# Thread: taxes and the wealthy

1. ## taxes and the wealthy

This came across my desk the other day. I'm obviously not rolling in

it, or I might not be here, but I do recognize the relevance of the

snippet. I think a flat tax would be great, because then nobody can

whine about it, and everyone knows just what to expect. Whining, in

any area of life, generates NOTHING positive... Have a great day!

Carole

Bar Room 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, ladies and gentlemen, 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

2. ## taxes and the wealthy

I suppose a flat tax would be sensational if it was

coupled with a flat income. In other words, everyone

earns \$100,000/yr. and is taxed equally on it.

The flat tax is simply more class warfare on the poor

and those who don't earn a living wage. It is a

regressive tax by definition.

The only way we are going to begin to get out of our

economic woes is by mandating a living wage and

increasing taxes on the rich.

Just my opinion, and of course, I would never

complain.

--- Carole Durand <go4awalleye@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This came across my desk the other day. I'm

> obviously not rolling in

> it, or I might not be here, but I do recognize the

> relevance of the

> snippet.

3. ## taxes and the wealthy

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">What WOULD work is if everyone were charged the same percentage. No matter what you earn, you would pay, say 10% or whatever on income tax. If you earn less, you'd pay less...the more you earn, the more you pay, but the same percentage.
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">You'd be amazed how much MORE the government would get that way - the upper class pays about HALF the percentage rate as middle class. If everyone paid the same percentage rate, the government would be rolling in dough.
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">KarenP

<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #008000 2px solid;">
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Benner
To: Budget101_@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Budget101.com : taxes and the wealthy

I suppose a flat tax would be sensational if it was
coupled with a flat income. In other words, everyone
earns \$100,000/yr. and is taxed equally on it.

The flat tax is simply more class warfare on the poor
and those who don't earn a living wage. It is a
regressive tax by definition.

The only way we are going to begin to get out of our
economic woes is by mandating a living wage and
increasing taxes on the rich.

Just my opinion, and of course, I would never
complain.

--- Carole Durand <go4awalleye@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This came across my desk the other day. I'm
> obviously not rolling in
> it, or I might not be here, but I do recognize the
> relevance of the
> snippet.

4. ## taxes and the wealthy

This is probably going to piss a few people off, but Personally I

believe we should do the following:

1. Get Rid of the IRS completely- NO Income taxes at all.

2. Set a Tax on Goods- (exmaple) 5% on everything which goes to the

government for all their programs. That way, no matter what you buy-

you are paying taxes in to the government.

Which means, if you pay 10,000 for a car- you pay 5% tax on it to the

government, if you buy a \$100,000 for a hummer, you pay 5% on it.

Obviously those that are buying in excess will be paying a bit more.

The tax should not include items Fuel, Groceries but should include

Homes, Property, Vehicles, all all goods like TVs, Stereos etc.

Why? Because instead of a few Americans paying in taxes EVERYONE would

be forced to pay taxes.

It would remove the attack against the poor complaints and the attack

against the rich complaints. If you want to buy crap, pay for it.

All the (millions) of illegals in the US would be paying taxes- they'd

have no choice.. they're here, they're going to buy "stuff". Think of

ALL the money that would be generated from the MILLIONS of illegals

Alone!!!

The Pimps, Prostitutes, Drug Dealers that aren't paying any taxes in on

the "Tips" and income they generate would suddenly have to pay. They'd

be paying everytime they bought "bling".

The US would save BILLIONS of dollars by removing the IRS. Think of all

the man hours that would no longer have to be paid and the amount of

stress that people go through filing taxes- the depression

subscriptions that would DROP. Etc etc

If ALL the people in the US paid taxes in this manner, the government

would have More money than they could shake a stick at.

People that are Frugal, that aren't stuck in consumerism hell would be

the ones that paid the least. If you're happy with the things you have

then you'd be saving quite a bit of money, wouldn't you?

Obviously- we live in a society of Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee, we need to

change how the country is run to keep up with the times.

Thats My .02 on Taxes...

~Liss

5. ## taxes and the wealthy

I agree that our government would save lots by getting rid of the

people who work for the IRS, but where are those people going to work?

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Liss <liss@budget101.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> This is probably going to piss a few people off, but Personally I

> believe we should do the following:

>

> 1. Get Rid of the IRS completely- NO Income taxes at all.

>

> 2. Set a Tax on Goods- (exmaple) 5% on everything which goes to the

> government for all their programs. That way, no matter what you buy-

> you are paying taxes in to the government.

>

> Which means, if you pay 10,000 for a car- you pay 5% tax on it to the

> government, if you buy a \$100,000 for a hummer, you pay 5% on it.

