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 on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

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

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same percentage as the way they paid before, 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 latter six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began
to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"

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

"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 irate men surrounded the tenth man 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, boys and girls, 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

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, no explanation is possible.

On May 3, 11:48 am, "Bob Crantz" wrote:
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 on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

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

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same percentage as the way they paid before, 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 latter six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began
to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"

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

"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 irate men surrounded the tenth man 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, boys and girls, 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

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, no explanation is possible.

I was a wondering how Capt. Neal got all the free beer.

Joe

* Bob Crantz wrote, On 5/3/2007 12:48 PM:
....
And that, boys and girls, 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

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, no explanation is possible.

The professor leaves out a few details worth keeping in mind: The
poorest 40% is not just lazy people looking for a free beer. It
includes retired people, kids and college students, people with
disabilities, and a large part of the armed forces. And while they
pay a smaller portion of their income then most, they do pay some, and
they also have to pay the same sales tax on many consumer items.

And at the other end of the scale, most of the people above the 40th
percentile pay roughly the same part of their income. With the tax
cuts, the super-wealthy actually pay a smaller percentage of their
income than the upper middle class.

And of course this only includes federal tax; the state tax system is
often very regressive. In FL, for instance, the wealthiest by 2.7% of
their income in state taxes, while the poorest 20% pays over 14%.
Even in states like MA that try to be non-regressive, the
super-wealthy get a significant break.

The result of this is that pretty much across the board, almost
everyone pays about the same tax, as a percentage of their income. It
comes out to about 30%, but for the super-wealthy, its closer to 26%.

"Jeff" wrote in message

The professor leaves out a few details worth keeping in mind: The poorest
40% is not just lazy people looking for a free beer.

He never implied they were.

It includes retired people, kids and college students, people with
disabilities, and a large part of the armed forces. And while they pay a
smaller portion of their income then most, they do pay some, and they also
have to pay the same sales tax on many consumer items.

The demographics of the different levels are irrelevant.

And at the other end of the scale, most of the people above the 40th
percentile pay roughly the same part of their income. With the tax cuts,
the super-wealthy actually pay a smaller percentage of their income than
the upper middle class.

If tax cuts for the highest income group include closing the loopholes, I'm
all for them. The top marginal tax rate used to be somewhere around 75%
(Eisenhour era), but the loopholes were like Swiss cheese. The wealthiest
paid 75% of not much, if they had good accountants. Today the top marginal
rate is around 40%, but the average taxpayer in that group pays far more
than he did during the 75% days. Sort of shoots the idea of tax cuts
resulting in less revenue from the top income group.

And of course this only includes federal tax; the state tax system is
often very regressive. In FL, for instance, the wealthiest by 2.7% of
their income in state taxes, while the poorest 20% pays over 14%. Even in
states like MA that try to be non-regressive, the super-wealthy get a
significant break.

The result of this is that pretty much across the board, almost everyone
pays about the same tax, as a percentage of their income. It comes out to
about 30%, but for the super-wealthy, its closer to 26%.

We all pay about 50% or more of our annual income in taxes, which include
sales taxes, fuel taxes, hotel taxes, state, local, and federal taxes, and
so on, ad nauseum.

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...
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 on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

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

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same percentage as the way they paid before, 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 latter six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"

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

"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 irate men surrounded the tenth man 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, boys and girls, 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

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, no explanation is possible.

If you have to pay for beer, you're doing something wrong.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

* Maxprop wrote, On 5/3/2007 11:45 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message

The professor leaves out a few details worth keeping in mind: The poorest
40% is not just lazy people looking for a free beer.

He never implied they were.

No, but many people look at it that way.


It includes retired people, kids and college students, people with
disabilities, and a large part of the armed forces. And while they pay a
smaller portion of their income then most, they do pay some, and they also
have to pay the same sales tax on many consumer items.

The demographics of the different levels are irrelevant.

To some, perhaps. But anytime you suggest that one "level" pay less,
you're implying that other levels pay more. Its worth remembering
that many people are in lower levels because because it benefit
society as a whole. For instance, it really isn't fair to claim that
the military should be paying more in taxes, or students, or the
elderly, but that is exactly the implication when Rush goes on about
how the poorest 40% don't pay any taxes.


And at the other end of the scale, most of the people above the 40th
percentile pay roughly the same part of their income. With the tax cuts,
the super-wealthy actually pay a smaller percentage of their income than
the upper middle class.

