“You call it ‘redistribution’, I call it ‘just being fair’; what’s the big &*%@)$ deal?!”

Loading

Just noticed our FA town sheriff beat me to this; but, still…can’t get enough of Joe Biden interviews:

Yahoo! Tech Tickers’ Aaron Task in his interview with VP Joe Biden yesterday, where Biden essentially admits this is a redistribution of wealth…he just doesn’t prefer to call it by that phrase:

There’s also the issue of whether these tax cuts, in conjunction with the health care reform bill signed last week, represent a redistribution of wealth in America, as many claim.

“It’s a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care,” Biden says. “If you call that a ‘redistribution of income’ — well, so be it. I don’t call it that. I call it just being fair — giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting.”

The top quintile of Americans earned 55.7% of pretax income and paid 69.3% of federal taxes in 2006, according to the most recent CBO data. But the Vice President isn’t buying the idea that the wealthiest are already paying their fair share, noting the top 1% of earners get 22% of all income made in the U.S.

When Task mentions that it is the “wealthy” who carry the greater share of the tax burden, quoting CBO numbers, Biden’s “top 1% getting 22% of income made” statement is also telling:

Well that’s true- guess what, though? 22% of them uh make up the top 1…of the top 1%, they get 22% of all the income made in the United States; this is called a ‘progressive tax system’. That’s what was put in place. and the taxes have been lowered for the wealthy considerably over the years. It’s about time we get a little tax equity here.

Message to VP Biden: Cross out “get” and insert “earn”. Entitlement recipients are the ones who “get/receive” what you want to “steal” from American tax payers earning their income.

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:… See More

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.

(Supposedly by) 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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As straight forward and easy to understand as this analogy is when I emailed it to my college educated ultra liberal brother-in law last year at first he didn’t get it then he just called it simplistic bullshit.

My first laugh of the day! All Right!

@bulwark

Perhaps your “oh-so-wise” brother can explain to us “Simplistic BS’ers” why New York state is so underwater right now. Because a LOT of the “Tenth Men” no longer show up at the “New York Bar”.

The college educated libs probably majored in some kind of “studies” and took Logic 101 instead of the basic math requirement, but I’ve met them and they don’t get the logic part either.

In a larger sense, there’s a problem area in math called “fair division” which has analogies to another contentious idea, “fair voting.” Many people have struggled over equal division. If you have tried to divide a piece of cake between two greedy children you know what happens, and “dividing a cake” is a common metaphor for both fair voting and fair division. Before the next election, we ought to discuss those fair voting ideas. They never seem to come out except in the heat of close elections.

@kromike

That is about to happen to a lot of other places in the country where they are underwater and a big percentage of people are getting a free ride.

This guy just keeps proving his stupidity on an almost daily basis, but also showing America the true goals of his kind. It’s almost hard to believe that anyone thought that Sarah Palin was no where near as intelligent as this man. If stupidity were wealth, Biden would be Bill Gates.

Hey, Joe. How about I be VP for a day or two ? It’s only fair.

I love that one! 😆

To quote R. Lee Ermey, “Fair?!? Fair is where you go to eat cotton candy and step in monkey poop!” It is an obvious redistribution of wealth.

Biden’s statement that “…everyone is entitled to adequate health care…” contains a hell of a number of assumptions. Everyone? I would like to know specifically who he is referring to. Adequate? What is the definition of adequate? Does that definition not vary by individual?

Why exempt groups then? …

quote: “Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274
There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a
religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions.
Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the
ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any
of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill”

Biden needs some adequate mental health care….

A tax system should be as fair and as transparent as possible. But that depends on what you call fair. Should everyone from the poorest to the richest pay the same for services? Is that fair? Why should the rich be penalised for being rich and for the most part – earning their money through legit means? However I suspect that the rich don’t pay the amount that is often touted because they can afford dedicated accountants to exploit tax loopholes etc.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf

Fair has nothing to do with it. Why does it have to be fair? Yes, anyone purchasing a good or service should expect to pay the same as the next person (given comparable definition of the “value”). Are you telling me that I should be able to pay less for the same car that a person whose income exceeds that of mine would pay solely based upon the fact that that person’s income is larger? Are we to have an infinite ranges of prices on all goods and services corresponding to ones income? Should I be able to buy that car at a lower price than someone else because my financial situation is in the toilet because I spent my income on other things? That is insane.
You want to do this with healthcare? Then it is not healthcare, it is welfare.

“Are you telling me that I should be able to pay less for the same car that a person…”

We’ve had that sort of odd arrangement with health care goods and services for years. For example, I have health insurance through Blue Cross as a member of a large policy group. The total cost for a prescription hypertension medication that I take–including both my co-payment share and the insurance company’s share–is approximately one-half the cost for an uninsured person buying the same drug from the same provider.

