# Beer and taxes



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. They could all just pay $10 since they all drank beer or if they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: 

The first four men (the poorest of the 10) 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 OK with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 

"Since you are all such good and faithful customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer bill 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 if they divided the $20 savings by six they could each reduce the amount they were paying by $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 the same way Tax Savings are dispersed, 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) - so 5 men are drinking for free.. 
The sixth now paid only $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(the wealthiest) 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, now along with the 5th too. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their total dollar 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. "$20 was given back and we didn't get anything at all. This 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, ladies and gentlemen, 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.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I understand this.

I am not a leftist and will be voting for McCain.

However, during the last few years, rich people have been bolder and bolder about manipulating the economic system to their benefit; especially the richest of the rich.

Multi-million dollar golden parachutes to reward failed executives and other such obvious ripoffs (that are totally unsupported by any logical economic reason and are simply the result of rich board members scratching each others rich backs) give the majority of us little reason to have faith in the system. I'm one of those pikers who pays a mere 25% of my marginal income toward federal taxes.

Rich people need to remember that we need to keep our society fair in order to keep EVERYONE's confidence in our system. We need to be willing to truly educate people (and for you lefties, even if that means the necessary evisceration of the NEA.) and make sure everyone gets a fair chance at succeeding. Not necessarily an equal one, as there is no way to guarantee that, but at least a fair one.

Rich people stay rich because everyone in our society participates in the system to some extent and is not wanting to "rock the boat." Without this consent, the rich people would have to spend a lot on their security. Without this consent, the regular folks can be enticed by theories like socialism and communism which can be attractive on the surface even though they are ruinously destructive to a society when they are implemented.

Right now, by cynically exploiting the religious right (at least in my opinion), the richest people are shamelessly manipulating our political and economic systems (especially CEO's of publicly held businesses; I refuse to believe that those skills are so rare that they would get those salaries and golden parachutes in an economic system that operates realistically. It is one thing to start or own a business and make a profit; these folks at the publicly held corporations are just stealing money legally.)

I think Obama will be destructive to our society. I also think that if the rich people want to see a string of people like Obama get elected, all they have to do is continue on the present path that leaves a lot of us shut out of any realistic chance for economic security. Our system will stay strong only when ALMOST EVERYONE has a stake in its continuation.

I don't think raising taxes would be good for our society. I also think that some true responsibility on the part of the richest in our society would be a smart thing for them to do.

(And I'm voting for McCain. I'll admit that I feel Obama can shove his feelings about folks like me (a CPA and an accomplished musician, not an idiot) having antipathy toward folks not like me (in other words, I'm a racist.) right where the sun does not shine. I also feel McCain's attitude toward taxes is healthier than Obama's even though I will not benefit much if at all personally from what he will do.

However, if the richest folks want to turn us into a classic Banana Republic where there is always the threat of a revolution, all they need to do is keep up with their present path and leave more and more people feeling they don't have a reason to sacrifice to continue what we've got.

I really abhor both the left wing and the right wing in our society. They are both cynically exploiting groups of people for their votes so they can cynically benefit and dominate. Those who like far left stuff would do well to remember that the leaders in Communist Societies, never ever shared in any sacrifices the people made (other than some cheap nonsense done for publicity's sake.)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

What is happening in our system right now is a result mostly of irresponsible rich people (including the decision to allow a loser like George Bush to become president.)

However, what is Obama, except a better educated, but equally unqualified version of the same from the left side?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I understand, but I'm afraid you don't. If you did you wouldn't be proposing such a ridiculous analogy.

The public benefits that our tax system buys are not beer, and they're not like beer. Whether I get a beer to drink or not doesn't make you any better or worse off. If three of these guys don't have enough money to buy beer, it doesn't hurt the remaining seven; similarly, if they do have enough money to buy beer it doesn't help the remaining seven.

On the other hand, we can't give the services of national defense only to those people who have enough money to afford them. Similarly, if some people can afford to buy education and some can't, the inability to afford education hurts the entire polity, not just the people who don't get educated. If some people can't afford the price of a road going to their house, it doesn't just hurt them, it also hurts anyone who might want to transport products to those houses. Or take the FDIC. Someone who has a bank account with $100,000 in it could be said to benefit more from that protection than someone with nothing in the bank, or someone who only has a small account; probably a more realistic view is that we all benefit from having a banking system we can rely on, and we all stand to suffer terribly if we don't.

It's like I said in another thread, it really does appear that one difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals know that the world is not as simple as conservatives think it is.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> The public benefits that our tax system buys are not beer, and they're not like beer. Whether I get a beer to drink or not doesn't make you any better or worse off. If three of these guys don't have enough money to buy beer, it doesn't hurt the remaining seven; similarly, if they do have enough money to buy beer it doesn't help the remaining seven.


The point that you are missing is that those three that have the money are buying the beer for the others in addition to themselves; therefore, if they don't show up the others have no beer. And if the price of beer goes down, the one's who are actually paying the most for the beer FOR NOT ONLY THEMSELVES BUT THE OTHERS ALSO, should benefit the most from that reduced price.

