Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BengalTiger on March 12, 2009, 02:17:05 pm
-
Here's the fiction:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
And here's the fact:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22
-
So......A progressive income tax is.....bad? (Well, actually, yes it is.)
Publicly traded companies trying to evade taxes maximize their shareholder value are....evil?
What has that got to do with the US President?
-
So......A progressive income tax is.....bad? (Well, actually, yes it is.)
Publicly traded companies trying to evade taxes maximize their shareholder value are....evil?
What has that got to do with the US President?
I think it's designed to highlight how the president will either have to bow down or compromise with the big companies in order to create a "mutually equitable solution".
-
That wasn't my point, actually. The Beer-Story is an analogy for the way income tax reductions work, the news article is about companies trying to evade the US tax system. Then there's the name "Obama" thrown in via the thread title. I, for one, don't see the connection.
-
Here's the fiction:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
And here's the fact:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22
That is a stupid analogy. And a terrible way to break up the price of beer. Fortunately for out society, we don't pay our taxes in beer.
-
As I pointed out last time this story was posted the solution to the beer story was for the barman not to reduce the price of the beer but to use the money to send the guys some chips. That way everyone would have been happy.
Of course that's just socialism.
-
You left out the the one with a wife and kids who gets money back for drinking beer from the single guy down the bar.
-
WTB FairTax
-
I'll hold my breath waiting for the day rich people stop trying to be rich.
It'll be any day now, I'm sure.
-
*tinfoil watches Blue Lion slowly asphyxiate
-
We've had a progressive tax system since... 1913 was it?
Have all the rich people left? No? Shocking.
Has their income dropped off seriously because no one wants to pay the higher tax bracket? No? Amazing.
Has the gap between the "rich and super rich" and "everyone else" closed considerably as it no longer pays off to be rich? No again? This is silly.
The "we'll take our ball and go home" threat is just that, a threat. This is just another trickle down economics. "Give us more money and we'll promise you'll get some. We can't possibly hold it all."
The upper percentiles make more money now compared to everyone else then they ever have and they want more or they'll leave? Door is to your left.
-
I solemnly swear to all of HLP, that if I ever become "rich," I'll happily pay my taxes, just to spite all the other rich people *****ing about being taxed.
-
I would gladly suffer the injustice of paying more on my 6 or 7 figure income so those more well to do people can be paid lower, more appropriately taxed salaries.
-
Here's the fiction:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
And here's the fact:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22
There are so many loopholes in our tax codes that large corperations hardly pay anything, I remember a story a few years back of Portland General Electric only paying $5 in taxes for the whole year.
But you know, big companies' stranglehold on our political system is one of the ways we got into all the messes with healthcare, finances, and energy that we have today.
-
I'm curious. Looking at our history, doesn't it seem like we have a fairly average level of corporate involvement, and a relatively low degree of corruption?
Seems like we're doing better than ever.
-
I'm curious. Looking at our history, doesn't it seem like we have a fairly average level of corporate involvement, and a relatively low degree of corruption?
Seems like we're doing better than ever.
Thanks now I have to clean the beer off my monitor that just came out my nose........
-
I'm curious. Looking at our history, doesn't it seem like we have a fairly average level of corporate involvement, and a relatively low degree of corruption?
Seems like we're doing better than ever.
Thanks now I have to clean the beer off my monitor that just came out my nose........
No, seriously. Look back at how things used to be. East India Company? Oil interests? Corruption in the early 20th? Government used to be a lot more corrupt than it is these days.
It does take some effort to step outside our own heuristics, but...a case might be made.
-
I'm curious. Looking at our history, doesn't it seem like we have a fairly average level of corporate involvement, and a relatively low degree of corruption?
Seems like we're doing better than ever.
Thanks now I have to clean the beer off my monitor that just came out my nose........
No, seriously. Look back at how things used to be. East India Company? Oil interests? Corruption in the early 20th? Government used to be a lot more corrupt than it is these days.
It does take some effort to step outside our own heuristics, but...a case might be made.
And that is not due to the efforts of big business or the rich.
-
Hrm?
-
things have been great since we decided to call corruption lobbying.
-
There are so many loopholes in our tax codes that large corperations hardly pay anything, I remember a story a few years back of Portland General Electric only paying $5 in taxes for the whole year.
Any link to that? I'd be OK with that if they made a total of $50 of income...
Also- what about other taxes (property, etc)?
-
I heard it on the radio several years ago. However, there are (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/hatch-loopholes/) many (http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/tax/taxbreif.php) cases of this.
