Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

    The question in my mind that I have is how...and how much.

    Look at all of the money we are paying in taxes right now. Where is it going?
    This is DH's issue, too. He's a generous guy, and he doesn't think the government should be responsible for "redistribution of wealth" (as in, he wants to give where he thinks is best). But as generous as he is, I doubt he or others would give as much voluntarily to fund programs that do help people. Granted, a lot of the tax money is going to fund other things that we may not choose to fund.

    DH, in his attempt to turn me into a Republican on this issue, forwarded this email to me. I'm curious to see what you think of it, if it's an accurate analogy.

    This is the best explanation of proposed tax cuts I've ever seen.

    TAX CUTS EXPLAINED

    Because it's the election season, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

    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 curved ball (or is that a curved beer!).
    'Because 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.
    < BR style="LINE-HEIGHT: 1.22em">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 paid $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 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 me!'

    '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 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 work s.

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

      Originally posted by oceanchild
      Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
      But, gosh, he's so eloquent and good-looking and young and hopeful! It doesn't matter that what he says is...incorrect. He's the great hope because he's not George Bush!
      Oh, come on.

      Look, I get that it's easier to assume people are stupid than to consider that they might legitimately disagree with you, but many people don't have a problem with some sort of redistributive tax scheme. Including some economists who have actually studied it. Lay off.
      What she said.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

        Originally posted by Pollyanna
        Originally posted by oceanchild
        Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
        But, gosh, he's so eloquent and good-looking and young and hopeful! It doesn't matter that what he says is...incorrect. He's the great hope because he's not George Bush!
        Oh, come on.

        Look, I get that it's easier to assume people are stupid than to consider that they might legitimately disagree with you, but many people don't have a problem with some sort of redistributive tax scheme. Including some economists who have actually studied it. Lay off.

        Haven't you been listening to the Obama talking points? He is not "redistributing wealth" Oh no, they deny that claim up and down the street and get rather angry when it is suggested that they are even close to supporting socialism. They are cutting taxes for 95% of working families.
        Does anyone really believe that if every man was for his own that our society would be better? How many of us know people who took food stamps, WIC, medicaid, medicare, educational grants - say to um fund our husbands residency programs.., could actually achieve the same life without them? Are you going to pay your sisters medical bills when her husband loses her job for a period of time when he gets very ill. Are you going to give huge amounts of your earnings to support teaching hospitals? Are you going to give food to the miles upon miles of families who can't live without food stamps, but yet work two jobs to live their meager lives? Are you going to pay out of pocket for your grandmother's nursing home that she lives in for three years? Are you going to save money every month for new highways?
        Are you going to fund the community colleges that are desperately needed so people can make a decent living?

        The idea that we could do a 1. better way by our selves and 2. an even distribution to our society is ... utopia. If people kept every penny they made, the idea that they would only give it out to all the places that depend on monetary resources for societal reasons is just not possible. People would only give to the causes they felt attracted to. For instance maybe giving all your cash to... just one cause.



        I'm trying to remember when Obama said every person should live off the same income and grin and bear it, because we are one society wearing tan jumpsuits, and burn all books that are of opposing opinions. Anyone...can you help me, I'm have a fuzzy memory.

        Seriously, things aren't either one way or another, there is actually a middle ground.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

          Originally posted by oceanchild
          Lay off.
          I didn't call anyone stupid or deny that they can disagree with me legitimately, and I was clearly using hyperbole to make a point. I have always been respectful of other people on this board and do not direct my comments at anyone in the form of insults or demands for their silence. It would be fair to expect reciprocity on this account. I don't particularly appreciate being directed to "lay off" because you don't happen to like what I had to say.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

            Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
            Originally posted by oceanchild
            Lay off.
            I didn't call anyone stupid or deny that they can disagree with me legitimately, and I was clearly using hyperbole to make a point. I have always been respectful of other people in particular on this board and do not direct my comments at anyone in the form of directions or insults. I would appreciate reciprocity on this account in tone. I don't particularly appreciate directed to "lay off" because you don't happen to like what I had to say.
            I also found your comment insulting towards the people who support Obama and in my opinion Oceanchild had every right to react. You didn't call them stupid, but your hyperbole was designed to show how stupid and superficial you find them. That, to me, is just as bad. I don't always have high opinions of the cognitive capacity of the people I disagree with, but I do what I can to avoid making that obvious. When I fail, I deserve reactions. As do you.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

