this citation, as well as the rest of your citations, do not adress my arguments. Of course there are extreme levels in cases of the most extreme poverty, but I am talking about the bottom 40-50 percent, the productive members of society, while it appears you are trying to refute my argument with statistics about the bottom ten percent or so. This is, of course, a straw man fallacy. post citations about the lower 40 percent, which is what I was talking about (lower income bracketS, plural) and I will take them seriously.
(http://www2.duq.edu/familyinstitute/templates/features/csmf/children.html

# Moreover, evidence strongly suggests that the amount of work performed by poor families is substantially over-reported in the CPS. When adult earnings are divided by number of hours of work reported per*formed by adults, over 40 percent of working parents appear to earn less than the minimum wage; about one-quarter appear to earn less than $4.00 per hour. This strongly suggests that, in the CPS, hours of work are over-reported, earnings are under-reported, or both.

# The fact that nearly three-quarters of all poor families with children have less than full-time/full-year employment indicates that child poverty could be sharply reduced if adults in these families worked more. Indeed, if all currently poor families with children had full-time adult employ*ment throughout the year (at least 2,000 hours), the child poverty rate in the United States would be cut by 72 percent.

# The increase in work to a minimum of 2,000 hours per family would nearly dou*ble the average income among families with children currently living in poverty. The aggregate income of these families would increase by nearly $36 billion.[1] The median income of families with children currently living in poverty would rise from $9,826 to $17,488.

source (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda-03-01.cfm)


If I were talking only about people living in poverty, I would agree with your story. All else being equal, which it never is. But I'm not talking about the same people, So I will reserve judgement. I have to go to bed, so I will respond to your posts tomorrow or Tuesday. I have work.

I believe that if you earn less than around 25K per year, you pay no federal tax. If you earn less than 5k, you don't even need to file. Not sure about the rest though.
Mabye if you earn 25k between two parents and one or two kids you will pay 0 income tax. A single person with no dependents earning 25k will certainly pay. Also, no matter how little you earn you always pay some payroll taxes, which are clearly federal taxes.

Whether cutting taxes works like the example in the restaurant depends entirely on the nature of the tax cut. It's absurd to say that tax cuts in general either do or don't work like that. Tax cuts can favour the rich, or they can favour the poor, or they could treat each equally by, say, reducing everyone's by 5% or whatever.

I think that I would therefore have to criticise the article for appearing to claim that all tax cuts work like that. That is simply not true.

On the other hand, a tax cut that reduces the burden on each person by the same percentage (which I think must be the measure of equality) will indeed mean that if someone saves $1000 per year then someone earning five times as much will save $5000 per year.



Poverty is an interesting concept, because all the evidence seems to show that happiness at your lot is not dependent on your absolute wealth but on a comparison with those around you in your community. We aren't all getting happier because we can now afford much more stuff than we could 100 years ago. Something to think about.


Incidentally, I think it's slightly disingenous to compare the living space of rich European city dwellers (crowded cities in crowded countries) with poor Americans (mostly rural in a very big country with lots of space).

ok...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

-Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

-Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

-Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

-The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

-Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

-Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

-Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

-Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.


The only way you can go from this to "chances are you own a house and two cars" are if you add 30% to 46%, which is not a statistically valid operation".* So the original quote is still incorrect, regardless of this info. Additionally, if anyone saw these houses or these cars, they would once again, to quote the heratige foundation, think of "destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and REASONABLE shelter." (caps added by me, of course."
all right. Last for real. G'night.


*The actual amount would be, unless I'm too tired, the overlay of the sets, or 30% of 46%, or about 15%. Not the best of chances.

There is, first, a difference between the "poor" and the lower forty percent income earners. I refered to lower income brackets; please keep your rebuttals in context. I would hope you realize that "poor" means below the poverty line, not below the 40th percentile. most of the money goes to infrastructure, like roads and airports, police, military, homeland security, diplomacy, etc. Combined, the department of the interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development use 12 percent of the federal budget, while the Departments of defence and homeland security alone, not counting other forms of "everybody uses" infrastructure, use the same amount. This is from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/, which is of course next years budget.

The average tax rate on the bottom 50% is 3.28%. I doubt the bottom 40% are paying anything substantial.


If I were talking only about people living in poverty, I would agree with your story. All else being equal, which it never is. But I'm not talking about the same people, So I will reserve judgement. I have to go to bed, so I will respond to your posts tomorrow or Tuesday. I have work.

So I'll repeat instead. If the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes, who pays for virtually everything? The top 50%. Therefor, the top 50% pay for virtually everything that is given to the bottom 50%. With the top 1% paying for 33% of everything that is given to the bottom 50%.

The only way you can go from this to "chances are you own a house and two cars" are if you add 30% to 46%, which is not a statistically valid operation".* So the original quote is still incorrect, regardless of this info. Additionally, if anyone saw these houses or these cars, they would once again, to quote the heratige foundation, think of "destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and REASONABLE shelter." (caps added by me, of course."
all right. Last for real. G'night.


*The actual amount would be, unless I'm too tired, the overlay of the sets, or 30% of 46%, or about 15%. Not the best of chances.

Overall, the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, stove, clothes washer and dryer and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not over-crowded.

Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

I think that would qualify as reasonable shelter.

Incidentally, I think it's slightly disingenous to compare the living space of rich European city dwellers (crowded cities in crowded countries) with poor Americans (mostly rural in a very big country with lots of space).

Indeed it is.

It's not interesting at all. I am merely suggesting as a non-participant you are not fully able to appreciate the equity of any reduction in the marginal rate of income taxes.

It is easy to declare that the cuts are fundamentally flawed as an outside observer when one has no stake in the restructuring. However, active participants may differ as to your perspective. (And indeed, if one adopts the frequently touted leftist notion in respect of the marginal utility of money, any income tax cuts which did not result in a disproportionately large reduction in actual dollars of the amount money paid by higher income earners would be prima facie inequitable.)

Also, I doubt that you are really au courant in respect of title 26 of the USC. So you are attempting to speak knowledgeably about a subject to which you probably know very little.

Stop the Press!
We have a WINNER!

Yes indeedydo! The winner of the 'Most Pretentious Prattle Post' award goes to:
Gen William J Donovan

For his outstanding effort in using French and the title of a tax code in THE SAME sentence! And then to follow it up with a 5 syllable word in the next! Amazing! And we aren't going to ignore his use of Latin (and a SIX syllable word) in the paragraph preceeding.
Well done!
Certainly makes you appear highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Far more than us lowly mortals.
We bow down to your obvious intellectual superiority and are eternally grateful that you lower yourself to make contact with us lesser beings.

err...lets see some figures here. This looks highly doubtful. .
The figures are out there for anyone with the motivation to do their own work.



what does the fact that america is the richest nation in world overall have to do with the problem of wealth distribution and taxation? There are far poorer countries with a much more even distribution of both wealth and tax. Look at japan, the world's number 2 economy, for one example.

Umm,... did you just call Japan a 'far poorer country'? What specifically about their economic distribution do you find so appealing? As far as 'real' poor nations go, you find it admiral if everyone is equally poor? Nice to see a socialist finally admit their goal.

While that makes sense if we assume its a real dinner, taxes work the oppisite way. The rich pay in far far more than they take out. If the rich were to leave the bill wouldn't change much.

If you look at it directly by how much government assistance they get, sure. But look at it in how much money they control. If the rich disappeared, in real life(presumably), the huge amount of money they control would either be taken up by a nouveau riche, or distributed to the people(not directly, of course), or the government would take it. Either way, its not like the money would disappear. The bill would either go down for the other customers, or the rich guy would be billed by the restaurant anyways, and be forced to pay.

Stop the Press!
We have a WINNER!

Yes indeedydo! The winner of the 'Most Pretentious Prattle Post' award goes to:
Gen William J Donovan

For his outstanding effort in using French and the title of a tax code in THE SAME sentence! And then to follow it up with a 5 syllable word in the next! Amazing! And we aren't going to ignore his use of Latin (and a SIX syllable word) in the paragraph preceeding.
Well done!
Certainly makes you appear highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Far more than us lowly mortals.
We bow down to your obvious intellectual superiority and are eternally grateful that you lower yourself to make contact with us lesser beings.

You know, trying to make him look like he's hiding behind 'pretentious prattle' would work far better if you had included your statement in a debunking of his arguement.

Always funny when someone knowledgeable gets castigated for their knowledge, called pretentious, and then has their points resolutely ignored.

Incidentally, I think it's slightly disingenous to compare the living space of rich European city dwellers (crowded cities in crowded countries) with poor Americans (mostly rural in a very big country with lots of space).

The point isnt to say that poor people in America are better off than the average European. Rather, it is demonstrating that the amount of space the poor live in is more than sufficient. American city dwellers could also have been used but since there are usually comparisions made about poverty between countries, European citizens were used.

That aside, for whatever reasons American poor people have more space than your average European, they still have MORE SPACE. More space being better than less space.

I would be making a true statement if I said "Europeans really need to do something about their living conditions, Even the poor in America have more living space than the average European." or perhaps we could agree that humans need at least a certain amount of living space and both Europeans and American poor have above the bare minimum needed.

If you look at it directly by how much government assistance they get, sure. But look at it in how much money they control. If the rich disappeared, in real life(presumably), the huge amount of money they control would either be taken up by a nouveau riche, or distributed to the people(not directly, of course), or the government would take it. Either way, its not like the money would disappear. The bill would either go down for the other customers, or the rich guy would be billed by the restaurant anyways, and be forced to pay.

If the rich left, they would tend to take their money with them when they move to Monaco no?

Please try to think in the abstract. The "bill" is just the budget and the amount they can pay is just the tax revenue. If the rich left, do you think the budget of the United States is going to change much? When so much money is spent on the poor, infrastructure and the military and almost none on the rich? The bill will remain the same and tax revenue would disappear.

Of course the story goes a bit far by actually pretending the rich couldn't show up.

BTW: Money simply disappears and appears into the economy on a daily basis. Indeed banks literally make money out of no where every time they issue a loan. When a stock takes a dip, money disappeared. When a stock goes up, money appeared. Which is part of the reason why beating on Bill Gates for not donating all his money is rather foolish. If he tried to do so there wouldn't be much money to donate.

