Post by: taurusowner on March 30, 2008, 12:44:39 PM
But here in America, it seems the lesson is not truly learned. More and more people are choosing to live in a nanny state. They expect a big government to provide for them and shield them from failure. They want a central planning system to coordinate their lives so they can just sit back and watch American Idol. They want free healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free transportation, free everything. But we know that there is no such thing as "free". Someone has to foot the bill. The common idea is to soak the rich. "They have more than we say they need, so we have the right to take it from them." Even Republicans don't even challenge liberal-socialist ideas anymore. The Democrat-Republican debate isn't about whether "free healthcare" works or not, it's how to implement it. Even the GOP seems to be swallowing socialism. And many Americans, raised on sensationalist news, Political Correctness, and a reliance on emotions over fact are marching right behind them. According to the IRS, the top 50% of income earners, (that's half of the nation with jobs) pay 97% of the nations taxes. Half of the country is collecting, and not doing a thing to contribute. Yet they still vote. Also according to the IRS, the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all taxes and the much talked about "top 1%", actually pays 39% of taxes in this nation. AND, that's 2% up from 2000 when President Bush took office.
More and more Americans are seeing how easy it is to collect and not contribute. They are wondering why they should have to pay for things when they can just vote to force others to pay for them. They are demanding more and more Nationalized and socialized programs using tax dollars to pay for them.
America is slowy turning socialist.
My question to APS is this, how much worse do you think it will get before it gets better? What happens when that top 1%(paying nearly half of the nation's bills) decides they don't like getting robbed and decide to move? What happens when they take their tax dollars and job creating companies elsewhere? When a happens when all the contributors get tired of paying more than their share and leave the nation with nothing but citizens who have been grown up knowing how to do nothing but collect? What happens when the gap between rich and poor is forced to close, giving people no reason to work hard, knowing their work will get them nothing extra, and no reason not to fail, knowing their lack of effort will not punish them in any way?
Will the rest of the world watch on their news, as bread lines stretch for miles? As police and fire protection services fail due to lack of funding or hard working right minded people to take part? As whole stores go empty of goods that the nation can't pay for and citizens with nothing riot, because they never learned how to take care of themselves?
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 30, 2008, 12:47:03 PM
Quote
More and more Americans are seeing how easy it is to collect and not contribute. They are wondering why they should have to pay for things when they can just vote to force others to pay for them. They are demanding more and more Nationalized and socialized programs using tax dollars to pay for them.
Yes. Shame on me for not buying a house I couldn't afford. I could be living in a 5000sq/ft and be waiting for the federal bailout that'd let me stay in it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 30, 2008, 01:31:15 PM
Ask average voters whether profits make things cheaper or more expensive, and I'll bet you get the wrong answer 98% of the time. Ask him whether or not sellers can arbitrarily set their own prices for the things they sell, and you'll probably get the wrong answer 90% of the time. Even the voters who have college degrees and purport to be "educated" rarely understand this stuff any better than high school dropouts.
Economics is supposed to be taught in the public schools. You shouldn't be able to graduate without knowing this stuff. But the teachers rarely understand it themselves, and thus can't teach it. And that's assuming they want to teach it in the first place, which I'm beginning to doubt. Most public teachers are eager to push their personal left-leaning political views onto their hapless students.
The people who understand economics and business are the only ones getting ahead any more. That's what you'd expect to happen naturally. But now, instead of the rest of the public choosing to learn from those people, the public is choosing to demonize them.
The culture has simply forgotten what money is and how it works. There aren't many people left to teach us. Those that are left are routinely persecuted. So the short answer is that it isn't going to get better any time soon.
Post by: K Frame on March 30, 2008, 07:45:00 PM
Post by: mfree on March 31, 2008, 01:37:29 AM
Post by: seeker_two on March 31, 2008, 01:42:05 AM
Estonia, or any one of the Eastern European countries who have gone to an extremely loose tax model because they see it works...
Or South America or parts of the Middle East where a little American cash can go a long way in "political influence"....
Post by: LAK on March 31, 2008, 02:34:04 AM
The "voting public" is not responsible in the planning, execution, nor alteration or destruction, of a monetary system. They are not responsible for the planning of domestic trade, foreign trade, foreign policy - nor anything else that is the function of the established government. For reasons which are old hat going back thousands of years.