If you look at a historical graph of revenues in the U.S. you find that revenues tend to stay pretty much the same whether taxes go up or down on either the rich or the poor. And whether we want to admit it or not, the wealthy pay almost all of the taxes taken in in this country even with the tax breaks. The only reason that the middle class, of which I am firmly entrenched, pays more taxes when there are cuts for the wealthy (such as capital gains taxes) is because the middle class tends to make more money when such capital gains taxes are cut for the wealthy.

Why should the wealthy invest their money in things that create jobs if they are going to be taxed to death on their earnings. The U.S. already has the second highest corporate taxes in the world, but I guess the goal is to be number one.

I would love to pay a million dollars next year in income taxes. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I understand, but I'm afraid you don't. If you did you wouldn't be proposing such a ridiculous analogy.
> 
> The public benefits that our tax system buys are not beer, and they're not like beer. Whether I get a beer to drink or not doesn't make you any better or worse off. If three of these guys don't have enough money to buy beer, it doesn't hurt the remaining seven; similarly, if they do have enough money to buy beer it doesn't help the remaining seven.
> 
> ...


Like the man said, for people like you, no explanation is possible. Very well put. If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The problem is that both Cruiser and Jack are making valid points. Both are not addressing the meat of the other person's argument. Neither the left nor the right ever want to see the valid points the other side is making.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The problem is that both Cruiser and Jack are making valid points. Both are not addressing the meat of the other person's argument. Neither the left nor the right ever want to see the valid points the other side is making.


The problem is that what Jack is saying simply isn't consistent with the analogy being made in the OP. He's talking about only providing beer (services) to those who can afford to pay for them, yet in the analogy everyone was getting beer. Some for free, others at very low cost. This free and low cost flow of beer to the low income was only shut off after they started making unreasonable demands on the ones who were actually footing the bill.

And as for being on the right and not seeing the view of the left, keep in mind that although I am more conservative leaning these days I have actually voted for more Democrats than Republicans. I began my political life by working in George McGovern's campaign in '72 and did not cast my first Republican vote until I voted for Reagan in '84. Since then I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. For example, I voted for Bill Clinton but not Al Gore. It would be wrong to characterize me as someone who doesn't consider both sides of an issue. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm getting more conservative as I get older, but a lot of what goes on today is wrong and could cause liberals to get control of the wheel for 10 years or so. This will not be good, although a lot of what the right wing wants is not real good, either.

Jack may not have addressed your direct point, but I think that your point is a piece of a whole pie. It may not be wise to dissect the pie piece by piece when it is the entire result that matters.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

The OP seems to me to be an analogy that provokes thought about the inequities of the tax system but hardly "explains" the way taxes and public benefits function in this country. This particular analogy is far too simplistic to account for what actually happens, even in bars.

For instance, the first guy wants a Bud Light, the second drinks only Michelob while the third is a recovering alcoholic and demands O'Douls. But the owner serves only pitchers of generic suds.

The fourth through the six really want a scotch neat but are forced to drink beer because of this silly damn arrangement.

The seventh through the ninth are bourbon-and-branch guys but are putting up with the beer because the tricksy bar owner thinks liquor is for rich putzes and doesn't carry it.

And that tenth guy has a hell of a cocaine habit and after getting beat up has put out hits on the other nine who will be dead before the next night, leaving all the beer to him, which is usually how the rich guys keep it all anyway, through death and not always the death of their rich uncles who leave them a fortune. So of course it's back to death and taxes as it always is.

--A.Q.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Jack may not have addressed your direct point, but I think that your point is a piece of a whole pie. It may not be wise to dissect the pie piece by piece when it is the entire result that matters.


Of course it is an oversimplification, but it does address what I think is the key issue we need to address. At the end of the day we are either a capitalist country or we aren't. We must decide one way or the other.

By that I mean we must allow people to invest and make money without hammering them for successfully doing so; but at the same time we must stand back and allow them to fail if that is the way the cards are dealt without bailing out every giant company that fails in a business venture. We don't bail out the little guy, we let him fail, so we shouldn't bail out AIG.

The role of government is to punish those who criminally abuse this capitalist system. Rather than get a golden parachute, these shady CEOs should be held accountable for what they do.

But if they are truly good at their jobs and can honestly and legally lead their companies, and the company's shareholders, to honest profits I don't see government's role as being to step in and take those profits just because the little man doesn't like to see someone getting rich. Heck, the opportunity to get rich is what drives a capitalist society.

For example, why should someone with a lot of money gamble with that money by investing it in some business venture like building a big luxury hotel, which will create new jobs for a lot of people from construction people to build it to staff to man it, when he is facing the possibility that the venture will fail and he will lose his money, and if it succeeds the government will take his profits by taxing him out the ying yang. Faced with that he may as well put it in CD's.

We must allow people to invest and make money (and keep more of what they make) while at the same time letting those fail who make bad decisions with their money. With the potential for big rewards comes the equal potential for big losses. For the rest of us there are CDs. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> The problem is that what Jack is saying simply isn't consistent with the analogy being made in the OP. He's talking about only providing beer (services) to those who can afford to pay for them, yet in the analogy everyone was getting beer. Some for free, others at very low cost.