If the rich left, they would tend to take their money with them when they move to Monaco no?

Please try to think in the abstract. The "bill" is just the budget and the amount they can pay is just the tax revenue. If the rich left, do you think the budget of the United States is going to change much? When so much money is spent on the poor, infrastructure and the military and almost none on the rich? The bill will remain the same and tax revenue would disappear.

Of course the story goes a bit far by actually pretending the rich couldn't show up.

BTW: Money simply disappears and appears into the economy on a daily basis. Indeed banks literally make money out of no where every time they issue a loan. When a stock takes a dip, money disappeared. When a stock goes up, money appeared. Which is part of the reason why beating on Bill Gates for not donating all his money is rather foolish. If he tried to do so there wouldn't be much money to donate.

This is why the story doesnt work, because its different. Its not like the rich can just up and leave in real life. The story is, as it is, saying that if the rich just left america, america would be fucked. Thats hardly a profound statement. It doesnt say much about taxes though.

BTW: Money simply disappears and appears into the economy on a daily basis. Indeed banks literally make money out of no where every time they issue a loan. When a stock takes a dip, money disappeared. When a stock goes up, money appeared. Which is part of the reason why beating on Bill Gates for not donating all his money is rather foolish. If he tried to do so there wouldn't be much money to donate.

BTW: Money simply disappears and appears into the economy on a daily basis. :D

So in your fantasy world stocks do not increase in price because more people wish to purchase them and do not fall in price because less people wish to purchase them? Savings and Loans collapses cannot occur?

So in your fantasy world stocks do not increase in price because more people wish to purchase them and do not fall in price because less people wish to purchase them? Savings and Loans collapses cannot occur?

Come back when you have an education. Nothing you have said has anything to do with money entering and leaving the economy by simply appearing and disappearing.

Lets say I own 5000 shares of LZB (La-Z-Boy inc). The stock went down by 11 cents on Friday. For me personally I lost 550 dollars. No one bought my shares but still I lost 550 dollars. No transactions were made but 550 dollars worth of "stuff" just disappeared from the economy.

Likewise Bank #1 loans someone 100 dollars and that person spends it with person 2. Person 2 puts the 100 bucks into Bank #2. Bank #2 loans out 99 dollars. Person 1 still owes bank #1 100 dollars. Person 2 still has his 99 dollars. And now someone owes Bank #2 99 dollars. The banks just created money.

This is why the story doesnt work, because its different. Its not like the rich can just up and leave in real life. The story is, as it is, saying that if the rich just left america, america would be fucked. Thats hardly a profound statement. It doesnt say much about taxes though.

The main point of the story is contained in the first paragraphs while the paragraph you are taking offense to is a minor side-point. What could be argued for the real world is that if you were to continue to tax and tax and tax those who create the wealth they will not be creating as much wealth anymore.

This is why the story doesnt work, because its different. Its not like the rich can just up and leave in real life. The story is, as it is, saying that if the rich just left america, america would be fucked. Thats hardly a profound statement. It doesnt say much about taxes though.

So I guess YOU have never heard of "emmigration"?!?!

It is no secret that Rich people have been "leaving" whenever the Tax Rates for the Rich go up.

There are plenty of places that don't mind having Rich people move there, and they keep their upper Tax Rates fairly low in order to entice them.

Regards,
Gaar

BTW: Money simply disappears and appears into the economy on a daily basis. Indeed banks literally make money out of no where every time they issue a loan. When a stock takes a dip, money disappeared. When a stock goes up, money appeared. Which is part of the reason why beating on Bill Gates for not donating all his money is rather foolish. If he tried to do so there wouldn't be much money to donate.

Boy have you got a thing or two to learn...

When a stock goes up, people make money, but nothing just "appears and disappears", as you have tried to espouse. Some people are "Long" stocks and some are "short", when Stocks go down some people MAKE money and some LOSE, same thing when a Stock goes up.

And by the way, since this IS how some Rich people make their money, what does it matter how? It is their "Income", is it not? So they are TAXED on it, are they not? So what does how they "EARN IT" have to do with ANYTHING?!?!

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAX CUTS, NOT INCOME AND HOW IT IS EARNED!

Something about that you don't get?

Why do YOU continue to insist on CHANGING the subject?

Regards,
Gaar

Boy have you got a thing or two to learn...

When a stock goes up, people make money, but nothing just "appears and disappears", as you have tried to espouse. Some people are "Long" stocks and some are "short", when Stocks go down some people MAKE money and some LOSE, same thing when a Stock goes up.

Which explains the depression....

And by the way, since this IS how some Rich people make their money, what does it matter how? It is their "Income", is it not? So they are TAXED on it, are they not? So what does how they "EARN IT" have to do with ANYTHING?!?!

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAX CUTS, NOT INCOME AND HOW IT IS EARNED!

Something about that you don't get?

Why do YOU continue to insist on CHANGING the subject?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps you haven't noticed yet by I have the same viewpoint regarding the story as you do?

Which explains the depression....

Perhaps you haven't noticed yet by I have the same viewpoint regarding the story as you do?

Are you saying no one made money during the Depression?

ok, so that doesn't explain why you keep changing the subject.

