[Rhodes22-list] Taxes & Politics

[Alex Bell]

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.
> > >========================
> > >_________________________________________________
> > >Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> 
> _________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list