What's wrong with taxing the rich to feed the poor?

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Poverty is not an economic condition, its a mental condition. Or, as my daddy used to say, Poor people have Poor ways.

The govt taking my money to support the poor/needy in this country is personally insulting to me. To me, it is the govt saying to me "you can't be trusted to be a good person and use your energy, intelligence and good fortune to help out the poor in your community, so we, the govt, will take your money and make sure it goes to help the poor." Well, fine. The govt takes my money and wastes more than half of it before it ever gets to anyone that needs help. Then they don't care who lines up at the free money window. Hell, the more the better as far as the govt workers think. Job security, don't ya know.

Despite being heavily taxed, I still support local charities. The Salvation Army does more good with my donation dollar than the govt could ever dream of. Plus they are personally involved with the people they help so they can make sure the help given matches the need. I also support the Disabled American Veterans. After all, who do we owe more to than the people that have suffered injury in defense of our freedom.

Americans have proven that they are the most generous people ever. I don't have the exact figures, but I believe that Americans' personal giving to charity is double that of any other developed country. If you eliminated govt subsidies to the poor and lowered taxes proportionally, people would step up in their individual communities to help the poor.

mosdef_basic

2 points

1 you get tax breaks for supporting charity so I don't know how transparent everyone's reasons are but whatever.

2 You see how charitable these CEO's have been time and again. So no I don't trust them to do the right thing by their fellow man.

Yes, I itemize my deductions and get a deduction for my charitable giving. What it saves me on taxes is a very small fraction of what I give. I don't give to get the deduction. I give because its how I was brought up.

As for trusting the CEOs: They are just people. Some are good, some are bad. I know a former CEO of an aircraft manufacturer that now uses his energy, money and connections to do good. He was instrumental in getting a new Boys and Girls Club built in our town.

Keep in mind that govt is made up of............people, thats right. Why are you willing to trust the people in govt, but not the people in your community?

[QUOTE="mosdef_basic"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]Welfare sucks (outside of short term unemplyment and disabilaty) If you are too lazy to get off your ass and get a freaking job I dont think that you should have the full rights of a citizen because you do not contribute to society. That said I do think that everyone should have the right to healthcare and education (including college) so I am ok for taxes for those things.Guybrush_3

Obviously someone who knows nothing about how the system works. If you for some reason fall on hard times and need "assistance" it's not set up to where you can work pay the bills you can and then when you're broke and can't buy food that they will assist you. It's pretty much completely reliant on the system or do without. You can't keep your 9 dollar and hour job and get help with food, they will cut you off.

This is not to say there isn't loop holes and abuse but the reason it exist is because there needs to be reform. You can't go around calling people lazy unless you personally have experienced what happens or what it's like sir.

Lol, you have it wrong. I know how the current system works and I HATE it, it needs to be drastically changed. I also hate that our minimum wage is so low that you have to work about 70 hours just to get the bare essnetials. I want people to have a living wage (as in you should be able to make enough for the minimum living expenses if you work 50 hours a week)

Milton Friedman disagrees with you.

Because the rich people worked damn hard to make their money (in most cases) and don't want it taken away from them. It's like being penalized for doing well.

Well Billy, I see you got an A, but I'm going to knock it down to a B and give that letter grade difference to Johnny who got an F, so now he gets a D!

That aint fair and isn't right.

hokies1313

A lot of people have said we shouldn't tax rich people more just because they've worked harder and earned it, but that's not usually the case. The really rich, statistically speaking, usually inherit their money. I'm not saying you won't earn it, I'm just saying lots of people don't. And those people who don't are usually not even "rich" so to speak, they're "holy freaking cow, I'm buying an island just to keep all my cars parked on it" rich.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="mosdef_basic"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]Welfare sucks (outside of short term unemplyment and disabilaty) If you are too lazy to get off your ass and get a freaking job I dont think that you should have the full rights of a citizen because you do not contribute to society. That said I do think that everyone should have the right to healthcare and education (including college) so I am ok for taxes for those things.limpbizkit818

Obviously someone who knows nothing about how the system works. If you for some reason fall on hard times and need "assistance" it's not set up to where you can work pay the bills you can and then when you're broke and can't buy food that they will assist you. It's pretty much completely reliant on the system or do without. You can't keep your 9 dollar and hour job and get help with food, they will cut you off.

