posted 10-15-2004 04:05 PM         

I was having lunch at PJ's with one of my favourite
clients last week and the conversation turned to the
government's recent round of tax cuts.
"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college
instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich.
The rich get much more money back than ordinary
taxpayers like you and I and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued,
"so it stands to reason that they'd get more money
back."

I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this
meager argument. Even college instructors are a
prisoner of the myth that the "rich" somehow get
a free ride. Nothing could be further
from the truth.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that everyday 10 men go to PJ's for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the
way we pay our taxes, the first four men 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.

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day
and seemed quite happy with the arrangement
until 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. Now
dinner for the 10 only costs $80.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for
free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the
$20 savings among the remaining six so that
everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is
$3.33, but if they subtract that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would end up being paid to
eat their meal. 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 $59. Outside
the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

"I only got a dollar out the $20," declared the sixth
man pointing to the tenth, "and he 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 man 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
something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls 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. There are lots of good
restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PCR CAT:
THIS IS THE ONE YOU PICKED AS A PROMISE NOT BROKEN.YES.BUT TO BENIFIT WHO. IM ONLY DEBATING ON THE SUBJECT THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED TO ME. I THINK THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE FEW THAT HE FOLLOWED THROUH WITH. TELL ME IS THIS AS GOOD AS IT GETS,OR DO WE HAVE MORE OF THESE GREAT PROMISES TO ENDURE. I STILL STAND. ONLY BENIFITS ONE GROUP. GREAT PROMISE DONT YOU THINK?

---

Product of public school, huh?

Uhhh, I can see you are never going to get it. EVERYONE THAT PAYS TAXES, GOT A TAX CUT. You still keep harping on "this one party" that benefits from this but what you fail to see is that EVERYONE got a tax break. So that is NOT a broken promise.

NEXT!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PCR CAT:
I BELIVE WE ALL PAY OUR FAIR SHARE. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW TO EXERCISE HOW TO USE THE TAX SYSTEM TO BENIFIT PAYING THE LEAST AMT OF TAX DONT WE? LOWER /MIDDLE/UPPER??? WE ALL WANT THE MOST DONT WE? WHO HAS THE UPPER HAND IN THIS?

---

Sounds like everyone does.

I think we all forget too that the economy took it's hit UNDER the Clinton administration AND, after 9/11, crumbled even further. Is this either Bush's fault or the republican's? No. Interesting comparison to "Cause and Effect" can be learned from looking back at Harley Davidson and the "evil nemisis" AMF Corporation. AMF was great with bowling balls and sporting equipment and eyed HD To expand their liesure sports "reach". HD just before this was teetering on the verge of extinction with no funding to carry forward. After years under AMF, the employees said "enough was enough" and took over HD for themselves. The "majority" actually, and wrongly blaimed AMF for HD's near extinction and crappy products .. but you see, they were already in the pipeline when AMF bough them and as we all know, change in a big company happens slowly. So after years of cash infussion and corrective action things started to turn around, and after the employees took over HD and ousted AMF, the progress was noted and Kudos to the new regime and "see I told you so's" to AMF for "Almost ruining HD. Same thing in politics ... I don't think Clinton did anything for us personally except do what Democrats tend to; raise taxes. Just like post-AMF HD, it has taken Bush and the current government to "correct" what was wrong, dig out from the recession that begun under Clinton and the sad events of 9/11 that maybe could have been avoided under his watch too had he taken a stronger and yes, military stance over seas. I really think a Bush re-election WILL keep the economy flourishing, WILL keep the stock market from retreating (as many think it will under Kerry - he will improve bond market but not stocks), WILL keep terrorism on the defensive and off our shores.

Loss of work is a very traumatic thing for anyone, specially whne they are supporting a family. I have many a friend that lost work this past four years (a few at Nortel) and it took a while to become reemployed. They did learn to be less greedy however, as should anyone seeking a job. Why does outsourcing occur at all? Because the work can be done cheaper by someone else or somewhere else (tax benefit discussions aside) who IS hungry for the money and the employment. It's a vicous cirlce and I admire those that can start up small companies and flourish on their own without the dependance of "thinkers" at the top. BUT watch out, Kerry will be hiking YOUR taxes to fund his fairy tale plans and you may feel the pinch as do the corporate giants. We need YOU guys to help in the creation of jobs for those that fall between entry level and corporate America.

