A TAXING little story...

[Sir Toose]

Art imitates life. Take a look... it illustrates well Mr. Bush's new tax plan and the opposition to it. Obviously the tenth man represents the top 5% of earners in America.



Every night 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive: they owed $100 for the food they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register to pay the bill. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling a little put out, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12, and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59; he realized he was paying for not only his own meal, but the unpaid balance left by the first four men.
The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would cost only $80. This clearly would not affect the first four men; they still ate for free. The fifth man announced he would now pay nothing either. The sixth man lowered his contribution by 1/3, and paid only $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid only $5. The eighth man paid $9 instead of his usual $12. The ninth man paid $12, $6 less than before This left the last man with a bill of $52, $7 less than before.
Outside of the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts erupted. The sixth man yelled: "I got only $1 out of the $20 in cost reduction and he got $7, pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in: "Yeah! I only saved $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." And, the sixth man voiced the same sentiment. The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a reduction of $7 when I only got $2?". The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "Even though we weren't paying anything in the first place, we didn't get any of the $20 reduction in cost. Where is our share?" The nine angry men then carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But, when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

[Yoda]

That is utterly beautiful, Toose. :) Excellent thread.

[Piddzilla]

Who do the first four freeloaders represent? The poorest 40% of America? The Fifth man, the sixth, and 7th to 9th? And you just have to show me that restaurant!

[Yoda]

Yep, I'm pretty sure that's what it refers to.

[Piddzilla]

And the dinner represent? Just food?

[Yoda]

I dunno, governmental benefits? Even though the bulk of the "food" would be eaten by the first four men in that scenario.

I don't think the food is really of much consequence. You can think of it as representing public benefits and/or the mere privilege of living in the United States. Both complete the analogy, I'd say.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda
I dunno, governmental benefits? Even though the bulk of the "food" would be eaten by the first four men in that scenario.

I don't think the food is really of much consequence. You can think of it as representing public benefits and/or the mere privilege of living in the United States. Both complete the analogy, I'd say.

I think the food is of very big consequence. Are you telling me that 40% of the american people pay $0 for their ....what? And what do you mean "the mere privilige of living in the United States"? Rich people have to pay to live in United States but poor people don't? I'm curious about these public benefits. Can you give me some examples? This is things that really interest me, so I'm asking out of curiousity. I would also like to know to what the $80 (formerly $100) goes. Does all of those money go to public benefits and the privilege to live in United States?

[Yoda]

I think the food is of very big consequence.
Why? The point of the story is to demonstrate that some people pay to benefit others in this country given our current social programs.


Are you telling me that 40% of the american people pay $0 for their ....what?
Depends. Some of them pay little to no taxes. Many of them receive government benefits of some kind; benefits funded by taxpayer dollars, the bulk of which comes from the wealthy.


Rich people have to pay to live in United States but poor people don't? I'm curious about these public benefits. Can you give me some examples?
Yes. We pay to live here: through taxation. The wealthy pay more to live here than the poor. Some pay nothing at all to live here, and in fact are given money for living here by the wealthy through things like welfare.


I would also like to know to what the $80 (formerly $100) goes. Does all of those money go to public benefits and the privilege to live in United States?
There's really no way to give you a comprehensive breakdown of where our tax money goes without sinking a considerable amount of time and effort into the matter. It goes to fund government programs, which means public utilites, military, foreign aid, and social programs.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

Why?

Because I want to know what that 40% of the people who don't pay nothing get for free. Medical Care? Food? Water? Housing? Electricity? Gas? Phone? Insurance? Education? Car? I want to know what they are "eating" for free. I just didn't realize that 40% of the american population was in fact so poor that they didn't need to pay any income tax. Because, I mean, some of them have to work, right. You can't have 40% unemployment, that's impossible. Really, it came as a shock to me.

The point of the story is to demonstrate that some people pay to benefit others in this country given our current social programs.

Isn't it like that in most democratic societies nowadays? The more you earn, the more income tax you pay? I thought the point of the story was to illustrate how the unthankful poor 40% of the people, together with the equally unthankful "middle section" 45%, were pissed off because they thought the tax cut really just benefitted the richest of the richest.

Depends. Some of them pay little to no taxes. Many of them receive government benefits of some kind; benefits funded by taxpayer dollars, the bulk of which comes from the wealthy.

Uhuh... According to the story these 40% of the american people pay ZERO and still get to enjoy more than 40% of the tax payers' money.