This is not to say there isn't loop holes and abuse but the reason it exist is because there needs to be reform. You can't go around calling people lazy unless you personally have experienced what happens or what it's like sir.

Lol, you have it wrong. I know how the current system works and I HATE it, it needs to be drastically changed. I also hate that our minimum wage is so low that you have to work about 70 hours just to get the bare essnetials. I want people to have a living wage (as in you should be able to make enough for the minimum living expenses if you work 50 hours a week)

Milton Friedman disagrees with you.

I dissagree. He says that people that do not have preexisting skills would not be able to get jobs. You do not need ANY preexisting skills to work at a fast food resturant.

[QUOTE="WSP87"][QUOTE="mosdef_basic"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]Welfare sucks (outside of short term unemplyment and disabilaty) If you are too lazy to get off your ass and get a freaking job I dont think that you should have the full rights of a citizen because you do not contribute to society. That said I do think that everyone should have the right to healthcare and education (including college) so I am ok for taxes for those things.mosdef_basic

Obviously someone who knows nothing about how the system works. If you for some reason fall on hard times and need "assistance" it's not set up to where you can work pay the bills you can and then when you're broke and can't buy food that they will assist you. It's pretty much completely reliant on the system or do without. You can't keep your 9 dollar and hour job and get help with food, they will cut you off.

This is not to say there isn't loop holes and abuse but the reason it exist is because there needs to be reform. You can't go around calling people lazy unless you personally have experienced what happens or what it's like sir.

I see what you are saying and i agree, sort of. Alot of it is people who settle for a GED or a low income job because they think they have hit such hard times they have no other options. Been their, seen that, done that and i think lazy is a pretty damn good description. There is always a way out.

You can't be lazy and get a GED. Lazy is what you do if you drop out of school and don't bother to finish at all. To go back to school after you make a bad decision to leave in the first place and for some people that's well into their 30's and 40's takes courage and determination, I wouldn' at all call that lazy.

Neither would I, I call that the way out i was talking about. They do it for them selves. But there are many who would and who do just settle for the sub par and expect everything to be given to them.

read my response.

guybrush_3

I did, and his point is still valid. The rich guy was paying the most, if he leaves then who is?

It's not like ALL the rich people's money is donated to help the needy.

Some of you need to stop claiming to be Christian because it's really quite un-Christlike of you to complain about giving some money to people who are LESS FORTUNATE; yes, that's right. Not LESS INTELLIGENT or LESS ACTIVE; LESS FORTUNATE.

Your personal success has much more to do with your social and familial environment than it does your own personal talents. How many orphans make it to become fortune 500 CEOs? Is it because all orphans are stupid? Or is it because they don't have the support systems you stuck up upper class children have? Hmm... I wonder!

I am fine with taxing the rich a bit to help out those less fortunate. Instead of getting the $90,000 BMW, get the $80,000 model. It's really not a big deal. Just take a week off from caviar or cancel your membership to your yacht club. I think you unlucky, poor wealthy people can manage!

[QUOTE="guybrush_3"]

read my response.

WSP87

I did, and his point is still valid. The rich guy was paying the most, if he leaves then who is?

The people that want to leave have already left, or found the loop holes. No one that is paying taxes now is going to leave over a tax CUT.

[QUOTE="guybrush_3"]

read my response.

WSP87

I did, and his point is still valid. The rich guy was paying the most, if he leaves then who is?

the analogy isn't really that complete. it assumes that we all drink about the same amount.

also the rich would probably own the bar.(like it does most of the government through lobbyists)

[QUOTE="hokies1313"]

Because the rich people worked damn hard to make their money (in most cases) and don't want it taken away from them. It's like being penalized for doing well.