Some might argue that it’s an entirely normal part of doing business to offer volume discounts; that any interference with that would be meddling with the workings of the free market. But then you learn that a provision of the original Medicare Part D legislation (prescription drug coverage) specifically precluded the Secretary of HHS from bargaining with drug companies for lower prices based on volume. Essentially the Secretary–on behalf of the taxpayers–wasn’t allowed to do that.

Let’s help Joe Biden be fair: Confiscate all his wealth and property and give it to the poor.

@GaffaUK and @Temujin, not sure I understand what each of you mean in the “fair” world.

Should it cost different prices to set a broken leg, perform appendectomies or tonsillectomies, on a wealthy vs non wealthy person? Of course not…. as long as the service provider were identical. Would the same procedure cost more at Cedar Sinai done by their doctors than it would at LA County? Hang yeah. That’s not based on wealth. That’s based on who is doing the service, and their set prices. Not an apple pie to apple pie comparison.

Now, ask me if I think if two people, both getting service at Cedar Sinai should be paying the same if one is paying cash out of pocket, and the other is going thru insurance. No I don’t. You’re eliminating administrative middle men here, plus any collection costs. Just like credit charges you interest and fees for that “service” of advancing cash or doing paperwork, cash service eliminating the same should be a discount.

Here’s another mind blower for Biden’s “fair”…. What if I had a broken leg set thru surgery using a med student at the local medical school hospital, and he had his a broken leg set thru surgery using the top surgeon at Walter Reed? Same price? Nope. Inherent risks in the newbie, and the more experienced doctor should be able to command his own price to those willing to pay.

This begs the question of the gaffe prone veep… just what does “fair” mean? Is it “fair” if I can only afford the med student, and Biden himself can afford the best surgeon Walter Reed can offer? He should be defining “fair” before bandy’ing that term because, as far as I can see, it’s all smoke and mirrors horse manure.

The simple truth is this…. it’s an apples and oranges argument. Just because you can make insurance premiums “fair” (in his book) or uniform, doesn’t mean it makes health CARE “fair”.

This, then brings me to Temujin’s valid points on “fair”. As long as the product/services are absolutely equal…. same doctor, same hospital, same drugs, same hospital room, etal… of course there should be no difference. EXCEPT, as I point out above, if you pay cash as opposed to running the bureaucratic red tape system and causing more admin overhead costs.

And oh, BTW, Gaffa… the 2006 PDF you linked to in order to infer that the American wealthy get away with $s on loopholes? First of all, loopholes are equal opportunity… you don’t have to be “wealthy” to enjoy a loophole. You just need to know about it. CPA’s are worth their weight in gold. If you want the best result, pay for it. A $300-400 charge for a return can save you thousands. Spring for it. Many wait and are paid out of the return. And BTW, we have new laws for those “tax return preparers”… beware all.

Secondly, you miss the screwed up overview of CTI.

Those “evil” wealthy did not shirk their tax repercussions on earned income reportings. THe CTI group is using a combined, adjusted gross income by including passive, investment earnings. Capital gains at the federal level is less than earned income in percentage. And what they also failed to discern is that states also have their own capital gains tax as well. Instead, they took the 15% capital gains tax, and averaged it out with the earned income to come up with a number that has nothing to do with reality.

Nor did they incorporate recapture taxes (both state and federal) that may have been collected, and redistributed to the investor thru 1031 tax deferred exchanges. That’s where the investor turns over one investment and instead of paying capital gains, RE’invests in real estate world for at least equal indebtedness and equal value. It encourages keeping the money flowing in the system.

Therefore CTI is making a two page, encapsulated ditty about inequality in taxes that is about as smart as me saying that Biden’s Walter Reed top surgeon care is “equal” to my med student county hospital care. Do not be fooled by such simplistic representations. All is rarely what it appears on the surface.

Dear Mr. Gaffa

I am one who has some skin in the game, and I can assure you that the tax loopholes I have available, are dwarfed by the great big tax tax loophole for 50% of this country.

I appreciate volume/cash discounts. However, that is not my point. That does not make a balanced equation. I am saying that if all else is equal, income alone should not have a bearing on what one pays for a specified good or service. Same procedure, same doctor, same everything, both paying with cash, and I understand Gaffa would have me pay less than another individual who has a greater income. I maintain “fair” does not, or at least should not, enter the equation. Any delta thereby created is welfare.

i will have to re read the post much more times because i am in between possible and needed except when the 10th men does not show up anymore,

Check out Warren Buffet who a few years back claimed he paid a lower percentage of tax than his secretary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews

I believe the people who get squeezed hardest are those in the middle. Because those who are relatively poor paid little or no tax – and more likely to take benefits. Those who are rich can still live very comfortably off whilst finding loopholes, tax haven etc to bring down their tax burden. Meanwhile those in the middle – most likely the majority – make enough money to be taxed whilst getting few if any benefits – but once they have paid for their housing, food, energy, schooling, driving bills etc – have little if any money left to invest in shares, accountants etc.