Yes. We pay to live here: through taxation. The wealthy pay more to live here than the poor. Some pay nothing at all to live here, and in fact are given money for living here by the wealthy through things like welfare.

Well, we pay to live here too. Through taxation. I pay 30% of my paycheck in income tax and I'm certainly not in the upper half of the swedish citizens, economically speaking.

There's really no way to give you a comprehensive breakdown of where our tax money goes without sinking a considerable amount of time and effort into the matter. It goes to fund government programs, which means public utilites, military, foreign aid, and social programs.

Ok, I thought that maybe there was some statistics on how much of the money that went to what specific area. I thought you knew since you knew that most of the money went to the poor people.

[Yoda]

Because I want to know what that 40% of the people who don't pay nothing get for free. Medical Care? Food? Water? Housing? Electricity? Gas? Phone? Insurance? Education? Car? I want to know what they are "eating" for free. I just didn't realize that 40% of the american population was in fact so poor that they didn't need to pay any income tax. Because, I mean, some of them have to work, right. You can't have 40% unemployment, that's impossible. Really, it came as a shock to me.
Obviously we don't have an unemployment rate of 40% (it's closer to 6% right now). However I think the example is referring to taxes in an overall sense. There's more than just income tax, and some pay so little that it might as well be $0 in this analogy. I think that's the point. I doubt it's perfectly to scale, I the basic idea is rather sound.


Isn't it like that in most democratic societies nowadays? The more you earn, the more income tax you pay? I thought the point of the story was to illustrate how the unthankful poor 40% of the people, together with the equally unthankful "middle section" 45%, were pissed off because they thought the tax cut really just benefitted the richest of the richest.
Yep. It's quite typical to pay more taxes if you earn more. I've got no real problem with that...but the flipside is that, when you cut taxes across the board, the people who put more in get more back. Unfortunately this p*sses a lot of people off for reasons I don't quite understand.


Uhuh... According to the story these 40% of the american people pay ZERO and still get to enjoy more than 40% of the tax payers' money.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying (or asking) here.


Well, we pay to live here too. Through taxation. I pay 30% of my paycheck in income tax and I'm certainly not in the upper half of the swedish citizens, economically speaking.
Right. We all pay to live in these countries. I said "privilege" because I happen to believe living in the US is indeed a privilege. You may disagree, but that's really not relevant to this matter as far as I can see.


Ok, I thought that maybe there was some statistics on how much of the money that went to what specific area. I thought you knew since you knew that most of the money went to the poor people.
1 - There are statistics.
2 - I don't know them offhand.
3 - Seeing as how the rich receive almost no special benefits, it's only common sense that the lower and middle classes receive the bulk of social spending.

I don't quite recall saying that "most of the money went to the poor people," but I do know that, when you get down to it, the wealthy in this country fund the bulk of government activities, which includes many social programs designed to benefit the less fortunate.

[Piddzilla]

Originally posted by Yoda

Obviously we don't have an unemployment rate of 40% (it's closer to 6% right now). However I think the example is referring to taxes in an overall sense. There's more than just income tax, and some pay so little that it might as well be $0 in this analogy. I think that's the point. I doubt it's perfectly to scale, I the basic idea is rather sound.

Ok then... Not a very representative story after all. On the contrary, misleading and set out to pity the poor rich guys.

Yep. It's quite typical to pay more taxes if you earn more. I've got no real problem with that...but the flipside is that, when you cut taxes across the board, the people who put more in get more back. Unfortunately this p*sses a lot of people off for reasons I don't quite understand.

Maybe this will help you to understand:

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center data indicate the following about the tax cuts the Administration’s plan would provide in 2003:

The average tax cut for tax filers in the middle fifth of the population — those filers right in the middle of the income spectrum — would be $256, only one-fourth the $1,083 figure the Administration is citing for the average taxpayer.

Almost half of all tax filers — 49 percent — would receive tax cuts of less than $100.

The average tax cut for the bottom 80 percent of tax filers would be $226. Even the next-to-top fifth of tax filers would get an average tax cut of only $574.

By contrast, the top one percent of tax filers would receive an average tax cut of $24,100. Those with incomes of more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging a whopping $90,200.

Overall, 80 percent of tax filers would get less than the average tax cut of $1,083 the Administration is touting.

The Administration also is promoting other highly stylized “facts” about how much in tax cuts would go to specific groups. These figures are similarly distorted. For example, the White House claims “13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384.” The Tax Policy Center data indicate that only 3.1 million elderly tax filers actually would get tax cuts of this size or greater. Some 79 percent of elderly tax filers — nearly four of every five — would get less than the amount the White House is advertising.