Well Billy, I see you got an A, but I'm going to knock it down to a B and give that letter grade difference to Johnny who got an F, so now he gets a D!

That aint fair and isn't right.

Truth_Seekr

A lot of people have said we shouldn't tax rich people more just because they've worked harder and earned it, but that's not usually the case. The really rich, statistically speaking, usually inherit their money. I'm not saying you won't earn it, I'm just saying lots of people don't. And those people who don't are usually not even "rich" so to speak, they're "holy freaking cow, I'm buying an island just to keep all my cars parked on it" rich.

I'm looking at the Forbes 400 Richest Americans, and in the top 25, only 8 seem to have inherited their wealth while the rest have worked for their money, building up companies like Google and Microsoft.

And what about those people that don't make billions of dollars but do make more than 250K but not millions? What about them? Chances are they work for their money, and worked hard to get were they are, why should they be punished?

I dissagree. He says that people that do not have preexisting skills would not be able to get jobs. You do not need ANY preexisting skills to work at a fast food resturant.

Guybrush_3

And would an increase in the minimum wage not force companies to cut the number of workers they hire?

You can find many studies done on the minimum wage, most of which show the little effect it has.

As for Milton's point, the unemployment rate is on the rise right now. What good does minimum wage do for the unemployed?

I am fine with taxing the rich a bit to help out those less fortunate. Instead of getting the $90,000 BMW, get the $80,000 model. It's really not a big deal. Just take a week off from caviar or cancel your membership to your yacht club. I think you unlucky, poor wealthy people can manage!

Truth_Seekr

[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"]

It's not like ALL the rich people's money is donated to help the needy.

Some of you need to stop claiming to be Christian because it's really quite un-Christlike of you to complain about giving some money to people who are LESS FORTUNATE

Theokhoth

Christians believe in the God-given right to choose what to do with their God-given right to the property they earn; as in, NOT government-mandated charity (theft).

And how the **** dare you bring religion into a tax discussion and tell Christians who disagree with you that they aren't Christians? On what planet do you have that authority?

"Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's"

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I dissagree. He says that people that do not have preexisting skills would not be able to get jobs. You do not need ANY preexisting skills to work at a fast food resturant.

limpbizkit818

And would an increase in the minimum wage not force companies to cut the number of workers they hire?

You can find many studies done on the minimum wage, most of which show the little effect it has.

As for Milton's point, the unemployment rate is on the rise right now. What good does minimum wage do for the unemployed?

Lots of places that pay minimum wage run on minimum staff as is. Also if the minimum wage is higher that means they pay more taxes, which would allow for tax cuts for the companies.

"Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's"

Guybrush_3

Uh-huh? What's your point?

There is nothing wrong with taxing the rich. But when you use someone else's money to help only one group, and ignoring the others, that is the problem. That isn't equality at all.

Seems like liberals these days are living in a fantasy. This isn't Robbin Hood, although if Obama gets his way it will seem like it.

[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"]

I am fine with taxing the rich a bit to help out those less fortunate. Instead of getting the $90,000 BMW, get the $80,000 model. It's really not a big deal. Just take a week off from caviar or cancel your membership to your yacht club. I think you unlucky, poor wealthy people can manage!

FragStains

I'm not deciding anything, merely saying examples and suggestions.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

"Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's"

Theokhoth

Uh-huh? What's your point?

That would be Jesus telling you to pay your freaking taxes.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

"Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's"

Guybrush_3

Uh-huh? What's your point?

That would be Jesus telling you to pay your freaking taxes.

I don't mind paying taxes; I mind giving my money to people to whom it does not belong. "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

Don't quote the Bible to me.;)

That's the issue. Who are you to decide what ANYONE can do with their own money? If you earn your own money, you can buy whatever you want. Life isn't fair. It isn't the government's job to rebalance the universe so that no one suffers. It's called reality.FragStains

However, your post seems to bring up a few questions and issues. Like do these guys earn their money, or do they inherit it? And can't we apply that logic to the poor? Do they really deserve to be poor, or were they thrust into that position by fate? And on the life isn't fair part, is that natural, or do we make it that way? And if that isn't the government's job, then what the hell is it?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

"Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's"

Theokhoth

Uh-huh? What's your point?

