The Government can’t give someone something without first taking it from someone else

[JimmyBT]

You can’t multiply wealth by dividing it even though todays youth think you can.  

[Ohio Elite]

15 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

You can’t multiply wealth by dividing it even though todays youth think you can.  

Agreed.

[Offthemat]

You don’t get rich by standing in line, either. 

[Plasmodium]

Just trying to get some perspective on this math.

Is there an Infinite amount of resources in our economic system?

Does society exist to generate wealth?

[jross]

An old anecdote.

How Taxes Work . . .

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant daily and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only costs $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill like we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy the $20 windfall so everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth man would be PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that reducing each man's bill by roughly the same amount would be fair, and he worked out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, and the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too ... It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? 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 he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late, what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the 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 at the table anymore.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, jross said:

An old anecdote.

How Taxes Work . . .

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant daily and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only costs $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill like we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy the $20 windfall so everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth man would be PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that reducing each man's bill by roughly the same amount would be fair, and he worked out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, and the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too ... It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? 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 he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late, what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the 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 at the table anymore.

That's not at all how the tax system works. That is dishonest to insinuate that this fictional story applies to everyone or anyone. 

That it might make you feel better to think that people are stealing from you is not indicative of reality.  That others get riled up about your story is not evidence of its truthfulness. The social contract is that we agree to pay for the things we need. Some pay more because they have benefited the most. We vote for people to make those decisions. If you want to change something, convince me without making appeals to emotion. 

You know that a very small number of rich people 'steal' WAY more of your tax dollars then all the poor combined? Why not tell a story about that? 

[mspart]

TPT - It sounds to me like you are emotional about that story.   Not the other way around. 

In the current environment, what is the mantra - Make the rich pay their fair share.   This story illustrates that very well, accept they all pay and were happy.  And when tax cuts have happened, what was the mantra - The rich are getting too much tax break.  

Perhaps you can explain the CA and NY exodus in other terms.  

mspart

[jross]

I am taxed on my diligence (income, payroll), purchases (sales, excise), property, for receiving gifts, and in my death (estate) by a government with forced entitlement to my money as theirs.  

Reps sustain power by appeasing the majority at the expense of a constitutionally inspired social contract. A contract that envisions individuals voluntarily cooperating with a government whose role should primarily focus on protecting our individual rights.

The taxmen lack the decency of a taxidermist who knows to leave the skin.  They take more than is needed and spend like there is no tomorrow.

I disagreed when earning my first paycheck at 14... 

A wider variety in social contracts at the state level would be nice.  Then we wouldn't need to rehash the original Federalist versus Anti-Federalist views.

[JimmyBT]

What one person receives without working for, one person must work for without receiving …………..

 

[Ohio Elite]

8 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

What one person receives without working for, one person must work for without receiving …………..

 

He's been saying that for a thousand years...

 

[JimmyBT]

3 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

He's been saying that for a thousand years...

 

Yep. And many others after him. Still holds true today. 

Edited January 10 by JimmyBT

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That's not at all how the tax system works. That is dishonest to insinuate that this fictional story applies to everyone or anyone. 

That it might make you feel better to think that people are stealing from you is not indicative of reality.  That others get riled up about your story is not evidence of its truthfulness. The social contract is that we agree to pay for the things we need. Some pay more because they have benefited the most. We vote for people to make those decisions. If you want to change something, convince me without making appeals to emotion. 

You know that a very small number of rich people 'steal' WAY more of your tax dollars then all the poor combined? Why not tell a story about that? 

Please fill us in on that “social contract” we all signed on the dotted line for.  Oh and it’s the government that’s doing the stealing. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

35 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Please fill us in on that “social contract” we all signed on the dotted line for.  Oh and it’s the government that’s doing the stealing. 

You do not know the definition of social contract.

[JimmyBT]

11 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You do not know the definition of social contract.

So fill me in.  I can’t wait 

[JimmyBT]

5 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Just trying to get some perspective on this math.

Is there an Infinite amount of resources in our economic system?

Does society exist to generate wealth?

Please explain how either of those questions is pertinent to the math you’re questioning.  

[JimmyBT]

21 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You do not know the definition of social contract.

You going with Plato?  Hobbes?  Maybe Locke???  Please explain smart guy. 

[JimmyBT]

 

29 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You do not know the definition of social contract.

I can’t wait to hear about how your morals are better than mine 

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, JimmyBT said:

Please explain how either of those questions is pertinent to the math you’re questioning.  

I'm just thinking, not arguing.  If wealth is finite, multiplying it makes no sense.  It is probably infinite. If the purpose of society is other than generating wealth, your statement may or may not be meaningful.  Looks like you already discussing that concept.

[JimmyBT]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I'm just thinking, not arguing.  If wealth is finite, multiplying it makes no sense.  It is probably infinite. If the purpose of society is other than generating wealth, your statement may or may not be meaningful.  Looks like you already discussing that concept.

Why would I think you were arguing?  I just asked a question.  Probably? May or may not?  Stay on that fence. 

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Why would I think you were arguing?  I just asked a question.  Probably? May or may not?  Stay on that fence. 

Yeah, I'm still thinking.

[Wrestleknownothing]

46 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

 

I can’t wait to hear about how your morals are better than mine 

I only think my dictionary is better than yours. The first word in the definition is implicit. There is nothing to sign there is no dotted line, dumb dumb.

 

1 hour ago, JimmyBT said:

Please fill us in on that “social contract” we all signed on the dotted line for.  Oh and it’s the government that’s doing the stealing. 

 

[VakAttack]

8 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I only think my dictionary is better than yours. The first word in the definition is implicit. There is nothing to sign there is no dotted line, dumb dumb.

 

 

I think this is all a big to get his post count up for some reason.  He just quotes people three separate times to try to gish-gallop around the fact he has nothing substantive to say.

[Wrestleknownothing]

41 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I think this is all a big to get his post count up for some reason.  He just quotes people three separate times to try to gish-gallop around the fact he has nothing substantive to say.

Yeah, I like poking at him when he says dumb stuff, which is always, so I limit it to really dumb stuff to save time. It is funny to see his responses get even dumber.

Gish gallop. That is a new one, and I love it.

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I only think my dictionary is better than yours. The first word in the definition is implicit. There is nothing to sign there is no dotted line, dumb dumb.

 

 

 Figures.  

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

I think this is all a big to get his post count up for some reason.  He just quotes people three separate times to try to gish-gallop around the fact he has nothing substantive to say.

You think ?????