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

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

[QUOTE="bungie93"]Don't rich people pay taxes to help the poor already?LJS9502_basic

Yep. A huge chunk of our tax money goes to things like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare programs, etc, etc...

That's great. I'm not rich either. I'm not patting myself on the back. And ahhh yes, the misconception that wealthy means that you are filthy rich and roll in 100 dollar bills all day which you use to wipe your *** with. Sorry to break it to you, but that's not even close to what the government consider's "rich".

And by the way, the top 10% account for nearly 70% of revenue from the income tax. Sorry to burst your bubble but you really don't pay that much.

I hate when people say that. Just because people make more money, doesn't make everyone "Richie-Riches" as the media depicts, throwing around their money to anything that they feel like. People who make more money work just as hard as those who are making less - and generally care for their money just as much as well. Not everyone is like Paris Hilton or the other superstars, you know.

msudude211

That's great. I'm not rich either. I'm not patting myself on the back. And ahhh yes, the misconception that wealthy means that you are filthy rich and roll in 100 dollar bills all day which you use to wipe your *** with. Sorry to break it to you, but that's not even close to what the government consider's "rich".

And by the way, the top 10% account for nearly 70% of revenue from the income tax. Sorry to burst your bubble but you really don't pay that much.

trix5817

Not that you know what I make anyway...assumptions...you know what they say.

[QUOTE="msudude211"]

I hate when people say that. Just because people make more money, doesn't make everyone "Richie-Riches" as the media depicts, throwing around their money to anything that they feel like. People who make more money work just as hard as those who are making less - and generally care for their money just as much as well. Not everyone is like Paris Hilton or the other superstars, you know.

LJS9502_basic

The bottom half of this country doesn't even pay taxes. The top 10 pays 70%.

Here you go....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="msudude211"]

I hate when people say that. Just because people make more money, doesn't make everyone "Richie-Riches" as the media depicts, throwing around their money to anything that they feel like. People who make more money work just as hard as those who are making less - and generally care for their money just as much as well. Not everyone is like Paris Hilton or the other superstars, you know.

trix5817

The bottom half of this country doesn't even pay taxes. The top 10 pays 70%.

[QUOTE="msudude211"]

I hate when people say that. Just because people make more money, doesn't make everyone "Richie-Riches" as the media depicts, throwing around their money to anything that they feel like. People who make more money work just as hard as those who are making less - and generally care for their money just as much as well. Not everyone is like Paris Hilton or the other superstars, you know.

LJS9502_basic

That was in response to your comment that stated "The difference is the wealthy don't miss the bit they pay."

Rich people are always making up excuses.Thagypsy

Because the poor never do either, right?

They never blame others for their problems or their current economic situation?

That was in response to your comment that stated "The difference is the wealthy don't miss the bit they pay."

msudude211

I don't get it what billionaires want to do with all that money they have. They are just going to store it somewhere and hire a monkey to count for them? Having much more money than needed and not sharing it is just criminal.Ilived

That's right. That's why in the spirit of sharing I'm using your car tomorrow.

Well I would like to say thank you for the people who pay taxes. Because of you, I was able to get financial aid money to help pay my tuition for college. I have my associate's degree and later planning to get a BA, but first I'm saving some money up. Also thank you for for supporting my widowed grandmother, who pays with foodstamps. She's now living comfortably in an apartment which my family helps pay for. The main reason why I wouldnt mind paying extra taxes (first I would have to make 250,000+ a year :P) is because Im a person who benefited from it. My dad owned his own hat company. After 9/11, his company went bankrupt (including ourselves), we sold everything and managed to live in an small apartment.

What makes me sad about most people who posted here who dont want to "spread the wealth", as they put it, is that they're forsaking one group of people who can benefit from it (like how I did) because of another group of "lazy people" who dont strive to achieve are receiving the same thing.

Well my 76 year old grandma cant strive to achieve, obviously, and my cousing who is in special education programs to say the least cant strive to achieve either. True that lazy people, who were brought up that way by their parents and community, dont deserve that money, but once again I would still pay taxes if it helped someone truly in need.

If you are someone who is making 6 figures but dont want to pay higher taxes because of the lazy people who would benefit from it, then by all means create a better plan and run for president.