That would be Jesus telling you to pay your freaking taxes.

I don't mind paying taxes; I mind giving my money to people to whom it does not belong. "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

Don't quote the Bible to me.;)

Now you are getting into semantics. There are alot of different translations of that verse.

By the way, I know this may be a little hard to believe, but not everybody who opposes socialism is rich. :o I sure as hell don't make 250K a year. Some people just believe in human rights rather than human convenience.Theokhoth

Now you are getting into semantics. There are alot of different translations of that verse.

Guybrush_3

:lol: You brought up the semantics in the first place. Don't warp the meaning of the Bible with me. Appealing to different translations won't help you, either, especially when you won't list them.

According to the latest poll of polls, 46% of voters are ready and willing to not help their fellow man in a blatant time of need.septemberluc

According to similar polls, 54% of voters don't give a **** about the rights of rich people simply because they are rich.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Now you are getting into semantics. There are alot of different translations of that verse.

Theokhoth

:lol: You brought up the semantics in the first place. Don't warp the meaning of the Bible with me. Appealing to different translations won't help you, either, especially when you won't list them.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]That's the issue. Who are you to decide what ANYONE can do with their own money? If you earn your own money, you can buy whatever you want. Life isn't fair. It isn't the government's job to rebalance the universe so that no one suffers. It's called reality.Video_Game_King

However, your post seems to bring up a few questions and issues. Like do these guys earn their money, or do they inherit it? And can't we apply that logic to the poor? Do they really deserve to be poor, or were they thrust into that position by fate? And on the life isn't fair part, is that natural, or do we make it that way? And if that isn't the government's job, then what the hell is it?

The government's job is to allow us to live under laws with the rights described in the Constitution. It's not the government's job to feed, clothe and shelter us.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I dissagree. He says that people that do not have preexisting skills would not be able to get jobs. You do not need ANY preexisting skills to work at a fast food resturant.

Guybrush_3

And would an increase in the minimum wage not force companies to cut the number of workers they hire?

You can find many studies done on the minimum wage, most of which show the little effect it has.

As for Milton's point, the unemployment rate is on the rise right now. What good does minimum wage do for the unemployed?

Lots of places that pay minimum wage run on minimum staff as is. Also if the minimum wage is higher that means they pay more taxes, which would allow for tax cuts for the companies.

Tax cuts? But people here are talking about more taxes for the rich (and this would included business's). Why are they suddenly getting tax cuts?

You also are ignoring the fact that the large majority of minimum wage owners do not live soley off that salary.

Lowering the min wage would also lower the unemployment rate, which would in turn help more then it harms.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Now you are getting into semantics. There are alot of different translations of that verse.

Guybrush_3

:lol: You brought up the semantics in the first place. Don't warp the meaning of the Bible with me. Appealing to different translations won't help you, either, especially when you won't list them.

If he wants to give it to people then he can. What it says about Caesar's money is that IT'S HIS MONEY. He doesn't have a government-mandated obligation to give it to the poor. If he wants to, he can, but if he doesn't want to, he can not and should not be forced to do otherwise.

Gasp!

The government's job is to allow us to live under laws with the rights described in the Constitution. It's not the government's job to feed, clothe and shelter us.FragStains

If your personal morality indicates that the poor should bailed out of their situation that's fine. You, however, have no right to impose that ideology on others. There are some among us that believe you are entitled only to what you work for.

I find it funny how all the liberals here complain about Republicans imposing religious morality on others in social issues yet do you not realize you're doing the exact same thing with these socialist economic policies? Free-market capitalism is the only moral economic system because it is the only economic system that respects every individuals right to do what they wish with their life.

