How dare the Elite 1% get all the breaks!!!

The ratios are pretty accurate; 10% of the taxpayers pay 60% of the taxes; 30% pay 37%, and 60% collectively pay only 4%.
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive; they owed $100 for the food that they shared.
Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register to pay the bill.
The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1.
The sixth man, feeling a little put out, paid $3.
The next three men paid $7, $12, and $18 respectively.
The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59 (59%). He realized he was paying for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men.
The ten men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80.
This clearly would not affect the first four men; they still ate for free.
The fifth man announced he would now pay nothing either.
The sixth man lowered his contribution by 1/3 and paid only $2.
The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid only $5.
The eighth man paid $9 instead of his usual $12. The ninth man paid $12, $6 less than before. This left the last man with a bill of $52.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt.
The sixth man yelled: "I got only $1 out of the $20 in cost reduction, and he got $7," pointing at the last man.
The fifth man joined in: "Yeah! I only saved $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a reduction of $7 when I only got $2?"
The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "Even though we weren't paying anything in the first place, we didn't get any of the $20 reduction in cost; where is our share?"
The nine angry men then carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him.
The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

Cute analogy but sadly it overlooks the fact that the wealthy recieve more from the government.


Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off, of course, ship their offspring off to private schools. So perhaps they don't benefit from public education? But they do: their companies rely on a well-educated public. If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts. You'll soon find that low wages don't make up for uneducated workers.

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 billion in total expenditures, or to the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries--airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year--billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

No offense, but I've never heard such warped logic.
Ever.

Wealthy have more to defend? Are you saying that rich kids' lives are worth more than poor kids lives?

And you talk about the working class as if they're insignificant: Good schools are important so the rich guy's company can hire educated employees.

Give me a break!
Not only is that post warped, it's offensive to working Americans, whose lives you devalue and whose importance you belittle.

Spiney, you're too good of a person to have meant what you seemed to imply, so I'll chaulk it up to mispeaking in order to make a point.
But your point reeks of hating wealthy people.

I don't usually weigh in on these kind of threads but this issue really bothers me. If I understand it, the latest change to taxes will increase earned income credit. Now, if a family is returned more from their taxes than they payed in why is that considered a tax return? Why don't they call it what it is? Welfare!

I don't believe in socialism. I believe everyone should reap what they sow. Through hard work, acceptance of risk and sometimes just plain old luck, there are always going to be people who have more than others. Life ain't fair.

Taking from those that have and giving it to those that have not is just wrong. As long as people know that they will receive something for nothing they will do nothing. Sad, but why should that be the problem of honest hard working people?

Well stated.

"""Wealthy have more to defend? Are you saying that rich kids' lives are worth more than poor kids lives?"""

No, but their homes, cars and bank accounts are. If you were in an invading army bent on a little pillaging, who's house are you stopping at first, Tailgater's or Bill Gaters?


""And you talk about the working class as if they're insignificant: Good schools are important so the rich guy's company can hire educated employees."""

Not ment as an insult. Feel free to ask any HR person which he would rather have to pick from, a pool of well educated people or poorly educated people. Who do you want working for your company?

"""Not only is that post warped, it's offensive to working Americans, whose lives you devalue and whose importance you belittle."""

Being one of those working americans, I feel in no way devalued or belittled by this. How am I belittling anyone?

"""Spiney, you're too good of a person to have meant what you seemed to imply, so I'll chaulk it up to mispeaking in order to make a point. But your point reeks of hating wealthy people. """

I'm not sure what it is you think I'm implying......

I have said it before, I do not begrudge the wealthy their money. I do not hate wealthy people. I wish them all the happiness the world has to offer. What I object to is the disproportinate influance they have over our political system.

You say the 40% at the bottom should just work harder. I say lets first make it a truely level playing field where a Mcdonalds fry cook has the same access to their elected officials as the CEO of GM.

now maybe im just a stupid kid....but can SOMEONE PLEASE explain to me why a flat tax rate doesnt compensate for all of this crap?? i mean c'mon, you reap what you sow...you make more, you pay more, PROPORTIONATLY

Well said tailgater. That was one of the most fitting analogies I have ever read. Sadly, I don’t have time to respond to Spiney’s comments. Maybe another time...

Spiney Uh....forget it....I need to relax....

Mag

Spiney,
The bottom 40% DO have the same access to our politicians.

You may have heard of it.

It has no class differential. No financial bias. Not even any racial discrimination.

It's called a "VOTE".

And we each get ONE.

I think the system works pretty well.

The inventors of capitalism and our founding fathers knew that they were going to have to appease the lower classes somewhat in order to get them to buy into it. As far as lobbies go, the lower and middle classes have some powerful ones of their own such as labor and teacher's unions.

As far as the rich are concerned, there are many legal methods and loopholes they can employ in order to keep from paying taxes. I have second-hand knowledge of some real beauties. You got to be creative. I, myself am striving to one day be in a position to use such methods.

Oh, and Gator...

In response to your original post, many times have I had to pick up the slack for my poorer friends without remorse. I've often had to bribe them in order to get them to go out because, due to lack of funds, they would've normally just stayed home.