Similarly, the Administration says the average tax cut among six million single women with children would be $541. Yet 85 percent of such women would receive tax cuts of less than $500, and 49 percent would receive nothing. The average is $541 because a small number of such women would receive massive tax cuts, thereby raising the average.

source: http://www.cbpp.org/1-9-03tax.htm

Maybe the people being pissed off are so because that they take it as an insult when Bush says the answer to the bad economy and rising unemployment is what I've quoted above.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying (or asking) here.

I was just pointing out that the people who you said pay little to no tax were just some posts earlier 40% of the population that didn't pay anything at all but still got to enjoy the bulk of the tax payers' money. Now it's "some of them" and "many of them". It really doesn't matter anymore since we've allready established that the story was nothing else but a misleading fabrication and a symbol of nothing in the real world at all.

Right. We all pay to live in these countries. I said "privilege" because I happen to believe living in the US is indeed a privilege. You may disagree, but that's really not relevant to this matter as far as I can see.

Sure, and I thank my lucky star every day for being swedish. And I'm also very sure that you're privileged.

1 - There are statistics.
2 - I don't know them offhand.
3 - Seeing as how the rich receive almost no special benefits, it's only common sense that the lower and middle classes receive the bulk of social spending.

1 - I think so too.
2 - Me neither.
3 - Ok. So the dinner was in fact containing "social spendings". I'm glad we finally cleared that out.

I don't quite recall saying that "most of the money went to the poor people," but I do know that, when you get down to it, the wealthy in this country fund the bulk of government activities, which includes many social programs designed to benefit the less fortunate.

Well, you say different things all the time. Now you say that most of it went to the lower and middle class get it. Or is it only the bulk of the social spendings? Nevermind... The meaning of this thread was to show what a hard time the top 5% of America is having right now and that the "less fortunate" (to quote Yoda) should be ashamed of themselves. At the end of the day, they have a hell of a lot and it's all paid for by the rich so they should just stop bitching.

This thread was a kick downwards from the start and that sort of **** drives me mad. The rich people of America got the ****ing tax cut they've wanted for so long. What more do they want - the red carpet?

[Yoda]

Ok then... Not a very representative story after all. On the contrary, misleading and set out to pity the poor rich guys.
From my last post:

"However I think the example is referring to taxes in an overall sense. There's more than just income tax, and some pay so little that it might as well be $0 in this analogy. I think that's the point. I doubt it's perfectly to scale, I the basic idea is rather sound."


Maybe the people being pissed off are so because that they take it as an insult when Bush says the answer to the bad economy and rising unemployment is what I've quoted above.
A few things:

1 - The bit you quoted does nothing more than confirm what I saited: the more you put in, the more you get back in the event of a tax cut.

2 - The entire piece does little more than bitch about the fact that a relatively small group of people raise the overall average. It doesn't explain why anyone would be justifiably upset with ratio-based tax cuts, as you claimed. The only thing it potentially explains is why some people might be p*ssed at the government's wording in regards to the statement.

Ironically, the article does the same thing it whines about through this line: "Those with incomes of more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging a whopping $90,200."


3 - The piece tells us very little. It's complaint about the vast amount the wealthiest folks will get in return completely and utterly ignores the fact that they put in as much several times over first.

4 - Clinton shrunk unemployment like a mutha'; so low as to present a highly unreasonable standard for successors. Under Bush, it's risen slightly but is still under the average over the last three decades.


I was just pointing out that the people who you said pay little to no tax were just some posts earlier 40% of the population that didn't pay anything at all but still got to enjoy the bulk of the tax payers' money. Now it's "some of them" and "many of them". It really doesn't matter anymore since we've allready established that the story was nothing else but a misleading fabrication and a symbol of nothing in the real world at all.
See first response above.


Ok. So the dinner was in fact containing "social spendings". I'm glad we finally cleared that out.
Finally? Your second post in this thread:

"And the dinner represent? Just food?"

My response:

"I dunno, governmental benefits?"

It was the first thing I proposed in regards to your question.


Well, you say different things all the time. Now you say that most of it went to the lower and middle class get it. Or is it only the bulk of the social spendings?
I'm not contradicting myself at all. If you'd like to try to demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.


The meaning of this thread was to show what a hard time the top 5% of America is having right now and that the "less fortunate" (to quote Yoda) should be ashamed of themselves. At the end of the day, they have a hell of a lot and it's all paid for by the rich so they should just stop bitching.
There's so much "spin" on that paragraph that I'm getting dizzy just sitting here.