One way or the other it is the leadership of this country that has allowed this to come about, and the consequences, which like a few other near catastrophic episodes in our history are just over the horizon.
The "voting public" can be strung along using a variety of methods that again are simply old hat political science. They are nothing new, and the goal is to keep them busy - enough of the people enough of the time - struggling against each other, to obtain their means of sustenance, and keep themselves swimming in their vices. While they are being fleeced.
Our present circumstance and what lies directly ahead can be laid directly at the feet of a succession of U.S. Congressman, Presidents and Supreme Court Justices. It is they that have engineered this; albeit a few perhaps truly naive enough or deluded enough to actually believe that what they were doing was "right" and tagged along. Or were picked from compromized pools of people, or who allowed themselves to be gelded one way or another along the way.
It is these people that are culpable. And it is not going to change but one of three ways.
An uprising within the government; in sufficient number and position to take the helm from these people who have themselves taken this country in a progressive coup d'tat via subversion and force. So much wishful thinking.
A similar uprising within a number of the governments of the States. Only slightly less wishful thinking.
A catastrophic or series of catastrophic events which will bring everything to a grinding halt, result in the destruction of the nation as a functioning entity, and neccessitate a rebuild from the ground up. Almost now inevitable.
---------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Manedwolf on March 31, 2008, 04:14:47 AM
Estonia, or any one of the Eastern European countries who have gone to an extremely loose tax model because they see it works...
I thought Estonia worked because the entire country has a population barely more than New Hampshire, they're in a good trade area in proximity to the rest of the EU, and their currency is pegged to the Euro.
Post by: K Frame on March 31, 2008, 05:06:17 AM
Anyone moving overseas right now had better choose carefully given the weak dollar.
Post by: charby on March 31, 2008, 05:35:19 AM
Taxes aren't the full picture.
Anyone moving overseas right now had better choose carefully given the weak dollar.
Anyone moving overseas right now had better choose carefully given the weak dollar.
ditto
As much as we think it sucks here, I'd rather live her and be pissed off than somewhere living in fear of a government kicking my door in and taking me prisoner or being held hostage by local gangs.
Post by: roo_ster on March 31, 2008, 06:44:40 AM
Stanley tools was started in the mid 1800s. Went public ~1900.
In 1999, Stanley closed its US factory, shipped its tools off to China, and put ~5000 American workers on the street.
A couple years later, it tried to dissolve the US corporation and re-incorporate on one of those corp tax-free islands. It failed to do so because the voting stock decided against it on the second go 'round.
The smart corps and rich folks are doing similar things, so as to avoid paying US taxes and give the finger to the US gov't.
IMO, such safety valves ought to exist, to shame the taxers & spenders into reducing the rates here in the USA.
Post by: Brad Johnson on March 31, 2008, 09:02:35 AM
Quote
I think the problem is that the voting public doesn't understand economics any more. It's truly staggering how few people understand basic and concepts like prices, profits, costs, incentives, and so forth.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a WINNA!!
Ask ten people the difference between net and gross. Five bucks says nine of them won't know.
Brad
Post by: seeker_two on March 31, 2008, 09:39:18 AM
Well, many are "pulling a Stanley."
Stanley tools was started in the mid 1800s. Went public ~1900.
In 1999, Stanley closed its US factory, shipped its tools off to China, and put ~5000 American workers on the street.
A couple years later, it tried to dissolve the US corporation and re-incorporate on one of those corp tax-free islands. It failed to do so because the voting stock decided against it on the second go 'round.
The smart corps and rich folks are doing similar things, so as to avoid paying US taxes and give the finger to the US gov't.
IMO, such safety valves ought to exist, to shame the taxers & spenders into reducing the rates here in the USA.
Stanley tools was started in the mid 1800s. Went public ~1900.
In 1999, Stanley closed its US factory, shipped its tools off to China, and put ~5000 American workers on the street.
A couple years later, it tried to dissolve the US corporation and re-incorporate on one of those corp tax-free islands. It failed to do so because the voting stock decided against it on the second go 'round.
