[Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics

[Paul Grandholm]

Alex,

     May I respectfully disagree with you?  Not on the subject matter, 
but on Stan's right to express his opinion.  Even though I opened with a 
disclaimer, I presented a relatively one sided scenario.  Stan merely 
presented the opposite viewpoint.  As I said before, I really find these 
discussions stimulating and fun.  I don't take any of them personally, 
and I don't understand why they should have to spin out of control.  
Democrats & Republicans have to debate in the Senate & House and still 
work together.  If they can do it why can't we?  After all, aren't we 
smarter than most of them?

     By the way, I found your comments very interesting.  Please don't 
leave the list.  Stick around & keep 'em coming.  

Paul
>
>Stan,
>
>The only thing I would agree with your commentary is that there's a lot
>of simplistic logic going on.
>
>I am not going to comment on and on about this since I have been
>chastised in the past for any political view I expressed in joke form.
>It amazes me that this joke sent by Paul, with a disclaimer attached to
>boot, would end up becoming a platform for you to express your political
>views. I think you should keep your commentary to the boats you build.
>If the rest of us are supposed to adhere to some kind of non political
>agenda here, then the least you could do would be to refrain from
>expousing your views.
>
>As to debt, I don't want to pay off someone else's debts. I have plenty
>of my own, thank you. I worked for mine. I started out delivering
>telegrams on a bicycle, worked on the L&N Railroad section gang,  a
>spring factory, and road grader manufacturer as a welders helper before
>my education assisted me in better paying jobs. Like Brad said, I am not
>going to apologize for what I've accumulated over the years.
>
>Someone commented on the fabled double tax and capital gains tax. I
>suppose some people might feel that these taxes affect only the rich.
>But it affects anyone who might want to sell a piece of property, only
>to find that if sold, it would cost them dearly. How many people own
>some kind of Mutual Fund? We had some that lost 40% of their value, but
>we had to pay capital gains on them. Aint that great?
>
> When times are tough, we cut back on spending. Something the government
>programs don't seem to do. I'm tired of the guilt trips people lay on us
>because we want to keep more of our money. I find myself paying taxes on
>money I saved and put away once, and it's getting old. I've left the
>list before because of political discussions, but I think I'll stick
>around and stir the pot for a change. Of all people, I have OPINIONS. If
>someone encourages me, I will be able to supply a full diatribe. So
>there.
>
>To Wally, I say, good job in questioning the written word. You are a
>bright light in a dim day.
>To RIK, he don't apologize for you comments. That first comment was just
>not necessary. The second one was better.
>To MJM, hey where are you?
>To Brad, gee, I wish I had said that. But then I'm not quite as well
>off. But I'm not full of envy. Hard work pays off...twice.
>
>Alex
>
>
>General Boats wrote:
>>
>> With the same caveat that Paul posted, here is a reply from the left. =
 Don't
>> read it if it moves you to leave the list.
>>
>> Would it only be so simple as the professor from SD makes it.
>>
>> Just three minor complications -  many more can be contributed by musch=
 wiser
>> economists..
>>
>> a)   50,000,000 of us do not make enough to pay taxes no matter how hard=
 we
>> work - we are just not that smart. So Tax cuts are not a neutral issue. =
 Tax
>> cuts invariably mean tax increases for us. With less revenues, services=
 are
>> diminished.  Cost of education rises. (That is a very costly error - the=
 free
>> GI educational bill of WW 2 got the US economy roaring).  States find
>> themselves in financial holes and have to make up the shortfalls with=
 all sorts
>> of increases like higher sales taxes (which have the same rate no matter=
 what
>> your income), higher real estate taxes - perhaps gas taxes -anything to=
 raise
>> moneys the income tax cuts have taken from them. So tax cuts are a=
 double edge
>> sword that not only help those who need help the least, but at the same=
 time
>> hurt those who need help the most. I know some of you chafe at the idea=
 of
>> someone getting something for nothing.  But those who take advantage of=
 any
>> good nature the government shows are in the minority of good Americans=
 and good
>> policing can wean the freeloaders out. Overkill sooner or later leads to
>> overthrow.   The funny thing about tax cuts is that the very wealthy=
 think they
>> are a mistake.
>>
>> b)   If you step back and see how the rich got rich, with the exception=
 of
>> those who stole it and then bought their way in and those who contributed
>> nothing but happen to be born in the right circle, the majority made it=
 the
>> hard way, they worked for it.  But they were only able to succeed=
 because they
>> had the invaluable assistance of the police man and fireman and milkman=
 (and in
>> my day the iceman) and hosts of others that were needed to create the
>> environment that made the accumulation of wealth possible in the first=
 place.
>> Part of any money due back the high end is really to be shared with their