Lastly, I certainly pray for Cheney's daughter, specially after being mentioned by Kerry in debate #3 ... for we all know what happened to Christopher Reeves ("a very good friend of mine") after Kerry mentioned him in Debate #2. If the Gay community doesn't see Kerry for the manipulator that he is and support the Bush/Cheney camp, then God help them.

It WILL be an interesting election that is for sure, and as someone else stated, the lawyers are circling to challenge or defend a Democratic loss/victory. And don't forget the selfless Reverand Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow of PUSH ... the poor disenfranchised black voter ... how on Earth can they vote without all his help and direction? I thought voting in America is a right and a privledge and if we honor that right and privledge and think our vote is important, then it is up to each one of us to make sure we know where to vote, when to vote and HOW to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PCR CAT:
OH SCHOOLING? YOU CANT FACE THE FACT WHAT FAIR MEANS.AN ALSO CANT ANSWER IN JUST A LITTLE DETAIL HOW THIS IS SO GREAT. HUMMM I WONDER WHAT RETURN Y WELL MAYBE ANOTHER DAY ON THIS. AGAIN THANKS FOR THE GREAT PROMISE I FORGOT ABOUT.POSSIBLY YOU HAVE SWAYED MY THOUGHTS.

---

What isn't fair about it?

Let's say the tax cut is 10% (to simplify this). If you are making $50K a year, you save 10%. Now the guy that is making $500K a year, also saves 10%. What is not fair about that? Each saves 10%, right?

Now the typical democrat response to this is, "it's not the same because he makes more". So we are to tax people who are successful more? (we already do, BTW).

True, he'd be saving $50K while you would only be saving $5K BUT, he probably is still paying $100K in taxes while you'd be paying $10K (if we used an across the board 20% which we know isn't set up in the system that way. Folks that make more, pay a higher percentage)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PCR CAT:
WELL, THIS HAS BEEN FUN. YELLOW CAT, I HOPE I HAVENT UPSET YOU. IM NOT READY TO VOTE FOR ANYBODY JUST YET. NOT CONVINCED ON EITHER.BUT IM INTERESTED IN YACKING WITH OTHERS TO SEE WHERE THEY STAND. IM NEW TO THIS GROUP AND WISH EVERYONE WELL. BEST REGARDS TO ALL PCR CAT.

---

Not upset, just have to get home to the wife and kiddos for the day.

posted 10-15-2004 09:32 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by YellowFever:
What isn't fair about it?

Let's say the tax cut is 10% (to simplify this). If you are making $50K a year, you save 10%. Now the guy that is making $500K a year, also saves 10%. What is not fair about that? Each saves 10%, right?

Now the typical democrat response to this is, "it's not the same because he makes more". So we are to tax people who are successful more? (we already do, BTW).

True, he'd be saving $50K while you would only be saving $5K BUT, he probably is still paying $100K in taxes while you'd be paying $10K (if we used an across the board 20% which we know isn't set up in the system that way. Folks that make more, pay a higher percentage)

---

The only truly fair tax system (although it wouldn't work) is a poll tax where everyone pays exactly the same amount regardless of what you make. It is like buying something at the store - do they ask you your salary before they give you the price - No. It's the same price for everyone regardless of what you make. Can you imagine what outrage would take place if stores starting charging like the government does. Everyone gets the same service regardless of what they pay so they should pay the same. Does the guying paying $100,000 in taxes get any better service than the guy paying $0. no. Does he get to the front of the health care line - do the fire trucks come quicker - does he get better police service.

A poll tax would never work but I find it hard to believe than anyone could possibly argue that it isn't the fairest system. A flat tax is the next fairest system.

posted 10-19-2004 06:07 AM         

So only vote for Bush if you want the war on terror to continue until it is rid, if you want lower taxes, and if you want less government interference in your life.

posted 10-19-2004 08:37 AM         

I CAN NOT protect them from terrorists or rogue dictators/nations.

I strongly believe that Bush/Cheney have the best plan for our nation's security.

All other issues are secondary to me. What good is free health care, a great economy, etc., etc. if any of my family members are killed or injured by those out to challenge our freedoms and way of life. Some call this the "fear factor", I prefer to call it the fundamental fact.

posted 10-21-2004 02:32 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ed monahan:
I just heard that Kerry is blaming W for the lack of flu vaccine. Pathetic. Throw him a football and film it.

---

What they fail to mention is the fact two democrats (charlie Rangle and another) tried recently to pass a draft bill that would require a draft.

The Republicans soundly defeated it. Rangle didn't even vote for it. It was all a ploy to say, "See President Bush wants a draft"