the truth

[gridfaniker]

about Bush's plan to cut taxes (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030115-29704497.htm)

versus the Dems' counterproposal.

There's more in Bush's plan for the lower and middle class than you'd think, and less in the Dems' plan.

Someone here, EJ how about you, tell me how the elimination of the marriage penalty benefits the rich. Tell me how it's fair and how a couple living together deserve more of a break than a married couple.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
about Bush's plan to cut taxes (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030115-29704497.htm)

versus the Dems' counterproposal.

There's more in Bush's plan for the lower and middle class than you'd think, and less in the Dems' plan.

Someone here, EJ how about you, tell me how the elimination of the marriage penalty benefits the rich. Tell me how it's fair and how a couple living together deserve more of a break than a married couple.

thats great grid- just tell me which programs we're gonna cut to attempt to balance the budget and fund a war and follow through on homeland security.

[LarryD]

i'd love to get a couple of thousand back. is this for 2003 taxes?

and, lj, like there aren't a hundred "programs" that can't be cut...

[mailman]

That's the bitch of it Larry... they'll never get cut completely out of the budget just the growth of the socialist programs are cut back a little.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by LarryD
i'd love to get a couple of thousand back. is this for 2003 taxes?

and, lj, like there aren't a hundred "programs" that can't be cut...

i agree. but i havent heard the repubs mention this- this is all smoke and mirros-> cut taxes, budget increase (in fiscal 01-02, bush increased budget by 6%, 1% higher than clinton did in his whole presidency) which will lead to another shit-faced economy.

the repubs aint gonna cut shit.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by lj4three


thats great grid- just tell me which programs we're gonna cut to attempt to balance the budget and fund a war and follow through on homeland security.

As usual, you miss the point, or choose to ignore it. The article exposes the hypocrisy of the Dems' whining over the GOP's interest in cutting taxes "only for the rich." When the Dems offer their own plan, it benefits the lower and middles classes less than the Republicans. What does this have to do with cutting programs?

And you say nothing about the marriage penalty. Please explain, if you can, how the marriage penalty is fair and how elimination of it would benefit only the rich.

[Rumpeltiltspin]

Pubs won't 'cut' programs cause Dems won't even agree to cut the 'growth' of programs.
As a taxpayer, I hope for tax cuts, and hope the economy gets better so that growth helps tax revenues to keep some of the needed programs that help people who need it.
You want a taxcut, and balanced budget, then elect officials who WILL cut programs, and that for sure wouldn't be Dems.

[Rumpeltiltspin]

Originally posted by lj4three


.... the repubs aint gonna cut shit.

So tell me LJ, what programs have the Dems ever cut, or even cut the growth of?
The only people bitching about taxcuts, balanced budgets, and Bush's plan, are the Rich Dems needing votes in '04 (who DON'T want a better economy until AFTER the next election, and those of you who don't pay any taxes, and are getting a free ride from those of us who do pay taxes. And from what I understand from most of the Dems out there, anybody, and everybody who does make enough money to actually PAY taxes- who's actually FUNDING this country, are the 'rich' people.
If you think you're not paying enough in taxes, LJ (if you pay anything at all), then give your tax cut back to the gumment, or just write a check to Uncle Sam, for what you think IS enough.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by Rumpeltiltspin


So tell me LJ, what programs have the Dems ever cut, or even cut the growth of?
The only people bitching about taxcuts, balanced budgets, and Bush's plan, are the Rich Dems needing votes in '04 (who DON'T want a better economy until AFTER the next election, and those of you who don't pay any taxes, and are getting a free ride from those of us who do pay taxes. And from what I understand from most of the Dems out there, anybody, and everybody who does make enough money to actually PAY taxes- who's actually FUNDING this country, are the 'rich' people.
If you think you're not paying enough in taxes, LJ (if you pay anything at all), then give your tax cut back to the gumment, or just write a check to Uncle Sam, for what you think IS enough.

read my statement- where did i say dems do this or dems do that. what did say is- IF bush decides to cut taxes, what programs will he cut to balance the possible shortfall? And the answer is- NONE. we're expected to be approaching yearly defecits of $300-400 billion because of the tax cut. go ahead, lets relive the past.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by lj4three


read my statement- where did i say dems do this or dems do that. what did say is- IF bush decides to cut taxes, what programs will he cut to balance the possible shortfall? And the answer is- NONE. we're expected to be approaching yearly defecits of $300-400 billion because of the tax cut. go ahead, lets relive the past. you need to look at the history of tax cuts and the increase in revenue....give me a few and i will cite your ass into tomorrow.....

