The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on October 22, 2012, 07:02:36 PM
-
This was attributed to a professor, and that is false. However, the truth still stands.
Read and enjoy, or get more irritated with our chief enabler:
Simple explanation of tax code, read and understand..:
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 ball. "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 men would 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," 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 benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and richest man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their 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 government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally 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.
-
That's the dem platform .
If you vote for any dem you support this, abortion, gun control, and a cowardly FP.
-
That's the dem platform .
If you vote for any dem you support this, abortion, gun control, and a cowardly FP.
And if you vote third party you guarantee the same!
-
And if you vote third party you guarantee the same!
That's right.
Some of us learned that lesson 25 years ago, some will never learn it.
-
That's the dem platform .
If you vote for any dem you support this, abortion, gun control, and a cowardly FP.
I have to disagree with you on this. Just because you vote for a person, doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. For years, I have been voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Even this November, I have a guy running for Senator, who is a moron. BUT (it is a very big but), his opponent is far worse than he is. My hope is he wins, & in 6 years, we get a more palatable choice.
Brian
-
I have to disagree with you on this. Just because you vote for a person, doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. For years, I have been voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Even this November, I have a guy running for Senator, who is a moron. BUT (it is a very big but), his opponent is far worse than he is. My hope is he wins, & in 6 years, we get a more palatable choice.
Brian
That is just as stupid as the way Congress hobbles our troops with "Rules of engagement".
How do you expect a President to do what you elected him to do if you f*ck him in advance by voting for Senators and Congressmen who are fundamentally opposed to everything you claim to believe needs doing ?
-
What? Congress sets the ROE? Gee, I didn't learn it that way at the Air War College, but who am I to argue with the great Tom Bogan! In Afghanistan, for example, my misguided understanding was that the ROE were set by McCrystal who actually tightened them to try to prevent or reduce civilian casualties. I seem to remember the USMC (among others) having a hissy fit over that decision, but then my Alzheimer's always helps me in these matters. ROE is a central part of military strategy in any operation, large or small, and definitely is subject to civilian review by the U.S. President, Secretary of Defense and the Congress (if/when they are engaged by the War Powers Act which the Executive Branch increasingly seems to ignore). I remember the ROE being "drafted" at relatively high levels in our military/air/naval strategy process and then approved, disapproved or modified as it went up the approval chain of command. Tom, got some specific examples where Congress "set" the ROE?
-
Nice try at changing the subject away from your self defeating support for a dem.
But to answer you distraction off the top of my head how about Vietnam, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.
However even if I did get the specific author wrong in the context of the comment it is irrelevant.
The fact remains that our troops are attempting to fight wars with their hands tied behind their backs the same way your support for ANY democrat will impede a Republican President.
Then you would probably be among the first to condemn him for not accomplishing what needs to be done.
-
That's right.
Some of us learned that lesson 25 years ago, some will never learn it.
So, we are saying here that no matter how bad the Republican party becomes that as long as it is better than the Democratic party we would be fools to vote for a third party?
-
So, we are saying here that no matter how bad the Republican party becomes that as long as it is better than the Democratic party we would be fools to vote for a third party?
That's what the primaries are for.
In this election any one who votes for a 3rd party is just as stupid as anyone who votes for Obama.
-
So, we are saying here that no matter how bad the Republican party becomes that as long as it is better than the Democratic party we would be fools to vote for a third party?
As long as we only have two main parties and the media discounts all others we need to choose from those two. The sad thing is that it is the conservatives that can't get along and quit splitting the party. It happened to us in 2008, and we got BHO; in Minnesota we did it in 2010, and we got Dayton; and if we do it again in 2012 we will have BHO again.
At the local level primaries narrow it down to to candidates per office and write ins if anyone wants. But at the state and national level we still dilute to vote over multiple candidates.
-
As long as we only have two main parties and the media discounts all others we need to choose from those two. The sad thing is that it is the conservatives that can't get along and quit splitting the party. It happened to us in 2008, and we got BHO; in Minnesota we did it in 2010, and we got Dayton; and if we do it again in 2012 we will have BHO again.
At the local level primaries narrow it down to to candidates per office and write ins if anyone wants. But at the state and national level we still dilute to vote over multiple candidates.
I'll take that as a Yes