For those people who keep on saying "It aint right for them to get ANY of my hard earned money", well there are people working harder than you who make less then you, and probably give you the ability to work at all in the first place. These same people dont have the capabilities to achieve due to VARIOUS REASONS such as health and financial. God forbid we try to help them out :roll:.

Edit: Also on the charity part, Charity organizations target only a selected number of groups in certain areas. Taxes go nation wide. I also dont recall a "Fund redmasterdx's college tuition" charity lol.

RedMasterDX

You're welcome. And let me say it is damn decent of you to show your appreciation. But don't assume that if the govt weren't there to help you out that you'd be doomed. Despite laboring under a pretty heavy and confiscatory tax system, Americans are still the most personally charitable people in the world. What I personally object to is being forced by my govt to be charitable. It should be my choice.

Good luck with your newly earned skill and education. Do well and you will be able to help out others along the way.

[QUOTE="msudude211"]

That was in response to your comment that stated "The difference is the wealthy don't miss the bit they pay."

LJS9502_basic

That's a bold generalization, LJS.

a group of people have the same rights as one person. you cant steal.

it also dosent teach poor people how to get out of their mess. also the federal government is the biggest example of incopetence in the history of mankind.

You use force to take value from someone who created it and give it to someone who didin't.Frattracide

That's a bold generalization, LJS.

msudude211

[QUOTE="msudude211"]

That was in response to your comment that stated "The difference is the wealthy don't miss the bit they pay."

LJS9502_basic

Oh, here you go again. Making the "weatlhy" seem like their just rolling around in those $100 bills. You keep thinking that....:roll:

It's not anyone else's fault that you're not wealthy.....just like it's not anyone else's fault that I'm not wealthy (yet:)

[QUOTE="Deathxcore"]

No and no.

Minimum wage?

Better get two jobs, that is, if you like to eat with the lights on.

Can't find a job?

There is ALWAYS a job somewhere. Mow a lawn, scrap metal, give blood, buy cheap groceries, own a coupon book. Money Management FTW.

LJS9502_basic

actually if you start a landscaping business you can. i actually know a guy who JUST mows lawns and makes enough money to supprt him and his family. you just gotta pick the right yards :)

i agree about corporate welfare, but i dont think the gov should reward anyone for anything.

[QUOTE="msudude211"]

That's a bold generalization, LJS.

LJS9502_basic

Come on. If you think that the upper cIass are living perfectly right now in this economy, then you're sadly mistaken.

[QUOTE="msudude211"]

That's a bold generalization, LJS.

LJS9502_basic

if you tax the wealthy real hard theyre less likely to create jobs. its important to cut taxes everywhere and let the economy do its thing.

It's never that simple. Often you aren't taxing "rich people" but people who work damn hard to earn every penny they have. Other times you aren't feeding "the poor" but people who simply dont want to work. As soon as you allow someone to forget about personal responsibility and rely on somebody else to pay their way, you open the floodgates for people who decide they should do the same.Ninja-Hippo

in any event, would you rather abstain from helping the poor or practicing some kind of compassion? nevermind the economic sense it makes to give money to the poor (who spend MORE than their income on average), but don't you think it's the wrong message to suggest that everyone should fend for themselves?

the larger point is that however we want to look at it, the economy is a network of people. it is not a series of brilliant men making their fortunes. any kind of economic structure goes to show exactly how interdependent we all are. there are many rich people who do not work, and there are many poor who work hard, and there are exceptions to all rules.

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It's never that simple. Often you aren't taxing "rich people" but people who work damn hard to earn every penny they have. Other times you aren't feeding "the poor" but people who simply dont want to work. As soon as you allow someone to forget about personal responsibility and rely on somebody else to pay their way, you open the floodgates for people who decide they should do the same.quiglythegreat

in any event, would you rather abstain from helping the poor or practicing some kind of compassion? nevermind the economic sense it makes to give money to the poor (who spend MORE than their income on average), but don't you think it's the wrong message to suggest that everyone should fend for themselves?

the larger point is that however we want to look at it, the economy is a network of people. it is not a series of brilliant men making their fortunes. any kind of economic structure goes to show exactly how interdependent we all are. there are many rich people who do not work, and there are many poor who work hard, and there are exceptions to all rules.