So do you believe in a progressive or a flat tax? Thatcher tried to impose a poll tax on the Brits around 1990 and was one of the reasons she was given the boot. I don’t think the rich should be soaked of their money but I also think they are more than capable of looking after themselves. Tax loopholes and havens should be closed off. It’s natural for people to want to keep every penny of their money and find anyway legally to keep it all. However a government needs to collect tax and do it fairly as possible.

Buffet was comparing his income-tax with his secretary. Buffet pays himself ZERO salary. He purposely failed to compare taxes from investments.

-And you know it.

If the Democrats truly believe in the Re-Distribution of wealth, I have only one question.
At what time did any of them write an additional check to the US Treasury to help with that?

um, excuse me doofus, but this is not going to help the middle class. This is going to help those 50%+ Americans who pay NO INCOME TAX and get a large portion, if not all, of their income from the federal gov’t aka taxpayers. they will not pay for this either because they will get it all subsidized. And as Dennis Miller said last night on O’Reilly, “busting your ass is not covered under this health care reform”. That means the non-productive people in society will get better coverage, no copays, no limits, no deductibles and pay no premiums for it. While the rest of us who work will pay premiums and have limited coverage. How is that fair?

I would support a national sales tax, except, I do not think that government would refrain from coming back and adding income and other taxes on top of a national sales tax. At least a national sales tax would also tax those who work for cash and do not report their income or those who make their income by illegal means. They would pay their share of the tax when they spent that buck.

The graduated income tax is stifling to capitalist incentives and is punitive.

Additionally, employees do not recognize all the social security and medicare taxes paid now, as they never see it. The combination of those two taxes far exceed federal withholding for income tax and the employee seldom recognizes the half paid by the company.

Withholding is subterfuge. Employees would revolt if employers were required to pay them in cash and then make them hand back the amount for taxes and other withholding.

@GaffaUK I’d say that Patvann has straightened you out on, again, what is your erroneous thought INRE Buffett. Those possessing wealth make it a point to stay up on latest regulations regarding taxes on both income and investments.

Another thing you can’t seem to get into your head. “Loop holes”, as you like to call them, I repeat are equal opportunity. They apply to anyone who fits the regulation criteria. And while you like to attach a negative connotation to “loop hole”, I consider it a tax deduction benefit. And I support any and all ways that anyone making a living… at no matter what level… remain in possession and control of what they earn.

The personal opinion jury is still out for me on flat v progressive tax. Per original constitutional intent, I am for a flat tax. However subsequent amendments by later Congresses blew that out of the water, and started us on the clusterf*&k in which we live in disharmony with the IRS today.

And because of today’s economy, I’m not sure I can get behind a national sales tax, as @Temujin suggests. Since regulations for the past four decades have eroded US competitive status for industry, textiles, etal in the world, we have become a “consumer” nation with retail/service as our mainstay. I have always hated this trend towards removing production of some of our most base survival needs. For example steel, copper, aluminum, oil (also used in plastics and clothing) and textiles. Many believe we are only oil/energy dependent on foreign sources. We have lost far more than that in the “global” economy. And the only reason we have is because of our OSHA/EPA/corporate taxes/union standards making cost of doing business in the US astronomical. The fiscal repercussions of this are bad enough. The political are simply unacceptable.

Since we have become a “consumer/retail” nation, and since the federal spending was out of control before, and now passed the point of perhaps no return, a national sales tax may be the last nail in the coffin for consuming. We will simply buy less because, with a national sales tax, we can only afford to buy less. Too little, too late.

While the mere mention of Pat Buchanan brings out as much venom as the mention of Sarah Palin, if there is one arena where Buchanan excels, it is in American History. There is no questioning his status as an excellent historian, no matter what one’s opinion of his politics and personal assaults that always arise when his name is mentioned.

In 1998, Buchanan penned a book called The Great Betrayal, which is all about the history of America’s rise to industrial giant status, and the repercussions of it’s decline in the global economy. It is a fascinating look at American business and regulations, starting from pre American Revolution on. To lose industry integral to our very self-sufficient survival is to risk national security.

As Senator John Loan said in “The Great Conspiracy: It’s Origin and History” back in 1886 (pp 13-14):

The war of the American Revolution chiefly grew out of the efforts of Great Britain to cripple and destroy our Colonial industries to the benefit of the British trade, and… the Independence conquered, was an Industrial as well as Political Independence.

