Obama, Lipstick on a pig comment

[skydivr]

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar 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 beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $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 drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 drink his beer.

So, the bar 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 pay $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 drink 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 I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

[Dino]

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar 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 beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $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 drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 drink his beer.

So, the bar 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 pay $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 drink 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 I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

In true FOX news style we boil down a complicated social issue into something fit for the truly stupid. If you understand my statement you are not offended, If you found yourself offended maybe you are truly stupid.

 

[Dino]

First off I'm not sure what tax breaks you are speaking of but I assume this is a bash on President Bush's tax cuts. If so I happen to have a CPA in the family who has explained these tax cuts to me. The Bush tax cuts gave larger cuts to the poor than anyone else. So how do you figure it was at their expense. Please explain so that I might understand.

So now because Fox news is a bit more balanced without the liberal spin they are poison?? Please give me a break. This top 5% idea is nothing more than a Robin Hood socialist plan to steal from those who have worked for something and give that to those who are not willing to work for anything. You are in favor of this yet you say you would also favor a flat tax. A flat tax would be even more unfair to the poor than the current progressive tax where you pay more if you make more. The real problem is all the loopholes that have been created by the politicians for themselves and their buddies, democrats and republicans both.

I was refering mostly to Reagan's initial tax cuts. Which you are correct also affected the poor. However the increase in Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax more than negated the benefit of a tax cut. The same has been carried on in the Bush admin.

I completely agree when you say: "The real problem is all the loopholes that have been created by the politicians for themselves and their buddies, democrats and republicans both."

You really need to understand that our Ecnomoic structure is based on Capitalistic principals but is in no way purely capitalist. Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land. By definition, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation. Now consider all the government regulation of industry.

You also need to realize that Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. I nor this tax structure propose a change in the ownership or means of production.

Minds are like parachutes, they are only working when open...

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar 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 beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $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 drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 drink his beer.

So, the bar 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 pay $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 drink 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 I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I must say I understand

 

[skydivr]

I'm not offended; I've been called stupid before far too old to worry too much about what other people think! Still, boils it down to pretty basic stuff; you tax the top brackets too much, and they stop coming to the party.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

Hey here's a thought, instead of a flat tax let's go to a flat wage. From what I gather the average wage for a production worker was $31,310 per year in 2007. All of you liberals that make more than that go ahead and figure your annual wage and subtract 31,310 from it. If you get a positive number go ahead and write out a check for that amount and mail it to the US Govt care of Barrack Hussein Obama.

For those of you who make less do the same, if you get a negative number this will be the amount of refund you should enter into line 3 on your claim form. Please allow six to 8 weeks for your check to arrive.

Any left over will be considered tax money and we will keep and decide what to do with.

We are also going to be doing housing, looks like each person will be allowed roughly 500 square foot of living space. If you have a large home prepare to take new members into your family.

Those of you who own busas, they will be scrapped, only one motorcycle will be made and it's gonna be called the Equality scooter. It will have 200 cc and no mods will be allowed.

Gotta love equality and fairness!!

 

[Dino]

I'm not offended; I've been called stupid before far too old to worry too much about what other people think! Still, boils it down to pretty basic stuff; you tax the top brackets too much, and they stop coming to the party.

Although conservative raido would have you believe that is what happens there is NO precedence for that occurring. In fact when you provide greater resources in the hands of the middle brackets they actually spend more thus energizing the economy.

 

[CTA_Busa_LE]

Although conservative raido would have you believe that is what happens there is NO precedence for that occurring. In fact when you provide greater resources in the hands of the middle brackets they actually spend more thus energizing the economy.

where is the precedence that "when you provide greater resources in the hands of the middle brackets they actually spend more thus energizing the economy"?

 

[Dino]

where is the precedence that "when you provide greater resources in the hands of the middle brackets they actually spend more thus energizing the economy"?

Ecnomic growth expirence during the 60's and 70's. In the early 80's the administration's plan slashed corporate and individual income tax rates, with the biggest cut in the top rate. The Reagan team promised that their tax cuts would jolt the economy back to life because, as the Wall Street Journal's editors put it, "high taxes interfere with natural human creativity and drive." And the true believers went so far as to suggest that the economy would grow fast enough that tax revenues would actually rise, making the tax cuts painless. (Sounds a lot like what you just supported)

The results never came close to measuring up to the supply-side rhetoric. For starters, the tax cuts busted the federal budget. The federal deficit ballooned from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 6% of GDP in 1983, the largest peacetime deficit in history, and was still 5% of GDP in 1986. Tax revenues did pick up, especially after the 1983 payroll tax increase kicked in, reducing the deficit somewhat. Still, tax revenues grew far more slowly over than the 1980s business cycle (2.5% from 1979 to 1989) than they did in the 1990s business cycle (4.1% from 1989 to 2000).

Nor did the claim that tax cuts would encourage work effort, savings, and investment, the central premise of Reaganomics, hold up. When mainstream economists, such as Barry Bosworth and Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution, checked out the effects of the 1981 tax cut, they found that something quite different had happened. After the tax cut, men didn't work much more at all; although women did work longer hours, their earnings failed to improve. And relative to the size of the economy, net investment declined and savings plummeted. The Economic Policy Institute, a labor-funded think tank, reports that the annual increase in real investment in the 1980s business cycle (2.5% per year) was less than half of that during the 1990s business cycle (5.9% per year).

Worse yet, most low-income taxpayers missed out on the Reagan tax cuts. The bottom 40% of households paid out more of their income in federal taxes in 1988 than they had in 1980. Increases in the payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare, which made up a far higher portion of their federal tax bill than income taxes, swamped what little benefit these taxpayers received from lower income tax rates. For the richest 1%, on the other hand, the Reagan tax cuts were pure elixir. This group saw their effective federal tax rate drop from 34.6% to 29.7%, according to a recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. As these numbers suggest, Reagan left a far less progressive federal tax code than he found.

Yet the economy suffered.

Al lot to read but it follow McCain's income tax strategy and shows that it is just more voo-doo economics.

On another note just who are you talking abou twhen you say: "This top 5% idea is nothing more than a Robin Hood socialist plan to steal from those who have worked for something and give that to those who are not willing to work for anything".

Would that be teachers and police officers or maybe the guy who fixes your plumbing or picks up your trash. Maybe it is the guy working next to you or the troops out defending this country. I'll bet if you ask most of these people they would tell you that they are very willing and work very hard to educate your kids, protect your property and make sure your trash is taken away. These are the people who would benefit. So hell, I am all about making their lives better, we need them and we need them to do good work. They should be fairly and adequately paid for their work.