Regards,
Gaar

Are you saying no one made money during the Depression?

:rolleyes: Indaivdual people made money during the depression. But the money supply of the country still took a dive.

ok, so that doesn't explain why you keep changing the subject.

Regards,
Gaar

Why not? The original discussion can still occur while a side discussion about money supply can still occur. Especially since the side discussion doesn’t have to do with taxes, tax cuts or how rich people make money.

:rolleyes: Indaivdual people made money during the depression. But the money supply of the country still took a dive.

Why not? The original discussion can still occur while a side discussion about money supply can still occur. Especially since the side discussion doesn’t have to do with taxes, tax cuts or how rich people make money.

The "money supply" didn't "take a dive" as you say... It was just that each dollars "worth" plummetted...

And changing the subject confuses the ISSUE.

Regards,
Gaar

The "money supply" didn't "take a dive" as you say... It was just that each dollars "worth" plummetted...

And all that wealth in Stock market that disappeared in the crash of '29? Or the actual cash value of property, land and minerals? The money supply decreased during the Depression. The money supply can increase and it can decrease.

And all that wealth in Stock market that disappeared in the crash of '29? Or the actual cash value of property, land and minerals? The money supply decreased during the Depression. The money supply can increase and it can decrease.

Yes it can...

But it is NOT done by the Stock Market, Real Estate Market or any other Market. It is done by the Federal Reserve Board, now being "Chaired" by Allen Greenspan.

Regards,
Gaar

And the moral of this story is:

All rich people leave the country pissed off at the socialist governement. The massive selling of theirs american based goods (cars, homes,...) create a great deflation so all poors can now abord them.

Yeah!

Yes it can...

But it is NOT done by the Stock Market, Real Estate Market or any other Market. It is done by the Federal Reserve Board, now being "Chaired" by Allen Greenspan.

Regards,
Gaar

How does the Federal Reserve Board operate? By.... oh yes, the markets. As I demonstrated earlier with the LZB example, or with any time when the stock market as a whole has gone down, money disappeared from the economy. Value disappeared. While it is true that stocks go up and down for a reason, that does not change the fact that can the markets can have a net negative or a net positive affect on the total cash available.

How does the Federal Reserve Board operate? By.... oh yes, the markets. As I demonstrated earlier with the LZB example, or with any time when the stock market as a whole has gone down, money disappeared from the economy. Value disappeared. While it is true that stocks go up and down for a reason, that does not change the fact that can the markets can have a net negative or a net positive affect on the total cash available.

The Markets often react to the Fed, not just the other way around...

Inflation, which is primarily NOT Market driven, is more of a concern to the Fed than is the direction of the Markets. Something about Greenspans testimony before Congress YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

If you're below the poverty line in the US chances are you own a house and two cars. I feel oh so sorry for that bottom 10% :rolleyes:

And hey, you can "afford" to give food to starving people in Africa. Whats your excuse?



IF you paid taxes, you got a tax cut.

Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today?
The people I know who live below the poverty level live in substandard rentals without A/C and ride the bus. I don't think you've ever met a real poor person. Why don't you exit your ivory tower and see how real people live? Check on the stats of the number of kids that are food insecure. That means they aren't starving yet, but have no idea where their next meal is comong from. :rolleyes:

The Markets often react to the Fed, not just the other way around...

Inflation, which is primarily NOT Market driven, is more of a concern to the Fed than is the direction of the Markets. Something about Greenspans testimony before Congress YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Funny, I didn't say anything about inflation. And you accuse me of being the one who changes topics?

Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today?
The people I know who live below the poverty level live in substandard rentals without A/C and ride the bus. I don't think you've ever met a real poor person. Why don't you exit your ivory tower and see how real people live? Check on the stats of the number of kids that are food insecure. That means they aren't starving yet, but have no idea where their next meal is comong from. :rolleyes:

Yes because you know when I went to Mexico year after year and built houses I never saw a poor person. Nor did I ever see a poor person when I went to public school or through an inner city area :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should go look at those nice statistics that were posted about those who live in "poverty."

Funny, I didn't say anything about inflation. And you accuse me of being the one who changes topics?

You are the one contending that Markets "drive" Money Supply...

I am merely pointing out that the Fed actually considers the Markets a VERY LOW priority when assessing the Money Supply and that inflation is a MUCH larger consideration. Something about that you don't get?

How is that "changing" the subject that YOU already changed in this thread?

Regards,
Gaar

You are the one contending that Markets "drive" Money Supply...

I am merely pointing out that the Fed actually considers the Markets a VERY LOW priority when assessing the Money Supply and that inflation is a MUCH larger consideration. Something about that you don't get?

No, you were pretending I said something about inflation and ignored my post.

How is that "changing" the subject that YOU already changed in this thread?

Regards,
Gaar

Lets pretend I changed the subject, you then change the subject. You still changed the subject.

And uh, if the markets don't drive inflation would you mind telling me what does? Seeing as inflation is just an increase in overall prices resulting in the devaluation of a currency... and the markets drive the prices...

Cheers.

You are the one contending that Markets "drive" Money Supply...


