PDA

View Full Version : The Tax System Explained in Beers



JiminyChristmas
12/27/2011, 02:03 PM
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

badger
12/27/2011, 02:16 PM
I remember when I used to get stuff like this in emails... but when I first received it, it wasn't beers, it was just a meal.

Turd_Ferguson
12/27/2011, 02:19 PM
I remember when I used to get stuff like this in emails... but when I first received it, it wasn't beers, it was just a meal.But it does make sense to you though...right?

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 02:27 PM
Except that the guy paying the top amount earns $250K/year, the second guy around $75K/year, the third guy around 60K/year, the fourth around 50K/year, the bottom 4 earn $30K or less. So is it easier for the fella earning $250K to plunk down the $59? Definitely.

badger
12/27/2011, 02:32 PM
If I wanted to be an advocate of the devil, here's how I would troll such an email:

"So you're saying that if you cut taxes, the rich will leave the country?"

Because that's what happens --- a $20 discount leads to the rich guy not coming back for more beer/dinner/etc.

Interestingly enough, that is also what appeared to be happening after tax cuts --- jobs getting outsources, factory work moving overseas, etc.

Maybe the moral of this chain email is that the status quo is better than trying to put your paws on an ideal solution to try to make it more ideal.

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 02:37 PM
If I wanted to be an advocate of the devil, here's how I would troll such an email:

"So you're saying that if you cut taxes, the rich will leave the country?"

Because that's what happens --- a $20 discount leads to the rich guy not coming back for more beer/dinner/etc.

Interestingly enough, that is also what appeared to be happening after tax cuts --- jobs getting outsources, factory work moving overseas, etc.

Maybe the moral of this chain email is that the status quo is better than trying to put your paws on an ideal solution to try to make it more ideal.

The John Galt concept is funny to me as well. Where else are the wealthy going to go which will offer such an advantageous tax structure, stability, freedom, etc? Outsourcing probably has less to do with taxcuts than it does the availability of stable governments with cheap wages overseas who are willing to come to the table to help subsidize infrastructure, etc... all they ask for is all of your IP..

JiminyChristmas
12/27/2011, 03:32 PM
Except that the guy paying the top amount earns $250K/year, the second guy around $75K/year, the third guy around 60K/year, the fourth around 50K/year, the bottom 4 earn $30K or less. So is it easier for the fella earning $250K to plunk down the $59? Definitely.

Why would it matter if it is "easier" for the rich guy to pay more?

Government should not be in the business of equalizing the "ease of life" of its' constituents, but rather protecting the opportunity for each person to achieve that ease on their own.

JiminyChristmas
12/27/2011, 03:38 PM
If I wanted to be an advocate of the devil, here's how I would troll such an email:

"So you're saying that if you cut taxes, the rich will leave the country?"

Because that's what happens --- a $20 discount leads to the rich guy not coming back for more beer/dinner/etc.

Interestingly enough, that is also what appeared to be happening after tax cuts --- jobs getting outsources, factory work moving overseas, etc.

Maybe the moral of this chain email is that the status quo is better than trying to put your paws on an ideal solution to try to make it more ideal.

You either didn't read it or don't understand. The rich guy didn't leave because of the $20 discount.

He left because the people getting something for nothing were too dumb to realize that and kept asking for more and more from him.

badger
12/27/2011, 03:51 PM
The key words are: "If I wanted to be an advocate of the devil"

I have seen this in various forms a billion times so I'm bored with it and wanted to play devil's advocate.

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 04:15 PM
Why would it matter if it is "easier" for the rich guy to pay more?

Well, first off, it's not really frivolous stuff our taxes pay for, it's essentially security and stability. Beers we can do without, security and stability are at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is something we ALL have to buy and it costs a certain amount of money. As a society, since the income tax has existed, the majority has agreed that it's easier for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage of their receipts.

And of course, this little story also shows a basic failure in understanding how our tax brackets work.

Even if you make $379K and are in the 35% bracket, you still pay 10% on your first $8,500, 15% on the next $8501-$34,500, 25% on the next $34501-$83,600, 28% on the next $83,601-$174,400, 33% on the next $174,401-$379,150, and $35% on everything above $359151.

It's a very common misconception that if you say, made $34501 that you'd suddenly have to pay 25% on your taxes instead of the 15% and 10% you paid on everything up to that amount.

So really, I suppose society feels that if you're earning $379,151, you can more afford to pay 35% than say the guy making $8,000 per year could (even though you pay the exact same percentage of your first $8K as he does). And that's pretty reasonable.

badger
12/27/2011, 04:17 PM
Let's have more fun with this concept :D

Action: Beat up rich guy

Outcome: More beer for the rest of us!

And yes, I realize that we wouldn't be able to pay for it... so first we need to nationalize the beer industry, and then, everyone gets beer regardless of income level! :D

Action: Pay unequal amount for beer

Outcome: Everyone gets same amount of beer

Vicky: I'm sorry, but giving everyone an equal part when they're not clearly equal is what again, class?
Girls: Communism!

So... are we advocating communism here, or not? Sooooo confusing :P

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 04:36 PM
The comparison really doesn't work.

But let's look at the guy in the top tax bracket making $379K. Do you think he probably receives more government benefits than the guy making $18K? Without question. He has police protection for his stuff, which is probably vastly more stuff than Mr. $18K. If he owns an office or factory, the government provides roads and utilities, without which those operations would be worthless. This concept that everyone makes it on their own is bullcrap. The government helps everyone and helps the wealthy infinitely more than the poor.

KantoSooner
12/27/2011, 05:32 PM
As you pointed out, Midtowner, the Galt solution doesn't work. Essentially, however, it doesn't work only because there is no hidden valley to escape to.
Outsourcing is one example of moving production to where it makes more sense. Whether in terms of regulation, costs, or simple proximity to end markets. Capital will move to wherever makes the most sense.
And if the capitalists are getting beaten, robbed and killed, they'll look for a better environment. No mysteries there.
A good example was a little town in, I believe, Rhode Island that kept voting in higher and higher services and mandates. Earlier this year they had to declare bancruptcy and disincorporate as those who were paying the taxes had simply packed up and moved out of town. They had only 'the majority' of beggars, thieves and looters from which to draw taxes. And those good folks couldn't the nut.
Now, I suppose you could track down those rich bastards who left town, drag them back and tell them they had inalienable responsibilities to that town to pay 'whatever' the majority voted for. But I doubt even the most 'populist' of Americans would support that.

