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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (143298)	10/27/2008 11:54:15 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Corporations pay a much smaller share of the pie than ever before. Corporations in a sense pay zero percent, and always have. People pay taxes. The burden of the taxes can in effect be held by the owners, if they just lose profitability, or it can be put on the workers, if they get paid less (including getting smaller raises or smaller benefits), or if they lose their jobs, it can impact the consumers, if they have to pay more for goods, or if goods they would have liked to have are taken off the market (or never sold in the first place) because of the reduced profitability due to the cost imposed by taxes. The other thing is you get dead weight loss, with the total effective cost being larger than the income the government receives. For example if a business shrinks, or doesn't grow as much, because of the costs of corporate taxes, then the owners might make less profit, and some workers won't be hired, and there may be less competition and so consumers may pay more, or not have as much selection. 50% of corporations pay no income tax. And many of those make no money, or lost money in the past and can set current profits off against some of the past losses. We tax profits not revenue. Other types of companies pass the profits and tax liability off to the owner(s) so sure the company pays no taxes, but its owner does. If the 'poor' are not educated or treated when they are sick the 'rich' suffer as well. Sure suffering of the poor can be visited on the rich in a number of ways. But we spend enormous amounts of money to educate and treat the poor. And also again this whole line of argument is totally irrelevant to the claim I am arguing against. It says nothing about the government robbing from the poor to give to the rich. but the rich are getting richer while the middle class shrink At least until the recent economic slowdown (and likely impending recession), the middle class was getting smaller primarily because people where moving upwards from the middle class, not downwards. But it wasn't getting much smaller in any case.

To: geode00 who wrote (143298)	10/28/2008 12:22:55 PM
From: Bill	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar 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 beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $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 drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 drink his beer. So, the bar 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 pay $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 drink 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 I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers 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 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.