The smart corps and rich folks are doing similar things, so as to avoid paying US taxes and give the finger to the US gov't.
IMO, such safety valves ought to exist, to shame the taxers & spenders into reducing the rates here in the USA.
Somebody's been listening to Ed Wallace.....
Post by: charby on March 31, 2008, 10:07:12 AM
Will the rest of the world watch on their news, as bread lines stretch for miles? As police and fire protection services fail due to lack of funding or hard working right minded people to take part? As whole stores go empty of goods that the nation can't pay for and citizens with nothing riot, because they never learned how to take care of themselves?
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
I'm starting to wonder with all the hub bub with the federal reserve if they are trying to fight off ecomonic depression. We are/have experiencing some same signs of what occured before the 1930's depression.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 31, 2008, 10:08:20 AM
Will the rest of the world watch on their news, as bread lines stretch for miles? As police and fire protection services fail due to lack of funding or hard working right minded people to take part? As whole stores go empty of goods that the nation can't pay for and citizens with nothing riot, because they never learned how to take care of themselves?
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
I'm starting to wonder with all the hub bub with the federal reserve if they are trying to fight off ecomonic depression. We are/have experiencing some same signs of what occured before the 1930's depression.
Can't happen that way. There was no way to stop the sell-offs or runs on banks then. Now, the "circuit breakers" will halt trading.
Post by: charby on March 31, 2008, 10:11:47 AM
Will the rest of the world watch on their news, as bread lines stretch for miles? As police and fire protection services fail due to lack of funding or hard working right minded people to take part? As whole stores go empty of goods that the nation can't pay for and citizens with nothing riot, because they never learned how to take care of themselves?
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
At what point will this nation turn around and start expecting it's own citizens to pull their own weight, and not rely on a policy of stealing from the rich guy until he leaves?
Can self-reliance, self-respect, and hard work take a hold in America again? Or will the pain of a collapse like the Soviet Union be the only thing strong enough to show people government cannot be relied on to give their life meaning.
I'm starting to wonder with all the hub bub with the federal reserve if they are trying to fight off economic depression. We are/have experiencing some same signs of what occurred before the 1930's depression.
Can't happen that way. There was no way to stop the sell-offs or runs on banks then. Now, the "circuit breakers" will halt trading.
Doesn't have to start with a single day massive market sell off i.e. crash. A run on banks? People don't have savings accounts like they used to.
Just look at how very extended people are on easy credit and how many people's retirement accounts/pensions are based on stock options.
Post by: elrod on March 31, 2008, 12:17:19 PM
Post by: RocketMan on April 01, 2008, 04:57:15 AM
The breadth and depth of this country's financial problems is not really being reported over here. This is due, I suspect, to an overall lack of quality in our media, not some grand conspiracy.
The UK financial news outlets are doing a much better job in detailing what is happening here (and in Europe, as well), much to their credit. Perhaps their audiences don't go into that "eyes glazing over" mode so quickly, so they can report in depth on topics that would bore an American readership to tears.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 01, 2008, 05:07:19 AM
In an earlier thread I stated my opinion that we would see a deep recession with 1 in 10 out of work. I have since revised my opinion downward. I think we're pretty much toast. If we get away with just a depression, we'll be lucky.
What do you base that on, being that the dollar just bounced up today and gold dropped back below 900/oz in soft corrections?
Post by: LAK on April 01, 2008, 11:39:58 PM
Look for the heaviest holders of the dollar to quietly start divesting themselves of what is going to be worth less than toilet paper. These people will try and make sure they have most of their money in other things before the dollar races for the seabed.
Perhaps the sudden stop of M3 data a awhile back and now the ... um ... "increased oversight" of the "Fed" is starting to ring some faint bell with some of the more hard of hearing.
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: seeker_two on April 02, 2008, 01:11:37 AM
The dollar is being propped up. They can not do that too many times for too long.
Look for the heaviest holders of the dollar to quietly start divesting themselves of what is going to be worth less than toilet paper. These people will try and make sure they have most of their money in other things before the dollar races for the seabed.
Perhaps the sudden stop of M3 data a awhile back and now the ... um ... "increased oversight" of the "Fed" is starting to ring some faint bell with some of the more hard of hearing.