The difference is, the entire U.S. lower class are not my friends!

bigjordo,

If you're referring to Steve Forbes proposed flat tax, there was a major flaw. It has to do with another one of those legal tax evading methods I refered to in the above post. He wanted to eliminate the mortgage interest exemption without any real method of compensation.

That brings to mind another nice perk brought about during the Clinton administration. For your primary residence, after owning it for 2 years you are exempt from capital gains tax, $250K for a single and $500K for a married couple. My aunt does that as a business. Buys a home. Puts in some sweat equity. Lives in it for 2 years and cashes out tax free. That works if you are in a position where it is easy to move every 2 years like she is. All her boys are long gone.

According to the Federal Election Commission, the
Democratic and Republican parties raised $1.2 billion
in the 1999-2000 election cycle, a 36 percent increase
over the 1995-96 total of $881 million. The increase is
particularly dramatic in party soft money fund-raising.
Democrats raised $243.1 million in soft money for the
2000 elections, a whopping 99 percent increase over
their 1995-96 total of $122.3 million. Republicans didn’t
do much worse, raising $244.4 million in soft money
for 2000, up from $141.2 for 1996, an increase of 73
percent.

Now tell me Congressman Tailgater,

Being up for re-election this year, Whose invitation are you likely to accept. Bowling in Newark then Burger and fries discussing the important issues facing that Fry cook or Golf in Bermuda followed by Steak and Lobster discussing the issues facing the CEO? Which of your constituants are you going to appease, the Fry Cook and his 1 vote or the CEO and his 500K check

How about we make the candidiates pay for elections WITHOUT contributions. Out of pocket, no help from Corp America or any other twisted faction. That way I dont have to look at/hear 2 months of drivel from candidates on what proposed "issues" they will address, fix, eleminate, handle, or what an **** the other guy is/ was/ will be,yadda yadda yadda. In other words listen to their B.S. and hollow promises during TV sporting events. That way they might actually start to give a rats ass about what is really going on in this country and not just care about issues concerning who "BOUGHT" them the office.

Peace Out
BD

There are 1st amendment issues here. We offer our voice with our wallets, big and small. That way our candidate is somewhat sympathetic to our wants and desires and not just his/her own. Again, the poor and middle class have powerful lobbies as well. A teacher friend of mine believes that the teacher's union is responsible for our public education woes. He says it is such a slack job yet the teachers are always complaining and wanting more cake. Well, who can blame 'em. Everyone wants more cake. I want my summers off too.

Spiny!! What kind of rope are you smokin!!?? I didn't read the whole post, I'll go back and do so after this, but when I read down to here, my jaw dropped open and I said "OH MY GOD!!"

" Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend”

Now I appreciate the fact that you’re liberal and have different views, but let’s be reasonable!! Are you implying that I should pay less for police support because I have a wife and only 1 child than say someone who has a wife a 5 children? Because they benefit more from police protection? That analogy stands up to the point you’re trying to make here doesn’t it? Isn’t that ludicrous? I mean, you can be a redistributionist without this kind of statement, I mean, really!! This is hilarious!! I must read the rest of this thread now, sorry, that was so shocking and so ridiculous that I just had to stop there.

This is literally “unbelievable” Spiny, I’m sorry, I mean no disrespect, but seriously dude, you need to rethink your position…

“Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.”

“The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel”,

Aren’t the interstates paid for by gas taxes? Can someone drive more than one car at a time? How does having money mean you’re benefiting more from the Interstates than not having money? What about semi’s filled with cartoons of cool cigarettes and cases of Schlitz malt liquor?

The last time I checked, you can only drive one car at a time…

‘As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off.’

Spiny, schools are paid for by property taxes. Better property, more taxes, better schools, and perhaps more involved parents?

There are countries around the world where people do not have the chance to "get rich"... Here you can, some people feel that's not fair. You can disguise it, call it by different names, play games with statistics, etc... But socialism is socialism. Communism is communism. And it's a proven killer of countries and incentive and innovation and freedom and and and...

Spiny, please tell me you were just saying 90% of this for reaction only?

I'm with you Robby, I want to get rich. Glad I have the opportunity.

Yes Robby, as a "cut n paste", it is a stretch. but no more a stretch then then original post. (another cut and paste).

This issue just isnt that simplistic. (I wish it were)

. I personally think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I do think we are all overtaxed and if we cut half of the pork, and wasteful welfare programs , (corporate and otherwise) we would all (rich, poor and middle class) have more in our pockets.

I truely believe that the heart of problem lies in campaign finance. Republicans and Democrats are going to return the most to those thay got them there and will help keep them there. They are not making decisions based on whats best for the country as a whole but on narrow segments of their constituancy. The Republicans have wealthy supporters who want to pay less into it and the Democrats have supporters who want more out of it. (Human nature I guess). Just two sides of the same coin to me.

I believe that even if taxes are cut on a federal level, that the states, counties and towns will increase their taxes to make up the differance. (Kind of an ugly joke we play on ourselves.)

I'm sorry I wasn't able to get back to this thread sooner. Been an ugly day here at work.

-Spiny