[QUOTE="FragStains"]The government's job is to allow us to live under laws with the rights described in the Constitution. It's not the government's job to feed, clothe and shelter us.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="FragStains"]The government's job is to allow us to live under laws with the rights described in the Constitution. It's not the government's job to feed, clothe and shelter us.FragStains

[QUOTE="FragStains"]

You are removing self-reliance and personal responsibility from society.

On a somewhat similar note, here is an interesting explanation of why you shouldn't gang up on the rich to help the poor:

--------------------------------------------------------------

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 got' '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.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

Guybrush_3

wow for a proffessor his logic is quite flawed. after the price dropped if they were to do it the exact same way as they did before they would still pay exactly the same percentage as they did when it was $100. (the tenth guy pays 59% the ninth guy pays 18% and so on) and people who dont pay taxes dont get tax returns.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (0% savings).
The sixth now paid $2.4 instead of $3 (20%savings).
The seventh now pay $6.4 instead of $7 (20%savings).
The eighth now paid $9.6 instead of $12 (20% savings).
The ninth now paid $14.4 instead of $18 (20% savings).
The tenth now paid $47.2 instead of $59 (20% savings).

What you're saying is true, but the logic of the scenario remains the same. They would still realize that the tenth guy got about $12 in savings, whereas the ninth guy got only about $6, even though they both recieved (in your scenario) 20% savings. Everyone else in the bar would still feel like beating up the tenth guy even though he is paying drastically more than everybody else, and got the same discount when the price went down.

regardless of the translation it never says what caeser can and cant do with his money. If he wants to give it to other people you just have to deal with it.Guybrush_3

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]According to the latest poll of polls, 46% of voters are ready and willing to not help their fellow man in a blatant time of need.Theokhoth

According to similar polls, 54% of voters don't give a **** about the rights of rich people simply because they are rich.

I care alot about the rights of rich people. By no means do I think that we should be a socialist country. I just think that people should be able to make enough money for living expenses (without the government having to pay for it), have health care (only paid for by the government if you can't afford it), and get an education. I don't want to have tax anyone (including the rich) any more than is absolutly nessisary for those things to happen.

Free-market capitalism is the only moral economic system because it is the only economic system that respects every individuals right to do what they wish with their life. espoac

[QUOTE="FragStains"][QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"]

[QUOTE="FragStains"]You are removing self-reliance and personal responsibility from society. Ilived

Right. That's the usual argument I hear, but given what's gone down in the past few months - to those that say it wouldn't be fair to pay for someone elses expense, I must ask.....

How fair do you see it that You now have to pay the $850 Billion dollar bailout for something you didn't do? Taking away personal responsibility from the rich.

And, I haven't seen one extra penny taken from my paycheck for taxes since this occured.

And it's not poor peoples fault that these banks who offered the loans basically told these people that they CAN infact pay it off when they actually couldn't.

Wow.

Do you realize that there are laws that force banks to give out loans to poorer neighborhoods? So some banks are forced to give loans to poorer people. It is another attempt at Affirmative Action.

And do you realize that it does actually take away personal responsibility? Before the Social Security amendments in the 1950 that spread out SS benefits more, 50% of people age 65 and older still continued to work. Today, only 20% of people 65 and older work. That is because these people are relying on their Social Security. Before people would save their money for retirement, now people are spending all their money and figure that their SS will be enough for them when they get to retirement age.

So yeah. It is completely the people's fault for their mismanagement for the money, as it is also the bank's fault for their mismanagement of their money. The blame is spread around to everyone, not just the "evil" banks.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

[QUOTE="FragStains"]That's the issue. Who are you to decide what ANYONE can do with their own money? If you earn your own money, you can buy whatever you want. Life isn't fair. It isn't the government's job to rebalance the universe so that no one suffers. It's called reality.FragStains

However, your post seems to bring up a few questions and issues. Like do these guys earn their money, or do they inherit it? And can't we apply that logic to the poor? Do they really deserve to be poor, or were they thrust into that position by fate? And on the life isn't fair part, is that natural, or do we make it that way? And if that isn't the government's job, then what the hell is it?