The rich people of America got the ****ing tax cut they've wanted for so long.
Everyone wants a tax cut.


What more do they want - the red carpet?
Uh, to not be villified for it every single day.

[Piddzilla]

Ok, this thread has turned to the usual "you-wrote-that-but-before-you-said-that-HA!-I-got-you!" kind of discussion and not at all about the subject.

I don't think the basic idea of this story is sound at all. I don't see the meaning of its purpose. What is the purpose? To kick on those allready lying down? You say you don't understand why some people are pissed off? I know that you're not dumb, Yoda. They are pissed off because this "tax cut reform" gives them at most a couple of extra $100-$200 a year to spend on stuff that's probably going to be more expensive now to compensate the tax cut. And at the same time they see people who can swim in their own money get several of thousands of extra dollars to spend on god knows what. Yeah, this story is sound, allright.

And of course you get back more if you put in more in the event of a tax cut, and I'm gonna leave the story now, even if it stated the opposite. But the only thing this tax cut will lead to is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and that will cause more problems for the rich AND the poor, but mostly for the poor of course. And I realize that some people believe in taxes (like me) and some people don't (like you), but what really pisses me off is that some people obviously lack good sportsmanship in the moment of this glorious victory for conservatism that it must be.

And my main reason to show you those facts I quoted was to show how the richest gained the most from this tax cut opposed to the story that claimed the opposite. Other reasons were, yes, to show that it's unfair and unbalanced and also, yes, that Bush talks rubbish and "true lies". And you were the one saying that people were upset because of reasons that you didn't quite understand and I tried to point out some things to help you out a little bit. And I don't care about if it's because of ratio-based tax cuts or whatever... You say that the people who wrote the article whines. Being critical about the system is whining? To question and do inquiries? "They say jump, you say how high?"

And you use the fact the the rich people put in more money first and still are the ones paying the bulk of the tax money. Well, obviously. I hope you're really not suggesting that the poor should pay more in tax then the rich. The point is that Bush does this dramatic tax cut to boost the american economy and to create new jobs and to give people more freedom over their money. Right. So the poor people after having seen this statistics ask themselves: "What money?", while the rich people are cheering. Would you say that this tax cut benefits the poor? If yes, please explain to me in what way. Would you in fact say that it benefits the poor more than the rich? If yes, please elaborate a little bit on that one too.

Everyone wants a tax cut? No, Yoda. Everyone wants more money. The reason that poor people want more money is however slightly different from why rich people want more money. And this tax cut quite didn't do it for the poor as good as it did it for the rich. Sure, everybody wants a tax cut. But when at the end of the day it turns out that the little extra money earned by the tax cut is eaten up by increased prices on other necessary stuff - they get pissed off like they are now.

And you do contradict yourself. You said: "I dunno, governmental benefits? Even though the bulk of the "food" would be eaten by the first four men in that scenario" but then you said "I don't quite recall saying that 'most of the money went to the poor people',". You change your mind just a little bit to make your arguments valid and stronger.

And vilified... What, you want my pity? I know americans that are wealthy and I never say anything about their money - I don't feel the need to say anything about their money and I don't care about their money. But if they would start to complain about "the bitching whining poor people" I promise you they would hear from me. Since these people are very nice people they have the decency to not mock less fortunate people so I never have to have this kind of discussion with them.

[Sir Toose]

MyMyMy...

Things have gotten out of proportion on this thread. OBVIOUSLY that story was an illustration of a concept. Not a BLUEPRINT to be followed precisely and to the letter. I don't see the confusion, it's really quite simple. Piddy, the story you posted illustrates my point precisely. If you earn a million bucks and pay the exorbitant taxes associated with those earnings then obviously the dollar amount of the break you get is going to be larger than one who earns 40k per year.

What's at hand here is a difference in philosophy between your beliefs and mine/Yoda's. It seems as if the typical liberal/socialist believes that there should be no 'rich'. If someone were to earn so much more than someone else it should be taken from them and distributed among everyone else.

Don't you see how this discourages someone from doing their personal best? It's ridiculous in my eyes to level the playing field. To people like me, the fact that there are rich people out there gives me the heart to keep trying to attain their level. Why lower the bar and make them come down to mine? To some, apparently, it makes them jealous and whiny that they themselves don't have the heart/guts/brains to go get it for themselves.