lj, c'mon man, you are obviously an intelligent person. the tax cuts of the 80s that you refer to did not cause the deficit and the debt. i'll be right back.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
you need to look at the history of tax cuts and the increase in revenue....give me a few and i will cite your ass into tomorrow.....

lj, c'mon man, you are obviously an intelligent person. the tax cuts of the 80s that you refer to did not cause the deficit and the debt. i'll be right back.

i know- defense spending was a huge part of it. the increase in revenue was all smoke and mirrors that bit us in the ass from 87-93. so, basically we get 5 short-term years of "success" and paid for it from 87-93.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by lj4three


i know- defense spending was a huge part of it. the increase in revenue was all smoke and mirrors that bit us in the ass from 87-93. so, basically we get 5 short-term years of "success" and paid for it from 87-93. you have no idea how wrong you are...

read this (http://www.presidentreagan.info/revenues.cfm) also peruse the rest of the site and try to disprove documented fact. i challenge you to research it further.

doesn't look like smoke and mirror to me.

rember that Bush (41) was strong armed into raising taxes and that had an imediate negative effect on the economy.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by lj4three


read my statement- where did i say dems do this or dems do that. what did say is- IF bush decides to cut taxes, what programs will he cut to balance the possible shortfall? And the answer is- NONE. we're expected to be approaching yearly defecits of $300-400 billion because of the tax cut. go ahead, lets relive the past.

If tax cuts are so bad and cause nothing but budget headaches, why are BOTH side proposing them? Answer, because they will spur growth and boost revenue. Only difference is the dems' plan unfarily benefits the rich.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


If tax cuts are so bad and cause nothing but budget headaches, why are BOTH side proposing them? Answer, because they will spur growth and boost revenue. Only difference is the dems' plan unfarily benefits the rich.

i didnt say tax cuts are bad- i said bush's plan was bad. i dont see the stimulus from bush's plan that we so desperately need. targeted tax cuts to those who would spur the economy the most (middle-class and propreitors), plus small business incentives and the actual implementation of the Homeland Security Dept (behind the curtain there's nothing there) would provide short-term stimulus to the economy.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by lj4three


i didnt say tax cuts are bad- i said bush's plan was bad. i dont see the stimulus from bush's plan that we so desperately need. targeted tax cuts to those who would spur the economy the most (middle-class and propreitors), plus small business incentives and the actual implementation of the Homeland Security Dept (behind the curtain there's nothing there) would provide short-term stimulus to the economy.

But Bush's plan benefits the middle class more than the Dems' proposal. If you disagree with Bush's plan, you must be hopping mad over the Democrats are offering up. So go ahead, vent.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


But Bush's plan benefits the middle class more than the Dems' proposal. If you disagree with Bush's plan, you must be hopping mad over the Democrats are offering up. So go ahead, vent.

in raw numbers, yes. but in reality- bush's plan in itself is a much more robust plan that ends up shilling $$ at a higher % to the rich, which, in my opinion, will not stimulate the economy. so either, we break the bank and lunge into deficit spending for the 3rd straight year and the middle class gets a little bit more of a tax cut, or we act fiscally responsible w/ the possibility of a new war approaching and homeland security being funded and give a moderate tax cut to those who need it the most. the latter seems like the more logical choice to me.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by lj4three


in raw numbers, yes. but in reality- bush's plan in itself is a much more robust plan that ends up shilling $$ at a higher % to the rich, which, in my opinion, will not stimulate the economy. so either, we break the bank and lunge into deficit spending for the 3rd straight year and the middle class gets a little bit more of a tax cut, or we act fiscally responsible w/ the possibility of a new war approaching and homeland security being funded and give a moderate tax cut to those who need it the most. the latter seems like the more logical choice to me.