No. My point is that your beer analogy has no relevance to the real world, because the receipt of beer by person 1 provides no benefit to persons 2-10, whereas the benefits government provides accrue not only to individuals, but to the society as a whole. I'm not being inconsistent with the original analogy, I'm disproving its validity.

I would never claim that I am entitled to have Bill Gates or Warren Buffett buy me beer. I do claim that I am entitled to have Bill Gates and Warren Buffett pay for the common benefits of our government, and to pay a lot more than I do for them.

If you think that having the government provide schools, roads, national defense, banking and trade regulation, and all the other things that make an orderly existence and commerce possible is the same as providing ten individual beers to ten individual drinkers, you are grossly misunderstanding the situation.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Crusier, 

Don't bother. They will never get it. Jack won't even go on record saying that a 99% marginal tax rate is too high. They don't want to see that taxing the rich hurts the economy overall. You are just wasting your breath as they hash out the minor points of an analogy that anyone can understand if they care to understand it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Crusier,
> 
> Don't bother. They will never get it. Jack won't even go on record saying that a 99% marginal tax rate is too high. They don't want to see that taxing the rich hurts the economy overall. You are just wasting your breath as they hash out the minor points of an analogy that anyone can understand if they care to understand it.


Say what you want, Terp, but you never asked me anything about a marginal tax rate. In your obsession with my views on taxes, which has now followed me into another thread, here's one of the many ways you asked the question:

_Do you think that it's ok for the government to take half of what people earn?_

I'm not going to play along with your little game and answer your question, but I'm also not going to sit back while you misrepresent what I said.

And now that you've demonstrated your inability to engage in a reasoned and civil discussion, I'm putting you on ignore.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Cruiser, I see your point. However, there is nothing even approaching a supply and demand dynamic related to the CEOs as well as the people inflating their business numbers and salaries by given out loans that should never have even come close to being considered.

Perhaps the whole modern corporation concept needs to be reconsidered. What these folks do and did is at least marginally legal and it should not be. Right now, the boards of these corporations do not even come close to having stockholder interest at heart. The people running these companies, even ones near bankruptcy would not be able to strip them the way they do if the boards even cared about the stockholders. 

The talent necessary to run these companies is rare, but not rare to the point where you can only find someone competent to do the job if you pay them tens of millions of dollars annually.

Again, if you want the folks to buy into your economic concept and not be seduced by socialism, government overregulation and communisim, the people on the top of our economic pie need to reconsider a lot of behavior. I'm not optimistic that they will.

"Let them eat cake," said Marie Antionette - - - -

(Okay, I know she probably did not say those words, but we can all see where the attitude put her and hers.)

Your chances of getting people to listen to arguments about limiting taxes will be much greater when these issues are addressed. And taxation does need to be limited and people DO need to be responsible for themselves. However, the economic realities and competition that are so good for those on the lower end should apply to those on top. Right now, they don't.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Uhuh. Jack, all I've ever wanted to know is if there is ANY point at which you will concede that taxes are too high. You have refused to name any point, even 99%.

You're a tax zealot. I operate with the basic idea that people should be allowed to keep as much of the money they earn as possible, and pay as little as possible to the goverment. I guess that makes me a bad guy because I am not as enlightened as those who want to punish people for working hard and earning money.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> Crusier,
> 
> Don't bother. They will never get it. Jack won't even go on record saying that a 99% marginal tax rate is too high. They don't want to see that taxing the rich hurts the economy overall. You are just wasting your breath as they hash out the minor points of an analogy that anyone can understand if they care to understand it.


Jack is such a one way street. I have only responded to him once in the $28,000 dinner post. He just has one way of thinking. He is, generally speaking, a waste of time to talk to.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Of course it is an oversimplification, but it does address what I think is the key issue we need to address. At the end of the day we are either a capitalist country or we aren't. We must decide one way or the other....


Well, that's an easy one: we are a capitalist country! :icon_smile: Well, at least 49 of the 50 states are, Alaska being the exception, which has a socialist model in place in which all permanent residents own part of everything and receive payments for their ownership. Other than that exception, we're pretty much a capitalist country that rewards investment if planned properly.

As for corporate taxes and the US being the second highest in the world, look beyond the letters on the paper, look at what corporations actually pay after all the accounting, legal and political games are played. The situation becomes intensely complex at that point, and many a member here on this forum makes a very good living often reducing the taxes companies pay from the listed rates to very little and sometimes nothing at all.

In one thing, though, I'm certainly with you: I'd be delighted to write our government a check for $1,000,000.00 for income tax next year. If I was making that much and even with my army of accountants and tax lawyers working for me I had that much to pay I'd be quite happy. Heck, I'd buy everyone a beer. Perhaps two! 

--A.Q.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Cruiser

You know I respect you and value you as a resource and friend out here - but I had to jump in on this one.