You should hear my doctor, who is also my friend, talk. He's being hit so hard on a personal level and on a business level that he says he may as well just work a 9 to 5 and be done with it... he'd end up with the same cash at the end of the day. I, for one, want him to keep doing what he's doing... he's a fantastic doctor but the overtaxation of the last several years has stripped his will to achieve.

Nothing meaningful can ever be accomplished under those conditions.

We have to let the eagles fly...it's what they're made to do. Even if the pigeons cannot understand it.

[Yoda]

What is the purpose? To kick on those allready lying down?
I believe I've already answered this qustion; to demonstrate that we villify success all too often.


You say you don't understand why some people are pissed off? I know that you're not dumb, Yoda. They are pissed off because this "tax cut reform" gives them at most a couple of extra $100-$200 a year to spend on stuff that's probably going to be more expensive now to compensate the tax cut. And at the same time they see people who can swim in their own money get several of thousands of extra dollars to spend on god knows what. Yeah, this story is sound, allright.
You've got to be kidding me. That's nothing more or less than childish envy. I'm looking for a reason they ought to be pissed. People can be pissed about anything; it doesn't mean they're justified in doing so.


But the only thing this tax cut will lead to is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and that will cause more problems for the rich AND the poor, but mostly for the poor of course. And I realize that some people believe in taxes (like me) and some people don't (like you), but what really pisses me off is that some people obviously lack good sportsmanship in the moment of this glorious victory for conservatism that it must be.
I didn't say I didn't believe in taxes. They just ought to be minimized, is all. A necessary evil. Pretty much every Founding Father would concur.


And my main reason to show you those facts I quoted was to show how the richest gained the most from this tax cut opposed to the story that claimed the opposite.
The story claimed no such thing. The story claimed that the rich benefitted most from the tax cut as well; but that the poor were benefitting from the rich beforehand. I know quite well that the richest gained the most from the tax cut, which should be obvious seeing as how I've pretty much said so in each of my last few posts.


Other reasons were, yes, to show that it's unfair and unbalanced and also, yes, that Bush talks rubbish and "true lies".
How is it unfair and unbalanced to issue a percentage-based tax cut utterly contingent on the amount you put in? And no, it's not "true lies." As I pointed out, if you find that sort of thing deceitful, you've got to fault the bit you quoted as well, as they did the same thing in response; a hilarious irony.


You say that the people who wrote the article whines. Being critical about the system is whining? To question and do inquiries?
No. Being critical of perfectly legitimate things because they don't happen to specifically benefit the people you want them to is whining. The tax cut is perfectly fair. The only response you've been able to offer in retort is basically that rich people are rich, and therefore they shouldn't get their share back in regards to the amount they put in, which is utterly uncompelling.


And you use the fact the the rich people put in more money first and still are the ones paying the bulk of the tax money. Well, obviously. I hope you're really not suggesting that the poor should pay more in tax then the rich.
Not at all. Just that with higher taxes comes higher tax returns and cuts. Which you seem to rail against.

I hope you're really not suggesting that the rich should pay for everything else everyone might need simply because they're rich.


The point is that Bush does this dramatic tax cut to boost the american economy and to create new jobs and to give people more freedom over their money. Right. So the poor people after having seen this statistics ask themselves: "What money?", while the rich people are cheering. Would you say that this tax cut benefits the poor? If yes, please explain to me in what way. Would you in fact say that it benefits the poor more than the rich? If yes, please elaborate a little bit on that one too.
Seeing as how many poor people received money from the cut, yes, it benefits the poor. Does it benefit the poor more than the rich? That's an all-too-subjective question. $100 may be more valuable to a poor person than $1,000 to a rich person.


Everyone wants a tax cut? No, Yoda. Everyone wants more money.
Uh, yeah. Tax cut = more money.


And you do contradict yourself. You said: "I dunno, governmental benefits? Even though the bulk of the "food" would be eaten by the first four men in that scenario" but then you said "I don't quite recall saying that 'most of the money went to the poor people',". You change your mind just a little bit to make your arguments valid and stronger.
I said the first four men; not the 'poor.' 40% of America is not poor.


And vilified... What, you want my pity?
NO. Damn, man. I've only said it five times. You keep asking what they "want," and I keep saying "to stop being demonized for being wealthy." You keep responding with hyperbole "Ohhh, so you want me to weep for the poor wittle rich people?"

I've directly answered your question more than once, and all you're responding with is sarcastic exaggeration which pretty much ignores the response.