Raw numbers my ass. Democrats in Congress define "the rich" as someone making $100,000. Does a couple with a combined income of $100K qualify a rich to you? If so, fine, but you can't argue that people making that kind of money wouldn't stimulate the economy if given a tax break. You want us to believe that the only people who would benefit under Bush's proposal are top-level business execs making seven-figure salaries. You may have bought into the lie, but it just ain't so.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by lj4three


in raw numbers, yes. but in reality- bush's plan in itself is a much more robust plan that ends up shilling $$ at a higher % to the rich, which, in my opinion, will not stimulate the economy. so either, we break the bank and lunge into deficit spending for the 3rd straight year and the middle class gets a little bit more of a tax cut, or we act fiscally responsible w/ the possibility of a new war approaching and homeland security being funded and give a moderate tax cut to those who need it the most. the latter seems like the more logical choice to me.

lj, do you really believe this worn out drivel? clue you in, the budget shortfalls are due to how your hero Clinton managed his deficit with his short term bonds and other accounting fudges. and FYI, the weathiest reinvest theier money into the economy thus creating more wealth and more tax revenue. read some econmics before you strart spouting this shit. it don't fly.

[Superfluous_Nut]

oh what the hell, i'll bite...

certainly the bush plan gives more back to more people, but there's no arguing that the democrat plan favors the lower income brackets more than the bush plan. it gives less back, but it's evenly distributed across all brackets. agree with it or not, it's true.

as for the marriage penalty. never did understand how this came to be. i don't understand why there's any difference. i thought, tho, that you could still file seperately if you wished and thus avoid the penalty. am i wrong? in any case, marital status ought to have no bearing on your taxes -- cept that you could pool your income and double the tax bracket figures...

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
oh what the hell, i'll bite...

certainly the bush plan gives more back to more people, but there's no arguing that the democrat plan favors the lower income brackets more than the bush plan. it gives less back, but it's evenly distributed across all brackets. agree with it or not, it's true.

as for the marriage penalty. never did understand how this came to be. i don't understand why there's any difference. i thought, tho, that you could still file seperately if you wished and thus avoid the penalty. am i wrong? in any case, marital status ought to have no bearing on your taxes -- cept that you could pool your income and double the tax bracket figures...

The Bush plan benefits the middle and lower classes more than the Dem plan. Ignore or twist the facvts any way you choose, the numbers bear it out. (Although the Dem plan does have something the Bush plan does not: tax refunds for people who don't pay taxes.)

And yes, you are wrong about the marriage penalty. If you're married, you can file separately, but the combined standard deduction is still less than for two unmarried people. Any idea why the Dems continue to insist elimination of the marriage penalty would benefit "only the rich."

[vpkozel]

The top 20% of wage earners pay something like 80% of the taxes from private citizens, so I think that it is only fair that they get a larger % of the tax breaks. i agree that we need to scale back some programs. The farm bill was bullshit but Congress (both sides) couldn't control themselves and bribed a few more voters. Bush should have vetoed it, but I can understand shy he didn't - it isn't his job to make Congress be fiscally responsible. Sure we are spending a boatload of money on Homeland security and I think that tabling tax cut discussions is a fine idea as long as you revisit them, but I do not believe that the Dems are being genuine when they say we should delay discussions - they will always find a reason why we need to spend money. The bottom line is this. I feel that the government collects too much of my money for what I get in return. I think that far too much gets lost in bereaucratic holes never to be seen again. I though our buddy Al was going to reinvent government, what ever happened to that?

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


The Bush plan benefits the middle and lower classes more than the Dem plan. Ignore or twist the facvts any way you choose, the numbers bear it out. (Although the Dem plan does have something the Bush plan does not: tax refunds for people who don't pay taxes.)

And the Bush plan benefits the upper class even more. But then "benefit" isn't necessarily a good choice of words here. I personally don't feel like I get much of a benefit from the government being irresponsible with it's finances.

I'm curious, is there any time you think it's appropriate to raise taxes?

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
I'm curious, is there any time you think it's appropriate to raise taxes?

Absolutely: when the government doesn't have enough to pay for services I feel are essential.

Does government spend too much money now. I think so. Thus I think taxes can be cut.

We've gone through this before, but it's been shown that tax cuts cause revenue to grow. it happened while regan was in office. The budget deficit grew not because of a cut in taxes, but because of an increase in spending.


I'm curious too, any time you think it's appropriate to lower taxes?

[SilverSurfer]

Originally posted by gridfaniker




I'm curious too, any time you think it's appropriate to lower taxes?

I agree with the elimination of the marriage penalty and the death tax. :)

[T_Schroll]

Seems just a year ago when the Dems were screaming about those $300 and $600 rebates. Now what do they offer? $300 and $600 rebates.