> Obviously those that are buying in excess will be paying a bit more.

>

> The tax should not include items Fuel, Groceries but should include

> Homes, Property, Vehicles, all all goods like TVs, Stereos etc.

>

> Why? Because instead of a few Americans paying in taxes EVERYONE would

> be forced to pay taxes.

>

> It would remove the attack against the poor complaints and the attack

> against the rich complaints. If you want to buy crap, pay for it.

>

> All the (millions) of illegals in the US would be paying taxes- they'd

> have no choice.. they're here, they're going to buy "stuff". Think of

> ALL the money that would be generated from the MILLIONS of illegals

> Alone!!!

>

> The Pimps, Prostitutes, Drug Dealers that aren't paying any taxes in on

> the "Tips" and income they generate would suddenly have to pay. They'd

> be paying everytime they bought "bling".

>

> The US would save BILLIONS of dollars by removing the IRS. Think of all

> the man hours that would no longer have to be paid and the amount of

> stress that people go through filing taxes- the depression

> subscriptions that would DROP. Etc etc

>

> If ALL the people in the US paid taxes in this manner, the government

> would have More money than they could shake a stick at.

>

> People that are Frugal, that aren't stuck in consumerism hell would be

> the ones that paid the least. If you're happy with the things you have

> then you'd be saving quite a bit of money, wouldn't you?

>

> Obviously- we live in a society of Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee, we need to

> change how the country is run to keep up with the times.

>

> Thats My .02 on Taxes...

>

> ~Liss

>

>

--

Monique

6. ## taxes and the wealthy

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">Hear Hear!!!!
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">KP
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #008000 2px solid;">
----- Original Message -----
From: Liss
To: Budget101_@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Budget101.com : taxes and the wealthy

This is probably going to piss a few people off, but Personally I
believe we should do the following:

1. Get Rid of the IRS completely- NO Income taxes at all.

2. Set a Tax on Goods- (exmaple) 5% on everything which goes to the
government for all their programs. That way, no matter what you buy-
you are paying taxes in to the government.

Which means, if you pay 10,000 for a car- you pay 5% tax on it to the
government, if you buy a \$100,000 for a hummer, you pay 5% on it.
Obviously those that are buying in excess will be paying a bit more.

The tax should not include items Fuel, Groceries but should include
Homes, Property, Vehicles, all all goods like TVs, Stereos etc.

Why? Because instead of a few Americans paying in taxes EVERYONE would
be forced to pay taxes.

It would remove the attack against the poor complaints and the attack
against the rich complaints. If you want to buy crap, pay for it.

All the (millions) of illegals in the US would be paying taxes- they'd
have no choice.. they're here, they're going to buy "stuff". Think of
ALL the money that would be generated from the MILLIONS of illegals
Alone!!!

The Pimps, Prostitutes, Drug Dealers that aren't paying any taxes in on
the "Tips" and income they generate would suddenly have to pay. They'd
be paying everytime they bought "bling".

The US would save BILLIONS of dollars by removing the IRS. Think of all
the man hours that would no longer have to be paid and the amount of
stress that people go through filing taxes- the depression
subscriptions that would DROP. Etc etc

If ALL the people in the US paid taxes in this manner, the government
would have More money than they could shake a stick at.

People that are Frugal, that aren't stuck in consumerism hell would be
the ones that paid the least. If you're happy with the things you have
then you'd be saving quite a bit of money, wouldn't you?

Obviously- we live in a society of Gimmee, Gimmee, Gimmee, we need to
change how the country is run to keep up with the times.

Thats My .02 on Taxes...

~Liss
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">

7. ## taxes and the wealthy

--- In Budget101_@yahoogroups.com, Monique <motherof1@...> wrote:

>

> I agree that our government would save lots by getting rid of the

> people who work for the IRS, but where are those people going to work?

>

Factories, McDonalds, Walmart, other companies- same as all the rest

of us.

If we stopped giving breaks to corporations over seas, the

corporations would move back to the US and they'd have plenty of damn

jobs here!

If we changed our foreign trade policy we'd have more jobs in the US.

Besides that, if we had a flat tax and people weren't losing \$200-300 a

week out of your check in taxes- they could use that towards Health

Insurance/ Health Care.

This country needs some Common Sense.

~Liss

8. ## taxes and the wealthy

----- Original Message -----

> 1. Get Rid of the IRS completely- NO Income taxes at all.

>

> 2. Set a Tax on Goods- (exmaple) 5% on everything which goes to the

> government for all their programs. That way, no matter what you buy-

> you are paying taxes in to the government.

>

I agree!! However there would still need to be a compliance office to make

sure the sales tax collected is actually remitted to the govt.