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Look for the heaviest holders of the dollar to quietly start divesting themselves of what is going to be worth less than toilet paper. These people will try and make sure they have most of their money in other things before the dollar races for the seabed.
Perhaps the sudden stop of M3 data a awhile back and now the ... um ... "increased oversight" of the "Fed" is starting to ring some faint bell with some of the more hard of hearing.
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
I've always wondered what would happen to our "full faith & credit" dollar if the rest of the world lost faith in our credit....
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 02, 2008, 03:50:11 AM
I don't mind so much the government helping those truly in need, but when I cannot put another criminal in lock-up because we don't have it in the budget, and Hillary and Obama are talking about bailing out people who bought $250,000 homes on a $25,000 a year income, it steams me.
To answer the original question, I fear that Ayn Rand's "Anthem" may be more truth than I would have once believed, especially if this trend in parens patria continues.
Post by: roo_ster on April 02, 2008, 05:21:56 AM
In an earlier thread I stated my opinion that we would see a deep recession with 1 in 10 out of work. I have since revised my opinion downward. I think we're pretty much toast. If we get away with just a depression, we'll be lucky.
The breadth and depth of this country's financial problems is not really being reported over here. This is due, I suspect, to an overall lack of quality in our media, not some grand conspiracy.
The UK financial news outlets are doing a much better job in detailing what is happening here (and in Europe, as well), much to their credit. Perhaps their audiences don't go into that "eyes glazing over" mode so quickly, so they can report in depth on topics that would bore an American readership to tears.
The breadth and depth of this country's financial problems is not really being reported over here. This is due, I suspect, to an overall lack of quality in our media, not some grand conspiracy.
The UK financial news outlets are doing a much better job in detailing what is happening here (and in Europe, as well), much to their credit. Perhaps their audiences don't go into that "eyes glazing over" mode so quickly, so they can report in depth on topics that would bore an American readership to tears.
That is interesting observation on UK financial news.
But, should we get our financial news from the innumerate?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Media Fish in a Barrel
OK, so it's British media writing about wicked America, so the fish are particularly fat and slow, but still ...
The Independent informs us we're flushed down the great toilet. The article is titled "USA 2008: The Great Depression"
It is illustrated with this photo:
Which bears the caption "Disadvantaged Americans queue for aid in New York".
A little poking around on the Getty archive Web site, and I found an identical photo here.
It has this caption:
New York Mayor Hands Out Coats To The Poor
NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 30: People wait on line to receive donated coats at the kickoff of the 17th annual New York Cares Coat Drive a the Bowery Mission November 30, 2005 in New York City. Bloomberg helped give out coats to residents of the Mission and the coat drive hopes to collect and distribute 80,000 coats to needy New Yorkers by New Years. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Emphasis added by me. Inability to tell "5" from "8" added by the Independent.
UPDATE: And here's a site that claims to be "drilling beneath the headlines" and misses this error entirely in its approving link to the Independent -- while illustrating its own story with a famous photograph from the 1930s -- not noting it as such.
Media Fish in a Barrel
OK, so it's British media writing about wicked America, so the fish are particularly fat and slow, but still ...
The Independent informs us we're flushed down the great toilet. The article is titled "USA 2008: The Great Depression"
It is illustrated with this photo:
Which bears the caption "Disadvantaged Americans queue for aid in New York".
A little poking around on the Getty archive Web site, and I found an identical photo here.
It has this caption:
New York Mayor Hands Out Coats To The Poor
NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 30: People wait on line to receive donated coats at the kickoff of the 17th annual New York Cares Coat Drive a the Bowery Mission November 30, 2005 in New York City. Bloomberg helped give out coats to residents of the Mission and the coat drive hopes to collect and distribute 80,000 coats to needy New Yorkers by New Years. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Emphasis added by me. Inability to tell "5" from "8" added by the Independent.
UPDATE: And here's a site that claims to be "drilling beneath the headlines" and misses this error entirely in its approving link to the Independent -- while illustrating its own story with a famous photograph from the 1930s -- not noting it as such.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2008, 05:23:42 AM
I swear, most of the UK media is tabloids.