Clearly, our current tax system is unfair, equally clearly, not everyone can shoulder the same absolute burden. Would it not be better to try a flat tax with everyone paying, as it were equally to his ability and equally to his means?

TitoMorelli
12/27/2011, 06:11 PM
The comparison really doesn't work.

But let's look at the guy in the top tax bracket making $379K. Do you think he probably receives more government benefits than the guy making $18K? Without question. He has police protection for his stuff, which is probably vastly more stuff than Mr. $18K. If he owns an office or factory, the government provides roads and utilities, without which those operations would be worthless. This concept that everyone makes it on their own is bullcrap. The government helps everyone and helps the wealthy infinitely more than the poor.

Well thank you Elizabeth Warren.

So is the government paying for the cameras and security fences that mean old Mr. Businessman has installed on his property, because the police only arrive after the crime has been committed and reported? What about the salaries of the night watchmen and other security personnel, which free the police up to take better care of average joe?

And in the meantime mean old Mr. Businessman is paying taxes on his income, taxes on his employees' income, taxes on his property, taxes on any capital gains, and if he is successful enough will continue to pay taxes from beyond the grave on all the income and property for which he already paid taxes throughout his life.

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 06:32 PM
Well thank you Elizabeth Warren.

So is the government paying for the cameras and security fences that mean old Mr. Businessman has installed on his property, because the police only arrive after the crime has been committed and reported? What about the salaries of the night watchmen and other security personnel, which free the police up to take better care of average joe?

What about the salaries of the soldiers who have kept the middle east shipping us the energy we need to run his plant? What about the social welfare programs which keep the rabble from rising up and revolting? Clearly, he who has more has more to lose and should fairly be expected to pay more.



And in the meantime mean old Mr. Businessman is paying taxes on his income, taxes on his employees' income, taxes on his property, taxes on any capital gains, and if he is successful enough will continue to pay taxes from beyond the grave on all the income and property for which he already paid taxes throughout his life.[/QUOTE]

TitoMorelli
12/27/2011, 06:50 PM
What about the salaries of the soldiers who have kept the middle east shipping us the energy we need to run his plant? What about the social welfare programs which keep the rabble from rising up and revolting? Clearly, he who has more has more to lose and should fairly be expected to pay more.

In other words, since I refuted the arguments you make in your previous post, it's time to pull a bunch of examples out of left field to try to gloss over that fact.

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 06:52 PM
In other words, since I refuted the arguments you make in your previous post, it's time to pull a bunch of examples out of left field to try to gloss over that fact.

You didn't refute anything. Yes, businesses have costs. So what?

The man making $379K+ benefits more from government spending than the guy who makes $7.25/hour. It's irrefutable. And without the government spending that money, he would never have been in a position to make $379K. His education was subsidized, his trip to work was subsidized, he has free police and fire, and a hell of a lot more to lose than the fella living in an efficiency apartment.

Sooner5030
12/27/2011, 06:55 PM
first of all I don't remember going "galt" as continuing your current level of production but in a different State in order to dodge taxes. I remember it as lowering or stopping your production in order to starve the beast that sucks off of your production. Going to a valley was just to get away from the folks that would want to make it law that you produce.

second, I don't like the analogy used in the op. But something is terribly wrong when a voting block that receives direct federal entitlements exceeds the voting block that pays for them. We are getting close to meeting that threshold or are at least on course to do so in the coming years.

Me and the wifey went "galt"....kinda. She stopped working and focused on non-financial work around the house and with our son. The extra $ (post marginal tax rate) wasn't worth the trade off of day care, not spending more time with the son, and having messy house.

ictsooner7
12/27/2011, 07:14 PM
There are so many things wrong with the analogy I hardly know where to begin. The logical outcome is the other beat up the rich guy? How incredibly IGNORANT. SO..............you think that the rest of us that are complaining about our deficit and/or taxes going up to fund tax cuts for the wealthy with republicans insisting "everyone pays their fair share", which is code for tax the poor to pay for tax cuts for billionaires" is the same as beating someone up?



As for mistreated wealthy......why are you fighting to the death for something you will never be? A vast majority of the billionaires INHERITED THEIR MONEY! Lets look at the macro view, the wealthy guy owned a company that makes widgets, he has customers, lots of customers that combined are making him wealthy. The top 1% buy 1% of his production. The wealthy guy does not show up and the other look at each other and say well, I work for mr. wealthy and I haven't got a raise in two years so I can only kick in enough to cover half a beer more. The other two say they haven't gotten raises in two years either and kick in for one more beer total. The next couple of guys manage to scrap together enough for another half a beer. So there is enough for five beers. The five drink the beer and leave a $1 tip. The owner of the bar stops by and asks why 5 and not 10 beers. They tell him and he sees his sales drop by half so he immediately lays off half of his staff. All of those people bought widgets from mr. wealthy's company, but now being out of work they stop. At the end of the month he asks what happened to sales and with layoffs and unemployment demand dropped. He looks at his budgets for the rest of the year and says I have to lay off staff and cut salaries. Layoffs and salary cuts hit the guy from the plant who is in the group of ten and says I can't afford to give anymore and only four beers are bought that night. The bar owner sees four beers are bought this time and lays off one more staff, who now cannot buy the widgets, SSSOOOO mr wealthy lays off yet more staff and lowers wages who then do not have the money to by beer who then has to layoff staff and so on. At the end of the year mr wealthy looks at his books and says why is my income cut in half? The answer, demand was lower because of layoffs, unemployment and stagnant wages sales were cut in half along with your income.



So....is mr wealthy better off paying the extra for the beers or not?

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 07:50 PM
But something is terribly wrong when a voting block that receives direct federal entitlements exceeds the voting block that pays for them.

Well then it's a darn good thing the oppressed 1% can buy and sell all of the politicians, vote and laws.

ictsooner7
12/27/2011, 08:02 PM
Well then it's a darn good thing the oppressed 1% can buy and sell all of the politicians, vote and laws.

You forgot the supreme court. It's sad that it takes only $750k to own your own justice.

TitoMorelli
12/28/2011, 12:34 AM
As for mistreated wealthy......why are you fighting to the death for something you will never be? A vast majority of the billionaires INHERITED THEIR MONEY!

Here are the 10 richest in America:

#1 Bill Gates

#2 Warren Buffett

#3 Larry Ellison

#4 Charles Koch

#5 David Koch

#6 Christy Walton

#7 George Soros

#8 Sheldon Adelson

#9 Jim Walton

#10 Alice Walton

Half of the above are self-made. Add to the list of the next 15 richest the names Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, ....all self-made billionaires.

