100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Tax Cuts for the Rich ? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
let's take a look at who really benefits from tax cuts...
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics 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. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, 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. "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. 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 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 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 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 $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 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 and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you really expect people to cope with the reality described in the OP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you really expect people to cope with the reality described in the OP?  hell yea! but I couldn't cope with reality too. sooo...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let's take a look at who really benefits from tax cuts... Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics 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. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, 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. "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. 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 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 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 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 $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 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 and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean. completely left out of this is what each man actually CONSUMED,,,, is the assumption they all ate equally as hardy, from the first man to the tenth? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seeing that all appetites are different...let's assume that everyone ate there " fair share " ( God I hate that term )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Mon 07/02/12 07:54 AM
|
|
let's take a look at who really benefits from tax cuts... Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics 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. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, 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. "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. 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 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 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 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 $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 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 and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.  Sort of like,"Account Overdrawn"! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seeing that all appetites are different...let's assume that everyone ate there " fair share " ( God I hate that term ) ok, consuming a 'fair' share,, indicates an equality that doesnt really exist in real time economic standards,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seeing that all appetites are different...let's assume that everyone ate there " fair share " ( God I hate that term ) That term is an oxy for liberal morons. Like toddlers. Gimme, gimme, gimme. The able need to grow up and out of that welfare mentality before it becomes an addicksion. One day, Tax Payers may also revolt and the tit will dry up. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wont matter if its an addiction
five years per lifetime is all anyone gets anymore,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wont matter if its an addiction five years per lifetime is all anyone gets anymore,,, BS. Families with kids up to the age of 26 can receive Food Stamps and Medicaid. Some states. it's as old as 29. What the hell is a 26 year old kid????? That's a bit longer than five years. And I ain't all that edgemacated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
completely left out of this is what each man actually CONSUMED,,,, is the assumption they all ate equally as hardy, from the first man to the tenth? Ok say the first five had a steak baked potato and salad and a coke, 6,7,8 had double cheeseburger, fries, and a sprite, 9, 10 have a hamburger and a water? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
completely left out of this is what each man actually CONSUMED,,,, is the assumption they all ate equally as hardy, from the first man to the tenth? Ok say the first five had a steak baked potato and salad and a coke, 6,7,8 had double cheeseburger, fries, and a sprite, 9, 10 have a hamburger and a water? than they should pay for what they actually consumed easy peasy whats not easy,, is determining in real time, how much someones 'efforts' should be worth, much more difficult than putting a price on a products,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just want them to take me to lunch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just want them to take me to lunch! hmm, does that make you liberal? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just want them to take me to lunch! hmm, does that make you liberal? I am SO liberal that some of my views are too extreme for many liberals. I am SO liberal that I'll let whomever pays pick the restaurant!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah haaaaaaaaaa...it was 5 years since 1994 when the Republicans forced Clintons hand after he vetoed it twice...but...in ObamaCare...theres'a little provision that once again makes " welfare " an open ended proposition...look it up...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several states also have waivers that would allow recipients to exceed the five-year time limit. Moreover, many state waivers guarantee a job after five years or provide for the continuation of benefits if no job is found.
Even without the waivers, few welfare recipients will actually be affected by the time limits. Most welfare recipients use the program for far less than five years and would never fall under the five-year limit. What about the small proportion of hard-core welfare recipients who do remain in the program for more than five years? That is the group that the time limit targeted. Yet, once again, exemptions limit the bill's effectiveness. For example, the time-limit provision does not apply to about 17 percent of the current welfare caseload: minor children, but not their parents, who are receiving assistance. A substantial portion of that group is children who are U.S. citizens born to noncitizen parents. In addition, states are allowed to exempt up to an additional 20 percent of recipients from the five-year limit for hardship reasons. Furthermore, the time-limit provision applies to only 4 of the nearly 80 federal welfare programs. A person who exceeds the five-year limit and has her cash benefits cut off would still be eligible for a host of federal welfare benefits, including food stamps; Medicaid; public housing; Supplemental Security Income; the Women, Infants, and Children health and nutrition program; free school lunches; and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1Affordable Care Act: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Public Law 111-148 as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152.
This proposed rule would also amend Medicaid regulations consistent with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, which amended the Act to provide authority for a 5-year duration for certain demonstration projects or waivers under the Act, at the discretion of the Secretary, when they involve individuals dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare benefits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let's take a look at who really benefits from tax cuts... Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics 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. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, 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. "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. 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 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 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 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 $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 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 and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean. completely left out of this is what each man actually CONSUMED,,,, is the assumption they all ate equally as hardy, from the first man to the tenth? If I am not mistaken, the OP assumes equal consumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let's take a look at who really benefits from tax cuts... Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics 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. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, 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. "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. 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 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 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 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 $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 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 and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean. completely left out of this is what each man actually CONSUMED,,,, is the assumption they all ate equally as hardy, from the first man to the tenth? If I am not mistaken, the OP assumes equal consumption. thats where the analogy is flawed,,,, |
|
|
|
|