I agree with your basic premise, and I think the idea of supply side or trickle down economic is a good one on the face. The problem with it, is that tax cuts and credits that are meant to "stimulate" the economy can only work, when we exercise restrained spending as well.

The policies of our current president are a perfect example of this. He cut taxes twice, both instances actually did stimulate the economy for a short period of time. However, the *growth achieved was insufficient to stimulate the economy to high enough levels to make-up for the loss in revenue.

*The end result of all of this is simple: Bush mortgaged our economic future with debt.

If Republicans were actually for small government as they always claim to be, and could cut taxes AND spending at the same time, trickle down economics might actually work.

But cutting taxes without cutting spending simply causes a temporary bump of fools prosperity, while the core of our financial strength our National Debt, spirals out of control.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

I suppose one of the things I don't get is the general hate people have for executive salaries. If its not a tax payer supported business, it doesn't seem like its your business. If Citigroup wants to give a bad ceo a golden toilet and 10 million a year...well that between them and the owners of the company. Personally I don't think joe mcfootballplayer is worth 5 million a game but I don't own the national football league so it really isn't my business. I don't think Elton's John's music is good enough to justify BMI spending 100 million on a 5 year contract for 3 albums but...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> Uhuh. Jack, all I've ever wanted to know is if there is ANY point at which you will concede that taxes are too high. You have refused to name any point, even 99%.
> 
> You're a tax zealot. I operate with the basic idea that people should be allowed to keep as much of the money they earn as possible, and pay as little as possible to the goverment. I guess that makes me a bad guy because I am not as enlightened as those who want to punish people for working hard and earning money.


This is a question that no hard left liberal wants to answer. Ultimately the answer for most (if they could bring themselves to honestly answer) is "no limit". For many the money you make is not really earned by you, so it is yours only to the extent that the government decides you may keep (some of) it. They reserve the right to take it all.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> 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.
> 
> .


Good riddance...the only people who think the wealthy are so necessary and valuable, are the wealthy themselves.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Good riddance...the only people who think the wealthy are so necessary and valuable, are the wealthy themselves.


I'm not wealthy. I was born into the public housing projects. I started delivering newspapers at 14 and bagging groceries at 16. The only way I was able to go to college was to join the service and get the GI Bill. I began my post-college career as a Social Worker in the inner city, and eventually retired from the Civil Service. Along the way I married a nurse who had been a school teacher in a small town in Kentucky prior to that. Hardly the resume of a wealthy person.

At the same time I recognize who foots the bill in this country. Sure, I pay taxes and I ***** about it every year. But no matter how much I complain and think that I'm being overtaxed, and I think I am, the truth of the matter is that me, and people like me, pay only a small percentage of the total bill. The wealthy, no matter how much we may dislike their wealth, still pay a huge percentage of the taxes taken in.

Am I saying that I think what I pay is fair and that they don't pay enough? Not necessarily. I'm just saying that to run around blindly shouting to tax the rich more isn't the answer.

Like my friend mrkleen said, the problem is too much spending rather than not enough taxes. And it is in this area that I part company with Mr. Bush and do not care to take up company with Mr. Obama. We can't keep spending like it is a bottomless pit of money, because it isn't. And like it or not we had better hope the rich keep showing up because we will be in trouble if they don't.

Cruiser


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I understand, but I'm afraid you don't. If you did you wouldn't be proposing such a ridiculous analogy.
> 
> The public benefits that our tax system buys are not beer, and they're not like beer. Whether I get a beer to drink or not doesn't make you any better or worse off. If three of these guys don't have enough money to buy beer, it doesn't hurt the remaining seven; similarly, if they do have enough money to buy beer it doesn't help the remaining seven.
> 
> ...


Are you really a lawyer? Many would question this. Do you actually have clients, or do you invent them in you mind after smoking some funny looking cigerettes. Just a thought "Mr. big time lawyer".


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> No. My point is that your beer analogy has no relevance to the real world, because the receipt of beer by person 1 provides no benefit to persons 2-10, whereas the benefits government provides accrue not only to individuals, but to the society as a whole. I'm not being inconsistent with the original analogy, I'm disproving its validity.
> 
> I would never claim that I am entitled to have Bill Gates or Warren Buffett buy me beer. I do claim that I am entitled to have Bill Gates and Warren Buffett pay for the common benefits of our government, and to pay a lot more than I do for them.
> 
> If you think that having the government provide schools, roads, national defense, banking and trade regulation, and all the other things that make an orderly existence and commerce possible is the same as providing ten individual beers to ten individual drinkers, you are grossly misunderstanding the situation.


And here I, a stupid conservative, thought it was a joke and meant to be funny. I laughed... laughed only because it is painfully true.

But then again, when the economy takes a hit, the people who cheer are people shorting stocks, people who have invested in commodities, and liberals trying to get elected.

Kinda morbid when politicians look at the possibility of a recession as a good thing so they can further their career.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> But then again, when the economy takes a hit, the people who cheer are people shorting stocks, people who have invested in commodities, and liberals trying to get elected.
> 
> Kinda morbid when politicians look at the possibility of a recession as a good thing so they can further their career.