[WilliamJ]

I think anyone that is a registered Democrat or independant ought to get a tax increase, and anyone registered Republican ought to get a tax cut. That would be fair don't you think? I mean the Dems are the all for paying taxes so they should shoulder the burden I mean after all they are the ones that get the biggest benifits from programs and such. demographically speaking of course.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut




I'm curious, is there any time you think it's appropriate to raise taxes?

Can't think of one.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


Absolutely: when the government doesn't have enough to pay for services I feel are essential.


how would that ever happen if reducing the tax rate yields more tax revenue? or do you have some services in mind that the government doesn't currently provide?


Does government spend too much money now. I think so. Thus I think taxes can be cut.


I agree with that premise, but I think it needs to be done more honestly than it currently is -- none of this defecit spending bullshit.


We've gone through this before, but it's been shown that tax cuts cause revenue to grow. it happened while regan was in office. The budget deficit grew not because of a cut in taxes, but because of an increase in spending.


a lot of people say that. i'm wondering exactly in what way reagan cut taxes. sure the tax tables changed, but so did the deductions.

for the years 1977-1982, the federal receipts as a percentage of the GDP was about 18.95%

for the years 1983-1990, the fed receipts were 18.35% of the GDP

for the years 1991-1994, the rate stays the same at 18.35%

that sounds like a .6% tax overall tax reduction to me.

i don't have data for 1994-2000, but if you've got a source i'd love to plug the numbers in and take a peek.


I'm curious too, any time you think it's appropriate to lower taxes?

I'm not a big fan of playing with tax rates. I'm not big on raising them or lowering them. But if lowering them causes such a great economic spurt, then you must have to re-raise them at some point or you'll run out of taxes to reduce.

Personally, I'd rather have a few years of black ink before I would consider reducing taxes. I'd be looking to reduce the national debt before I would be looking to give money back to folks.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
I think anyone that is a registered Democrat or independant ought to get a tax increase, and anyone registered Republican ought to get a tax cut. That would be fair don't you think? I mean the Dems are the all for paying taxes so they should shoulder the burden I mean after all they are the ones that get the biggest benifits from programs and such. demographically speaking of course.


That's brilliant. Goes along with the "if you don't want yer $300 check, I'll take it."

I suppose you think that an AL coach that doesn't like the DH rule should just not have a DH? Or maybe an NBA coach that thinks zone defenses have adversely affected the game should only play man to man? Or how about all the NFL clubs that didn't vote for instant replay don't get to use it?

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Originally posted by gridfaniker


Absolutely: when the government doesn't have enough to pay for services I feel are essential.


how would that ever happen if reducing the tax rate yields more tax revenue? or do you have some services in mind that the government doesn't currently provide?


Does government spend too much money now. I think so. Thus I think taxes can be cut.


I agree with that premise, but I think it needs to be done more honestly than it currently is -- none of this defecit spending bullshit.


We've gone through this before, but it's been shown that tax cuts cause revenue to grow. it happened while regan was in office. The budget deficit grew not because of a cut in taxes, but because of an increase in spending.


a lot of people say that. i'm wondering exactly in what way reagan cut taxes. sure the tax tables changed, but so did the deductions.

for the years 1977-1982, the federal receipts as a percentage of the GDP was about 18.95%

for the years 1983-1990, the fed receipts were 18.35% of the GDP

for the years 1991-1994, the rate stays the same at 18.35%

that sounds like a .6% tax overall tax reduction to me.

i don't have data for 1994-2000, but if you've got a source i'd love to plug the numbers in and take a peek.


I'm curious too, any time you think it's appropriate to lower taxes?

I'm not a big fan of playing with tax rates. I'm not big on raising them or lowering them. But if lowering them causes such a great economic spurt, then you must have to re-raise them at some point or you'll run out of taxes to reduce.

Personally, I'd rather have a few years of black ink before I would consider reducing taxes. I'd be looking to reduce the national debt before I would be looking to give money back to folks.

The "services" I refer to are at the local level. If I felt there weren't enough cops on the street to keep me and my family safe, I'd be OK with the village raising taxes to hire another cop or two. if the streets are in poor shape, or some water or sewage lines need replaces, I'd be all for raising taxes to pay for it. But local government is much more thrifty than government at the state and national level. Anything I'd want the feds to spend more money on could be accomodated by cutting out other expenses. Personally, I think pork spending should be eliminated altogethe. But we all know that won't happen. I also think there is too much of a duplication of services between state and federal government. For example I see no reason why there needs to be a federal department of education.