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

the best way for rich people to help the poor is to create jobs. thats more stable than gov checks and charity.

hording money is a good thing. why? because when rich people horde their money they create jobs. they horde their money in banks afterall. the more rich people horde their money, the more bank jobs that can open and the more loans that can be given out to start other businesses.

thank the gods for the greedy people, honestly.

if you tax the wealthy real hard theyre less likely to create jobs. its important to cut taxes everywhere and let the economy do its thing.

Super_Socialist

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It's never that simple. Often you aren't taxing "rich people" but people who work damn hard to earn every penny they have. Other times you aren't feeding "the poor" but people who simply dont want to work. As soon as you allow someone to forget about personal responsibility and rely on somebody else to pay their way, you open the floodgates for people who decide they should do the same.Super_Socialist

in any event, would you rather abstain from helping the poor or practicing some kind of compassion? nevermind the economic sense it makes to give money to the poor (who spend MORE than their income on average), but don't you think it's the wrong message to suggest that everyone should fend for themselves?

the larger point is that however we want to look at it, the economy is a network of people. it is not a series of brilliant men making their fortunes. any kind of economic structure goes to show exactly how interdependent we all are. there are many rich people who do not work, and there are many poor who work hard, and there are exceptions to all rules.

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

the best way for rich people to help the poor is to create jobs. thats more stable than gov checks and charity.

hording money is a good thing. why? because when rich people horde their money they create jobs. they horde their money in banks afterall. the more rich people horde their money, the more bank jobs that can open and the more loans that can be given out to start other businesses.

thank the gods for the greedy people, honestly.

That's what people don't understand. Who do you think did the most for mankind? Mother Teresa, or Michael Milken, who created thousands if not millions of jobs? Hmmm.....

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

if you tax the wealthy real hard theyre less likely to create jobs. its important to cut taxes everywhere and let the economy do its thing.

LJS9502_basic

then its a good thing i didnt say it was.

Come on. If you think that the upper cIass are living perfectly right now in this economy, then you're sadly mistaken.

msudude211

Oh, here you go again. Making the "weatlhy" seem like their just rolling around in those $100 bills. You keep thinking that....:roll:

It's not anyone else's fault that you're not wealthy.....just like it's not anyone else's fault that I'm not wealthy (yet:)

trix5817

Two....ah wealthy does mean they have money. It's the definition so if they DON'T have money they wouldn't be considered wealthy. Definitions FTW.;)

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

I just read an article in the Detroit Free Press about Great Lakes Crossing (a HUGE mega-mall) had 140 job openings. Guess how many applicantions they got? 11. 11 applications for 140 jobs. And out of these 11 people who showed up for the interview, most of them came with torn shirts, late, etc, etc. And this is in Michigan, one of the worst , if not now the worst economy in the U.S. I guess people are too good for those jobs....:roll:

markop2003

i've seen that as a problem too, people don't take jobs because they're not exactly what they want, there are the jobs available just people won't take them

I agree with you on this to some extent. If we were really in a depression and the unemployment rate was high, EVERY RETAIL job would be taken. But its not. If people were truly in a financial crisis, they would be in Walmart bagging groceries, instead of being unemployed for 2 months and constantly B***hing about how bad the economy is.

But from personal experience, I can tell one of the main reasons why many people dont apply to jobs is because of the ridiculous requirements and qualifications that employers are looking for. Also most people who are in charge of hiring people, dont know jack about the position they are hiring for. It really ticks me off.

Im in a Computer and Networking field, and some of the requirements for the jobs I see REQUIRE a 4 year degree, 3-5 years experience in a field, 2 different types of certs and etc. Now this may seem reasonable for senior level and management level jobs, but there are entry level jobs requiring this type of qualifications. These jobs requires knowledge that can be taught in a month. Someone who has done this stuff in a basement would even be more than enough for these positions.

But here's a different story. A friend of mine who did 4 years in the military, has 2 year degree, and has the required certifications, applies to this job that only requires a high school diploma and common computer knowledge. My friend also has great interviewing skills and dresses up too. HE DIDNT GET THE JOB! Why? They said he wasnt qualified. This company also had 20+ openings, and was understaffed. Companies just have idiots working for them in hiring and management levels. They get themselves in those situations.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It's never that simple. Often you aren't taxing "rich people" but people who work damn hard to earn every penny they have. Other times you aren't feeding "the poor" but people who simply dont want to work. As soon as you allow someone to forget about personal responsibility and rely on somebody else to pay their way, you open the floodgates for people who decide they should do the same.Super_Socialist

in any event, would you rather abstain from helping the poor or practicing some kind of compassion? nevermind the economic sense it makes to give money to the poor (who spend MORE than their income on average), but don't you think it's the wrong message to suggest that everyone should fend for themselves?

the larger point is that however we want to look at it, the economy is a network of people. it is not a series of brilliant men making their fortunes. any kind of economic structure goes to show exactly how interdependent we all are. there are many rich people who do not work, and there are many poor who work hard, and there are exceptions to all rules.