              Originally posted by McPants
              Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
              Originally posted by oceanchild
              Lay off.
              I didn't call anyone stupid or deny that they can disagree with me legitimately, and I was clearly using hyperbole to make a point. I have always been respectful of other people in particular on this board and do not direct my comments at anyone in the form of directions or insults. I would appreciate reciprocity on this account in tone. I don't particularly appreciate directed to "lay off" because you don't happen to like what I had to say.
              I also found your comment insulting towards the people who support Obama and in my opinion Oceanchild had every right to react. You didn't call them stupid, but your hyperbole was designed to show how stupid and superficial you find them. That, to me, is just as bad. I don't always have high opinions of the cognitive capacity of the people I disagree with, but I do what I can to avoid making that obvious. When I fail, I deserve reactions. As do you.
              In fact, I have heard and observed many people say that they are voting for Obama for no other reason than he is "change" or "young" or "hopeful" or some other vague "feel good" adjective that does not offer any substance as to why his tax policies should be endorsed. The impulse to vote for him based on these promises of his personality are, in my opinion, in fact very superficial and uninformed reasons to vote for anyone. I did NOT say that everyone who is voting for Obama is doing so for these reasons. I did not say that Oceanchild is.

              And I point out that I did not deserve to have it suggested that I believe that anyone who disagrees with me must have low cognitive capacity. Over the past two and a half years of my participation on this board, I have shown both respect and consideration for opinions that differ from mine--and on occasion, even solicited them, so that I can better understand other viewpoints and appreciate where people are coming from. I have never said, or implied, that you necessarily must stupid to vote for Obama (or, alternatively, that you necessarily are smart because you are voting for McCain).

              Any offense that was taken is an overly broad characterization of my comments and, frankly, a bit sensitive for the Debates section.

              I did absolutely nothing to deserve the reaction of being told, essentially, to shut up, and I reiterate that I deserve more respect than that. You can disagree with my assessment without demanding my silence.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                "Lay off" does not equate to being told to shut up. More like chill out. Which a number of members have out right been told to do just that. I can not speak for your experiences in the wonderful land of the Lou [4 years of living in one of the most segregated cities in our country was more than enough for me] but the Obama supporters on this board have made it clear that what you assume for the residents in the Lou is not true for them. So continuing on with the comments and implications is getting old. Just as you don't want to be told to "shut up," some people around here don't want to read over and over again that they're basically stupid and superficial even though "you're not talking about them."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                  Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
                  In fact, I have heard and observed many people say that they are voting for Obama for no other reason than he is "change" or "young" or "hopeful" or some other vague "feel good" adjective that does not offer any substance as to why his tax policies should be endorsed.
                  And I've heard and observed many people say they're voting for McCain because Obama's "young" or "black". So? If you don't think those "vague 'feel good' adjectives" are why people on this board are voting for Obama, then why even bring it up?
                  Sandy
                  Wife of EM Attending, Web Programmer, mom to one older lady scaredy-cat and one sweet-but-dumb younger boy kitty

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                    Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
                    In fact, I have heard and observed many people say that they are voting for Obama for no other reason than he is "change" or "young" or "hopeful" or some other vague "feel good" adjective that does not offer any substance as to why his tax policies should be endorsed. The impulse to vote for him based on these promises of his personality are, in my opinion, in fact very superficial and uninformed reasons to vote for anyone. I did NOT say that everyone who is voting for Obama is doing so for these reasons. I did not say that Oceanchild is.

                    And I point out that I did not deserve to have my remarks grossly mischaracterized as suggesting that I believe that anyone who disagrees with me must have low cognitive capacity. Over the past two and a half years of my participation on this board, I have shown both respect and consideration for opinions that differ from mine--and on occasion, even solicited them, so that I can better understand other viewpoints and appreciate where people are coming from. I have never said, or implied, that you necessarily must stupid to vote for Obama (or, alternatively, that you necessarily are smart because you are voting for McCain).