And if we widen the group to all worth over $1 million (since that's the group that is taking all the heat from the "99%" and Obama in his class-warfare instigatin' campaign, I think you'll find that a majority are self-made.

Midtowner
12/28/2011, 01:17 AM
True story: Just the top six Walton heirs have more net worth than the bottom 30% of Americans.

Frozen Sooner
12/28/2011, 01:55 AM
Here are the 10 richest in America:

#1 Bill Gates

#2 Warren Buffett

#3 Larry Ellison

#4 Charles Koch

#5 David Koch

#6 Christy Walton

#7 George Soros

#8 Sheldon Adelson

#9 Jim Walton

#10 Alice Walton

Half of the above are self-made. Add to the list of the next 15 richest the names Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, ....all self-made billionaires.


And oddly enough, the self-made ones on that list except for Adelson all reliably vote and donate to Democratic candidates and causes.

Well, I don't know about Ellison, but he's signed the Giving Pledge and he's good friends with Steve Jobs.

Quick search: looks like Ellison gives to mostly Democratic candidates, but gave to some Republicans as well.

ictsooner7
12/28/2011, 09:30 AM
Here are the 10 richest in America:

#1 Bill Gates

#2 Warren Buffett

#3 Larry Ellison

#4 Charles Koch

#5 David Koch

#6 Christy Walton

#7 George Soros

#8 Sheldon Adelson

#9 Jim Walton

#10 Alice Walton

Half of the above are self-made. Add to the list of the next 15 richest the names Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, ....all self-made billionaires.

And if we widen the group to all worth over $1 million (since that's the group that is taking all the heat from the "99%" and Obama in his class-warfare instigatin' campaign, I think you'll find that a majority are self-made.

Thank you for making my point for me. It is not the self-made billionaires that are ultra rightwingnut cut my taxes because I am a job creator. And I said billionaires not the top ten, but even that limited group makes my point.

As for class warfare, it was started by your party, poor people don't pay enough taxes and the top 1% pay 38% of taxes, you are poor only because you are lazy and want a handout and my personal favorite - you are not rich because you are not smart, coming from someone who inherited their wealth. That's class warfare. I got my money from daddy and I don't think I should have to pay more taxes than the hard working people who make me rich.

okie52
12/28/2011, 10:27 AM
Thank you for making my point for me. It is not the self-made billionaires that are ultra rightwingnut cut my taxes because I am a job creator. And I said billionaires not the top ten, but even that limited group makes my point.

As for class warfare, it was started by your party, poor people don't pay enough taxes and the top 1% pay 38% of taxes, you are poor only because you are lazy and want a handout and my personal favorite - you are not rich because you are not smart, coming from someone who inherited their wealth. That's class warfare. I got my money from daddy and I don't think I should have to pay more taxes than the hard working people who make me rich.

So whose federal income taxes do the dems want to raise? Whose federal income taxes do the repubs want to raise?

What does the bottom 50% pay in federal income taxes?

ictsooner7
12/28/2011, 11:32 AM
So whose federal income taxes do the dems want to raise? Whose federal income taxes do the repubs want to raise?

What does the bottom 50% pay in federal income taxes?


Dems want taxes raised on those who got the most benefits from the bush tax cuts and added a quarter of a trillion of dollars to the deficit per year. Dems would like to see taxes raised back to Clinton levels of those income over $500,000 a year. It has been twelve long years since their taxes were cut and look at what has happened to the economy, where the hell are your jobs? We were promised in 2001 in 2003 and again in 2010 if taxes to the "JOB CREATORS" were cut or were not raised the economy would rebound and there would be jobs created. So tell me WHERE THE HELL ARE THE JOBS?

Repubs want to give yet another huge tax cut to the "job creators" and rasie taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for them.



ONE MORE TIME....we have an INCOME TAX not a poll tax. People are taxed on their INCOME not on each person. Try to understand how federal INCOME taxes work.

Sooner98
12/28/2011, 12:18 PM
True story: Just the top six Walton heirs have more net worth than the bottom 30% of Americans.

So?

Sooner98
12/28/2011, 12:19 PM
Repubs want to give yet another huge tax cut to the "job creators" and rasie taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for them.


No they don't.

okie52
12/28/2011, 12:22 PM
Dems want taxes raised on those who got the most benefits from the bush tax cuts and added a quarter of a trillion of dollars to the deficit per year. Dems would like to see taxes raised back to Clinton levels of those income over $500,000 a year. It has been twelve long years since their taxes were cut and look at what has happened to the economy, where the hell are your jobs? We were promised in 2001 in 2003 and again in 2010 if taxes to the "JOB CREATORS" were cut or were not raised the economy would rebound and there would be jobs created. So tell me WHERE THE HELL ARE THE JOBS?

Repubs want to give yet another huge tax cut to the "job creators" and rasie taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for them.



ONE MORE TIME....we have an INCOME TAX not a poll tax. People are taxed on their INCOME not on each person. Try to understand how federal INCOME taxes work.

Brilliant. You continue to ignore everyone got a tax cut under Bush. EVERYONE!!! The Dems are the only ones advocating raising taxes on anyone and on just one tax bracket.

The overwhelming majority of the debt was for tax cuts for EVERYONE ELSE than they were for the RICH. Try to understand how the deficit was created instead of blathering some lefty talking point.

The dems could have just let the tax cuts expire but they only want to target one group of people.

Class warfare? You still don't have a clue.

TitoMorelli
12/28/2011, 12:25 PM
Thank you for making my point for me. It is not the self-made billionaires that are ultra rightwingnut cut my taxes because I am a job creator. And I said billionaires not the top ten, but even that limited group makes my point.

As for class warfare, it was started by your party, poor people don't pay enough taxes and the top 1% pay 38% of taxes, you are poor only because you are lazy and want a handout and my personal favorite - you are not rich because you are not smart, coming from someone who inherited their wealth. That's class warfare. I got my money from daddy and I don't think I should have to pay more taxes than the hard working people who make me rich.

According to Forbes' "Richest People in America" 41 of the top 60 are self-made billionaires. So where's that freakin' "vast majority" you proclaimed?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Nice try, but I showed how your claim of silver-spoon billionaires being the "vast majority" is - like most of your deposits on this site - an unfounded turd. But keep trying to polish it.

okie52
12/28/2011, 12:28 PM
According to Forbes' "Richest People in America" 41 of the top 60 are self-made billionaires. So where's that freakin' "vast majority" you proclaimed?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Nice try, but I showed how your claim of silver-spoon billionaires being the "vast majority" is - like most of your deposits on this site - an unfounded turd. But keep trying to polish it.