Take this one (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b45142.html)
The news that more than 60 percent of U.S. corporations failed to pay any federal taxes from 1996 through 2000 when corporate profits were soaring and that corporate tax receipts had fallen to just 7.4 percent of overall federal tax revenue in 2003 – the lowest since 1983 and the second-lowest rate since 1934 – is an outrage. But it should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to national tax policy over the past few years. The General Accounting Office (GAO) report also found that an astonishing 94 percent of corporations reported tax liability of less than 5 percent of their total income during the same time period. Corporate tax dodging has gone on for far too long. But the policies of the Bush administration have exacerbated the problem by furthering the culture of tax avoidance by big corporations and creating a pervasive unfairness in our tax code.
Not that I usually agree with everything on sites like that, especially about nuclear energy and biotech related things, but they do have a point on this one.
Here's a better one (http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=es050520dodge)
Coporate tax dodging is out of control, and needs to be stopped.
EDIT: And here's a whole website about stopping tax cheats. (http://www.taxjustice-usa.org/)
-
So, guess raising taxes is not the answer...
Hunting and deleting loopholes is.
-
It would most definitely help.
Problem is that that there is no way that anyone is ever going to be able to do it with the economy in the current situation without making things a lot worse (in the short run at least).
-
Obama wants to stimulate the economy? He should cut taxes. There's a massive injection of money into the economy right there. But Obama doesn't want to stimulate the economy. Bad economy means frightened citizens, frightened citizens are more susceptible to scare tactics, and Obama can use scare tactics to frighten the people into accepting larger government. Just look at all the pork Obama got passed. Remember what his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.".
And every time Obama opens his mouth, the stock markets drop. While correlation does not guarantee causation, one should at least find out if there is a possible reason for causation. And Obama's anti-business remarks are certainly indicative of possible causation.
-
Obama wants to stimulate the economy? He should cut taxes. There's a massive injection of money into the economy right there.
Two things...
1. He is. Unless you make over $250,000, then you pay more.
2. Tax cuts don't automatically stimulate the economy. Bush issued tax cuts during his Presidency, look how well that worked.
But Obama doesn't want to stimulate the economy.
And now I know you're just spouting.
Bad economy means frightened citizens, frightened citizens are more susceptible to scare tactics, and Obama can use scare tactics to frighten the people into accepting larger government. Just look at all the pork Obama got passed. Remember what his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.".
Replace "bad economy" with "terrorism" and Obama with Bush and you'll get the same thing.
But more to the point, why does Obama need to terrify us? Democrats have the White House, both houses of Congress and actually fairly normal approval ratings.
And yes, a crisis is a great time to change how things are done in a way to fix everything. Slapping a new coat of paint on the old way things are done (the things that got us in this mess) isn't really going to help.
And every time Obama opens his mouth, the stock markets drop.
(http://chart.bigcharts.com/custom/cnnmoney2/profile-chart.img?pg=qu&symb=INDU&sid=1000001643&time=5dy&uf=8192&type=256&ClientID=44711&mocktick=1&symbtype=0&country=US&rtsid=1000001643&style=2108&size=1&rand=3307)
That's the Dow Jones for the past 5 days.
Here is the Down Jones for the past 6 months.
(http://chart.bigcharts.com/custom/cnnmoney2/profile-chart.img?pg=qu&symb=INDU&sid=1000001643&time=6mo&uf=8192&type=256&ClientID=44711&mocktick=1&symbtype=0&country=US&rtsid=1000001643&style=2108&size=1&rand=2649)
Please indicate the massive stock market drop that occurred only once Obama was in office.
Still not clear enough?
Here is a years worth.
(http://chart.bigcharts.com/custom/cnnmoney2/profile-chart.img?pg=qu&symb=INDU&sid=1000001643&time=1yr&uf=8192&type=256&ClientID=44711&mocktick=1&symbtype=0&country=US&rtsid=1000001643&style=2108&size=1&rand=6690)
To me that looks like this problem was well, well on it's way before Obama was even voted in.
While correlation does not guarantee causation, one should at least find out if there is a possible reason for causation. And Obama's anti-business remarks are certainly indicative of possible causation.
What's possible is businesses aren't able to play the game anymore of high leverage and borrowed cash to make big deals and now they're pissed and their stocks are tanking.
The very fact that these businesses DON'T like the ideas presented show me they are in fact the right ones.
"Tax cuts" and "liberals hate business" are old, tired talking points that aren't working.
Recent Gallup poll
Obama - 61% Approve 28% Disapprove
-
If Obama's stimulus works or not, we'll see next year (or maybe even in 2011), so it's too early to judge that.