As a side note, you are mistaken. I am not contending that the markets "drive" money supply, I am contending that money can simply appear and disappear from the economy and that an example of this is the dropping in the price of a stock.

No, you were pretending I said something about inflation and ignored my post.



Lets pretend I changed the subject, you then change the subject. You still changed the subject.

And uh, if the markets don't drive inflation would you mind telling me what does? Seeing as inflation is just an increase in overall prices resulting in the devaluation of a currency... and the markets drive the prices...

Cheers.

can you clarify by what you mean by markets... stock markets ? or economic markets for industries.. there is a difference and only one is the correct answer to your statement... i think this argument your having is being driven by a misunderstanding of the terms your throwing around

No, you were pretending I said something about inflation and ignored my post.

Lets pretend I changed the subject, you then change the subject. You still changed the subject.

And uh, if the markets don't drive inflation would you mind telling me what does? Seeing as inflation is just an increase in overall prices resulting in the devaluation of a currency... and the markets drive the prices...

Cheers.

You "said" something about the Money Supply and how the Markets determined it ands I was pointing out that there are many things that affect the Money Supply and that inflation was a much larger determining factor than the Markets.

And you were saying the "Stock Market" not "Markets" in general...

Supply and demand drive inflation and or deflation.

Regards,
Gaar

can you clarify by what you mean by markets... stock markets ? or economic markets for industries.. there is a difference and only one is the correct answer to your statement... i think this argument your having is being driven by a misunderstanding of the terms your throwing around

In terms of inflation it would be the "economic markets for industries." Or, the actual increase in prices of real goods.

As a side note, you are mistaken. I am not contending that the markets "drive" money supply, I am contending that money can simply appear and disappear from the economy and that an example of this is the dropping in the price of a stock.

And I am saying that it "simply" DOES NOT just disappear, that there are MANY factors that drive the Feds decision to "change" the Money Supply, and that it doesn't "just happen", as you contend.

Regards,
Gaar

You "said" something about the Money Supply and how the Markets determined it ands I was pointing out that there are many things that affect the Money Supply and that inflation was a much larger determining factor than the Markets.

I "said" nothing about the markets determining money supply. I took the time to point out that money does indeed appear and dissapear from the economy when someone made a statement acting as if that didn't happen.

And you were saying the "Stock Market" not "Markets" in general...

I was saying both, and at different times.

Supply and demand drive inflation and or deflation.

Regards,
Gaar

Which is a round about way of saying "the markets."

In terms of inflation it would be the "economic markets for industries." Or, the actual increase in prices of real goods.

Huh...

And here I thought that "the actual increase in prices of real goods" WAS what Inflation IS, NOT a CAUSE of it...

Stupid me,
Gaar

And I am saying that it "simply" DOES NOT just disappear, that there are MANY factors that drive the Feds decision to "change" the Money Supply, and that it doesn't "just happen", as you contend.

Regards,
Gaar

I do not contend that it "just happens." You are looking for an argument where one does not exist.

Huh...

And here I thought that "the actual increase in prices of real goods" WAS what Inflation IS, NOT a CAUSE of it...

Stupid me,
Gaar

And did I say that it was the cause of inflation? Why no I didn't. So yes, stupid you.

I "said" nothing about the markets determining money supply. I took the time to point out that money does indeed appear and dissapear from the economy when someone made a statement acting as if that didn't happen.

I was saying both, and at different times.

Which is a round about way of saying "the markets."

You SAID, that when the Markets go down Money just disappears, did you not?

Do I need to go quote YOUR post for you?

No one "acted" as if it "doesn't happen", just question YOUR ASSERTION of WHERE it HAPPENS...

Do we need to go "quote" YOUR posts now?

Regards,
Gaar

And did I say that it was the cause of inflation? Why no I didn't. So yes, stupid you.

Actually, YES YOU DID!

That is why I USED the QUOTE from YOUR OWN Post...

Now you are denying you said it?

Regards,
Gaar

You SAID, that when the Markets go down Money just disappears, did you not?

Do I need to go quote YOUR post for you?

And when the markets go down, value/money does disappear. That is not the same as saying "the stock market drives the changes in money supply" smart guy.

No one "acted" as if it "doesn't happen", just question YOUR ASSERTION of WHERE it HAPPENS...

its not like the money would disappear

Do we need to go "quote" YOUR pots now?

Regards,
Gaar

I'm not aware I made any pots that are quotable.

Actually, YES YOU DID!

That is why I USED the QUOTE from YOUR OWN Post...

Now you are denying you said it?

Regards,
Gaar

The quote in your post does not say that a rise in the price of real goods causes inflation.

Lets say I own 5000 shares of LZB (La-Z-Boy inc). The stock went down by 11 cents on Friday. For me personally I lost 550 dollars. No one bought my shares but still I lost 550 dollars. No transactions were made but 550 dollars worth of "stuff" just disappeared from the economy.


Someone "Short" the Stock MADE Money, so NO IT DIDN'T...

BTW: Money simply disappears and appears into the economy on a daily basis. Indeed banks literally make money out of no where every time they issue a loan. When a stock takes a dip, money disappeared. When a stock goes up, money appeared. Which is part of the reason why beating on Bill Gates for not donating all his money is rather foolish. If he tried to do so there wouldn't be much money to donate.