Post by: Cromlech on April 02, 2008, 06:08:18 AM
Post by: taurusowner on April 02, 2008, 10:10:24 AM
Quote
While this economic debate is interesting, and a good theory for a portion fo the country, there's a large portion fo our population that lives on "middle class" income or below. A good portion of these are the people we refer to around the courthouse as "entitlements". These are the people that believe they are entitled to certain things for no other reason than they exist. As a breathing human being, they are entitled to food stamps and reduced cost rent. They are entitled to sell grass or meth to pay for the big flat panel tv and fancy car, and then entitled to a lawyer when they get caught, and entitled to probation when they are convicted. They are entitled to a second, third, and fourth chance on probation before being sent to prison. In prison, they are entitled to cable television, free mail, and educational opportunities. When they get out, they are entitled to public assistance to helpthem get "back on their feet." If they smoke weed, they are entitled to disability because they are chemically dependent. I cannot begin to tell you how frustrating it is to drive in to work in my 1996 Dodge Intrepid and take the bench wearing dress clothes bought at Kohl's (a lower priced department store), only to find the first case involved parents whose children are in foster care because of various issues, and see those people drive up in a Cadillac Escalade, get out wearing Armani, Boss, etc., and listen to them complain about how the system is keeping them down. Meanwhile, I'm still paying off my student loans, living in a house that truly didn't cost too much more than teh fancy car they drove in, and wondering how it is that I made the right choices.
I don't mind so much the government helping those truly in need, but when I cannot put another criminal in lock-up because we don't have it in the budget, and Hillary and Obama are talking about bailing out people who bought $250,000 homes on a $25,000 a year income, it steams me.
I don't mind so much the government helping those truly in need, but when I cannot put another criminal in lock-up because we don't have it in the budget, and Hillary and Obama are talking about bailing out people who bought $250,000 homes on a $25,000 a year income, it steams me.
You are spot on Chris. Who pays for all of those entitlements? Rich people. Who pays the majority of the taxes that fund those social programs? Rich people. Who starts the companies that provides jobs to those in need? Rich people.
What happens when the businesses and rich people decide to stop opening their pockets to people looking for handouts? What happens when the source of tax money for all those social programs dries up? All those people have grown up on food stamps, reduced rent, and free money. They don't know how to live life themselves. What happens when their safety net vanishes? What happens when the only one left to depend on is themselves, and they never learned how?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 02, 2008, 10:13:06 AM
What happens when the businesses and rich people decide to stop opening their pockets to people looking for handouts?
Democrats will raise taxes on the middle class.
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 02, 2008, 10:26:36 AM
What happens when the businesses and rich people decide to stop opening their pockets to people looking for handouts?
Democrats will raise taxes on the middle class.
And with that, I give you...
"The Tax Day Parable"
Brad
Quote
The Tax Day Parable
How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!
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, and 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 (in tax language a tax cut).
"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 $80.00.
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 the same percent, each according to the amount of the $100 tab they had previously been paying.
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 off my bill!" declared the sixth man who then pointed to the tenth. "But he got seven dollars!"
"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? Why should the wealthy get all the breaks?!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. When do we get something out of it?!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him. His injuries left him unable to work. He lost his profitable business and had to declare bankruptcy, selling all he owned to cover his medical treatment.
The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. Then it came time to pay the bill. Each reached in his walled and pulled out the accustomed amount - $2, $5, $9, and $12. But the bill was still $80 as before. They suddenly realized they were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! They begged, pleading that the bill should be less since there were only nine of them now.
The restauranteur had no mercy. In order for him to serve his customers he had made long-term commitments to his suppliers, promising to buy a certain amount of products per month. He had also taken out large loans in order to purchase bulk products that allowed him to reduce expenses and provide the lower prices. Even though one patron was no longer present his manpower needs did not diminish. The remaining customers still demanded the same level of service. In short, his costs had remained the same despite one less person at the table. He immediately obtained a court order for services rendered, seizing all the men's possessions and confiscating their belongings. They were left with only the clothes on their backs and the knowledge that they had been their own undoing.