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

the best way for rich people to help the poor is to create jobs. thats more stable than gov checks and charity.

hording money is a good thing. why? because when rich people horde their money they create jobs. they horde their money in banks afterall. the more rich people horde their money, the more bank jobs that can open and the more loans that can be given out to start other businesses.

thank the gods for the greedy people, honestly.

the problem with your philosophy is that it is lacking in any kind of compassion or altruism. it tries to justify greed. greed is a negative thing, and it is not efficient. let us say that a person gets absurdly wealthy to help people. often enough this is the case, but for every Carnegie you get a Rockefeller, at least. accumulating money for oneself usually is not with the intention of ultimately helping the common worker.

let us say that a person indeed pursues things as you say they will. they create a job with all the money that would've been taken away in taxes, and they employ people. well, that's well good for unemployment, but they will only give as much as they believe is efficient for their business, not for society. in the Gilded Age, they killed off their workers, working them to the bone, exposing them to hazardous conditions. capitalism is a system for making money

the trickle down theory is a half-assed justification for predation. you do not kill one sheep to feed the rest of the flock, you kill the sheep because you are hungry. to call it anything else is delusion.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It's never that simple. Often you aren't taxing "rich people" but people who work damn hard to earn every penny they have. Other times you aren't feeding "the poor" but people who simply dont want to work. As soon as you allow someone to forget about personal responsibility and rely on somebody else to pay their way, you open the floodgates for people who decide they should do the same.trix5817

in any event, would you rather abstain from helping the poor or practicing some kind of compassion? nevermind the economic sense it makes to give money to the poor (who spend MORE than their income on average), but don't you think it's the wrong message to suggest that everyone should fend for themselves?

the larger point is that however we want to look at it, the economy is a network of people. it is not a series of brilliant men making their fortunes. any kind of economic structure goes to show exactly how interdependent we all are. there are many rich people who do not work, and there are many poor who work hard, and there are exceptions to all rules.

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

the best way for rich people to help the poor is to create jobs. thats more stable than gov checks and charity.

hording money is a good thing. why? because when rich people horde their money they create jobs. they horde their money in banks afterall. the more rich people horde their money, the more bank jobs that can open and the more loans that can be given out to start other businesses.

thank the gods for the greedy people, honestly.

That's what people don't understand. Who do you think did the most for mankind? Mother Teresa, or Michael Milken, who created thousands if not millions of jobs? Hmmm.....

anyone who creates jobs helps humanity far more than a nun. heh

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

if you tax the wealthy real hard theyre less likely to create jobs. its important to cut taxes everywhere and let the economy do its thing.

Super_Socialist

then its a good thing i didnt say it was.

Where's the motivation to work harder if the money you earned is going to be taken away from you?Vax45

And where's the motivation for the lower cIass to work when they're being given handouts?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="msudude211"]

That's a bold generalization, LJS.

msudude211

Come on. If you think that the upper cIass are living perfectly right now in this economy, then you're sadly mistaken.

Indeed. My parents make 260K per year combined (though my mother's malpractice insurance takes away a fair bit of that), and my dad's stocks went down by over 30%, Between my college tuition (we were just outside the bracket where we could get financial aid), my sister's care (she has a significant medical problem and an extra chromosome), and taking care of my grandparents, we would have major problems making ends meet if my parents didn't take care of their finances properly.