>> silent partners.  President Roosevelt understood this and pulled the=
 country
>> out of a depression most of you have no inkling of.
>>
>> c)   The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial pointing out that while our=
 current
>> leader says we should cut taxes because it is their own money we are=
 giving
>> back to them, he skips saying it is also their debt.  Yet it was and is=
 the
>> very creating of the debt that paved the way for the accumulation of=
 wealth.
>> But somehow when it comes to who should pay for the debt, that becomes a=
 non
>> progressive burden.  We are taught that when we have money we should pay=
 off
>> our debts and instead our leaders cut taxes - all the interest that=
 could have
>> been saved could have paid for the next war.  What a shame.
>>
>> Since no one is reading this I'll stop here.  But for the simplistic=
 logic of
>> our good professor, there are many other avenues of challenge.
>>
>> stan/gbi
>>
>> Rik Sandberg wrote:
>>
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > Yeah, I printed that one out. Think I'll frame it and hang it on the=
 wall
>> > in my office. We had that happen in Minnesota the last couple of years=
 when
>> > they did a sales tax rebate. People that were living off welfare or=
 other
>> > gov't programs were all bitching 'cause they didn't get any money back.
>> > It's amazing how they can translate paying nothing into less of a=
 benefit
>> > to them than paying less is to someone else. To top it off, it seem=
 there
>> > really is a fool born every minute, so there's a lot of them out=
 there. :-)
>> >
>> > Rik
>> >
>> > At 08:00 AM 1/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>> > >Before you read this, it is a commentary on taxes & politics.  It is=
 just
>> > >one guy's opinion (not even necessarily mine) so don't go crazy with=
 this
>> > >& start a war.  If you don't like this kind of stuff, delete it now=
 and
>> > >don't read it. - Paul
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >A VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does
>> > >
>> > >make you think!!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that=
 every
>> > >day,
>> > >
>> > >ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they
>> > >paid
>> > >
>> > >their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth=
 would
>> > >pay
>> > >
>> > >$1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth
>> > >$18,
>> > >
>> > >and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the=
 restaurant
>> > >
>> > >every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one=
 day,
>> > >the
>> > >
>> > >owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
>> > >the
>> > >
>> > >cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost
>> > >$80.00.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So=
 the
>> > >
>> > >first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But=
 what
>> > >
>> > >about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up=
 the
>> > >$20
>> > >
>> > >windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
>> > >
>> > >subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the=
 sixth
>> > >man
>> > >
>> > >would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant 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
>> > >paid
>> > >
>> > >nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid
>> > >$9,
>> > >
>> > >the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead=
 of
>> > >his
>> > >
>> > >earlier $59.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four=
 continued
>> > >to
>> > >
>> > >eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to=
 compare
>> > >
>> > >their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the=
 sixth
>> > >man,
>> > >
>> > >but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!". "Yeah, that's right,"=
 exclaimed
>> > >
>> > >the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that=
 he
>> > >got
>> > >
>> > >seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why
>> > >
>> > >should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the
>> > >breaks!".
>> > >
>> > >Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get
>> > >anything
>> > >
>> > >at all.  The system exploits the poor!"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he
>> > >didn't
>> > >
>> > >show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But=
 when it
>> > >
>> > >came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was=
 very
>> > >
>> > >important. They were FIFTY TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Imagine that!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how=
 the
>> > >
>> > >tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
>> > >benefit
>> > >
>> > >from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being=
 wealthy,
>> > >and
>> > >
>> > >they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave
>> > >the
>> > >
>> > >rest?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp=
 this
>> > >
>> > >rather straight-forward logic!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >T. Davies
>> > >
>> > >Professor of Accounting &Chair,
>> > >
>> > >Division of Accounting and Business Law
>> > >
>> > >The University of South Dakota
>> > >
>> > >School of Business


========================
Paul Grandholm
C&H Technology
GrandPower Components Div.
========================