As for the percentage of taxes to the GDP. Taxes went down, spurring growth, the GDP went up, and the amount of taxes collected went up with it. Of course, congressional spending went up at the same time, causing the deficit. I think the reason you stopped citing figures in 1994 was because that was the year Bill enacted the largest tax increase in US history. How convenient.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by gridfaniker

As for the percentage of taxes to the GDP. Taxes went down, spurring growth, the GDP went up, and the amount of taxes collected went up with it. Of course, congressional spending went up at the same time, causing the deficit. I think the reason you stopped citing figures in 1994 was because that was the year Bill enacted the largest tax increase in US history. How convenient.

the reason i stopped quoting figures from 1995 to present (1994 is included) is because i don't have those numbers, church lady.

you're missing the point, tho. lemme ask you this -- you say reagan lowered taxes. okay, by how much?

[Ssstern]

The Truth about Taxes


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.

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 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 paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh
paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with
a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

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

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.

"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the
breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the
tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up at the table anymore.

Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut


the reason i stopped quoting figures from 1995 to present (1994 is included) is because i don't have those numbers, church lady.

you're missing the point, tho. lemme ask you this -- you say reagan lowered taxes. okay, by how much?

You "don't have those numbers"? As I said, how convenient.

Reagan implemented a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut in 1981. In the ensuing years federal tax revenue grew at a rate of 24 percent. From 1990-97, during which time Bush and Clinton jacked up taxes, tax revenues grew at a rate of only 19 percent. (I guess the theory that tax cuts spur growth can be explained away as "coincidence.")

What about the deficit? What about it? It was not caused by tax cuts (remember, revenues went up). It was caused by massive spending increases and a drastic reduction in inflation.

You mention taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product as if that somehow magically calculates tax rates. I have no idea why that was brought into the discussion. It has no relevance, seeing as federal tax receipts went UP during the period of 1981-89.

Tax rates went down, growth occurred, more Americans paid taxes, tax receipts went up. Amazing. The opposite (which apparently you endorse) would go something like this: Tax rates go up, jobs are lost, less Americans pay taxes, tax receipts go down (time to raise taxes again).

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by gridfaniker

Reagan implemented a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut in 1981. In the ensuing years federal tax revenue grew at a rate of 24 percent.


24% per what? Year? Are you talking about constant dollars or does reagan somehow get credit for skyrocketing inflation? In "1996 dollars" the fed revenue in 1981 was $600 billion. In 1982 it was 617 billion. In 1983 it went DOWN to $600 billion again. By 1989 it was 990 billion. At total increase of about 65% in 8 years.


From 1990-97, during which time Bush and Clinton jacked up taxes, tax revenues grew at a rate of only 19 percent. (I guess the theory that tax cuts spur growth can be explained away as "coincidence.")


From 1989's 990 billion to 1994's 1257 billion in revenue, the increase is 27% for 5 years. That's off the pace. Tax revenues were going up at a slower rate. I have no problem agreeing with that.


You mention taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product as if that somehow magically calculates tax rates. I have no idea why that was brought into the discussion. It has no relevance, seeing as federal tax receipts went UP during the period of 1981-89.


"Magically"? How about "fiscally"? You cannot take the simplistic view that because the 90% tax bracket knocked down to 25% (or whatever it was) that taxes were reduced. That tax bracket rate was reduced, clearly, but what about the myriad tax breaks that were also reduced? The tax "loopholes" that were closed?

Can you explain how if the GDP is 100 billion dollars and the Fed gov't recieved 20 billion that the overall tax-rate is NOT 20%? Where else does that money come from if not taxes? SOMEBODY had to pay it.


Tax rates went down, growth occurred, more Americans paid taxes, tax receipts went up. Amazing. The opposite (which apparently you endorse) would go something like this: Tax rates go up, jobs are lost, less Americans pay taxes, tax receipts go down (time to raise taxes again).

No, actually I don't endorse that. But I gotta admit I do like when fed receipts are equivalent to fed outlays. I also don't buy the premise that Reagan so drastically reduced taxes either.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by Ssstern
The Truth about Taxes


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.

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 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 paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh
paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with
a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

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

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.

"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the
breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the
tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up at the table anymore.

Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

That's great. 'Cept it doesn't actually get into what they each guy "ate". You make it sound like the top 10% should only pay 10% of the taxes. In 1999 the top 10% of wage earners paid about 65% of the taxes -- but they earned 45% percent of all income. Even at a completely flat tax, that would equate to the top 10% paying 45% of the taxes which, by the "logic" above, would seem unfair.

[gridfaniker]

A simplistic approach is sometimes needed to best illustrate a point. The simple facts are that Reagan lowered taxes (like Bush is proposing now). As a result, tax revenues went up, and at a higher rate that when taxes were increased in the early-to-mid 1990s. Was it luck?

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
A simplistic approach is sometimes needed to best illustrate a point. The simple facts are that Reagan lowered taxes (like Bush is proposing now). As a result, tax revenues went up, and at a higher rate that when taxes were increased in the early-to-mid 1990s. Was it luck?

Okay, Reagan lowered taxes. Not by 25% but by about 3%. There's no change in this tax rate thru the 1994 receipts. The revenues grew at a slower rate 1990-1994 because the GDP grew at a slower rate.

I'm sure you'll draw a comparison between the GDP growth slowing and taxes being increased, but I contend a 18.35% total tax burden existed between 1981 thru 1989 and the same tax burden existed from 1990 thru 1994. Thus the total tax rate wasn't different between those two periods of time. So the GDP wasn't reacting to a tax increase because there was none in that period of time.

[VOR]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


You "don't have those numbers"? As I said, how convenient.

Reagan implemented a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut in 1981. In the ensuing years federal tax revenue grew at a rate of 24 percent. From 1990-97, during which time Bush and Clinton jacked up taxes, tax revenues grew at a rate of only 19 percent. (I guess the theory that tax cuts spur growth can be explained away as "coincidence.")

What about the deficit? What about it? It was not caused by tax cuts (remember, revenues went up). It was caused by massive spending increases and a drastic reduction in inflation.

You mention taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product as if that somehow magically calculates tax rates. I have no idea why that was brought into the discussion. It has no relevance, seeing as federal tax receipts went UP during the period of 1981-89.

Tax rates went down, growth occurred, more Americans paid taxes, tax receipts went up. Amazing. The opposite (which apparently you endorse) would go something like this: Tax rates go up, jobs are lost, less Americans pay taxes, tax receipts go down (time to raise taxes again).

Unfortunately what the gridster doesn't like to mention is that the increases were mostly defense porkbarrel related. Most social spending increases were enacted in the form of mandates that the individual states had to fund. the 25% federal tax cut was a sham. An of course grid does not mention that the middle 80's is when the boomers began to enter middle management and as a result income tax revenues increased. Now the GOP has destroyed the job market and the result no tax revenues where the were lots before. So naturally the republican response is to start a war, let the energy cartel further destroy the economy, and more pork barrel military spending. 2 years of this and the economy is still in a downward spiral with a cook books uptick just prior to the midterm elections. Hell in typically businessman republican fashion they stopped tracking layoff, they can't stem the tide, their domestic can most mercifully be described as vodo, so the result is if you can win, change the stats, or in this case destroy the stats. Yeah paper shreaders management the republican way. The truth bahahahahahahaha.

[WilliamJ]

Argueing with you commie fuckers is pointless. That is why I think all you Dems ought to be paying the higher taxes. I think if the tax rates were increased by that demograph you'd be changing your tune.

Here's one for you....anyone on the public dole ought to lose the right to vote. I mean I'm not on the gov't payroll so I can't vote myself a pay raise. Why should welfare recipients? I bet after 2 election cycles the welfare rate in this country would fall off like nobody's buisness. Thus lessiening the budgetary burdens on the fed gov't. :)

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
That is why I think all you Dems ought to be paying the higher taxes. I think if the tax rates were increased by that demograph you'd be changing your tune.

That's a brilliant deduction, Will. You should enter politics. You could boil down all sorts of tough social questions to your own brand of logic....

reporter: "Mr J, do you see a need for social programs?"

wj: "Only for those people that want them. If you don't want the government to help you, don't ask."

reporter: "Mr J, what is your stance on abortion?"

wj: "Abortion should only be legal for democrats. In addition, all republicans should adopt any unwanted children out there."

reporter: "Mr J, could you clarify your stance on the death penalty?"

wj: "I think the death penalty should be reserved for those that believe in its cost effectiveness and constitutionality -- everybody else should be punished in a way that they see fit."