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. It is simple mathematics. Just realize that they are also carrying the largest financial burden - a burden which allows the rest of us the luxury of a greatly reduced tax bill. Destroy their wealth through litigation, legislation, or regulation, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Then who do you think gets to pay the check?
How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!
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, and 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 (in tax language a tax cut).
"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 $80.00.
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 the same percent, each according to the amount of the $100 tab they had previously been paying.
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 off my bill!" declared the sixth man who then pointed to the tenth. "But he got seven dollars!"
"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? Why should the wealthy get all the breaks?!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. When do we get something out of it?!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him. His injuries left him unable to work. He lost his profitable business and had to declare bankruptcy, selling all he owned to cover his medical treatment.
The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. Then it came time to pay the bill. Each reached in his walled and pulled out the accustomed amount - $2, $5, $9, and $12. But the bill was still $80 as before. They suddenly realized they were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! They begged, pleading that the bill should be less since there were only nine of them now.
The restauranteur had no mercy. In order for him to serve his customers he had made long-term commitments to his suppliers, promising to buy a certain amount of products per month. He had also taken out large loans in order to purchase bulk products that allowed him to reduce expenses and provide the lower prices. Even though one patron was no longer present his manpower needs did not diminish. The remaining customers still demanded the same level of service. In short, his costs had remained the same despite one less person at the table. He immediately obtained a court order for services rendered, seizing all the men's possessions and confiscating their belongings. They were left with only the clothes on their backs and the knowledge that they had been their own undoing.
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. It is simple mathematics. Just realize that they are also carrying the largest financial burden - a burden which allows the rest of us the luxury of a greatly reduced tax bill. Destroy their wealth through litigation, legislation, or regulation, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Then who do you think gets to pay the check?
Post by: RocketMan on April 02, 2008, 04:07:30 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 02, 2008, 04:13:23 PM
"Who is John Galt?"
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 02, 2008, 04:58:48 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 02, 2008, 07:50:28 PM
Why does the dinner cost as much for 9 as it did for 10?
Because the costs of operating a restaurant are largely independent of the number of customers that show up on any given night. One less customer doesn't mean the owner's rent is reduced, or that his staff's wages are less, or that his inventory is cheaper. When you run a business, you still have to pay your expenses regardless of how many customers you have. You understand this, right? 
It wouldn't matter even if the meal cost less for 9 people than for the 10. Whether the meal costs $80 or $72, the poor diners can't pay for the meal without the rich man's $52. Unless the rest of them want to pay their own fare share, they need the rich man's money.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 02, 2008, 08:05:25 PM
Post by: taurusowner on April 02, 2008, 09:35:44 PM
Now what happens when the lease is up, and you, being tired of paying for everyone else decide to opt out and not renew....What is to become of the 3 freeloaders?
Post by: Nick1911 on April 03, 2008, 04:37:50 AM
Wow... nobody mentioned the obvious...
"Who is John Galt?"
"Who is John Galt?"
I'm actually reading Atlas Shrugged right now. I'm about 1/3 of the way through. Every now and then, I see chilling similarities between Ayn Rands world and the real world. This would be one of these times.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 03, 2008, 05:41:25 AM
Quote
Because the costs of operating a restaurant are largely independent of the number of customers that show up on any given night. One less customer doesn't mean the owner's rent is reduced, or that his staff's wages are less, or that his inventory is cheaper. When you run a business, you still have to pay your expenses regardless of how many customers you have. You understand this, right?
According to that 'logic', the price of each meal will vary depending on how many customers the restaurant had mtd and ytd. You understand that is not the way restaurants set prices, right?
Progressive taxation is nothing new. Thomas Paine, sometimes known as the 'Father of the American Revolution', was an advocate and supporter of 'tax the rich, not the poor'. Most of the taxes at the time were consumption taxes (duties) paid to England. The burden fell more heavily on the working class and the poor while the wealthy landholders were relatively free of taxes.
But the main reason for progressive taxation was to prevent the rise of a new aristocracy, as inheritances grew each generation. He knew that if the rich were allowed to pass all their wealth on to their heirs, the dynasties that formed would easily take over and corrupt the government. He considered the accumulation of wealth anti democratic.