                    Any offense that was taken is an overly broad characterization of my comments and, frankly, a bit sensitive for the Debates section.

                    I did absolutely nothing to deserve the reaction of being told, essentially, to shut up, and I reiterate that I deserve more respect than that. You can disagree with my assessment without demanding my silence.
                    Fair enough. I wasn't exactly insulted by your post, given that I can't and thus won't vote for Obama. I felt it unnecessarily derogatory, however. If you want to ridicule his voters (or a select category of them if you prefer to call it that), be my guest. Sometimes, people will react unfavorably though.

                    Furthermore, I was in no way evaluating your whole career as a poster on these forums, just this particular post.

                    For someone who advocates against people being so sensitive in the debates forum, you're spending an awfully large amount of text crying about how you were slighted. Just an observation.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                      Originally posted by poky
                      Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
                      In fact, I have heard and observed many people say that they are voting for Obama for no other reason than he is "change" or "young" or "hopeful" or some other vague "feel good" adjective that does not offer any substance as to why his tax policies should be endorsed.
                      And I've heard and observed many people say they're voting for McCain because Obama's "young" or "black". So? If you don't think those "vague 'feel good' adjectives" are why people on this board are voting for Obama, then why even bring it up?
                      Because my observations have suggested that this is why some people are, which might make it a relevant observation. I thought we were having a discussion that was broader. Maybe I misunderstood the tone.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                        Originally posted by McPants

                        For someone who advocates against people being so sensitive in the debates forum, you're spending an awfully large amount of text crying about how you were slighted. Just an observation.
                        No, I'm not crying, if you're implying whining or carrying on over something petty. I have every right to stand up for myself--this was not a mere slight. This is important: I participate in the Debates section with some frequency and am almost always in the minority in terms of any political position. People will not engage with me if they believe that I do not respect them. I don't want that reputation and I don't think it's deserved--by this thread or any of my past ones.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                          Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
                          People will not engage with me if they believe that I do not respect them.
                          I think that's correct.
                          Alison

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                            Originally posted by madeintaiwan
                            "Lay off" does not equate to being told to shut up. More like chill out.
                            All right. If that is the case, then I have much less to be concerned with. I am not thrilled about the ad hominem nature of the tone, but it's not a suggestion that I should not talk or participate, so seems like a fair game comment. It implies, I guess, that I shouldn't be colorful or hyperbolic, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what tone/style most effectively conveys a point.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                              Originally posted by oceanchild
                              Abigail, I wasn't demanding your silence, and I apologize if that was the way it came across. I highlighted the particular quote that I had an issue with. I know what I can expect from your posts, and I was surprised that you would jump from a serious argument into such a broad dismissal of any possible other side. That was my objection, and I obviously could have made it in a calmer fashion, but I do think the comment was unfair.
                              My hyperbole collided with my lack of fluency with slang, it appears. MadeinTawain, I believe, explained that "lay off" should not be construed as "shut up." The two terms struck me as being synonymous, but if they aren't, then no big deal.

                              I just didn't want to be told to shut up then have it attributed to me that I was insulting or belittling other people on the board. The first, apparently, didn't happen, and the second was the result of discussion about whether the first occurred! Seems like a good time to just let this go and put it in the no-harm-no-foul category.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: How much should dawkters pay in taxes...

                                Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
                                Originally posted by McPants

                                For someone who advocates against people being so sensitive in the debates forum, you're spending an awfully large amount of text crying about how you were slighted. Just an observation.
                                No, I'm not crying, if you're implying whining or carrying on over something petty. I have every right to stand up for myself--this was not a mere slight. This is important: I participate in the Debates section with some frequency and am almost always in the minority in terms of any political position. People will not engage with me if they believe that I do not respect them. I don't want that reputation and I don't think it's deserved--by this thread or any of my past ones.
                                Hey, you presumably have a good reputation on the board, let that speak for you then. One post won't make anyone dislike you or shy away from debating with you. At least not anyone who's worth your time.
                                You can't change my opinion on whether Oceanchild's comment to you was unjust nor on whether it was more than a mere slight, however. We can debate this more through the message function if you wish, but I'm done with this issue as far as this thread goes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X