I don't understand. having more money in bank accounts is good because it creates jobs in the banking industry?

the problem with your philosophy is that it is lacking in any kind of compassion or altruism. it tries to justify greed. greed is a negative thing, and it is not efficient. let us say that a person gets absurdly wealthy to help people. often enough this is the case, but for every Carnegie you get a Rockefeller, at least. accumulating money for oneself usually is not with the intention of ultimately helping the common worker.

let us say that a person indeed pursues things as you say they will. they create a job with all the money that would've been taken away in taxes, and they employ people. well, that's well good for unemployment, but they will only give as much as they believe is efficient for their business, not for society. in the Gilded Age, they killed off their workers, working them to the bone, exposing them to hazardous conditions. capitalism is a system for making money

the trickle down theory is a half-assed justification for predation. you do not kill one sheep to feed the rest of the flock, you kill the sheep because you are hungry. to call it anything else is delusion.

quiglythegreat

yes, it creates more jobs in the banking industry because thats where everything starts. Banks must have money to give loans. Which in turn creates many other jobs for entrepreneurs. Anyone with even the most bare bones basic understanding of the banking system can figure that out.

Creating jobs is compassion. Giving free money dosent help anyone. This has been proven. Greed is justified by history. Greed is a good thing, because ive already stated that it creates stability for everyone. As long as we have laws against violations of individual rights greed wont become anything to worry about. You cannot, I repeat you cannot throw around the word greed and expect people to buy into what you're saying. As far as im concerned, ive already proven why greed works. Capitalism has a great track record as opposed to other economic theories.

thats because its not a managers job to worry about society. If everyone is strong individually, then we will have a strong society. However, if we all depend on one and other then we just have a lot of (financially) weak people.

the trickle down effect is not what im talking about at all. you cant assume anyone who believes in capitalism is a reagan republican.

People act like Tax money is soley there for giving poor people welfare and food stamps.

These "Evil Taxes" go towards the elderly (social security and medicare), disabled (mentally and physically), roads, parks, government workers salaries, schools, and other "Evil" things that we take for granted and use everyday.

People who think taxes are evil and unwarranted should just shut up. I pay a large amount of my salary to taxes, and I'm doing just fine. I also put myself through school on loans while working part time, and I'm doing fine now on my own. Trust me, when the rich are whining about paying a few more percentage points of their income to taxes they're being nothing more than selfish pigs.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

if you tax the wealthy real hard theyre less likely to create jobs. its important to cut taxes everywhere and let the economy do its thing.

LJS9502_basic

then its a good thing i didnt say it was.

Many business owners often put their own money towards their business, especially ones that arent massive

it really depends on the owner how much they would spend. but a smart business owner knows you gotta spend moeny to make money.

Many business owners often put their own money towards their business, especially ones that arent massive

it really depends on the owner how much they would spend. but a smart business owner knows you gotta spend moeny to make money.

Super_Socialist

People act like Tax money is soley there for giving poor people welfare and food stamps.

These "Evil Taxes" go towards the elderly (social security and medicare), disabled (mentally and physically), roads, parks, government workers salaries, schools, and other "Evil" things that we take for granted and use everyday.

People who think taxes are evil and unwarranted should just shut up. I pay a large amount of my salary to taxes, and I'm doing just fine. I also put myself through school on loans while working part time, and I'm doing fine now on my own. Trust me, when the rich are whining about paying a few more percentage points of their income to taxes they're being nothing more than selfish pigs.

Donkey_Puncher

medicare and social security are falling apart, and medicare is one of the most abused gov services we have going today

living in pa, i sometimes wish every road was a toll road because of how bad these roads are. i actually wish that the government just hired construction companies or something instead of having something like penndot.

i dont care about parks, and if i did i would pay an entry fee. most gov workers shouldnt even be employed because t heyre some of the laziest people ive ever met, schools in america are a joke and the world knows it.

selfish pigs are the backbone to this society.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

Many business owners often put their own money towards their business, especially ones that arent massive

it really depends on the owner how much they would spend. but a smart business owner knows you gotta spend moeny to make money.

LJS9502_basic

Correct. He's usually spending venture-capitalist money, which needs to be paid back at some point.

[QUOTE="Super_Socialist"]

Many business owners often put their own money towards their business, especially ones that arent massive

it really depends on the owner how much they would spend. but a smart business owner knows you gotta spend moeny to make money.

LJS9502_basic

most businesses have some element of out of pocket money one way or another. and you're spending your own money if you're starting up a company one way or another. so i dont know who taught you business.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

People act like Tax money is soley there for giving poor people welfare and food stamps.

These "Evil Taxes" go towards the elderly (social security and medicare), disabled (mentally and physically), roads, parks, government workers salaries, schools, and other "Evil" things that we take for granted and use everyday.