It doesn't really matter, Tito. He doesn't think there should be billionaires.

TitoMorelli
12/28/2011, 12:34 PM
You didn't refute anything. Yes, businesses have costs. So what?

The man making $379K+ benefits more from government spending than the guy who makes $7.25/hour. It's irrefutable. And without the government spending that money, he would never have been in a position to make $379K. His education was subsidized, his trip to work was subsidized, he has free police and fire, and a hell of a lot more to lose than the fella living in an efficiency apartment.

Yep. Subsidized with his own money.

badger
12/28/2011, 01:09 PM
Yep. Subsidized with his own money.

It's a self-correcting problem if you don't like it. Shirts sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. People that don't know how to make money don't respect the value of a dollar and as such, will have no problem going broke no matter how much they started with.


You continue to ignore everyone got a tax cut under Bush. EVERYONE!!! The Dems are the only ones advocating raising taxes on anyone and on just one tax bracket.

Word. This was my primary justification in voting for W. in the first presidential election I participated in (2004). As stated before, my take-home pay grew even as my little hourly wage stayed the same during the summer college job, all because of the tax cuts. Don't tell me that low income people would get their taxes refunded eventually anyway... when you're dirt poor, the more money you get immediately, the better. And didn't they earn it by working? Shouldn't they get it right away?


What does the bottom 50% pay in federal income taxes?

My above rant is why I don't buy the argument that the bottom 50 percent don't pay income taxes. When you get that pay stub and see how much gets deducted each week, you aren't thinking "La la la, I'll get it all refunded in April." You're thinking: "Why am I giving the government an interest-free loan till refund season?" or worse still, and this has happened to me, "I am probably not gonna get a lot of this back because I'll misplace a decimal point or some other BS reason."

Blame the desire for instant gratification, blame not having the tax preparing proficiency of H&R Block, but the bottom 50 percent who are employeed are in fact getting their paychecks cut each and every pay week (so long as they're not get cash payments as to avoid getting child support taken out, booooo). An eventual refund doesn't soften the blow... unless it's April/May and you just received a big check, heh.

ictsooner7
12/28/2011, 01:19 PM
According to Forbes' "Richest People in America" 41 of the top 60 are self-made billionaires. So where's that freakin' "vast majority" you proclaimed?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Nice try, but I showed how your claim of silver-spoon billionaires being the "vast majority" is - like most of your deposits on this site - an unfounded turd. But keep trying to polish it.

Again............READ MY POST..................I said "It is not the self-made billionaires that are ultra rightwingnut cut my taxes because I am a job creator."

Typical of you and your kind. Trying to restate what I said.

okie52
12/28/2011, 01:23 PM
My above rant is why I don't buy the argument that the bottom 50 percent don't pay income taxes. When you get that pay stub and see how much gets deducted each week, you aren't thinking "La la la, I'll get it all refunded in April." You're thinking: "Why am I giving the government an interest-free loan till refund season?" or worse still, and this has happened to me, "I am probably not gonna get a lot of this back because I'll misplace a decimal point or some other BS reason."

Blame the desire for instant gratification, blame not having the tax preparing proficiency of H&R Block, but the bottom 50 percent who are employeed are in fact getting their paychecks cut each and every pay week (so long as they're not get cash payments as to avoid getting child support taken out, booooo). An eventual refund doesn't soften the blow... unless it's April/May and you just received a big check, heh.

Sorry, you will need an accountant to tell you how to get around federal withholding. But if you have $3,000 withheld and you receive a refund of $3,000 how much have you paid in taxes?

Midtowner
12/28/2011, 01:27 PM
Yep. Subsidized with his own money.

How much do you think the road going to your place of business costs? How many millions? Billions? Did you pay for all of it? If not, your "subsidized with his own money" statement is just dumb.

TitoMorelli
12/28/2011, 01:42 PM
As for mistreated wealthy......why are you fighting to the death for something you will never be? A vast majority of the billionaires INHERITED THEIR MONEY!




As for mistreated wealthy......why are you fighting to the death for something you will never be? A vast majority of the billionaires INHERITED THEIR MONEY!

Here are the 10 richest in America:...




Again............READ MY POST..................I said "It is not the self-made billionaires that are ultra rightwingnut cut my taxes because I am a job creator."

Typical of you and your kind. Trying to restate what I said.

So since I quoted exactly what you posted and then rebutted exactly what you posted, how did I attempt to restate anything?

Keep polishing--

http://dribbble.com/system/users/14059/screenshots/354622/turd.jpg?1324057095

badger
12/28/2011, 01:49 PM
Sorry, you will need an accountant to tell you how to get around federal withholding. But if you have $3,000 withheld and you receive a refund of $3,000 how much have you paid in taxes?

Since this thread started with an email chain mail thingie anyway, let me write my own:

Every other week, a rich buddy and his poor friend go out to eat at the place that the poor friend works.

However, after awhile, the poor friend realized something: He was paying for both of their means.

Angrily, the poor friend confronted the rich friend: "C'mon man, you know I don't have a lot of money. Why have you let me pay for you meal for the past year?"

The rich friend immediately cut the poor friend a big check that he said would cover the past year's worth of meals. So, they continued eating together.

One year later, after gathering his receipts, the poor friend once again noticed that he had been paying for both of their meals. Again, the poor friend confronted the rich friend: "You can afford your own food! It's not even that expensive! Why do you keep letting me foot the bill?!"

The rich friend immediately cut him a big check to cover the previous year's meals.

By this time, the poor friend was not as poor anymore and had been promoted to manager. While he was starting to resent the rich friend's miserly ways, they still continued to eat together every other week at the place the poor friend worked... and lo and behold, in one year's time, the poor friend once again discovered that the rich friend was once again not paying for his own food.

"Why are you doing this to me?" the exasperated poor friend cries.

"Sorry, let me pay my share," the rich friend says, handing him a check.

"This is not nearly enough to cover what I've been paying for your meals the past year," the angry poor friend retorts upon seeing the check.

"I know," the rich friend smirks. "But just be glad that you got me to pay you anything at all. I mean, I've been mooching off you for years and you've allowed it. Just keep buying my meal and I'll pay you back whatever I think you should get after a year."