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut


That's a brilliant deduction, Will. You should enter politics. You could boil down all sorts of tough social questions to your own brand of logic....

reporter: "Mr J, do you see a need for social programs?"

wj: "Only for those people that want them. If you don't want the government to help you, don't ask."

reporter: "Mr J, what is your stance on abortion?"

wj: "Abortion should only be legal for democrats. In addition, all republicans should adopt any unwanted children out there."

reporter: "Mr J, could you clarify your stance on the death penalty?"

wj: "I think the death penalty should be reserved for those that believe in its cost effectiveness and constitutionality -- everybody else should be punished in a way that they see fit." c'mon S-nut....Is that the best you got? I thought you were smart and clever...You did not even come close to touching the point I am making. I am disappointed :)

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
c'mon S-nut....Is that the best you got? I thought you were smart and clever...You did not even come close to touching the point I am making. I am disappointed :)

You had a point?

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut


You had a point?

My point is over the past 30 years, since "The Great Society" programs of LBJ, we have created a dependant class of people.

Our constitution formed a Representative Republic, we have become a socialist democracy since FDR. Most are scared to call it that or admit they are socialist. The core of my obsurd point is that if we were to remove an entire demograph from the electoral process, we would bring about drastic changes for the positive in our gov'ts budgetary process. I mean, those dependant on gov't subsistance in essence have the power to elect themselves pay raises every two years... I can't do that, can you? In fact through extortion the gov't takes from the top 50% and gives it to the bottom 20%. That right out of Marx and Engler's book. The reality is that the bottom 20% could be cut to a legit 5%. No I'm not heartless, I think it incombent on us as a society to take care of widows and orphans and maimed veterans of foriegn wars. But not minorities that use the system to further enslave themselves. No wonder 50% of Americans are ok with current tax tates, they hardy pay any.I'll go even further....

FDR used this form of persuasion and coercion to create a voter base during the depression. Johnson took it a giant step more, his "Great Society" created it's own voting demograph by giving people money from the public dole. This is an undeniable truth in American politics, most educated people do not have the guts to admit this.

Here's a question for you....You are a self-made guy, you work for a company you started and you make a good living, correct? If yes, then how can you be so liberal? Do you like the Gov't extorting your hard earned income? Or do you see it as your civic duty to let them confiscate your funds and hand it back to those unwilling to get educated and improve their lot in life? I'm a new busness owner and I see the gov't as my enemy in regads to this, I bet you use every tool open to you to pay as little tax as possible, it's ok, I do, in fact it's the American way. Again this proves my point about the confiscatory nature of our Gov't.

And yes I believe every word I just typed to be irrefutable, except the questions to you, that is just my curiosity.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by WilliamJ


My point is over the past 30 years, since "The Great Society" programs of LBJ, we have created a dependant class of people.

Our constitution formed a Representative Republic, we have become a socialist democracy since FDR. Most are scared to call it that or admit they are socialist. The core of my obsurd point is that if we were to remove an entire demograph from the electoral process, we would bring about drastic changes for the positive in our gov'ts budgetary process. I mean, those dependant on gov't subsistance in essence have the power to elect themselves pay raises every two years... I can't do that, can you? In fact through extortion the gov't takes from the top 50% and gives it to the bottom 20%. That right out of Marx and Engler's book. The reality is that the bottom 20% could be cut to a legit 5%. No I'm not heartless, I think it incombent on us as a society to take care of widows and orphans and maimed veterans of foriegn wars. But not minorities that use the system to further enslave themselves. No wonder 50% of Americans are ok with current tax tates, they hardy pay any.I'll go even further....

FDR used this form of persuasion and coercion to create a voter base during the depression. Johnson took it a giant step more, his "Great Society" created it's own voting demograph by giving people money from the public dole. This is an undeniable truth in American politics, most educated people do not have the guts to admit this.

Here's a question for you....You are a self-made guy, you work for a company you started and you make a good living, correct? If yes, then how can you be so liberal? Do you like the Gov't extorting your hard earned income? Or do you see it as your civic duty to let them confiscate your funds and hand it back to those unwilling to get educated and improve their lot in life? I'm a new busness owner and I see the gov't as my enemy in regads to this, I bet you use every tool open to you to pay as little tax as possible, it's ok, I do, in fact it's the American way. Again this proves my point about the confiscatory nature of our Gov't.

And yes I believe every word I just typed to be irrefutable, except the questions to you, that is just my curiosity.


