Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (67783)	1/22/2003 5:15:49 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Simplified Tax 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.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. "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 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 $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. He pointed to the tenth. "But 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 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 something important. They were $52 short! 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. Moral: There are lots of good restaurants elsewhere.

To: JohnM who wrote (67783)	1/22/2003 5:16:48 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Blair nailes it John... Tony Blair's finest hours January 22, 2003 townhall.com LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is no Margaret Thatcher, but he sounded like her clone when he took to the floor of the House of Commons last Wednesday (Jan. 15) during the weekly Question Time and gave a spirited defense for the necessity of toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Responding to criticism of Blair's Iraqi policy from within his own party, as well as from the Conservative opposition, Blair delivered a formidable oration that combined the intense anti-Communist rhetoric of Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and a substance reminiscent of Winston Churchill's warning about a "gathering storm " created by another dictator in the last century. Blair was asked by Member of Parliament Dennis Skinner whether, during his forthcoming meeting with President Bush in Washington, he will "tell George Bush that there is almost certainly a majority of the British people against the idea of a war with Iraq. Will he (cq) tell him that a lot of the British people are against the war because they see it is all about America getting its hands on the oil supplies in the Middle East? " Skinner added the familiar slander that this President Bush is vain and is "concerned more about finishing the job that his father failed to complete 10 years ago." Leaping to his feet, Blair responded that if oil were the reason for war with Iraq, "it would be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam, who would ... be delighted to give us access to as much oil as we wanted if he could carry on building weapons of mass destruction. The very reason why we are taking the action we are taking (has) nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward. It (has) to do with one simple fact: the United Nations has laid down - indeed, it has been laying down for 10 years - that Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons, and I believe that we have to make sure that the will of the United Nations is upheld." So much for getting one more U.N. resolution, as some have requested. What good would another resolution do when Saddam has failed to heed all the others? Later, Blair returned to the subject in response to another member's call to allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to "do their job" and that member's contention that if President Bush takes "unilateral action against Iraq, he will be defying the United Nations." Blair said, "... the only reason we have U.N. weapons inspectors back in there is the firm stand that has been taken. Does anyone seriously believe that we would have U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq if there were a possibility of disarmament happening in a peaceful way? Does anyone really believe that they would be there if we had not sent the clearest possible signal?" Then came the Churchillian part: "It is also important ... to ensure that we continue to send that signal of strength. If Saddam believes for a single instant that the will of the international community has abated - that the international community does not have the solidity of purpose that it needs to see this thing through - the consequences of either conflict or prolonged conflict are increased .... If we can avoid conflict we should, but the choice is Saddam's .... Does anyone believe that, if we do not take a stand as an international community now in respect to weapons of mass destruction, some terrorist group is not in the future going to get hold of that material and use it? " Blair added ominously, "... the threat is real, and if we do not deal with it the consequences of our weakness will haunt future generations." The British press is awash in breathtakingly virulent anti-American rhetoric because of U.S. policy on Iraq. President Bush is mocked as an ignoramus, and America is excoriated in ways usually reserved for enemies, not friends. Into this breach has marched Blair, who has been a consistent supporter of the president's policies, because he knows terrorism also affects Britain, which is now home to an unknown number of terrorists who wish his nation as much harm as they do the United States. Blair's steadfastness has been his finest hour. One can hear Lady Thatcher giving a "hear, hear!" for his not "going wobbly."

To: JohnM who wrote (67783)	1/22/2003 5:52:09 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

John, You are big on this class thing. Define it, please. [on soapbox] My dad was a Msgt in the USAF. I went to school on the GI Bill and now through very hard work am under attack by the likes of you on of all things a class issue. And as a white working in the south - many northern liberals (and I use that word derisively) assume bigotry. Now somehow the fact that I am an Irish Catholic - and was completely discriminated against until the '60s - is completely forgotten in both fact and law. After all I am a white male, and forced to accept the guilt of all you WASPs. Maybe your ancestors messup up this country and you should volunteer your family to be on a list to give up slots, but this upsets a lot of Americans to no end. A registry for white anglo protestants living in the US before emancipation (or before the civil rigts act) sounds about right. My neighbors and their wives are under attack because they choose to drive SUV's. Your supposed populist views will completely piss off the middle class and anyone above it or hoping to rise above it. No wonder the dems are losing the Soccer mom vote - they drive vans and SUV's. The car pool to school requires one (5-8 seatbelts please). As to this horrible widening income gap - start looking at absolute statistics and not relative. I don't care how much richer some people are than me - as long as I like where I am and where my kids are going. There was a huge discussion on NPR 2 weeks ago on the issue of changing the whole school lunch program. No one is starving - in fact obesity is the big issue - teaching the less educated to eat better was the goal of the social welfare folks on the call. Sure there is a huge income gap between farm workers in WV and Bill Gates, but lets really define poor - would millions of people be coming through our borders each year if this was still Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath era America? The answer is no. During the '30's immigration almost came to a stop. So lets stop pretending the sky is falling and the breadlines are forming. I really don't mind paying my taxes - I mind people telling me that since my refund is more than their refund its not fair. We never get to point out that those in the top 10% pay 90% of taxes from an absolute perspective. That isn't a good soundbite. [off soapbox] John

To: JohnM who wrote (67783)	1/22/2003 10:41:49 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting conversation you had with Maureen, Frank. Any chance you've heard back from her? Well, somebody had to talk back to the old bezom. It really was a very bad article. I agree with Bush about a lot of things and I still could have done a better job of pillorying him. I gather from your comments that our perceptions of inequalities in American society are different, that the sense of urgency about addressing the fact they've been growing during the last 25 to 30 years is different, and our perceptions of the proper means to address them also differs. The "inequalities," as you call them, that US, Canada and EU have found growing to various degrees the last 25 -30 years I believe are mostly the result of misguided social and financial policies. I believe these policies are promoted by those who want to do good and help people. I believe these policies are further made damaging by various local interests who lobby for and get modifications which protect local interests, whatever they are. Generally, defective policies from the "left" are too accommodating of passivity and those of the "right" are too punitive of minor transgression. This is mostly OT to FADG. However, one example of do good policy which is relevant to discussion here is the that of certain European countries putting entering immigrants on welfare right away. This caters to existing poor attitudes in both the receiving and immigrant populations. France and its muslim population is an example and both are paying a terrible price. Dennis O'Bell has posted about this from time to time. The growing "inequalities" are not unique to the US and all find their source in similar fiscal, monetary and social policies. I put "inequalities" in quotation marks because it's too circumscribed. In my view it's not descriptive enough. This much is clear to me. The problem is not 'class' as Dowd uses the word. Lack of opportunity, poor educational access, racism, are not problems of class but are symptoms of policies that don't work as intended. The great emotional or ideological commitment many have to these policies doesn't change their ineffectiveness and doesn't allow space for contemplation of alternatives.