[Rhodes22-list] Re: Hats off to Elton

Hank hnw555 at gmail.com
Tue May 23 10:22:25 EDT 2006


Stan,

The following is an explanation of the tax cuts that was sent to me by my
uncle.  Read it and let me know what you think.

Hank

This is a good explanation of how our current Progressive (read that
"Liberal") system of income taxes really works!

President Bush pushed through a tax cut.

Democrats (Liberals) screamed: "It's a tax cut for the rich!"

Really? Let's take a closer look: Suppose that every day, ten men go out for
dinner. The total bill for all ten comes to exactly $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay ourtaxes, 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 ate dinner in the restaurant
every day, 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 meal by $20."

Dinner 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 eat 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 eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same percentage, 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
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.

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 and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man 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
something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for
even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, Democrats, and Liberal 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 eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

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

On 5/23/06, stan <stan at rhodes22.com> wrote:
>
> see Philip, don't you feel better now
>
> what a country - we can disagree and not only not kill each other but
> still
> appreciate each other
>
> but , now that you brought it up, I think you will soon find that what
> looks
> like treasury revenues are up, is creative accounting in the worst way -
> and
> that Bush, as the only president who cut taxes (and for most part for the
> high enders) during a war, will be proven not to be as correct as all our
> other presidents who figured it best to not cut taxes during a war.
>
> at any rate, as a prehistoric hangover - even if I come back with
> Shirley's
> help as a 20 year old, they would not get me to go over there unless the
> country was willing to be joining the battle over here. I am afraid I
> still
> cling to the old fashioned notion that if it is worth fighting over, then
> let's do it right.  And if it is not worth doing it right, let's not do it
> at all just because it would only be disturbing other life styles instead
> of
> our own comfortable life style
>
> thanks for your views
>
> stan/gbi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <recon at iwon.com>
> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Re: Hats off to Elton
>
>
> > I have to reply, though I swore I was going to stay out of it.  Every
> > soldier who serves today is a Volunteer.  Me included (through not
> having
> > resigned or having joined, it doesn't matter)  That is why there is no
> > massive anti-war protests.  People who go, go for their own reasons.  I
> do
> > tell anyone who asks about joining that they will, most likely end up
> over
> > there at least once, if not more (and I recommend they go to school and
> > remain a civilian). Why are Treasury revenues UP since this
> administration
> > cut taxes (much like Kennedy's and Reagan's administrations)?  I know,
> > it's a rhetorical question. I don't think we should have gone into Iraq.
> > There are many other places that deserve our attention more, but I can
> see
> > the national and strategic reasons for doing it.   I don't see how
> making
> > the rest of the country suffer is going to make things any better.  It
> > will politicize the war more than the liberals have already.  One major
> > advantage Iraq has given us is the quiet
> > success of Afghanistan.  No one notices much so things generally get
> done
> > there. There, that's my piece.   Philip Still on active duty.,,,,,,
> ---
> > On Sun 05/21, stan &lt; stan at rhodes22.com &gt; wrote:
> > From: stan [mailto: stan at rhodes22.com]To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.orgDate
> :
> > Sun, 21 May 2006 11:51:19 -0400Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Re: Hats off
> > to EltonEd,you know I love you.but you're wrong in that I forget
> little.if
> > you want to take out Iran, or Iraq or any other anti liberal-democracy
> > regimes, I may very well be with you - specially after reading all of
> > Brad's arguments - but with one provisoIf you think it is worth going to
> > war over, make it a war. I think maybe it is you who forget that having
> a
> > war there, while having a party here, has already been proven not to
> work.
> > Ask presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson. They all tried the bullets
> and
> > butter thing and it did not work. Put the country on a war footing.
> > Nationalize whatever must be nationalized. Stop sending young people to
> > their death at such low wages while fat cats here go on getting
> > unconsciously huge retirement deals and yachts so big even they cannot
> > afford to fill their tanks. If you run short of money or
> > gas or materials - ration them. This is the Only president in history
> who
> > has actually cut taxes during a war. What a leader. What a military
> > commander. He know the guys to get rid of like Collin.You want war - go
> to
> > war - the right way. Been there, done that ......and it works.stan&gt
> ;&gt;
> > Dami it, I got Stan mad at me again. However, it was good to see him on
> > &gt;&gt; the&gt;&gt; list. Bad mood and no response from Dan in New
> > Hamshire. Hum, did Elton&gt;&gt; take the wrong road. Did Elton take
> I-95
> > all the way to end?&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; What Stan forgets is that Saddam was
> > the guy paying the suicide guys &gt;&gt; blowing&gt;&gt; up kids and
> > anybody in Isreal. So they have the same religious jerks in&gt;&gt;
> Iraq.
> > Just like the the head fellow in Iran. I am sorry, I just do not&gt;&gt;
> > want anymore of those jerks over here. The Twin towers were enough for
> > &gt;&gt; me.&gt;&gt; And yes Stan I volunteered for military service and
> > served my four years&gt;&gt; active and two years
> > ready reserve.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Sorry to upset you Sir Stanley. I just do
> > not really believe that &gt;&gt; turning&gt;&gt; the other cheek will
> stop
> > evil people. I have had the real and &gt;&gt; unfortunate&gt;&gt;
> > experience of dealing with pathologically evil people, and they
> > were&gt;&gt; Americans.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Ed K&gt;&gt; Greenville,
> > SC, USA&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> > __________________________________________________Use
> > Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list