People who think taxes are evil and unwarranted should just shut up. I pay a large amount of my salary to taxes, and I'm doing just fine. I also put myself through school on loans while working part time, and I'm doing fine now on my own. Trust me, when the rich are whining about paying a few more percentage points of their income to taxes they're being nothing more than selfish pigs.

Super_Socialist

medicare and social security are falling apart, and medicare is one of the most abused gov services we have going today

living in pa, i sometimes wish every road was a toll road because of how bad these roads are. i actually wish that the government just hired construction companies or something instead of having something like penndot.

i dont care about parks, and if i did i would pay an entry fee. most gov workers shouldnt even be employed because t heyre some of the laziest people ive ever met, schools in america are a joke and the world knows it.

selfish pigs are the backbone to this society.

Greed is good.

Long live John Galt!

most businesses have some element of out of pocket money one way or another. and you're spending your own money if you're starting up a company one way or another. so i dont know who taught you business.

Super_Socialist

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

quiglythegreat

I didnt argue against helping people. In fact i said quite clearly that what i was against was giving money to people who could and should work, and punishing those who have worked hard and earned whatever money they may have.

I'm all for stopping poverty, but i'm against giving someone a free house and enough money to live on for nothing. It's our responsibility to look after those who cant work and support themselves, not those who just dont want to.

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

FragStains

Incorrect. The U.S. has extremely lenient tax laws compared to other industrialized countries. If the rich man were to go to say, any part pf Europe, Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, The U.A.E., or most South American countries, he would pay more. So the rich won't leave, they will just complain and try to use their influence to infiltrate Congress in the form of lobbying firms.

I think it's very fair to tax the rich to give to the poor, but I realize that you and me have fundamental idealogical differences. You obviously believe in individualism and self-reliance, whereas I believe in community and the good of our society as a whole. Plato once wrote that the oldest struggle in man's history is that of individualism vs. collectivism, and to this day it defines many policies that can be found the world over.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

I don't understand. having more money in bank accounts is good because it creates jobs in the banking industry?

the problem with your philosophy is that it is lacking in any kind of compassion or altruism. it tries to justify greed. greed is a negative thing, and it is not efficient. let us say that a person gets absurdly wealthy to help people. often enough this is the case, but for every Carnegie you get a Rockefeller, at least. accumulating money for oneself usually is not with the intention of ultimately helping the common worker.

let us say that a person indeed pursues things as you say they will. they create a job with all the money that would've been taken away in taxes, and they employ people. well, that's well good for unemployment, but they will only give as much as they believe is efficient for their business, not for society. in the Gilded Age, they killed off their workers, working them to the bone, exposing them to hazardous conditions. capitalism is a system for making money

the trickle down theory is a half-assed justification for predation. you do not kill one sheep to feed the rest of the flock, you kill the sheep because you are hungry. to call it anything else is delusion.

Super_Socialist

yes, it creates more jobs in the banking industry because thats where everything starts. Banks must have money to give loans. Which in turn creates many other jobs for entrepreneurs. Anyone with even the most bare bones basic understanding of the banking system can figure that out.

Creating jobs is compassion. Giving free money dosent help anyone. This has been proven. Greed is justified by history. Greed is a good thing, because ive already stated that it creates stability for everyone. As long as we have laws against violations of individual rights greed wont become anything to worry about. You cannot, I repeat you cannot throw around the word greed and expect people to buy into what you're saying. As far as im concerned, ive already proven why greed works. Capitalism has a great track record as opposed to other economic theories.

thats because its not a managers job to worry about society. If everyone is strong individually, then we will have a strong society. However, if we all depend on one and other then we just have a lot of (financially) weak people.

the trickle down effect is not what im talking about at all. you cant assume anyone who believes in capitalism is a reagan republican.