:D How did I do? Doesn't that make you want to copy/paste and send it out via email to all of your friends?

okie52
12/28/2011, 02:44 PM
The IRS would appreciate your view. Maybe you should attach it to your next tax return.:greedy_dollars:

badger
12/28/2011, 03:11 PM
The IRS would appreciate your view. Maybe you should attach it to your next tax return.:greedy_dollars:

Hehe, I would, but NP prepares the household's taxes. I also get my paycheck direct deposited, so hardly ever see any money... I know, role reversal, blah blah blah, but then again, I'm a chick hanging out on a sports message board.

I am meandering over to some Cali media sites to see how they're coping with the budget crap, and their governor had something interesting to say:


"I want to invoke a Latin phrase here," said Brown at a press conference in the Capitol. "Nemo dat [quod] non habet; it means no man gives what he does not have. The state cannot give what it does not have."

So, find your inner Nemo (dat [quod] non habet) and tell those that expect you to pay more taxes that you can't give what you don't have :D

okie52
12/28/2011, 04:59 PM
Old Jerry brown found a way to pay for instate tuition for illegals...maybe he should have stated "Nemo" in Espanol.

badger
12/28/2011, 05:08 PM
Old Jerry brown found a way to pay for instate tuition for illegals...maybe he should have stated "Nemo" in Espanol.

Not to hijack the thread, but Cali's most recent education cuts were nearly all pointed at higher ed, not K-12. I've heard that the crazy cuts are forcing Cali schools to enroll more outta state students (because they pay more), so really, the only in-state students going to Cali schools at this point are the ones who were admitted despite their lower tuition... in other words, the good students.

Or the athletes. :D

okie52
12/28/2011, 05:14 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but Cali's most recent education cuts were nearly all pointed at higher ed, not K-12. I've heard that the crazy cuts are forcing Cali schools to enroll more outta state students (because they pay more), so really, the only in-state students going to Cali schools at this point are the ones who were admitted despite their lower tuition... in other words, the good students.

Or the athletes. :D

And the cheaper illegal good students which shows the absurdity of his position.

And I'm not sure you can really highjack a "Tax system Explained in Beers" thread.

badger
12/28/2011, 05:31 PM
And the cheaper illegal good students which shows the absurdity of his position.

And I'm not sure you can really highjack a "Tax system Explained in Beers" thread.

True.

Illegal immigrant students might take spots from lower tier schools, but with the way Cali tuition is skyrocketing, it'd probably be better/cheaper to jump the (state!) border yourself to get your education.

Crazy thought: It really must confuse the notoriously liberal and protest-happy students and higher education system leaders to have illegal immigration impact them directly like it is. Do we support it in the name of equal opportunity, or hate it because we're losing spots and tuition money because they have in-state tuition now? Hmmmmm...

The reason I thought about the Cali illegal student situation like that was because I've read countless horror stories of Texas' best students not being able to attend UT-Austin because of the Ten Percent thing (which is more like 8 percent since everyone wants to go there for some reason and they now cap the number of students). Try getting in if you aren't Vince Young or a top 10 percenter, and ACCESS DENIED! (Whether you're illegal or not)

NormanPride
12/28/2011, 05:48 PM
Thinking someone can explain the tax system in beers says a lot about what people know about the tax system: nothing.

diverdog
12/28/2011, 05:54 PM
Here are the 10 richest in America:

#1 Bill Gates

#2 Warren Buffett

#3 Larry Ellison

#4 Charles Koch

#5 David Koch

#6 Christy Walton

#7 George Soros

#8 Sheldon Adelson

#9 Jim Walton

#10 Alice Walton

Half of the above are self-made. Add to the list of the next 15 richest the names Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, ....all self-made billionaires.

And if we widen the group to all worth over $1 million (since that's the group that is taking all the heat from the "99%" and Obama in his class-warfare instigatin' campaign, I think you'll find that a majority are self-made.

Tito:

If it is class warfare how come so many people are losing out?

JiminyChristmas
12/28/2011, 06:34 PM
Sorry, you will need an accountant to tell you how to get around federal withholding. But if you have $3,000 withheld and you receive a refund of $3,000 how much have you paid in taxes?

Since this thread started with an email chain mail thingie anyway, let me write my own:

Every other week, a rich buddy and his poor friend go out to eat at the place that the poor friend works.

However, after awhile, the poor friend realized something: He was paying for both of their means.

Angrily, the poor friend confronted the rich friend: "C'mon man, you know I don't have a lot of money. Why have you let me pay for you meal for the past year?"

The rich friend immediately cut the poor friend a big check that he said would cover the past year's worth of meals. So, they continued eating together.

One year later, after gathering his receipts, the poor friend once again noticed that he had been paying for both of their meals. Again, the poor friend confronted the rich friend: "You can afford your own food! It's not even that expensive! Why do you keep letting me foot the bill?!"

The rich friend immediately cut him a big check to cover the previous year's meals.

By this time, the poor friend was not as poor anymore and had been promoted to manager. While he was starting to resent the rich friend's miserly ways, they still continued to eat together every other week at the place the poor friend worked... and lo and behold, in one year's time, the poor friend once again discovered that the rich friend was once again not paying for his own food.

"Why are you doing this to me?" the exasperated poor friend cries.

"Sorry, let me pay my share," the rich friend says, handing him a check.

"This is not nearly enough to cover what I've been paying for your meals the past year," the angry poor friend retorts upon seeing the check.

"I know," the rich friend smirks. "But just be glad that you got me to pay you anything at all. I mean, I've been mooching off you for years and you've allowed it. Just keep buying my meal and I'll pay you back whatever I think you should get after a year."

:D How did I do? Doesn't that make you want to copy/paste and send it out via email to all of your friends?

I didn't get the OP from a chain email. Maybe you have, but i didn't. Does it make you feel superior to keep pointing that out in your posts? *******.

JiminyChristmas
12/28/2011, 06:42 PM
Yep. Subsidized with his own money.

It's a self-correcting problem if you don't like it. Shirts sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. People that don't know how to make money don't respect the value of a dollar and as such, will have no problem going broke no matter how much they started with.


You continue to ignore everyone got a tax cut under Bush. EVERYONE!!! The Dems are the only ones advocating raising taxes on anyone and on just one tax bracket.

Word. This was my primary justification in voting for W. in the first presidential election I participated in (2004). As stated before, my take-home pay grew even as my little hourly wage stayed the same during the summer college job, all because of the tax cuts. Don't tell me that low income people would get their taxes refunded eventually anyway... when you're dirt poor, the more money you get immediately, the better. And didn't they earn it by working? Shouldn't they get it right away?


What does the bottom 50% pay in federal income taxes?