George Washington learned the importance of industrial independence early thru his own experiences first as a tobacco farmer at the mercy of the British company, Cary & Co, and then revolting against the Cary double dealing by growing wheat for Americans instead. He was known for shunning British textiles and clothing, wearing only clothes made in the colonies.

This insistence that the colonies depend upon England for some of it’s base goods continued, and led to events like the Sugar Act (putting duties on molasses, sugar, wine, silk and linen… and *required* the colonies to buy rum from GB), and the Currency Act (forbiding the colonies the right to issue paper money) started a serious rebellion. And of course, what’s prominent today is references to the Tea Act with the resurrection of the tea party movement.

Ironically, what many forget about the Tea Act was that it wasn’t just about taxes. The most heinous result was that it gave the British monarchy the monopoly on the sale of tea to the colonies in order to bolster the failing British East India Company – the privileged and pet industry of the government.

Sound familiar? Forcing colonialists to purchase a product to feed another failing government pet?

The parallels in history are uncanny. Too bad American History has been rewritten and multilated to the point that is serves so little purpose that it has been surplanted in import by things such as “diversity”, “tolerance” and “sex ed” classes in our public curriculum.

The FairTax is technically a 15-20% VAT.

In order for it to work, it includes abolition of personal-income, and corporate taxes.
(Waits for the liberal heads to finish exploding.)

Yes, corporate tax. What too many in this country don’t seem to want to accept, is that NO corporation actually “pays” taxes. That money comes from the sales of products. Who buys those products?

We do.

If we took out that overhead, the prices of products would drop enough for us to gladly pay the tax…not to mention our paychecks getting much bigger.

It would also induce many companies to set up shop here, and others to return. It would stop off-shore accounts, because we would become the best place on the planet to put money.

The number one reason Congress is corrupt, and cozy with lobbyists, is because corporations and industry groups want tax-favors. If there’s no favors to be given, then the lobbyists go away. It’s why the tax-code is 70,000 pages long.

Welfare programs would be eliminated and replaced with a “pre-bate” check that is more generous than today’s programs, and is on a sliding-scale so that they are not penalized for doing work. (That scale is the only spot they (Dems) could try to mess with)

All black-market income is then taxed, because the dood (even the drug-dealer) who made the money will pay the tax when he buys something other than food. (HUGE potential income there.)

I would invite everyone to look into it.

If Dems want a TRUE “progressive” tax, there is nothing more progressive than having those who buy the most, pay the most. But we all know that canard is bullshit.

They want power/influence and control, and they do it through the tax code. Take that, and union-membership in the Fed-Gov away, and no one has a reason to vote Dem anymore.

Obama doesn’t like the label of Socialist, or Marxist, and his minons are typically fast to deny that Obama, despite all the “wealth redistribution” rhetoric and action, will deny that he’s a socialist. Which brings me to the subject of Joe… Joe is like that, he’ll deny Obama has any goal of turning America into a socialist nation. With that in mind I’d like to tell you a little story about Joe.

Joe was standing on a street corner and a duck came up to him and said, “Can you spare a dime for a hungry duck, so I can get some duck food?”

Joe dug into his pocket and gave the duck a dime

Before long another duck came along and asked the same question, and again Joe gave the duck a dime.

This scenerio repeated one more time. A duck asked for a dime so that the duck could buy some duck food and again Joe gave the duck a dime for duck food.

Pretty soon a man came along and asked Joe… have you seen any ducks?

Joe replied… Nope!

DONALD i love your storys bye 🙄

“Don’t share my wealth, share my work ethic!”

Found at the bottom of one of my emails I received….

Gaffa,

Yeah, they need to collect tax and do it as fairly as possible.

Then come out with a ‘Stimulus’ program that stimulates nothing. Perfect.

@Mata & Patvann

Why can’t income & investments be taxed at the same rate? The fact that Buffet can get around this by not paying himself an income shows how someone who is rich can pay less tax percentage than a secretary. How is that reasonable?

As for tax loopholes being equal opportunity – that is not true in reality. To put large sizeable money away you need that money in the first place. I don’t know the ins and out – but a family on a moderate wage – won’t have access to top accountants, swiss bank accounts etc. Maybe everyone should give up their jobs and invest what little they have in the stock market and see where that gets us.

As I say the more give tax deductions to the rich – the more you hurt middle America as they will end up picking up the bill.

What does Biden know about being fair? He’s a repugnant Democrat, a libberfraud, a mignon and a total s**k @$$. Ask him to explain why Larry Sinclair was denied his constitutional rights by Biden’s son in Delaware and obviously under the supervision of “Dad”. When the reign of terror begins he will be near the head of the line.