Remember that tax laws come from Congress & are often designed to benefit a

certain business (oil, for instance) or a certain group of people. The

rich may pay a lot of income taxes but many are in a position to set their

own salaries which are "grossed up" so they end up with what they actually

want to earn. These are the people who also control wages for everyone

else. Being underpaid is really paying a tax if you think about it.

Nancy, retired CPA

9. ## taxes and the wealthy

I get what you're saying. And, I agree with it for the most part.

But, you're making the assumption that all of these places are hiring.

And, you're making the assumption that people who are making \$15/hour

could afford to work for \$7/hour. I used to manage mickey dee's and

we weren't always hiring.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Liss <liss@budget101.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> --- In Budget101_@yahoogroups.com, Monique <motherof1@...> wrote:

> >

> > I agree that our government would save lots by getting rid of the

> > people who work for the IRS, but where are those people going to work?

> >

>

> Factories, McDonalds, Walmart, other companies- same as all the rest

> of us.

>

> If we stopped giving breaks to corporations over seas, the

> corporations would move back to the US and they'd have plenty of damn

> jobs here!

>

> If we changed our foreign trade policy we'd have more jobs in the US.

>

> Besides that, if we had a flat tax and people weren't losing \$200-300 a

> week out of your check in taxes- they could use that towards Health

> Insurance/ Health Care.

>

> This country needs some Common Sense.

> ~Liss

>

>

>

>

--

Monique

10. ## taxes and the wealthy

> I agree!! However there would still need to be a compliance office

to make

> sure the sales tax collected is actually remitted to the govt.<<

perfect, there ya go, jobs for the IRS ppl...

11. ## taxes and the wealthy

With a flat tax aperson earning less will obviously pay less than a person earning more, however, they will pay substantiallyhigher percentageof their discretionary income, if they even have any. A flat tax is by no means fair. Besides, the difference in overall tax rates (all taxes, not just federal income tax) between various income levels, while there, is not all that huge and until you get to the very few top earners it goes up as income goes up. Lori.
Karen Pierce <karen729@sbcglobal.net> wrote: <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">What WOULD work is if everyone were charged the same percentage. No matter what you earn, you would pay, say 10% or whatever on income tax. If you earn less, you'd pay less...the more you earn, the more you pay, but the same percentage. <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4"> <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">You'd be amazed how much MORE the government would get that way - the upper class pays about HALF the percentage rate as middle class. If everyone paid the same percentage rate, the government would be rolling in dough. <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4"> <FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color="#008000" size="4">KarenP <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #008000 2px solid;"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt
arial;">----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Benner To: Budget101_@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Budget101.com : taxes and the wealthy
I suppose a flat tax would be sensational if it was
coupled with a flat income. In other words, everyone
earns \$100,000/yr. and is taxed equally on it.

The flat tax is simply more class warfare on the poor
and those who don't earn a living wage. It is a
regressive tax by definition.

The only way we are going to begin to get out of our
economic woes is by mandating a living wage
and
increasing taxes on the rich.

Just my opinion, and of course, I would never
complain.

--- Carole Durand <go4awalleye@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This came across my desk the other day. I'm
> obviously not rolling in
> it, or I might not be here, but I do recognize the
> relevance of the
> snippet.

&#32;
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. [/url] "] Try it now.[/url]

12. ## taxes and the wealthy

I agree with Liss!! I compliance office is nothing compared to the monster IRS we have now. How much simpler is it to track a flat percentage tax on luxury items rather than have a team of accountants to navigate the pages and pages of tax law that we currently have. That&#39;s another reason that the rich are benefitted by our current system. They&#39;re the only ones who can afford accountants who can really figure this stuff out! lol
I&#39;m sorry that all the IRS employees would have to find new jobs because this current system is not their fault, but not sorry enough to continue on with this terrible system of tax law. Even if the government paid them 6 months to a year of severance and gave them help in finding new jobs (which you know they would) it would be a small cost to pay in the long run for a better system that is cheaper to run.

The only problem is that our government will never get enough people in the legislature to agree toapprove a great system like this. They all have their own agendas and most are greatly influenced by the rich (who would hate this type of system where they can&#39;t escape paying).
Let&#39;s start a grass-roots revolution!!
Jenny D

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Nancy R <nancyr@ntin.net> wrote:

<div class="Ih2E3d">----- Original Message -----
> 1. Get Rid of the IRS completely- NO Income taxes at all.
>
> 2. Set a Tax on Goods- (exmaple) 5% on everything which goes to the
> government for all their programs. That way, no matter what you buy-

> you are paying taxes in to the government.
>
I agree!! However there would still need to be a compliance office to make
sure the sales tax collected is actually remitted to the govt.