Yeah, it would be if it were true.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Executive salaries are not determined by anything approaching a rational market.

I have no problem with a company owner earning a lot of money. I also have no problem with an artist earning a lot of royalties. Corporations have a lot of rules that make it difficult to replace board members and these guys just scratch each others backs.

Again, my basic point is that everyone needs to see that they have something to gain from our current system or it is in danger of being changed.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Yeah, it would be if it were true.


... it is. Here we are with the top 10% paying 90% of our taxes, and Senator Obama calls to end the Bush tax cuts that help the rich, which don't benefit the rich as much as is claimed. The so called Bush tax cuts made the tax structure more progressive, and it added more people to the list of people who don't pay federal income tax. That count is up to 38%.

The current tax rates are:

10% $8025
15% $32,550
25% $78,550
28% $164,550
33% $357,700
35% +

In 2000 they were:

15% $26,250
28% $53,550
31% $132,600
36% $288,350
39.6% +

Also, this doesn't show the increased deductions for children, and other deductions that tend to help the middle to lower class than the rich.

Adding that bottom tax bracket doesn't help the rich if they're making $500,000 a year, the difference is they now pay $700 on the first $7000 while they used to pay $1050 on the first $7000. But someone who only makes $7000 after deductions just got a huge break.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

boohoo rich people have to pay taxes and that's not fair. LOL. What makes a baby that fall out of a rich woman's vagina better than a baby that fall out of a poor woman's vagina? That's not fair the babies don't get to compete for whose vagina to pop out of. I say tax the rich so the poor baby can have an equal chance at a good life like the rich baby will have. What really sucks is when liberals take over everyone will benefit and have better lives and conservatives won't even admit it. In 8 years they will be praying obama has an affair or republicans will never get back power. muhuhahahaha!!!! vagina.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> The only way I was able to go to college was to join the service and get the GI Bill.
> Cruiser


What? Where did the GI BILL money come from? I hope it didn't come from taxes. That would be redistributing wealth right?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

SkySov, what happens when you run out of rich people to plunder?


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> SkySov, what happens when you run out of rich people to plunder?


OHH NOOO!!!!!! We give people free college like the GI BILL maybe we will create new rich people :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big: Endless stream of rich people. Rich people are renewable resource. We make new rich people every week through Powerball! I have my ticket. If I win I will delete all my post and support McCain because I don't want the damn government taking my lottery money to teach poor people. Those stupid poor babies don't deserve school or medicine. It's their own fault for not working hard enough to be born to rich parents. They should have lifted themselves up by their little baby booties.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You obviously aren't putting much thought into this. Life is not a Ponzi scheme. 

I'll leave you alone to rant delusionally.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

SkySov said:


> What? Where did the GI BILL money come from? I hope it didn't come from taxes. That would be redistributing wealth right?


I guess that depends on your definition of redistribution of wealth. In a previous post in another thread you yourself defined "redistribution of wealth" as, and I'm quoting you:



> Redistributing wealth is giving money from the rich to the poor until everyone is equal.


Since the GI Bill is available to everyone, rich and poor alike, it would not meet your definition. In fact, one of my best friends in service came from a very wealthy family and he went to college on the GI Bill.

As for me, all that I had to do to get this wealth redistributed to me was to agree to spend several years doing an often dangerous and potentially life threatening job for a starting salary of $99 a month plus a bunk in a barracks and three meals at a mess hall, or perhaps C rations. In return for this investment of my time and possibly my life the government agreed to pay me a stipend for college when I got discharged. I got $175 a month. I'd like to think that I earned it and it wasn't just given to me.

So no, on further review I don't think the GI Bill could be defined as a redistribution of wealth. It was more like the government fulfilling a contractural agreement that was made with me for my services. Quid Pro Quo you might say.

Cruiser


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> OHH NOOO!!!!!! We give people free college like the GI BILL maybe we will create new rich people :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big: Endless stream of rich people. Rich people are renewable resource. We make new rich people every week through Powerball! I have my ticket. If I win I will delete all my post and support McCain because I don't want the damn government taking my lottery money to teach poor people. Those stupid poor babies don't deserve school or medicine. It's their own fault for not working hard enough to be born to rich parents. They should have lifted themselves up by their little baby booties.


You should seek psychiatric help. You have clearly become detached from reality.

The GI Bill isn't wealth redistribution. The GI Bill is a benefit to your job. The soldier is working for the money. A company I interned at, and most companies I've talked to will pay for my graduate degree if I go to work for them. Is that wealth redistribution? No. Same thing with the military giving the GI Bill. It allows people to better themselves to make them more effective at their job. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a major who doesn't have a master's degree, or a SFC that doesn't have at least a BA. Therefore they need to educate their soldiers.

Just because someone is born poor doesn't mean the deserve more than a person born rich. We can flip your comments on their head.

That is why I support a flat tax, or at least a semi-flat tax. People pay the same percentage of what they make.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

SkySov said:


> What? Where did the GI BILL money come from? I hope it didn't come from taxes. That would be redistributing wealth right?