And there you are saying that the Money "supply" changes daily, which it does not.

Likewise Bank #1 loans someone 100 dollars and that person spends it with person 2. Person 2 puts the 100 bucks into Bank #2. Bank #2 loans out 99 dollars. Person 1 still owes bank #1 100 dollars. Person 2 still has his 99 dollars. And now someone owes Bank #2 99 dollars. The banks just created money.

How? Someone still OWES that Money!?!? So how was ANY created?!?!

And again, ONLY THE FED CREATES new Money, and or takes Money out of circulation!

Regards,
Gaar

In terms of inflation it would be the "economic markets for industries." Or, the actual increase in prices of real goods.

So what DOES this SAY?!?!

Someone "Short" the Stock MADE Money, so NO IT DIDN'T...

Very few people short in comparsion to those that are in it for the long haul.

And there you are saying that the Money "supply" changes daily, which it does not.

Uh yeah it does.

How? Someone still OWES that Money!?!? So how was ANY created?!?!

Have you taken a macroeconomics class? The fact that banks create money is one of the very first things covered.

http://www.workoninternet.com/article_3260.html

And again, ONLY THE FED CREATES new Money, and or takes Money out of circulation!

Wrong.

So what DOES this SAY?!?!

That the answer to the question posed by Invidentia is the "economic markets for industries."

Excuse if what I'm going to say is has already been addressed but I joined this argument late and read only the first page (like someone said earlier, there is a lot of drivel - from both sides - and sifting through it to find the good points - and there are some - takes time and patience).

Point #1
Fact of the matter is, the poor and rich don't eat at the same table. Some people have said that this is irrelevant because the story merely tries to address how taxes break down. But, do the taxes come without government services? Does the restaraunt bill come without the meal? You can't really have one without addressing the other.

Point #2
This story doesn't account for the fact that most people in America are middle calss. This fact saves the rich man a lot of money, because the fact that there are several people to every 1 rich man cuts the remainder of the bill significantly.

Point #3
I question the accuracy of the numbers. According to post #9 by Salvondia, I would be in the bottom four brackets, making 30-40 a yr. But, I pay nearly 20% in taxes. If this numbers are real, I need to get myself a tax accountant and have him do some back taxes for some big moola. (And, I don't really consider myself poor so this wouldn't make much sense.)

Point #4
This story is a bit of a flamebait because it makes the rich man out to be a saint and we should feel sorry for him after he gets lynched. Furthermore, it asserts that this is how things work rather than a call for discussion, which makes me question its true intent. This last point doesn't really argue the point of the story but does raise a mental flag in my head.

That the answer to the question posed by Invidentia is the "economic markets for industries."

Yes and they were asking YOU to clarify your use of the term "Market" as you used it in reference to it "causing Inflation" and THAT was YOUR answer to the question...

along with...

"Or, the actual increase in prices of real goods."

Which you conveniently left off the quote in your answer...

Why is that?

And then you call people stupid because they don't understand YOU?!?! Seems I am not the only one having difficulty.

Regards,
Gaar

Stop the Press!
We have a WINNER!

Yes indeedydo! The winner of the 'Most Pretentious Prattle Post' award goes to:
Gen William J Donovan

For his outstanding effort in using French and the title of a tax code in THE SAME sentence! And then to follow it up with a 5 syllable word in the next! Amazing! And we aren't going to ignore his use of Latin (and a SIX syllable word) in the paragraph preceeding.
Well done!
Certainly makes you appear highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Far more than us lowly mortals.
We bow down to your obvious intellectual superiority and are eternally grateful that you lower yourself to make contact with us lesser beings.
And the award for "Largest Red Herring" goes to Demented Hamsters for completely ignoring someone's arguments and complaining about word choice!

Point #1
Fact of the matter is, the poor and rich don't eat at the same table. Some people have said that this is irrelevant because the story merely tries to address how taxes break down. But, do the taxes come without government services? Does the restaraunt bill come without the meal? You can't really have one without addressing the other.

In regards to the story, the "meal" would be what they get from the government for their taxes. In which case the first 4 are eating the most and the 10th guy is eating the least.

Point #2
This story doesn't account for the fact that most people in America are middle calss. This fact saves the rich man a lot of money, because the fact that there are several people to every 1 rich man cuts the remainder of the bill significantly.

Eh?

Point #3
I question the accuracy of the numbers. According to post #9 by Salvondia, I would be in the bottom four brackets, making 30-40 a yr. But, I pay nearly 20% in taxes. If this numbers are real, I need to get myself a tax accountant and have him do some back taxes for some big moola. (And, I don't really consider myself poor so this wouldn't make much sense.)

Making 30k-40k a year would put you somewhere between the top 50% and the top 25% according to my numbers with an average tax rate of somewhere between 14.66 - 16.99. Federal only. If you are incorporating your state taxes into that it would be around 20%...

Point #4
This story is a bit of a flamebait because it makes the rich man out to be a saint and we should feel sorry for him after he gets lynched. Furthermore, it asserts that this is how things work rather than a call for discussion, which makes me question its true intent. This last point doesn't really argue the point of the story but does raise a mental flag in my head.