I think you're kind of over-estimating the importance bank employees have on the economy. I mean, those jobs that are created in banks are not in themselves very important. anyway, loans are important, and savings are good and all, but a prosperous economy has people spending. it sounds as if you think the recent financial crisis was precipitated by people saving not enough. saving is good, but the bottom line is that spending is what GETS people money, and merely keeping money is not a practice conducive of a healthy economy or even personal wealth, at least in excess.

capitalism is not an economic theory so much as it is a theoretical anarchy. companies were not more efficient unregulated. one reason for the current crisis is LACK of regulation.

you need to accept that BUSINESSES do not know what is best for themselves and especially not what is best for society.

creating jobs, and having your own business and such is not an altruistic act. like I said, before companies had regulations, thousands of people routinely died of defective products and unsafe work environments. people are given the benefits they are (limited though they may be anyway) so that a person is not inclined to ever get out of that job unless they are fired. the current wages are dictated by the market. business is not about compassion. businesses do not improve people lives' by some capitalistic accident; they do so because of socialist progressives. if you can't accept this fact, I don't need to keep arguing with you.

and one more thing: trickle down theory was invented by Hamilton, who was somewhat before Reagan's time.

You're welcome. And let me say it is damn decent of you to show your appreciation. But don't assume that if the govt weren't there to help you out that you'd be doomed. Despite laboring under a pretty heavy and confiscatory tax system, Americans are still the most personally charitable people in the world. What I personally object to is being forced by my govt to be charitable. It should be my choice.

Good luck with your newly earned skill and education. Do well and you will be able to help out others along the way.

collegeboy64

Thank you too. I agree that I wouldnt be "doomed" if the government wasnt there, but I forgot to add that my family was in dept. My dad had 500k dept to pay! We sold our nice house and my dad's factory to cover most of it up (thank god), but still had some left to pay off. I can tell you for sure that if we didnt have the help though, I wouldnt be here typing right now. I probably wouldnt even gotten my degree either. I would be working in some retail store trying to save up for a car to get to school (even the one i have right now is a POS), help pay of my parent's dept (thats the way i am), and THEN start going to college (by which then I would be in my late 20's, early 30's.

Like I said before, taxes go nation-wide. I can understand why you dont like being forced to be charitable, but here's my point of view; Charity in a sense to me seems more like giving out pity money for a duration of relief, it doesnt really solve the problem. Paying taxes on the other hand is a nation-wide investment. Your money goes to people and programs that creates opportunity for people like me and programs that makes lives easier and healthy. The opportunities it creates could benefit everyone's future. Sometime down the road you might find a company your applying to which the owner was someone who benefited from tax payers and create jobs for you and me.

I too dont like being forced to do things also, but when you find yourself in positions you dont like, you usually hope that something you did in the past will help you out, or there are opportunities or something to help you get back on track and achieve the american dream.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

but why would you argue against helping people?

the rich on average save quite a lot of their income. in other words, they don't spend it because they don't need it. why should money be hoarded when it can be used not only to help other people, but to improve the economy? individualism in economics is a fundamentally flawed concept.

Ninja-Hippo

I didnt argue against helping people. In fact i said quite clearly that what i was against was giving money to people who could and should work, and punishing those who have worked hard and earned whatever money they may have.

I'm all for stopping poverty, but i'm against giving someone a free house and enough money to live on for nothing. It's our responsibility to look after those who cant work and support themselves, not those who just dont want to.

all welfare systems that I know of, with exception of programs designed for those unable to work due to disabilities, require that a person pursue employment or else their aid will stop. welfare stops entirely after a certain amount of time in the US, whether or not you can provide evidence that you've been trying to gain employment.

it is not a handout, it is a lifeboat for the unemployed, and those will always exist in some number whether or not they will it (which they most often DO NOT).

medicare and social security are falling apart, and medicare is one of the most abused gov services we have going today

living in pa, i sometimes wish every road was a toll road because of how bad these roads are. i actually wish that the government just hired construction companies or something instead of having something like penndot.

i dont care about parks, and if i did i would pay an entry fee. most gov workers shouldnt even be employed because t heyre some of the laziest people ive ever met, schools in america are a joke and the world knows it.

selfish pigs are the backbone to this society.

Super_Socialist

Schools in the US are a joke because they're underfunded, and people would rather give vouchers to private schools. Plenty of people care about parks, just because you don't is irrelevant. And no, government workers are not "the laziest people".

You're personal conjecture doesn't count in an argument like this.

I'm not saying tax everyone to the point where we all make the same. I'm saying taxes are needed, for everyday things such as education, roads, and supporting the meak and unable. Would you like to see every mentally and physically handicaped person out there be left on the street?

Greed is good.

Long live John Galt!

thepwninator

Atlas shrugged is a pile of trash.