My above rant is why I don't buy the argument that the bottom 50 percent don't pay income taxes. When you get that pay stub and see how much gets deducted each week, you aren't thinking "La la la, I'll get it all refunded in April." You're thinking: "Why am I giving the government an interest-free loan till refund season?" or worse still, and this has happened to me, "I am probably not gonna get a lot of this back because I'll misplace a decimal point or some other BS reason."

Blame the desire for instant gratification, blame not having the tax preparing proficiency of H&R Block, but the bottom 50 percent who are employeed are in fact getting their paychecks cut each and every pay week (so long as they're not get cash payments as to avoid getting child support taken out, booooo). An eventual refund doesn't soften the blow... unless it's April/May and you just received a big check, heh.

If you get it ALL back in a refund, then you paid ZERO taxes. Do you not understand math?

badger
12/28/2011, 07:11 PM
I didn't get the OP from a chain email. Maybe you have, but i didn't. Does it make you feel superior to keep pointing that out in your posts? *******.

I'm not making fun of your post. Calm down dude, it's the holidays :)


If you get it ALL back in a refund, then you paid ZERO taxes. Do you not understand math?

I am differentiating the situation of paying zero and paying something, then getting it refunded months later. I'm sorry that you don't agree that there is a distinction.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/29/2011, 04:09 AM
Old Jerry brown found a way to pay for instate tuition for illegals...maybe he should have stated "Nemo" in Espanol.

That's so silly. In-state residency is based on attending 3 years of high school in California. anyone attending high school in-state qualifies for in-state tuition. Even if the family lives in Maine and sends the kids to a california boarding school, they qualify - assuming they are admitted.

I suppose one could say Mary Fallin found a way for pot smokers to pay instate tuition in Oklahoma, because they aren't excluded are they?

okie52
12/29/2011, 08:17 AM
That's so silly. In-state residency is based on attending 3 years of high school in California. anyone attending high school in-state qualifies for in-state tuition. Even if the family lives in Maine and sends the kids to a california boarding school, they qualify - assuming they are admitted.

I suppose one could say Mary Fallin found a way for pot smokers to pay instate tuition in Oklahoma, because they aren't excluded are they?

I should restate that as financial aid for illegals, you know, as in the California dream act. Makes perfect sense in Cali since they can't legally obtain a job with their degree. Of course it is idiotic that Cal allows illegals instate tuition under any circumstances.

And you could say those illegals would be excluded in OK, AL, etc...places that don't have near the budget problems that exist in CA. Silly indeed.

NormanPride
12/29/2011, 10:50 AM
If you get it ALL back in a refund, then you paid ZERO taxes. Do you not understand math?

If we agree to the simple principle that 5 - 5 = 0 then do you agree to the slightly more complex principle that the government is taxing them at some point in time, therefore preventing from from using the money that they earned and which will be returned to them anyway?

Frozen Sooner
12/29/2011, 10:52 AM
$5 in four months is not the same as $5 today. Or do you not understand math?

NormanPride
12/29/2011, 11:10 AM
$5 in four months is not the same as $5 today. Or do you not understand math?

Was that aimed at me? I'm not saying that $5 in four months is the same as $5 today...

Frozen Sooner
12/29/2011, 11:16 AM
No, it wasn't. It was agreeing with you and mocking the guy who claims others don't understand math without understanding it himself.

diverdog
12/29/2011, 02:30 PM
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.H
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

I debated about commenting on this thread because I am continually amazed at how many people fall for this stuff.

The very rich operate at a totally different level than the rest of society. You cannot compare the tax returns of a family that is making $80000/AGI to a hedge fund manager who makes a billion dollars. The return for the average american family is only a few pages long where the returns for someone like Buffet are tens of thousand pages long. My companies wealth advisory folks will show up with teams of lawyers and accountants to try and get their heads wrapped around how some of these super wealthy clients operate. One of our guys went off to manage the Ford families money and he has a team of hundreds of people working for him. Folks just have no idea how sophisticated the financial structures are around the extremely wealthy unless they work in the field.

Secondly the idea that the wealthy will simply move their money is not logical. The US still offers a great investment environment with relatively low tax structures and a safe and stable government. Think about it if you were a billionaire where would you stash your money?

Yes the rich pay a lot in taxes and they will have to pay more. As someone stated the Walton Family is worth more than the bottom 30% of this country. You could take all their wealth and it would not match the Waltons wealth and it would only be enough money to operate the defense department for 3 months. The rich will be taxed more because that is where the money is. The rich faced higher taxes under Ike and Kennedy and even Clinton and they did just fine.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/29/2011, 04:05 PM
I should restate that as financial aid for illegals, you know, as in the California dream act. Makes perfect sense in Cali since they can't legally obtain a job with their degree. Of course it is idiotic that Cal allows illegals instate tuition under any circumstances.

And you could say those illegals would be excluded in OK, AL, etc...places that don't have near the budget problems that exist in CA. Silly indeed.

Now Okie, if they came to the U.S. when they were 3 years old, President Newt will make them legal when they're 28, just as they're finishing their Ph.D.

okie52
12/29/2011, 04:23 PM
Now Okie, if they came to the U.S. when they were 3 years old, President Newt will make them legal when they're 28, just as they're finishing their Ph.D.

Only if they are a member of the church and have 2 generations of kids (probably likely by that age).

Sooner5030
12/29/2011, 06:16 PM
until I see a department other than the DOD actually take a true cut in expenditures (that means FY12 is less than FY11) I don't want to hear about raising taxes. Even if I think taxes are relatively low I think a lot of our government programs are inefficient at achieving their policy goals (if at first you even believe those should be policy goals funded by the citizens).

It's too easy to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut DoD in order to make a quick fix while the DOJ, DoEd et al achieve little that cannot be handled at the state level. But this will only treat the symptoms as the cancer still exist. Also, don't raise income taxes until we decide what to do with medicare & SS. Those taxes/ages of eligibility should be raised first as the mandatory spending is what is crowding the budget.

If you want a quick fix to the mill/billionaires not paying their "fair" share than just tax capital gains (if that is your primary way of earning money) the same as each individuals marginal tax rate on wages.

diverdog
12/30/2011, 12:08 AM
until I see a department other than the DOD actually take a true cut in expenditures (that means FY12 is less than FY11) I don't want to hear about raising taxes. Even if I think taxes are relatively low I think a lot of our government programs are inefficient at achieving their policy goals (if at first you even believe those should be policy goals funded by the citizens).

It's too easy to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut DoD in order to make a quick fix while the DOJ, DoEd et al achieve little that cannot be handled at the state level. But this will only treat the symptoms as the cancer still exist. Also, don't raise income taxes until we decide what to do with medicare & SS. Those taxes/ages of eligibility should be raised first as the mandatory spending is what is crowding the budget.

If you want a quick fix to the mill/billionaires not paying their "fair" share than just tax capital gains (if that is your primary way of earning money) the same as each individuals marginal tax rate on wages.

Cutting DOE, Commerce and DOE gets you almost nothing. You have to go after defense and raising taxes. Defense is what is killing us.

Sooner5030
12/30/2011, 12:18 AM
Cutting DOE, Commerce and DOE gets you almost nothing. You have to go after defense and raising taxes. Defense is what is killing us.

I disagree. DoD above $500 billion (in 2000 $) is part of the problem. Now go find about another trillion to cut. This is why I wont support tax increases until we fix the underlying problems. Cutting DoD wont help with our future demographic problems.

go read GAO please

diverdog
12/30/2011, 07:41 AM
I disagree. DoD above $500 billion (in 2000 $) is part of the problem. Now go find about another trillion to cut. This is why I wont support tax increases until we fix the underlying problems. Cutting DoD wont help with our future demographic problems.

go read GAO please

5030:

You can eliminate all the other non mandatory spending and not balance the budget. It is defense and mandatory spending like SS, medicare/medicaid and service on the debt that is killing us.
Americans on the whole are not taxed that much. I bet most of the posters on this board pay less than 20% of their income in tax. Odds are over half pay no federal income tax. We need to cut spending on most areas of government, freeze entitlement spendig, raise the age for SS and increase taxes at some point. One of the biggest drivers of the current deficits is lack of tax revenue. It is less than 17% of GDP. We need to be at 21% of GDP.

pphilfran
12/30/2011, 08:16 AM
5030:

You can eliminate all the other non mandatory spending and not balance the budget. It is defense and mandatory spending like SS, medicare/medicaid and service on the debt that is killing us.
Americans on the whole are not taxed that much. I bet most of the posters on this board pay less than 20% of their income in tax. Odds are over half pay no federal income tax. We need to cut spending on most areas of government, freeze entitlement spendig, raise the age for SS and increase taxes at some point. One of the biggest drivers of the current deficits is lack of tax revenue. It is less than 17% of GDP. We need to be at 21% of GDP.

Morning DD...

Actually it is under 15%...

Table 1.2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

To balance the budget we would need to cut out 1.5 trillion...

If we get revenue up to 20% of GDP that would give us about 700 billion so we need another 800 billion a year in cuts...

From Table 3.2

Cutting defense in half would give us 350 billion...
...
450 billion to go...

Let's cut all of International Affairs, Space/Science, Energy, Natural Resources, Ag, Commerce and Housing, Transportation, Community and Regional Development, and Education and we get an additional....

200 billion

So we gotta go deeper...we need another 250 billion...

VA benefits would get us 108 billion..toss in Justice at 53 billion and we are within 100 billion!

See...pretty simple...

Caboose
12/30/2011, 09:38 AM
Dems want taxes raised on those who got the most benefits from the bush tax cuts and added a quarter of a trillion of dollars to the deficit per year.

This is either a bold-faced lie or a miserable failure in understanding the role of government. Either way, the knowing the mindset that would allow you to say such a thing explains why so many of your comments are border-line retarded.

Sooner5030
12/30/2011, 10:07 AM
5030:

You can eliminate all the other non mandatory spending and not balance the budget. It is defense and mandatory spending like SS, medicare/medicaid and service on the debt that is killing us.
Americans on the whole are not taxed that much. I bet most of the posters on this board pay less than 20% of their income in tax. Odds are over half pay no federal income tax. We need to cut spending on most areas of government, freeze entitlement spendig, raise the age for SS and increase taxes at some point. One of the biggest drivers of the current deficits is lack of tax revenue. It is less than 17% of GDP. We need to be at 21% of GDP.

DD, in FY2000 (a pretty decent year for US consolidated financials see page 45 (www.gao.gov/special.pubs/00frusg.pdf)) DoD was $400 billion or the equivilent of $524 billion in 2011 $s. That tells me that DoD is no more than $200 billion out of line with standard incremental budgeting. But we have anywhere from a .8 to 1.6 trillion deficit from 08-11 and projected through 15. Something else has to be looked at also. If we just gut defense, our temporary minded mob will just ignore the larger problems until they become an issue again....which will be sooner than most expect and an even greater problem. Some people forget that up until 1976 DoD was greater than SS, Medicare and medicaid combined.

Anyone looking at the financials over a 20 year period can see a glaring problem other than DoD. Unfortunetely one party cannot.

KantoSooner
12/30/2011, 10:10 AM
How about we take the whole debate and turn it on its head. Forget the current budget and tax code.

Decide how much we think would be an appropriate percentage of the national pie to devote to government. All government and whatever government is supposed to do. Ignore, for the moment, how we distribute the burden (it might be a flat tax, it might be a progressive income tax, just lay that aside for now.)

Let's say that number is 20% of GNP. (That's what the Spanish Empire ran on. Jesus Christ ran his gov on 10%.) Fine. Take that amount (and even I could figure that one given help from my handy desktop calculator). Now, figure in the national debt. How many years do we want to pay it off in? (and also ignore my grammar today. Damn, need coffee.) Subtract that from the total. There, that's what you've got to play with. Start figuring out how much goes to defense (probably the purest governmental function of them all.) and the rest of the crap the government does. I'd work by percentages to make the exercise a bit easier.

Voila! Each group of bureaucrats now knows how much lucre they have to accomplish their 'goals' and we have a date certain at which we know the debt will be paid AND we know how much we're going to be called upon to pony up each year.

This or something like this is the only way to budget. The ONLY time you can legitimately say, "Just get it done, we'll work out the money later" is when you are at war. A declared war (the declaration serves as the people, as a whole, saying, in effect, "the **** has hit the fan and we WILL jointly and severally do WHATEVER it takes to pull the ox out of the ditch").

Unless or until something of this nature is put in place, there is no point to the conversation as our elected representatives are quite clearly not serious.

Caboose
12/30/2011, 10:30 AM
How about we take the whole debate and turn it on its head. Forget the current budget and tax code.

Decide how much we think would be an appropriate percentage of the national pie to devote to government. All government and whatever government is supposed to do. Ignore, for the moment, how we distribute the burden (it might be a flat tax, it might be a progressive income tax, just lay that aside for now.)