The 10th guy is something of a "saint" seeing as he is basically paying for everyone else. As is testifed by the fact that the top 10% actually pay for 65.73% of the tax burden in this country.

Yes and they were asking YOU to clarify your use of the term "Market" as you used it in reference to it "causing Inflation" and THAT was YOUR answer to the question...

Along with...

"Or, the actual increase in prices of real goods."

Which is um, inflation. When it comes down to it the markets do fundamentally drive inflation because they drive the prices and inflation is nothing but the actual increase in the prices of real goods. Of course that would then ask 'what drives the market' which would be the supply and demand forces being exerted on the markets. Either way the answer 'the markets drive inflation' would be a true statement anyway.

Which you conveniently left off the quote in your answer...

Why is that?

Because it is simply redundant perhaps

And then you call people stupid because they don't understand YOU?!?! Seems I am not the only one having difficulty.

At this point I'm calling you stupid because you insist on claiming banks don't create money, that the money supply does not change daily and that the FED is the only group that creates money.

In regards to the story, the "meal" would be what they get from the government for their taxes. In which case the first 4 are eating the most and the 10th guy is eating the least.

The story never makes any mention that some people are eating more than others. It just says some are paying less. The argument you make can be stated in two way:

1) Do poor and rich people get the same kind of services from their taxes?

2) Are poor people "eating" more of the government resources than the rich?

Eh?

What don't you understand about this? As I understand it, the classes are on a bell shaped curve, with the middle class being at the peak. Furthermore, I think this curve a symmetrical with there being more poor people than rich people. Therefore, with more contributors in the middle of the curve, the rich don't have to pay as much in taxes.

Making 30k-40k a year would put you somewhere between the top 50% and the top 25% according to my numbers with an average tax rate of somewhere between 14.66 - 16.99. Federal only. If you are incorporating your state taxes into that it would be around 20%...

This is how it is in real life but not in the ninth post.

The 10th guy is something of a "saint" seeing as he is basically paying for everyone else. As is testifed by the fact that the top 10% actually pay for 65.73% of the tax burden in this country.

I can debate this with you but it's really a matter of opinion. My point was to question the true intent of the story based on the two points I made.

Which is um, inflation. When it comes down to it the markets do fundamentally drive inflation because they drive the prices and inflation is nothing but the actual increase in the prices of real goods. Of course that would then ask 'what drives the market' which would be the supply and demand forces being exerted on the markets. Either way the answer 'the markets drive inflation' would be a true statement anyway.


Yes, it IS Inflation, as I POINTED OUT to YOU!

You were saying that it was a "cause" and not what inflation was, just like the Markets are a "cause" and NOT actual inflation.

And at this point I am through running around in circles with someone who can't admit when they are just plain wrong, and instead try to "explain" what they "meant"...

All the while calling everyone else stupid.

Regards,
Gaar

This is how it is in real life but not in the ninth post.

Actually that happens to be exactly what the 9th post said, with the numbers simply copy/pasted from the link in the 9th post.

The group is meant to reperest society via 10 percentile groups. First 4 0-10, 10-20, 20-30 and 30-40. 5th is 40-50, 6th is 50-60, 7th is 60-70, 8th is 70-80, 9th is 80-90 and 10th is 90-100.


This is what I see in the ninth post. Note you have 30-40 in the first 4 percentile groups.

Yes, it IS Inflation, as I POINTED OUT to YOU!

You were saying that it was a "cause" and not what inflation was, just like the Markets are a "cause" and NOT actual inflation.

And at this point I am through running around in circles with someone who can't admit when they are just plain wrong, and instead try to "explain" what they "meant"...

Um, just because you have managed to

a) change the subject
b) get it wrong and,
c) misinterpret what other people say

makes me wrong? Cheers.

Now why don't you go address the part where you are being very stupid and pretending the money supply doesn't change dialy, that the banks create money and that the FED is not the only organization that creates money.

This is what I see in the ninth post. Note you have 30-40 in the first 4 percentile groups.

PS, the "0-10, 10-20" is the description of each group. Group 1 is the 0-10th percentile. the 2nd group is the 10th-20th percentile etc. Not tax rate or income.

Did you miss this part?


Top 5% pay 53.25%
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%
The bottom 50% pay 3.97% of all income taxes.

Or for a more detailed breakdown with historical data as well see this site.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html
You'll note that the top 1% pay an average tax rate of 27.25%, or more than twice that of the national average.

PS, the "0-10, 10-20" is the description of each group. Group 1 is the 0-10th percentile. the 2nd group is the 10th-20th percentile etc. Not tax rate or income.

Did you miss this part?

Yea, I guess I did. Those numbers don't make much sense to me because when you say top 5% income bracket is not really concrete number. But, I do see where I misread it. Even though, there are 3 unaddressed points.

Yea, I guess I did. Those numbers don't make much sense to me because when you say top 5% income bracket is not really concrete number. But, I do see where I misread it. Even though, there are 3 unaddressed points.

Follow the link...

Now why don't you go address the part where you are being very stupid and pretending the money supply doesn't change dialy, that the banks create money and that the FED is not the only organization that creates money.

