That’s what Democrats think of Republicans, while fashioning themselves to be the “champions of the poor and working class”. I’m so sick of the class warfare “tax cuts for the wealthy class” rhetoric of the Democrats. Tax cuts helps EVERYONE, paving the way for our society to grow more wealth for all.
This is brilliant:
Bar Stool Economics NOT by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.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
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Hat tip: Michael Medved Show
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income households pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.
Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%
The Tax Foundation has published Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data:
New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation’s income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
You would think that if some one could understand simple math, that this would be a no-brainer. I mean, come on, a 1% on a million dollars, is more than 1% on 10,000 (dollar wise, not percentage). It’s still a cut of 1% but the sheeple have been lured into the false beleive that the one getting the cut at the top of the heap, is getting a bigger % cut than the guy at the bottom of the heap. Besides, how much of that 1% cut at the top equates to expanded business, and more jobs? Grandpa used to say “you’ll never get rich working for a poor man”
Sarge
Here’s another great example of the difference between Repubs & Dems:
“I was talking to a friend of mine’s little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?’
She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’
‘Wow – what a worthy goal,’ I told her. ‘You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the grass, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house.’
She thought that over for a few seconds ’cause she’s only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ‘Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?’
And I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.’
Her folks still aren’t talking to me.”
…
Excellent Example. Many years ago I learned a lot about economics from a Prof. talking about pizza and beer. The marginal utility of the last slice of pizza hit home for me.
The left is made up of those Dr. Sanity calls “selfless narcisists”. They pretend they do it for the good of others, but really it’s just a way for them force what they think is right upon others while making themselves feel good about themselves.
That’s why with the average leftist, the act is more important than the result. For example, you’ll see them support the banning of firearms. Despite the fact it has been proven not to work, they still insist on pushing such an agenda under the fantasy all will be well when only the people they feel should have guns posses them. (Police, military, govt. agents)
You see this repeated over and over in their actions.
Energy
The lending mess.
Education
Social programs
The environment
Etc., etc.
The moral of the story for the 1st 9 men is: Never look a gift horse in the mouth.
Chuck
Obama wants to put more people in the wagon than are pulling. I’m amazed that any one still believes that a country can survive confiscatory taxes on one group to give to another. The first group will just slow down or quit, and then where are you. Common sense just doesn’t apply anymore.
If you want to learn something about economics without being bored to death, read “The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance,” by Russell Roberts. It’s not only a quick read, it’s very entertaining, too.
…
Economics by and for those who know nothing about economics.
“Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of “Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics.” Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it. ”
http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/
“10 men walk into a bar. Only 4 of them voted for John McCain. There is no joke.”
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!
———–
The real problem if they still want to go drinking after they tuned up Mr. 10 is that they have to recalculate the bill. Now Mr. 9 becomes the new Mr. 10. And he will eventually be in the cross hairs.
something smelly in the air?
Information from: St. Paul Pioneer Press
Oct 24, 2008
FBI: Minn. political vandalism not a federal crime
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The graffiti vandalism this week to the homes of Minnesota’s two senators and four of its House members was not a federal crime, an FBI official said.
Special Agent E.K. Wilson.
hummm??
someone said once to me you can kick an old dog but don’t be surprized when he turns and bites you.
Catherine
read this several days ago and printed it for my husband to take to work. it was so true if you look at it. very good analogoy
Yes, but the author is making the mistake of believing that this will still be the United States! The first man will not be permitted to stay at home, or drink elsewhere. Should he stop paying “according to his means”, his means will be confiscated…that is, his home, his business, his wealth. He won’t be allowed to exit the country with it. Nor will he be able to sell or close his business while keeping any proceeds. He’ll receive his bar tab whether he attends the festivities or not. And should he decide to not pay willingly, he will be made to pay by force. Ain’t Marxism wonderful! Look how much it did for the USSR!
What others are saying today
Financial crisis: ‘President Clinton’s actions are partly responsible for the crisis we face’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/3253751/Financial-crisis-President-Clintons-actions-are-partly-responsible-for-the-crisis-we-face.html
For an introduction to this subject, it is worth noting that the New York Times of September 30, 1999, reported that Fannie Mae, the biggest underwriter of American mortgages (and semi-government controlled), was going to “encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans”. That is at least part of the origin of the subprime lending crisis. It was brought to us by President Bill Clinton.
However, as President Charles de Gaulle said: “It is necessary to accept the world as it is.”
miss the other guy who just about said the samething!
Catherine
Kitty #2…. *priceless*!!!! LOL
Sure hope you’re a public school teacher, girl….
Kitty,
I like that story. That was very smart of you. It is so simple to teach young children common sense. I wonder why teachers fails at it. Could it be that they are leftists… lol?
Hard Right,
“Despite the fact it has been proven not to work, they still insist on pushing such an agenda under the fantasy all will be well when only the people they feel should have guns posses them. (Police, military, govt. agents)” (Hard Right)
The thing is that here in Canada it works like that. But the inconvenient truth is that all criminals have guns. So if they walk into your houses, you’re done.
Found this one on dncreform.com — great analogy.
October 24, 2008
Barney Frank Calls for Major Defense Cuts, ‘Eventual’ Tax Hike
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will “eventually” raise taxes.
Read the rest:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/10/24/frank-calls-for-25-percent-cut-in-defense-spending-eventual-tax-hikes/
Perhaps one reason so many people are susceptible to the idea of the rich paying more taxes is that so many people don’t grasp the concept of percentage.
Yes, I know that my statement seems farfetched.
But, as a teacher, I run into many PARENTS who don’t have even a basic grasp of the underlying principle as to how percentage works.
Of course, the very concept of progressive taxation (graduated tax) is a form of wealth redistribution. A flat tax is equitable. That said, I’m of the belief that we should have a flat tax with few possible deductions and even fewer loopholes, i.e., tax shelters. Furthermore, if withholding were no longer used, people would have a better idea as to just how much IRS is soaking them. Imagine taking home your entire paycheck, then having to shell out every quarter (what I do as a self-employed individual).
Excellent post, BTW.
Obama supports what is called a “comparable worth” plan to “eliminate pay discrimination.” Under the plan (legislation has already been proposed in Congress, but has not been voted on because Bush or McCain would veto it), the government would define the “worth” of every job classification in the United States. A first-grade teacher might, for example, be “worth” 82.3 per cent of a long-haul truck driver, while that truck driver might be “worth” 75.4 per cent of an electrical engineer. The “idea” is that all businesses would be required to follow the scheme, eliminating pay discrimination for sex or race (or any other criteria). In practice, this would be a tremendous mess, requiring an enormous bureaucracy, and lawsuits would be filed by the millions. Obama’s lawyer buddies would love it. (No word yet on what the lawyers would be “worth” under the plan – but they’d probably be somewhere between Bill Gates and Oprah if they write the legislation.)
More of ‘What you don’t know about Economics could hurt you” at:
http://www.colony14.net/id53.html
Obama made the shocking statement that the United States “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set…. we’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded.” Obama has yet to explain what he meant by that comment, how it would be funded, or what the duties of the “security force” would be. It does bring to mind something Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il might imagine, however.
http://www.colony14.net/id35.html