Such a dope you are.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I guess that depends on your definition of redistribution of wealth. In a previous post in another thread you yourself defined "redistribution of wealth" as, and I'm quoting you:
> 
> Since the GI Bill is available to everyone, rich and poor alike, it would not meet your definition. In fact, one of my best friends in service came from a very wealthy family and he went to college on the GI Bill.
> 
> ...


This is an example of confirmation bias. You should have read further to hear what your peers thought redistributing wealth was. According to them tax money going to help others is redistributing wealth. That's a good point about the difference of working for it. And of course it's deserved as I think everyone deserves education. But your OP is about rich people paying too much taxes. Would there have been a GI BILL if rich people didn't pay taxes?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

SkySov said:


> You should have read further to hear what your peers thought redistributing wealth was. According to them tax money going to help others is redistributing wealth.


I really wasn't interested in what my peers thought about this. I was simply trying to answer your question based on "your" definition.



> But your OP is about rich people paying too much taxes.


Nothing in my post said that I thought rich people pay "too much" taxes. I don't think that they do. All I'm doing is recognizing the reality that the rich do pay the bulk of the revenues in this country, therefore, it stands to reason that if taxes are cut they would see a bigger cut than someone who is paying little or no taxes.



> Would there have been a GI BILL if rich people didn't pay taxes?


For that matter where would any government program be if the rich didn't pay taxes. They pay most of the taxes. All I'm saying is that the solution everytime someone wants to spend more government money is not to shout "tax the rich more". Maybe the government should spend less. Of course to those who want the government to be everything to everyone I guess that isn't possible.

Cruiser


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> That is why I support a flat tax, or at least a semi-flat tax. People pay the same percentage of what they make.


That would be a good idea. Was it Huckabee that wanted to do away with income tax and just have what he called a consumption tax? Wouldn't that even be more fair because rich people may use more resources and take up a bigger share of our commons than the disgusting poor? Too bad no one cares to comment on the difference between it not being fair that rich people have to pay taxes but is fair that people are born into poverty in this country with little chance of escaping. If life's not going to be fair I would rather tax the rich and give people a chance at a good life than being fair to the hard working rich and have poor die because they can't afford medicine. But I guess that's the difference between the two sides.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The poor need a good education, but they also have some responsibility for taking advantage of the education. The best schools in the world won't work if the kids aren't pushed to attend regularly, pay attention and do their homework.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I really wasn't interested in what my peers thought about this. I was simply trying to answer your question based on "your" definition.
> 
> Nothing in my post said that I thought rich people pay "too much" taxes. I don't think that they do. All I'm doing is recognizing the reality that the rich do pay the bulk of the revenues in this country, therefore, it stands to reason that if taxes are cut they would see a bigger cut than someone who is paying little or no taxes.
> 
> ...


That makes sense. Good job now I don't want to tax the rich more. You're right that's not the solution and a stupid slogan. Though the rich people are always going to pay the bulk because there is a large gap between rich and poor right? If only we could help people come out of poverty so they could start paying taxes. Then maybe it would be possible to collect the same amount of revenue while taxing the rich less! But how?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> That would be a good idea. Was it Huckabee that wanted to do away with income tax and just have what he called a consumption tax? Wouldn't that even be more fair because rich people may use more resources and take up a bigger share of our commons than the disgusting poor? Too bad no one cares to comment on the difference between it not being fair that rich people have to pay taxes but is fair that people are born into poverty in this country with little chance of escaping. If life's not going to be fair I would rather tax the rich and give people a chance at a good life than being fair to the hard working rich and have poor die because they can't afford medicine. But I guess that's the difference between the two sides.


Huckabee was the first Presidential candidate to campaign on going to the Fair Tax; however, it has been around longer. Also, Congressman Paul Ryan (WI's 1st), was the one who proposed the semi-flat tax that Forbes, Thompson and Guilliani ran on. It is still caught up in Washington limbo.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Who is opposed to a fair tax or flat tax? I am expecting biased answers of course, but just thought I'd take a chance at trying to learn something else here.

EDIT: I should have clarified I am asking which political party opposes fair or flat taxes not necessarily individual posters. Though I would like to hear that too


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

As far as I know only some Republicans and Libertarians have supported the flat tax so far. I have not heard of any Democrats support it yet.

Even among the Republicans only a minority support it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Who is opposed to a fair tax or flat tax? I am expecting biased answers of course, but just thought I'd take a chance at trying to learn something else here.
> 
> EDIT: I should have clarified I am asking which political party opposes fair or flat taxes not necessarily individual posters. Though I would like to hear that too


Two different questions. The Democrats oppose flat taxes, the Republicans oppose fair taxes.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Two different questions. The Democrats oppose flat taxes, the Republicans oppose fair taxes.


Groan.....


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Two different questions. The Democrats oppose flat taxes, the Republicans oppose fair taxes.


First, the Fair Tax is a specific tax policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax_Act

Second, design a tax that is more fair than the flat tax.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

How about only taxing for constitutionally-authorized spending? What could be more fair than not taxing anyone who makes less than $150k/year?