Thomas Jefferson also advocated progressive taxation. He said "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property, is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
Then, there is the whole concept of the 'commons' as a limited resource, but I won't go into that right away. I'm sure I've already said enough to make some of you apoplectic.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 03, 2008, 06:05:19 AM
Post by: K Frame on April 03, 2008, 06:10:05 AM
More "the rich are parasitic bastards who deserve to be taxed until they're poor..."
Post by: Manedwolf on April 03, 2008, 06:14:01 AM
Sigh...
More "the rich are parasitic bastards who deserve to be taxed until they're poor..."
More "the rich are parasitic bastards who deserve to be taxed until they're poor..."
SUCCEEDING IS BAD. STAY IN YOUR CLASS NO ENTREPRENEURSHIP ALLOWED.
Pretty much it.
Post by: roo_ster on April 03, 2008, 07:00:23 AM
Quote
Because the costs of operating a restaurant are largely independent of the number of customers that show up on any given night. One less customer doesn't mean the owner's rent is reduced, or that his staff's wages are less, or that his inventory is cheaper. When you run a business, you still have to pay your expenses regardless of how many customers you have. You understand this, right?
Progressive taxation is nothing new. Thomas Paine, sometimes known as the 'Father of the American Revolution', was an advocate and supporter of 'tax the rich, not the poor'. Most of the taxes at the time were consumption taxes (duties) paid to England. The burden fell more heavily on the working class and the poor while the wealthy landholders were relatively free of taxes. But the main reason for progressive taxation was to prevent the rise of a new aristocracy, as inheritances grew each generation. He knew that if the rich were allowed to pass all their wealth on to their heirs, the dynasties that formed would easily take over and corrupt the government. He considered the accumulation of wealth anti democratic.
TP & TJ should have been introduced to the concept of "regression toward the mean," and they would not have worried themsleves.
Given how many fortunes have been made by exceptional men, is it not interesting that we have so few old-money fortunes? Most get dissipated after the originator dies, because his offspring are not nearly as exceptional.
Post by: charby on April 03, 2008, 07:08:03 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 03, 2008, 07:12:55 AM
And if the Great Revolution comes, you'll all save me, because even though I'm a government hack, I'm one of you. Right?
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 03, 2008, 07:38:33 AM
Just face it, were all going to be suffering for a few years until wages catch up with increases in food, durable goods and fuel.
Living beyond your means is a choice. It has nothing to do with wages "catching up" to anything.
Brad
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 03, 2008, 07:59:45 AM
Quote
Because the costs of operating a restaurant are largely independent of the number of customers that show up on any given night. One less customer doesn't mean the owner's rent is reduced, or that his staff's wages are less, or that his inventory is cheaper. When you run a business, you still have to pay your expenses regardless of how many customers you have. You understand this, right?
According to that 'logic', the price of each meal will vary depending on how many customers the restaurant had mtd and ytd. You understand that is not the way restaurants set prices, right?
I think the problem is that the voting public doesn't understand economics any more. It's truly staggering how few people understand basic economic concepts like prices, profits, costs, incentives, and so forth.
Go reread the scenario. The owner's cost of delivering the food is independent of the number of diners that show up on any given night. The per-meal cost is higher when the number of meals served is lower. The total cost remains the same, and the owner reflects that by charging the same total price.
This is exactly how restaurants catering to groups set their prices. They get a commitment from the group as to how many diners will show up. Based on that, they agree on a total price. The owner charges the group the agreed-upon price even if fewer diners show up for the meal.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 03, 2008, 08:07:37 AM
Just face it, were all going to be suffering for a few years until wages catch up with increases in food, durable goods and fuel.
Will they?
They didn't keep up with housing.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 03, 2008, 08:21:14 AM
Just face it, were all going to be suffering for a few years until wages catch up with increases in food, durable goods and fuel.
Will they?
They didn't keep up with housing.
Also remember that housing quality is improving. Houses built today have better materials, better appliances, more rooms, more space, and better layouts now than they did 20 or 30 years ago.
