What a Wonderful Morning

On Apr 14, 6:33*pm, "Anon" wrote:

Now that's some math! I used to race cars. If you want speed there is a
cost, which rises exponentially with the the speed, that extra couple of
percentage points will often double or even triple the cost. Why should
earning be any different? My share is a little higher than most, it's not a
problem.
At least complaining is free. Have another helping.

You are working backwards. You are starting with the principle that
everything you earn belongs to the gov't so you are happy when they
let you keep 1/2.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "Anon" wrote:

Now that's some math! I used to race cars. If you want speed there is a
cost, which rises exponentially with the the speed, that extra couple of
percentage points will often double or even triple the cost. Why should
earning be any different? My share is a little higher than most, it's not
a
problem.
At least complaining is free. Have another helping.

:: You are working backwards. You are starting with the principle that
:: everything you earn belongs to the gov't so you are happy when they
:: let you keep 1/2.

(I don't know what format you're using, but it doesn't indent properly)

He's fallen for the Willie Sutton notion of government.

Here's the explanation:

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=393

/excerpt

Willy Sutton, in case you are wondering, is the 1930s outlaw who achieved
immortality when a reporter asked him why he robbed banks and Sutton
replied, simply, "Because that's where the money is."
It is an amusing reply because it so utterly misses the point, which was to
ask for Sutton's moral justification. In another respect, though, the
response is not funny. It reveals the career criminal's mindset: moral
justifications and the rights of others are considered irrelevant -- if they
are considered at all. The only thing that is relevant, to a thug, is that
banks have lots of money -- so why not grab some of it?

I was reminded of Sutton recently while defending the Bush tax cuts in a
series of talk radio interviews. Talk radio audiences are generally
conservative, and everyone seemed to love the idea of smaller government and
less money flowing into Washington. But there was still one objection that
kept coming up.

When I argued that the rich deserve a tax cut because they already pay the
majority of income taxes -- the top 10 percent of income-earners pay nearly
two-thirds of all income taxes -- I always heard the same response. Why
shouldn't the rich pay most of the taxes? After all, "they can afford it."

/end

It's the sheeple that I feel sorry for.

On Apr 14, 8:51*pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ...
On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "Anon" wrote:

When I argued that the rich deserve a tax cut because they already pay the
majority of income taxes -- the top 10 percent of income-earners pay nearly
two-thirds of all income taxes -- I always heard the same response. Why
shouldn't the rich pay most of the taxes? After all, "they can afford it."

The next time I go out to dinner if the guy next to meet looks like he
has more money than me, I'm going to demand that he pay for my dinner.
After all, he can afford it.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 8:51 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
...
On Apr 14, 6:33 pm, "Anon" wrote:

When I argued that the rich deserve a tax cut because they already pay the
majority of income taxes -- the top 10 percent of income-earners pay
nearly
two-thirds of all income taxes -- I always heard the same response. Why
shouldn't the rich pay most of the taxes? After all, "they can afford it."

The next time I go out to dinner if the guy next to meet looks like he
has more money than me, I'm going to demand that he pay for my dinner.
After all, he can afford it.

-Robert

But how much of the INCOME do the top 10% earn? I think you'd be surprised
to learn that a flat tax model and the present system wouldn't adjust
numbers to any huge percentage. I have a better idea, the next time you head
out to dinner, eat what the bottom 10% manage on.... and then feel as lucky
as you are. I feel priviledged and blessed every day. It's so sad to see the
best whining about how hard they have it. I've been poor, if the price of
doing well is high taxes then bring 'em on! The more the better!

Robert if you really are that hard up, post your address and I'll send you a
box of macaroni and cheese. Dinner's on me!

Anon wrote:

But how much of the INCOME do the top 10% earn? I think you'd be surprised
to learn that a flat tax model and the present system wouldn't adjust
numbers to any huge percentage. I have a better idea, the next time you head
out to dinner, eat what the bottom 10% manage on.... and then feel as lucky
as you are. I feel priviledged and blessed every day. It's so sad to see the
best whining about how hard they have it. I've been poor, if the price of
doing well is high taxes then bring 'em on! The more the better!