The government's job is to allow us to live under laws with the rights described in the Constitution. It's not the government's job to feed, clothe and shelter us.

What if it was illegal, and they rose to large statute? What then? And what if they go past what their birth allows them to deserve? And how does one decide the limits? I was brought up in generally the same environment you described, so that provides some...information.

And what are those rights there for? To allow us to pursue happiness? To run away from suffering?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][QUOTE="FragStains"]

You are removing self-reliance and personal responsibility from society.

On a somewhat similar note, here is an interesting explanation of why you shouldn't gang up on the rich to help the poor:

--------------------------------------------------------------

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 got' '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.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

The_Laser08

wow for a proffessor his logic is quite flawed. after the price dropped if they were to do it the exact same way as they did before they would still pay exactly the same percentage as they did when it was $100. (the tenth guy pays 59% the ninth guy pays 18% and so on) and people who dont pay taxes dont get tax returns.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (0% savings).
The sixth now paid $2.4 instead of $3 (20%savings).
The seventh now pay $6.4 instead of $7 (20%savings).
The eighth now paid $9.6 instead of $12 (20% savings).
The ninth now paid $14.4 instead of $18 (20% savings).
The tenth now paid $47.2 instead of $59 (20% savings).

What you're saying is true, but the logic of the scenario remains the same. They would still realize that the tenth guy got about $12 in savings, whereas the ninth guy got only about $6, even though they both recieved (in your scenario) 20% savings. Everyone else in the bar would still feel like beating up the tenth guy even though he is paying drastically more than everybody else, and got the same discount when the price went down.

only ignorent people would think that it was unfair. (although I will give you that there are alot of ignorent people in this world, but more likely then not those are people would be in the bottom 4)

[QUOTE="Ilived"][QUOTE="FragStains"][QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"]

[QUOTE="FragStains"]You are removing self-reliance and personal responsibility from society. helium_flash

Right. That's the usual argument I hear, but given what's gone down in the past few months - to those that say it wouldn't be fair to pay for someone elses expense, I must ask.....

How fair do you see it that You now have to pay the $850 Billion dollar bailout for something you didn't do? Taking away personal responsibility from the rich.

And, I haven't seen one extra penny taken from my paycheck for taxes since this occured.

And it's not poor peoples fault that these banks who offered the loans basically told these people that they CAN infact pay it off when they actually couldn't.

Wow.

Do you realize that there are laws that force banks to give out loans to poorer neighborhoods? So some banks are forced to give loans to poorer people. It is another attempt at Affirmative Action.

And do you realize that it does actually take away personal responsibility? Before the Social Security amendments in the 1950 that spread out SS benefits more, 50% of people age 65 and older still continued to work. Today, only 20% of people 65 and older work. That is because these people are relying on their Social Security. Before people would save their money for retirement, now people are spending all their money and figure that their SS will be enough for them when they get to retirement age.

So yeah. It is completely the people's fault for their mismanagement for the money, as it is also the bank's fault for their mismanagement of their money. The blame is spread around to everyone, not just the "evil" banks.

I like your first statement. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created entirely for the purpose of driving down home prices in poorer neighborhoods so that more people could afford the American dream. Guess what, over the years this artificial price fixing has caught up with us, and now we have our current financial crisis as a result. Maybe if the government would learn to keep its nose out of these things everything would have been fine.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]According to the latest poll of polls, 46% of voters are ready and willing to not help their fellow man in a blatant time of need.Guybrush_3

According to similar polls, 54% of voters don't give a **** about the rights of rich people simply because they are rich.

I care alot about the rights of rich people (my parents are fairly wealthy and I have alot of wealth friends). By no means do I think that we should be a socialist country. I just think that people should be able to make enough money for living expenses (without the government having to pay for it), have health care (only paid for by the government if you can't afford it), and get an education. I don't want to have tax anyone (including the rich) any more than is absolutly nessisary for those things to happen.