My grandparents raised their 4 children in an old 1300 SF home. No air conditioning, no dishwasher/microwave/disposal, no garage, and a a boiler/radiator heating system that would scald unwary children. There were only 3 bedrooms, so none of the children had their own room, and the rooms they shared were quite small. Only one bathroom in the house, so they all had to share that, too. Enough of a backyard to string a clothesline, but not much else. They had it good and they knew it. They determined their needs based on their means, not the other way around.
Try suggesting to a middle class family with 4 children today that they can live comfortably in that sort of house. Worse, try telling them that they should live in that sort of house, because that's all they they can really afford. Be prepared to duck.
Today families want 2500 SF or more, 4 or 5 bedrooms, just as many bathrooms, a large kitchen full of expensive appliances, a 2 or 3 car attached garage, a big backyard, all in a nice safe suburban neighborhood that's close to work. Then they gripe about the fact that it's so expensive.
People might find that housing is plenty affordable if only they'd stop buying so darned much of it.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 03, 2008, 08:26:16 AM
Sure Chris. Where do you live again, so we know where to send the
Post by: charby on April 03, 2008, 08:42:29 AM
Just face it, were all going to be suffering for a few years until wages catch up with increases in food, durable goods and fuel.
Living beyond your means is a choice. It has nothing to do with wages "catching up" to anything.
Brad
My wife and I live within our means and we both have noticed that because of the cost of fuel and other things that we don't go out for entertainment like we did last year. We used to take Sunday afternoon drives up to 150-200 miles and we haven't done that in a long time.
I have also noticed it takes a lot will power to save money each month because there is less free money each month after food, fuel and utilities.
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 03, 2008, 09:44:14 AM
Quote
I have also noticed it takes a lot will power to save money each month because there is less free money each month after food, fuel and utilities.
Exactly.
Chances are there is another 15 or 20% savings (minimum) in that food, fuel, and utility figure, too. There was a time when I didn't think I could pare back any more, but found out the hard way that I could.
Brad
Post by: K Frame on April 03, 2008, 09:44:35 AM
As for saving each month, I do that on the front end with my 401(k).
27% of my biweekly salary goes right into the 401k.
Post by: Tallpine on April 03, 2008, 05:08:08 PM
Quote
Try suggesting to a middle class family with 4 children today that they can live comfortably in that sort of house. Worse, try telling them that they should live in that sort of house, because that's all they they can really afford. Be prepared to duck.
Well, there are no houses like that anymore, except in the very worst neighborhoods
Post by: roo_ster on April 03, 2008, 06:47:50 PM
Also remember that housing quality is improving. Houses built today have better materials, better appliances, more rooms, more space, and better layouts now than they did 20 or 30 years ago.
My grandparents raised their 4 children in an old 1300 SF home.
My grandparents raised their 4 children in an old 1300 SF home.
Living in 1300sqft, here. Two kids, two dogs, wife, & self. House built in 1959. We have "all the modern conveniences," though.
We made a choice to live in a more centrally-located neighborhood (Richardson, TX, Arapaho HOA) in a small house with a small yard. The other choice was living way out in BFE (N of McKinney, TX) and driving 1-2 hours/day to work & back for an extra 700-1000sqft.
The neighborhood is still good, though it is a constant battle. The main opponent being the illegals and their behaviors. It has come down to fighting off their depredations and chaos long enough for the nasty apartments most live in to be worth it to McMansion builders to buy, bulldoze & build McMansions. That is turning out to be a Godsend, as the bulldozing removes habitat, reduces crime, and reduces property tax burdens as their illegal kids and anchor babies no longer live in the district.
The other problem is the illegal alien bunkhouses. Those pop up in the neighborhood and have to be treated like fire ant mounds or they'll get over on you, spread, and make the nearby areas dangerous.
Post by: charby on April 03, 2008, 06:48:56 PM
Well, my salary just went up 5.5% a year...
As for saving each month, I do that on the front end with my 401(k).
27% of my biweekly salary goes right into the 401k.
As for saving each month, I do that on the front end with my 401(k).
27% of my biweekly salary goes right into the 401k.
must really suck dragging your bag full of gold coins around.
Post by: seeker_two on April 04, 2008, 01:25:22 AM
Just face it, were all going to be suffering for a few years until wages catch up with increases in food, durable goods and fuel.
In other words......we're doomed......