Personally, I think the most brilliant aspect of the constitution is that it's got a built-in system for ammending it. That tells me the framers were forward thinking enough to understand the world changes. And it has. The United States has been around for only a few hundred years. Our system of government has evolved during that period of time. It will continue to evolve. That's a good thing. Look at every other government that exists. You think it'd be good if they turned the clock back 200 years? Kings and Queens and Feudal lords running the show? Why would it be any better if we did?

Your argument that the liberals are voting themselves a raise could just as easily be applied to the conservatives. They're buying votes saying you'll get more money and they don't care that it's money they don't have.

Yes, I'm comfortable. I've gotten good breaks and made the best of them. I also received public assistance when in school. At the time, I felt somewhat guilty, but in retrospect, I can see how it freed me from having to take a crap job and let me spend my evenings interning at a company where I ended up getting a good job and eventually learned what I needed to start my own business. Now I've more than paid that money back. I'm not going to deny there is waste in the system and it could use a good cleaning, but I understand the necessity of social programs.

How can I be so liberal? I'm not that liberal. I'm not suggesting we up taxes or redistribute wealth. And of course I try to pay as little tax as I can. We all "agreed" to the rules and as long as people abide by them, it's totally fair to try to pay as little as you are required.

Whenever we hired a new employee, we understood the costs associated. Just like when a person gets a job, they understand there's a difference between what you "make" and what you take home. If somebody is stupid enough to think that they take home what they make, then they clearly are making too much money to begin with. The rules of free market are still in play, only you look at a different number when you ask for your salary.

Let's say it costs you $30k a year to make ends meet. You figure you need to make $45k to take home $30k. Pretty much everybody in the same situation will need to ask for at least $45k so you can assume it's a reasonable salary request and they won't look at you like you're crazy. Well, if taxes drop, people would only need to make, say, $40k to take home $30. Now you've affected the asking price. People can work for less money and probably will.

Same goes for bidding on a job. I know what the government's end is and I know that all the other companies are in the same boat. There's all sorts of expenses that we must consider when coming up with a bid. It's immaterial what they are since everybody has the same ones. In the end, if you're not taking home enough money it's not worth it and you need to ask for more or do something else, regardless of how much money you asked for.

[WilliamJ]

Your argument that the liberals are voting themselves a raise could just as easily be applied to the conservatives. They're buying votes saying you'll get more money and they don't care that it's money they don't have.


The giant difference is that the Republicans have not created an entire demograph that feeds off the system. People for the most part vote their wallet.

Obviously you disagree with supply side econmoics, that's fine. I however see how the simple logic to it works. Cut taxes more revenue comes into the gov't coffers. It works everytime. Even JFK saw it.

[VOR]

Originally posted by WilliamJ


The giant difference is that the Republicans have not created an entire demograph that feeds off the system. People for the most part vote their wallet.

Obviously you disagree with supply side econmoics, that's fine. I however see how the simple logic to it works. Cut taxes more revenue comes into the gov't coffers. It works everytime. Even JFK saw it.

You have never heard the words military industrial complex? It is one big welfare system where 2/3 of the proposed weapons systems never pan out because they are grossly half baked ideas at best, but they keep the free money flowing. The republicans have created a situation where bankrupt industries are kept afloat because they are necessary. By the definition of capitalism that is bullshit, because if industries such as the airlines, energy, lumber, and health insurance industries were truly important the market would adequately support them and no government intervention would be necessary to prop them up. Republicans are capitalists only when it serves their purpose.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by VOR


You have never heard the words military industrial complex? It is one big welfare system where 2/3 of the proposed weapons systems never pan out because they are grossly half baked ideas at best, but they keep the free money flowing. The republicans have created a situation where bankrupt industries are kept afloat because they are necessary. By the definition of capitalism that is bullshit, because if industries such as the airlines, energy, lumber, and health insurance industries were truly important the market would adequately support them and no government intervention would be necessary to prop them up. Republicans are capitalists only when it serves their purpose.

I will grant you this point but with the caveat: these industries actually contribute to the GDP. Your average welfare recipient does not.

Military Industrial Complex is what makes us the strongest nation on earth and is hardly the cause of any budgetary woes this country has.

I believe there should be zero public dole, but this whole corporate welfare thing in my estimation is the only fuel the tax and spend Dems have to throw at the Republicans. It don't wash man.