When YOU can ADMIT you are WRONG about the "cause" of Inflation, perhaps...

But why do you believe me so stupid as to continue to have a discussion with someone who can't admit when they are wrong, and merely "twists the conversation in order to divert attention from their errors?

I QUOTE EXACTLY what you say, and you just deny saying it. So why on Earth would I continue?

Regards,
Gaar

Follow the link...

I don't really need to since I've already conceded the argument to you, and since I'm not really interested in that type of knowledge.

Yea, I guess I did. Those numbers don't make much sense to me because when you say top 5% income bracket is not really concrete number. But, I do see where I misread it. Even though, there are 3 unaddressed points.

Yes, and they will continue to not address them and change the subject and call you stupid when you make a point...

So why bother.

Regards,
Gaar

The story never makes any mention that some people are eating more than others. It just says some are paying less. The argument you make can be stated in two way:

1) Do poor and rich people get the same kind of services from their taxes?

Nope they get different services.

2) Are poor people "eating" more of the government resources than the rich?

Yes.

What don't you understand about this? As I understand it, the classes are on a bell shaped curve, with the middle class being at the peak. Furthermore, I think this curve a symmetrical with there being more poor people than rich people. Therefore, with more contributors in the middle of the curve, the rich don't have to pay as much in taxes.

You understand it wrong, the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes, with the top 1% paying 33.71% of income taxes in 2002.

I can debate this with you but it's really a matter of opinion. My point was to question the true intent of the story based on the two points I made.

Indeed it is a matter of opinion.

When YOU can ADMIT you are WRONG about the "cause" of Inflation, perhaps...

Perhaps because I didn't give the cause for inflation for what you are claiming I gave the cause for inflation to be?

But why do you believe me so stupid as to continue to have a discussion with someone who can't admit when they are wrong, and merely "twists the conversation in order to divert attention from their errors?

That seems to be exactly what you are doing seeing as you brought up inflation out of nowhere and it had nothing to do with the discussion.

I QUOTE EXACTLY what you say, and you just deny saying it. So why on Earth would I continue?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes you quoted exactly what I said. I do not deny saying what I said. I however did not say that "a raise in the prices of all real goods causes inflation" seeing as I know that a raise in the price of all real goods is inflation.

Nope they get different services.



Yes.

OK, so do you admit that the people's meal needs to taken into account for this story to makes its point. I just don't want to go into this and find 50 posts later, you're saying the opposite (not that you would :D).

You understand it wrong, the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes, with the top 1% paying 33.71% of income taxes in 2002.

Following the argument of the story, it says the rich man pays the remainder of the bill after each of the other men paid their parts. However, it doesn't take into account for those middle groups, there isn't one man per rich one rich man. This fact reduces the rich man's bill.

Indeed it is a matter of opinion.

I meant whether you think the rich man is a saint is a matter of opinion. But, the intent of the story is definitely debateable

OK, so do you admit that the people's meal needs to taken into account for this story to makes its point. I just don't want to go into this and find 50 posts later, you're saying the opposite (not that you would :D).

No the persons meal does not need to be taken into account for the story to make its main point.

Following the argument of the story, it says the rich man pays the remainder of the bill after each of the other men paid their parts. However, it doesn't take into account for those middle groups, there isn't one man per rich one rich man. This fact reduces the rich man's bill.

The story says the group breaks down the meal in the same way taxes are broken down. The story does not say that "each man paid their parts."

No the persons meal does not need to be taken into account for the story to make its main point.

like I said before, you can't have the bill without the meal. You only get half the picture if you look at it that way. Even though the story is trying to make a point about taxes, you're getting something for those taxes and those things are relevant because you're not paying the government for nothing.

The story says the group breaks down the meal in the same way taxes are broken down. The story does not say that "each man paid their parts."

But, again, the story doesn't take into account that a higher contribution is being made in the middle brackets due to the larger number of people.

like I said before, you can't have the bill without the meal. You only get half the picture if you look at it that way. Even though the story is trying to make a point about taxes, you're getting something for those taxes and those things are relevant because you're not paying the government for nothing.



[quote]But, again, the story doesn't take into account that a higher contribution is being made in the middle brackets due to the larger number of people.

The story doesn't take that into account because it doesn't exist. which why you should ----->follow the link (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html)<-----

But, again, the story doesn't take into account that a higher contribution is being made in the middle brackets due to the larger number of people.

Actually it does...

Each of the people represent the 10% of the people in each "bracket", and the amount that comes from each bracket HAS been accounted for.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually it does...

Each of the people represent the 10% of the people in each "bracket", and the amount that comes from each bracket HAS been accounted for.

Regards,
Gaar
In otherwords, the top 20% of taxpayers pay 80% of Federal taxes collected. The top 50% of taxpayers pay 95% of taxes collected. you do the math...

BTW - TOP 50% of wage earners=those who make more than $26,000 a year. Welcome to the world of affluence you RICH taxpayers!!!! Time to cough up more to fund liberal social experements and pork!!!

It could not be more true.

arg death by monotony. wheres the nearest train to run me over? :headbang: this could be the reason why iam the poor man i am today by never paying attention to my tax details hohum... :headbang: