Devastated

nolaegghead

nolaegghead

That crossfire episode has a cult following.

Sardonicus

nolaegghead said:

Careful there, @NOLAEggHead.

The soundbiters don't appreciate facts and figgers.

Facts are hard !

Sardonicus

 nolaegghead said:

That crossfire episode has a cult following.

So do handjobs, but . . .

grege345

THEBuckeye

nolaegghead said:

John, I'd almost give you a handjob for stating that.  An astute observation that is sadly true.  Not because of the masses but because the extremism is greater on the right. 

nolaegghead said:

@Biggreenpharmacist The average house cat grows to be about 9 pounds.  There's some dimorphism and thus males are typically a bit larger.  We have cats that range from 7.5 to 16 pounds full grown.  Obese cats and some breeds can get well into the 20-30 pounds range.  If you fix your cat, which you should, it can result in a smaller cat, at least in males and especially if you fix young.

wow

henapple

Evil people....top 10% percent make at least 114k...taxes by income... 
The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011...so basically half the citizens are sponging. Fair? Obama paid 20% in income tax...below what I did. For a guy that hates the sysrem...he worked it.

MaskedMarvel

I've wasted more of my life waiting to see if the pics in this thread are animated....

JohnInCarolina

henapple said:

Evil people....top 10% percent make at least 114k...taxes by income... 
The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011...so basically half the citizens are sponging. Fair? Obama paid 20% in income tax...below what I did. For a guy that hates the sysrem...he worked it.

When you have wealth that is dramatically accumulating at one end of the spectrum, this is what happens.  It doesn't have anything to do with sponging, it's just math.  The only way it doesn't is if we were to dramatically reduce the tax rate of the wealthiest Americans.  Incidentally, the GOP House just passed a law to reduce the taxes for the top 0.2% of the country.   

henapple

I'm shocked at the 114k. Are you saying give tax breaks for the upper class?

JohnInCarolina

henapple said:

I'm shocked at the 114k. Are you saying give tax breaks for the upper class?

No.

I'm just pointing out why the numbers are what they are, and that it has very little to do with sponging.

lousubcap

I came across the below which circulated a few years ago...given the half-life of this thread, here you go again:   

Bar Stool Economics 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:  

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)  

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost just $80. 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They  would still drink for free...But what about the other  six men - the paying customers? How could they divide  the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner  suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's  bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.  

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). 

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men began t o compare their savings.  

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute,"  yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"  

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!  

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors , is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 

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

University of Georgia

JohnInCarolina

The folklore we build up around the wealthy in this country really is something to behold.

Sardonicus

JohnInCarolina said:

The folklore we build up around the wealthy in this country really is something to behold.

Agreed.

The [seemingly] increasing prevalence of folklore's acceptance as reality

is directionally proportional to the decline of the popularity of critical thought.

Sardonicus

History be funny, Yo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpgJzlY9y8A

Oil well that ends well

henapple

lousubcap said:


lol

I came across the below which circulated a few years ago...given the half-life of this thread, here you go again:   

Bar Stool Economics 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:  

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)  

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost just $80. 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They  would still drink for free...But what about the other  six men - the paying customers? How could they divide  the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner  suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's  bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.  

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). 

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men began t o compare their savings.  

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute,"  yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"  

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!  

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors , is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 

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

University of Georgia

THEBuckeye

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563275

THEBuckeye

Hillary's just like us! 

JohnInCarolina

THEBuckeye said:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563275

LOL

DoubleEgger

Bravo @lousubcap

Acn

lousubcap said:

I came across the below which circulated a few years ago...given the half-life of this thread, here you go again:   

Bar Stool Economics 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:  

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)  

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost just $80. 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They  would still drink for free...But what about the other  six men - the paying customers? How could they divide  the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner  suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's  bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.  

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). 

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men began t o compare their savings.  

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute,"  yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"  

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!  

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors , is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 

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

University of Georgia

So basically the red states are afraid the blue states are going to leave them behind?

henapple

Why not the same percent for everyone? Because that's not fair. Who decides John? 

DMW

henapple said:

Why not the same percent for everyone? Because that's not fair. Who decides John? 

I'd like to know why a flat tax rate wouldn't work.

llrickman

Id be devastated too, Hibby's comments were rude and unwarranted. glad to know most on here arent jerks like that
 

JohnInCarolina

I think the best part of that Bar Stool Economics story is that it's been attributed to half a dozen different professors in economics, none of whom actually wrote it.  

henapple

John. ...back to the flat tax? 

DoubleEgger

Flat tax will never pass. It's a tax increase for the 47% or so that don't pay any income taxes. It'll be dubbed the largest tax increase in history. 

Ozzie_Isaac

Flat is to lean.  I like a nice fatty point ... oh wait sorry.  Thought this was a bbq forum.

Carry on.

nolan8v

This blog has certainly taken many twists and turns

lousubcap

Regarding the flat tax-Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax plan back in the early 90's.  No chance as it would put too many lawyers and accountants out of business.  Never mind the arguing of how you define the income subject to the tax.  That said, it is time to revisit-I would take my chances with it.
And regarding the bar stool eco-regardless of who wrote (or didn't) it's the way of the tax world.