The key word in your paragraph is EARN.


Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

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, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is

how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
Most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
Being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
Might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
Friendlier.

"Anon" wrote

But how much of the INCOME do the top 10% earn? I think you'd be surprised
to learn that a flat tax model and the present system wouldn't adjust
numbers to any huge percentage.

I have seen studies where a flat tax with a percentage that is lower than
what many lower upper income people now pay ends up with a pretty hefty
increase in the total amounts collected.

Which is to say many people at the very top of the income brackets (perhaps
the top 3% to 5%) end up paying less tax TOTAL than a lot of middle income
families. Seems they have the really smart tax people maneuvering their
income and investments and charitable contributions to slither out of paying
their fair shares.

Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Which is to say many people at the very top of the income brackets
(perhaps the top 3% to 5%) end up paying less tax TOTAL than a lot of
middle income families. Seems they have the really smart tax people
maneuvering their income and investments and charitable contributions to
slither out of paying their fair shares.

Bring on flat tax. I'll take my chances.
--
Jim in NC

Could be. I've seen a lot of studies and it seems that the figures always
support the point of view the author started out with. I generally just look
at them and shrug. I wonder how many of these fellows could walk into
Walter Reed and shout out how unfair it is that they have to pay for all
this!

On Apr 15, 2:18*pm, "Anon" wrote:

Robert if you really are that hard up, post your address and I'll send you a
box of macaroni and cheese. Dinner's on me!

Hard up has nothing to do with it. Holding what you earn rather than
giving it to those who have not earned it is the point. I find that
many on the lower income end believe our tax system is fair until they
become higher income earners. Everything understands that those with
higher incomes pay more but most are shocked when they see how steeply
progressive our tax system is. Most are also amazed when they find out
how little their "dream" salery really gets them. Notice how many
liberal college students turn conservative after they start making
money.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 2:18 pm, "Anon" wrote:

Hard up has nothing to do with it. Holding what you earn rather than
giving it to those who have not earned it is the point. I find that
many on the lower income end believe our tax system is fair until they
become higher income earners. Everything understands that those with
higher incomes pay more but most are shocked when they see how steeply
progressive our tax system is. Most are also amazed when they find out
how little their "dream" salery really gets them. Notice how many
liberal college students turn conservative after they start making
money.

-Robert

Once again I think you might be surprised that it isn't really all that
steeply progressive. As pointed out by others the truly elite do not pay as
much when calculated as a percentage and the upper middle class is more
heavily represented. But the percentages aren't so wildly skewed. Heres what
a CPA firm publishes about it. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/003036.php

I'll have the macaroni and cheese for myself then, even after all these
years I still enjoy it.

On Apr 15, 4:41*pm, "Anon" wrote:

Once again I think you might be surprised that it isn't really all that
steeply progressive. As pointed out by others the truly elite do not pay as
much when calculated as a percentage and the upper middle class is more
heavily represented. But the percentages aren't so wildly skewed. Heres what
a CPA firm publishes about it.http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/003036.php

Gee, they talk about 6 figures like its a lot of money. Around here
you need at least $150,000 to qualify for a 30yr fixed on a 3 bedroom
house (remember, "rich" is relative). What ends up getting me is AMT.
I can't even write off my home interest or property tax because AMT
just puts it back in. AMT keeps the system pretty progressive. There
is no way a married guy can pay less than 25% or a single guys less
than 33% because AMT just puts it back (unless someone found a way
around AMT).

I'll have the macaroni and cheese for myself then, even after all these
years I still enjoy it.

Even when I was a poor college student I would eat an industrial sized
can of peanut butter for dinner but I could never get myself to eat
M&C. Its not that I don't like it, I just don't associate it with
food.

-Robert