Oh, right, the welfare state--huh, Jack?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> First, the Fair Tax is a specific tax policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax_Act
> 
> Second, design a tax that is more fair than the flat tax.


First, you're trying to change the terms of the question. SkySov's question asked about "a fair tax". You are asking about "the Fair Tax". Common noun; proper noun. Can you tell the difference? The fact that the propagandists for a particular tax plan decided to call it "The Fair Tax" plan doesn't make it fair.

Second: we are talking about value judgments, but I would characterize a tax plan that is more progressive, i.e. collects a higher percentage of income as income goes up, and that taxes income earned from work at the same rate as income derived from capital gains, to be fairer than any flat tax proposal.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> ...Second: we are talking about value judgments, but I would characterize a tax plan that is more progressive, i.e. collects a higher percentage of income as income goes up, and that taxes income earned from work at the same rate as income derived from capital gains, to be fairer than any flat tax proposal.


Jack, could you enlighten us as to why you feel this way? Would you suggest taxing success to the point, the returns from same are mediocre?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Brokencycle, 

Before you bother responding to Jack's post, remember, fair is what Jack says it is.

On the whole issue of a tax being "fair" I had a couple of thoughts. Over the years, a number of tax systems have been tried and proposed. 

In the UK, there was outrage over the proposal of a "head tax" back in the 1980s. In this system everyone paid the same amount, regardless of income. Isn't that fair? Everyone paying exactly the same amount? No, it wasn't we were told because that amount represented different percentages of income for different people. If everyone had to pay $1000, well $1000 is a lot more money to someone making $20,000 a year than it is to a millionare.

Ok, so what about a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage, say 15-20%. Wouldn't that be fair? That way the more you make, the more you pay. Well, no that's not fair either, because that percentage represents different levels of disposeable income to different people. If someone makes $100,000 a year they would pay $15,000 in taxes, and the would have to live off of $85,000. Someone making $10,000 a year would only have $8,500 to live off of, so that 15% is much more expensive to the poorer person.

Ok, how about a national sales tax. That way you pay based on what you spend- the UK's VAT tax works this way, you pay 17.5% on most products that you buy. If we exempt food, clothes and other necessities that would mitigate the cost to the poor. Well, no, that's still unfair because the taxes paid by the rich would still represent a smaller portion of their overall income, even though they would pay a higher dollar amount. Poorer people tend to spend more of their overall income than wealthy people.

So, that leaves what we have. The progressive income tax. The more you make, the higher a percentage you pay. A system that punishes people for making money. I have said this over and over, I don't see the point in any system that punishes people for being successful.

Any system of taxation is going to look unfair to someone. No system is perfect, but I don't see that the system in place is ideal or even defendable. What is considered "fair" is also very much influenced by what system is in place at the time. Economic policy should be based on a system that maximizes wealth for the citizenry, both individually and collectivelly. I don't think our system does that. It is a basic principle of conservatism that "you do not build up the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer." I think the progressive system does just that. I think we would be better served by a simple flat tax that could be deducted from paychecks- thereby getting rid of the need for the IRS.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Believe it or not Jack, I know the difference between a common and proper known; however, I mentioned the Fair Tax and flat tax in the same post then SkySov asked who's opposed to a fair tax or flat tax. It is only _fair_ for me to assume he was responding to my post about such taxation measures.

How much money do you make a year jack?

I make less than $10,000/year, but would be more than happy to pay a flat tax, even if it is _unfair_ to me.... not quite sure how.

The proposed semi-flat tax has two tiers, so it is, in actuality, a progressive tax. And for a family of four the deductions around $50,000.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Second: we are talking about value judgments, but I would characterize a tax plan that is more progressive, i.e. collects a higher percentage of income as income goes up, and that taxes income earned from work at the same rate as income derived from capital gains, to be fairer than any flat tax proposal.


Wow! Interesting definition of "fair"! I can see how you might argue that progressive taxation is "practically necessary" or even "morally preferable" -- but fair?...

tjs


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Sartre said:


> Wow! Interesting definition of "fair"! I can see how you might argue that progressive taxation is "practically necessary" or even "morally preferable" -- but fair?...
> 
> tjs


It is fair if one considers the needs of society as a whole, needs that a progressive tax policy are designed to address. Fairness in the context of the needs of the many is indeed a value judgment, and on such judgments reasonable people (and even unreasonable ones!) can disagree in very large ways.

Of course if one is only considering the needs of an individual, then "fair" is a term best left out as it needs more than one for comparison. I may feel that my tax burden is irritating, expensive, even ruinous but it would not be unfair to me alone, unless I could expand my scope to compare it with others.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Quay said:


> It is fair if one considers the needs of society as a whole, needs that a progressive tax policy are designed to address. Fairness in the context of the needs of the many is indeed a value judgment, and on such judgments reasonable people (and even unreasonable ones!) can disagree in very large ways.
> 
> Of course if one is only considering the needs of an individual, then "fair" is a term best left out as it needs more than one for comparison. I may feel that my tax burden is irritating, expensive, even ruinous but it would not be unfair to me alone, unless I could expand my scope to compare it with others.