But if they would start to complain about "the bitching whining poor people" I promise you they would hear from me. Since these people are very nice people they have the decency to not mock less fortunate people so I never have to have this kind of discussion with them
Since when has anyone in this thread "mocked" the less fortunate? Furthermore, why would it be considered "mocking" to grow upset with people who sneer at you for your success? These are the questions I've been harping on for a few posts now.

[Piddzilla]

Don't know why I've missed this post by Sir Tööse. Didn't see it before now....

Originally posted by Sir Toose
MyMyMy...

Things have gotten out of proportion on this thread. OBVIOUSLY that story was an illustration of a concept. Not a BLUEPRINT to be followed precisely and to the letter. I don't see the confusion, it's really quite simple. Piddy, the story you posted illustrates my point precisely. If you earn a million bucks and pay the exorbitant taxes associated with those earnings then obviously the dollar amount of the break you get is going to be larger than one who earns 40k per year.

I completely understand that. And I completely disagree with that too. The only purpose of that tax cut is to make the allready well off even better off. It will be very interesting to see how the Bush administration finances this tax cut and what it will do to the american society/economy.

And another thing about the story and why I think it's not illustrative in a realistic way. When was the last time you saw the lowest tenth of USA eating in the same restaurant as the richest tenth??

What's at hand here is a difference in philosophy between your beliefs and mine/Yoda's. It seems as if the typical liberal/socialist believes that there should be no 'rich'. If someone were to earn so much more than someone else it should be taken from them and distributed among everyone else.

That's not it at all. That's the typical conservative view of socialdemocracy. The difference is that the philosophy I represent here wants to put in a lot of efforts and resources on making "the start of the life" as equal to everybody as possible - to give everybody the same opportunity to education, health care, child care etc. But then you can get as filthy rich as you want.

Don't you see how this discourages someone from doing their personal best? It's ridiculous in my eyes to level the playing field. To people like me, the fact that there are rich people out there gives me the heart to keep trying to attain their level. Why lower the bar and make them come down to mine? To some, apparently, it makes them jealous and whiny that they themselves don't have the heart/guts/brains to go get it for themselves.

Since it doesn't mean "working hard doesn't pay off" - no, I can't see how it discourages people to do their personal best, because it doesn't. On the other hand, when it works it encourages people from a poor background to do their best since they can feel that the state supports them and believs in them, no matter what their background might be.

You should hear my doctor, who is also my friend, talk. He's being hit so hard on a personal level and on a business level that he says he may as well just work a 9 to 5 and be done with it... he'd end up with the same cash at the end of the day. I, for one, want him to keep doing what he's doing... he's a fantastic doctor but the overtaxation of the last several years has stripped his will to achieve.

To me, that only points out why your system doesn't always work and why occupations like the one of doctor's should never be motivated by profit. In my country most doctors work within the public sector with very good salaries (they're worth every penny) and they never get in the situation that your friend is in. With high income tax this is possible.

Nothing meaningful can ever be accomplished under those conditions.

True.

We have to let the eagles fly...it's what they're made to do. Even if the pigeons cannot understand it.

Once again. I'm not against rich people. I'm against unfair and stupid tax cut that only make the gaps between rich and poor wider.

Finally, it might sound like I think everything in my country is perfect and that I'm like its minister of propaganda or something. Not at all. What I've written are just examples to demonstrate my beliefs. I'm mad about a lot of things in my country too (what did you think of me?). :D

Yoda, the library is closing now. I promise I will be back to respond to your last post too.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Piddzilla
Yoda, the library is closing now. I promise I will be back to respond to your last post too.
No sweat man. :)

[Steve]

Kinda off subject, but the proposed budget for the next fiscal year doesn't mention this war we've got going on right now. I'm gonna be paying for this thing forever. I object.

I don't mind folks who are anti-taxes, as long as they don't complain about things not getting done. I want to keep my money, yeah, but if I keep my money now my kids will be paying 3/4 of their paycheck to balance the budget. Or something.

[Herod]

Brilliant, wonderful story Toosical. Most of the time, I rally against beliefs biased analogies simply because it's such an easy way to present unadultered views on something without any checks or balances, and it also just makes things look a lot cleaner and simpler than they really are. But this is one instance where that little analogy presented the tax cuts in a new light.

But Pidd, normally I find you pretty fair and logical about these heated topics, but this time man, I just can't understand where you're coming from. You're picking too much at the details like "what are they eating?" and "Less than 40% don't pay taxes," it's just a story man: People, -in America, at least- complain all the time because an across the board flat tax cut will benefit the rich more. But if they're paying 5 times the taxes you do, of course that same 5 percent is going to go a lot farther for them.