BTW- GWB began with similar popularity, around 57%.
-
BTW- GWB began with similar popularity, around 57%.
Yes but the implication was the stock market is tanking because he's just plain awful.
When the truth is the stock market is up recently (I refuse to call it a rally to solve our problems. It could tank worse tomorrow) and people generally approve of the idea of work getting done.
Perfect? No. Unicorns for everyone? No.
Evil liberals are going to ruin the nation and all the rich people are going to leave? No.
-
Still not clear enough?
Here is a years worth.
(http://chart.bigcharts.com/custom/cnnmoney2/profile-chart.img?pg=qu&symb=INDU&sid=1000001643&time=1yr&uf=8192&type=256&ClientID=44711&mocktick=1&symbtype=0&country=US&rtsid=1000001643&style=2108&size=1&rand=6690)
To me that looks like this problem was well, well on it's way before Obama was even voted in.
If I was willing to sink the level of stupidity I heard from Republican supporters in the past I'd be replacing the term credit crunch with Bush Recession right now. :)
Actually **** it. I'll do just that from now on, I'm just doing it ironically. Unlike the people who actually believed that there was a Clinton Recession ongoing at the start of Bush's 1st term. :p
-
I really hope everyone blasting Obama for "bigger government" isn't about to defend the Bush administration. Even if it is bigger government, tell me how on earth:
1) Passing make work legislation to revitalize the economy
2) Putting harder restrictions on the businesses which essentially caused this crisis to prevent it from happening again
3) Putting money back in the hands of Americans who need it
...are even comparably EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!! to:
1) Illegal holding and torturing of noncombatants
2) Suspending basic civil liberties
3) Spying on American citizens warrantlessly
-
1) Illegal holding and torturing of noncombatants [note: was technically legal]
2) Suspending basic civil liberties
3) Spying on American citizens warrantlessly
Let us hope that he gets to work on the other two.
-
1) Illegal holding and torturing of noncombatants [note: was technically legal]
2) Suspending basic civil liberties
3) Spying on American citizens warrantlessly
Let us hope that he gets to work on the other two.
*sigh* Yes, technically, it was legal. Technically, i don't care. It was still wrong.
Oh, and technically, the guy who wrote the memos that legalized torture is wrong (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/03/04/not-that-i-was-planning-to-send-him-a-gift-basket-anyway/).
-
Technically it was not legal. By removing people from Afghanistan who weren't POWs without extradition to face civilian charges the US was technically guilty of kidnapping.
-
Except that nations can't be persecuted for crimes like kidnapping, murder, extortion, armed assault, fraud....
-
Neither can nations be prosecuted for genocide. You prosecute those who ordered it and those who carried it out.
-
Something that, alas, will never happen when the US have got something to say about it...
-
I don't see members of the Bush administration as guilty of genocide. For that, the DoD would have had to be out to intentionally exterminate Iraqis, which they most certainly were not. Reckless US policy and a failure to rebuild quickly certainly created the conditions for the sectarian violence in Iraq and fighting insurgents is resulting in collateral damage but its far from intentional genocide.
-
You're right, what the US did doesn't fit the traditional interpretation for genocide. However, they still declared war without being attacked, violated the Geneva convention and did a really thorough job of destroying a country without having adequate plans for the time after the military campaign was finished. While the last one isn't a crime (technically), those are still things that you just don't do if your marketing department is busy telling everyone that you're the good guys.
-
I don't see members of the Bush administration as guilty of genocide.
I was responding to The E's example of how previous cases of genocide could technically be claimed to be lawful. It appears he later edited it out. I wasn't claiming that Iraq is genocide since that would be stupid.
The point does however stand on it's own. You can't charge a country with a crime no matter how big the crime is. Even is cases of genocide you do what the Nuremburg trials and The Hague have done. You punish the people responsible for ordering and carrying it out.
-
I really hope everyone blasting Obama for "bigger government" isn't about to defend the Bush administration. Even if it is bigger government, tell me how on earth:
It's also ironic since the Democrats have always been the pro big government party, unlike Bush who preached small government but did big government.
So, guess raising taxes is not the answer...
Hunting and deleting loopholes is.
For coporations yeah, I'd say so at this point.
-
I just have one question: If government is the answer out of this, why are all government workers unionized? Why do they need a union to 'protect them?'
We need a QAI to run everything.
-
Why do you have courts of appeal? Why doesn't the president have absolute power? Why does America need a constitution if the government is supposed to protect you?
It's all to do with having a system of checks and balances.