Let's say that number is 20% of GNP. (That's what the Spanish Empire ran on. Jesus Christ ran his gov on 10%.) Fine. Take that amount (and even I could figure that one given help from my handy desktop calculator). Now, figure in the national debt. How many years do we want to pay it off in? (and also ignore my grammar today. Damn, need coffee.) Subtract that from the total. There, that's what you've got to play with. Start figuring out how much goes to defense (probably the purest governmental function of them all.) and the rest of the crap the government does. I'd work by percentages to make the exercise a bit easier.

Voila! Each group of bureaucrats now knows how much lucre they have to accomplish their 'goals' and we have a date certain at which we know the debt will be paid AND we know how much we're going to be called upon to pony up each year.

This or something like this is the only way to budget. The ONLY time you can legitimately say, "Just get it done, we'll work out the money later" is when you are at war. A declared war (the declaration serves as the people, as a whole, saying, in effect, "the **** has hit the fan and we WILL jointly and severally do WHATEVER it takes to pull the ox out of the ditch").

Unless or until something of this nature is put in place, there is no point to the conversation as our elected representatives are quite clearly not serious.

If we could wipe the slate clean and start over, I would be in favor of the government just spending whatever it felt needed to be spent all throughout year 1, then on Jan 31st of year 2 take the lump sum, divide it equally among tax-payers, and send each tax-payer their "bill" along with a line-item invoice of what they spent our money on. Granted, that first "bill" might suck but the government over-spending problem would self-correct within 1 election cycle. The tax-payers would learn real damn quick what the role of government is supposed to be, and any elected official that didn't learn it quickly would be out of office.

Sooner5030
12/30/2011, 10:36 AM
If only looking at the expenditure side of the income statement you can easily find other departments that have swelled more than DoD.

Take the 2000 financials (www.gao.gov/special.pubs/00frusg.pdf)and multiply the total by 1.31 to get 2011 $s and then compare to the FY2011 financials (www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11frusg.pdf)to look at fluctuations:

1. Dep of Ag. $39 billion in 2000 which is $51 billion in 2011 $ compared to $144 billion in FY11. That's a $93 billion or 183% increase from 2000

2. Dep of Energy. $16 billion in 2000 which is $21 billion in 2011 $ compared to $44 billion in FY11. That's a $23 billion or 110% increase.

3. Dep of HHS. $350 billion in 2000 which is $458 billion in 2011 $ compared to $877 billion in FY11. That's a $418 billion or 91% increase.

4. SSA. $410 billion in 2000 which is $$537 billion in 2011 $ compared to $782 billion in FY11. That's a $245 billion or 45% increase.

5. DoD. $397 billion in 2000 which is $520 billion in 2011 $ compared to $718 billion in FY11. That's a $198 billion or 38% increase.

6. VA. $117 billion in 2000 which is $153 billion in 2011 $ compared to $178 billion in FY11. That's a $25 billion or 16% increase.

So you have 4 other areas that you can look at along with cutting defense and VA. Until then don't even try to raise taxes.

badger
12/30/2011, 11:38 AM
I checked out the comments on an LA Times article and they were kind of like the ones I'm seeing here concerning proposed tax increases, that voters are not going to approve them till they stop wasting money elsewhere.

If there is anything good about recession and budget shortfalls, it forces government bloat to take a hard look at what is important and where fat can be trimmed. Here in Tulsa, TPS cleared out tons of positions that were basically used (allegedly) as a way to get bad teachers out of the classrooms without actually firing them. Even if those positions weren't just ex-bad teachers, there were definitely positions cleared en masse when their budget got massively trimmed. They are also selling off school buildings since enrollment is down and rethinking how to group students together (pre-K to 5th or pre-K to 6, for example)

KantoSooner
12/30/2011, 12:16 PM
Looking at Sooner5030's data, it's interesting to note that DoD has enjoyed a 38% increase in budget since 2000......while adding 2 wars and multiple new assignments (like, say the 'new' base in Djibouti).
I think HHS and Energy, in particular need to pull their socks up. Energy is so completely worthless that they would need to give me cold fusion, within this next fiscal year, or I'd ****can the whole department and have congress deny separation benefits to the uselss bags of crap who work there.

pphilfran
12/30/2011, 01:16 PM
The priority must not be revenue or spending...it must be getting the economy up and running and not doing anything stupid that might slow the recovery...

I don't give a chit what you want spending or revenue to be but it ain't gonna happen with the current slow growth economy...

The recession is costing us about 500 billion in revenue alone...no tax increases, no nuttin other then getting the economy up and running...

Hopefully unemployment would drop and reduce unemployment by 120 bill a year...other health care and misc of nearly 100 billion...

So the economy being in the chitter is costing nearly 3/4 of a trillion a year...

sappstuf
12/30/2011, 01:32 PM
The priority must not be revenue or spending...it must be getting the economy up and running and not doing anything stupid that might slow the recovery...

I don't give a chit what you want spending or revenue to be but it ain't gonna happen with the current slow growth economy...

The recession is costing us about 500 billion in revenue alone...no tax increases, no nuttin other then getting the economy up and running...

Hopefully unemployment would drop and reduce unemployment by 120 bill a year...other health care and misc of nearly 100 billion...

So the economy being in the chitter is costing nearly 3/4 of a trillion a year...

Phil, what did Obama predict GDP growth would be by now if we followed his policies?

diverdog
12/30/2011, 01:45 PM
Morning DD...

Actually it is under 15%...

Table 1.2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

To balance the budget we would need to cut out 1.5 trillion...

If we get revenue up to 20% of GDP that would give us about 700 billion so we need another 800 billion a year in cuts...

From Table 3.2

Cutting defense in half would give us 350 billion...
...
450 billion to go...

Let's cut all of International Affairs, Space/Science, Energy, Natural Resources, Ag, Commerce and Housing, Transportation, Community and Regional Development, and Education and we get an additional....

200 billion

So we gotta go deeper...we need another 250 billion...

VA benefits would get us 108 billion..toss in Justice at 53 billion and we are within 100 billion!

See...pretty simple...

If we can grow the economy at 4% that would help.

pphilfran
12/30/2011, 02:19 PM
Phil, what did Obama predict GDP growth would be by now if we followed his policies?

From his budget

3.9% this year...
4.9
5.9
6.1
5.7
5.2 in 2016

lol

KantoSooner
12/30/2011, 02:27 PM
...and the assumption was that the technology fairy was going to drop a new computer/internet/digital technology gift at our feet?