I'm not such a relativist. The minute you begin contextualizing ("it is fair if one considers...") you lose me. Don't get me wrong: I believe we need progressive taxation for the good of society. Thus it is practically necessary and morally right. But not "fair" per se.

tjs


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Sartre said:


> I'm not such a relativist. The minute you begin contextualizing ("it is fair if one considers...") you lose me. Don't get me wrong: I believe we need progressive taxation for the good of society. Thus it is practically necessary and morally right. But not "fair" per se.
> 
> tjs


Let's take this one pregnant word at a time. What is your definition of fair in this instance?


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Ok, how about a national sales tax. That way you pay based on what you spend- the UK's VAT tax works this way, you pay 17.5% on most products that you buy. If we exempt food, clothes and other necessities that would mitigate the cost to the poor. Well, no, that's still unfair because the taxes paid by the rich would still represent a smaller portion of their overall income, even though they would pay a higher dollar amount. Poorer people tend to spend more of their overall income than wealthy people.


I like this one the best. Especially if things like food and clothes and booze don't have the tax :devil:. I don't understand how rich people spending less of their overall income matters. They are still likely to account for most of the revenue collected. 17% of their private jets and yachts will give the government a nice chunk of change right? And it may make the poor spend more wisely. You know not going into dept and save or contribute to IRAs and such.



brokencycle said:


> Believe it or not Jack, I know the difference between a common and proper known; however, I mentioned the Fair Tax and flat tax in the same post then SkySov asked who's opposed to a fair tax or flat tax. It is only _fair_ for me to assume he was responding to my post about such taxation measures.


You're right I was referring to THE fair tax and THE flat tax. Sorry Jack for the confusion.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Quay said:


> Let's take this one pregnant word at a time. What is your definition of fair in this instance?


Again -- my definition of fair would attempt as far as possible _not_ to be context specific ("in this instance"). I am using the word to mean equitable, impartial, free from favoritism. I am not using it to mean "just," which I realize is a legitimate usage of the word.

tjs


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

SkySov said:


> I like this one the best. Especially if things like food and clothes and booze don't have the tax :devil:. I don't understand how rich people spending less of their overall income matters. They are still likely to account for most of the revenue collected. 17% of their private jets and yachts will give the government a nice chunk of change right? And it may make the poor spend more wisely. You know not going into dept and save or contribute to IRAs and such.
> 
> You're right I was referring to THE fair tax and THE flat tax. Sorry Jack for the confusion.


I doubt booze would be exempted.

As has been pointed out many times before, rich people already do pay most of the taxes- the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the taxes in the current system.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Sartre said:


> Again -- my definition of fair would attempt as far as possible _not_ to be context specific ("in this instance"). I am using the word to mean equitable, impartial, free from favoritism. I am not using it to mean "just," which I realize is a legitimate usage of the word.
> 
> tjs


That makes sense -- thanks. So if I say that the _idea_ of a progressive tax system is equitable, impartial and free from favoritism you'd agree with that while noting that the _actual system as it is_ is...well, shall we say, in need of improvement?

As to why, I can see that the impartial part might be ok, as in the system doesn't personally single anyone out. I can also see that the favoritism part could be argued against it as the current structure seems to favor those with a lot of money, savvy accountants and tax lawyers. But how about the equitable part? Which sort of brings us back to the fair and impartial thing again. I guess I'm not sure about one thing, since as you said the reasons for having a progressive system seem necessary, even morally necessary. Is it the current mess you object to or the ideas behind it? Perhaps both?

--A.Q.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Quay said:


> That makes sense -- thanks. So if I say that the _idea_ of a progressive tax system is equitable, impartial and free from favoritism you'd agree with that while noting that the _actual system as it is_ is...well, shall we say, in need of improvement?
> 
> As to why, I can see that the impartial part might be ok, as in the system doesn't personally single anyone out. I can also see that the favoritism part could be argued against it as the current structure seems to favor those with a lot of money, savvy accountants and tax lawyers. But how about the equitable part? Which sort of brings us back to the fair and impartial thing again. I guess I'm not sure about one thing, since as you said the reasons for having a progressive system seem necessary, even morally necessary.* Is it the current mess you object to or the ideas behind it? Perhaps both?*
> 
> --A.Q.


Naaah, I wasn't really objecting to anything, I was just pointing out that it's possible to believe a progressive system such as we now have is both necessary AND "unfair." Maybe I'm nuts but I'm trying to hold two contradictory ideas in the mind at the same time. A simpler example would be that killing people is morally repugnant but that war is sometimes justified.

tjs


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Sartre said:


> Naaah, I wasn't really objecting to anything, I was just pointing out that it's possible to believe a progressive system such as we now have is both necessary AND "unfair." Maybe I'm nuts but I'm trying to hold two contradictory ideas in the mind at the same time. A simpler example would be that killing people is morally repugnant but that war is sometimes justified.
> 
> tjs


I understand. The context matters.  "Killing people is morally repugnant but in some instances war is justified."


----------