If tax cuts for the highest income group include closing the loopholes, I'm
all for them. The top marginal tax rate used to be somewhere around 75%
(Eisenhour era), but the loopholes were like Swiss cheese. The wealthiest
paid 75% of not much, if they had good accountants. Today the top marginal
rate is around 40%, but the average taxpayer in that group pays far more
than he did during the 75% days. Sort of shoots the idea of tax cuts
resulting in less revenue from the top income group.

Nope. You wrong about this - the wealthy today are paying less, as a
percentage of their income. Of course, there are (and were) many who
avoided paying, and the super wealthy reap many benefits that are not
considered income, but the wealthy have always paid. And you're
trying to cast this as "revenue from the group" which is not
particularly relevant.

I don't have any good data about the super-wealthy, but according to a
recent Boston Globe editorial, in 1960 the folks in the 95-99th
percentile were paying 24% of their income in total taxes, but the top
1% paid a lot more.

By 1979, the top level was down to down to 32%, and the system was
moderately "progressive." The wealthy paid less in '89, then more in
'99, then after the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003, the total tax rate was regressive - the tax goes down for the
super wealthy, such that they are paying less than the "upper middle
class."

Here's the table from an IRS study, which applies the 2003 law to the
1999 taxes to estimate the affect.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03strudl.pdf
Its very clear what happened, the rate for the middle class was given
a modest tax cut, while the super wealthy were given an immense cut

Figure F-Average Tax Rates (Including Social Security Taxes)
by Percentile Classes, 1979-2001
Year Tot 0.1% 0.1-1% 1-5% 5-10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Low 20%
1979 20.71 31.92 29.50 24.14 22.59 21.63 19.89 17.35 12.65 8.72
1989 22.24 23.33 24.22 24.84 25.09 23.90 22.37 19.29 13.93 11.47
1999 23.59 27.51 26.70 25.97 26.18 24.96 23.22 19.70 11.83 7.29
1999 JGTRRA 21.90 22.57 23.34 25.76 25.48 23.81 21.58 18.25 10.94 6.97


And of course this only includes federal tax; the state tax system is
often very regressive. In FL, for instance, the wealthiest by 2.7% of
their income in state taxes, while the poorest 20% pays over 14%. Even in
states like MA that try to be non-regressive, the super-wealthy get a
significant break.

The result of this is that pretty much across the board, almost everyone
pays about the same tax, as a percentage of their income. It comes out to
about 30%, but for the super-wealthy, its closer to 26%.

We all pay about 50% or more of our annual income in taxes, which include
sales taxes, fuel taxes, hotel taxes, state, local, and federal taxes, and
so on, ad nauseum.


That's alway been the "common wisdom" but is it really true? The
local taxes for the various states, and the national average can be
found at
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf
This includes Sales, Income, Excise, Business, Property, etc.
The National Average for the poorest is 11.4%, and it slides down to
5.2 for the top 1%. Adding together the two data sets, we get 28.5%
for the top 1%, 30.3% for the 60-80% middle class, 27.15% for the
40-60% working class. And even the 20-40% working poor are paying 22%.

(Of course, there are other taxes that don't show up as "personal"
taxes, so if you work this as total revenue from all sources as a
percentage of total income, you might get close to your 50%.)

If you believe that everyone should be paying about the same
percentage of their income in taxes, the system look rather flat.
However, the top 1% is definitely getting a break, while the middle
class is paying more than their share.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
If you have to pay for beer, you're doing something wrong.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


Jonathan, how many beers do you get in exchange for a blow job? Do you
trade one for one?

Wilbur Hubbard

It sounds like someone is in love. And fickle, too.

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 5/4/2007 8:10 PM:

Jonathan, how many beers do you get in exchange for a blow job? Do you
trade one for one?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
It sounds like someone is in love. And fickle, too.

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 5/4/2007 8:10 PM:

Jonathan, how many beers do you get in exchange for a blow job? Do you
trade one for one?

Wilbur Hubbard


Ewww... Did he really type that or did you do a Scotty? g

Jeff, in the future, don't repost.... please!!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

* Capt. JG wrote, On 5/4/2007 11:15 PM:


Ewww... Did he really type that or did you do a Scotty? g

that was his


Jeff, in the future, don't repost.... please!!

But, you just reposted.