<div style="BACKGROUND:
<div class="Ih2E3d">

Recent Activity
<ul style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: none;">[*]
89

John McEnroe

on Yahoo! Groups

Join him for the

10 Day Challenge.
<div class="Ih2E3d">

Yahoo! Groups

Cat Zone

Connect w/ others

who love cats.

Home Improvement

on Yahoo! Groups

Find tips & tricks

for doing it yourself.
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 1px;COLOR: #fff;">.<img height="1" width="1">
<span style="COLOR: [/quote]

13. ## taxes and the wealthy

It's really no where near that simple. What about foreign trade policy that favors the U.S? If we remove the policies that are beneficial toother countriesthen we'll end up having to remove the ones that penalize them, too. Otherwise there won't be foreign trade, which our economy is heavily dependent upon. And a flat tax is likely to be a huge burden to the poorest who already pay the least in overall taxes, while only make a small difference to the richest. Most folks are likely not to see a change at all. The difference in overall tax rates is not that huge. Even with a substantially reduced IRS. The difference in overall tax rates is not that huge. Lori.
Liss <liss@budget101.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class="replbq" style="BORDER-LEFT:
#1010ff 2px solid;"> --- In Budget101_@yahoogroups.com, Monique <motherof1@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that our government would save lots by getting rid of the
> people who work for the IRS, but where are those people going to work?
>

Factories, McDonalds, Walmart, other companies- same as all the rest
of us.

If we stopped giving breaks to corporations over seas, the
corporations would move back to the US and they'd have plenty of damn
jobs here!

If we changed our foreign trade policy we'd have more jobs in the US.

Besides that, if we had a flat tax and
people weren't losing \$200-300 a
week out of your check in taxes- they could use that towards Health
Insurance/ Health Care.

This country needs some Common Sense.
~Liss

&#32;

14. ## taxes and the wealthy

I just have to point out that Liss was not promoting a flat tax. She was talking about a sales tax on
luxury items. That would clearly benefit the poor while forcing the rich to pay (by removing loop holes).
And even if the difference in my taxes is not that great with a smaller IRS, it&#39;s still a savings!
Why continue paying for a huge organization that is not needed??
Jenny D

On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Lori <lorimakesquilts@yahoo.com> wrote:

And a flat tax is likely to be a huge burden to the poorest who already pay the least in overall taxes, while only make a small difference to the richest. Most folks are likely not to see a change at all. The difference in overall tax rates is not that huge. Even with a substantially reduced IRS. The difference in overall tax rates is not that huge.

Lori.
<div class="Ih2E3d">

<div style="BACKGROUND:

Recent Activity
<ul style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: none;">[*]
88

Yahoo! Groups

Special K Challenge
Join others who

are losing pounds.

How-To Zone

on Yahoo! Groups

Discuss home and

garden projects.

Yahoo! Groups

w/ John McEnroe

Join the All-Bran

Day 10 Club.
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 1px;COLOR: #fff;">.<img height="1" width="1">
<span style="COLOR: [/quote]

15. ## taxes and the wealthy

--- In Budget101_@yahoogroups.com, Lori <lorimakesquilts@...> wrote:

>

> It's really no where near that simple. What about foreign trade

policy that favors the U.S? <<<

It's not about having having a policy that favors the US, its about

a policy that Favors BOTH countries. Instead of the US getting a

Matchbox car and Japan getting 5 Billion Dollars worth of Cars sold

here, we ought to even it out a bit. Make it favorable for Both

Countries. Not kiss another countries rump for something they MIGHT

do for us 20 years from now.

On top that, whatever we import ought to face Stricter standards

lest we have 4 million more kids with autism and nerve damage, etc

Our own Factories and corporations within the US face strict

scrutiny, but these other countries standards are piss poor and we

kiss their rumps and beg for their business accepting whatever drivel

they send. It's pitiful and Dangerous.

> And a flat tax is likely to be a huge burden to the poorest who

already pay the least in overall taxes, while only make a small

difference to the richest.<<<

I'm not talking about a Flat Tax, I'm talking about taxing Goods. If

you want to buy a big Screen tv, you should pay taxes on it. If you

want to have loads and loads of "Stuff" then you should pay for it.

Not only to support the government, but to help pay for the impact of

your purchases on the Environment. Maybe it would take something of

This Magnitude to slow down the Consumerism thinking in this Country.

Just because a new gadget hit the shelves doesn't mean we should

all run out and buy one, and if you do, Great, pay taxes on it.

What about the estimated 10+ Million Illegals in this country? Do

you think they are paying anything to be here?? What about the

prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, that rake in thousands and

thousands of dollars that go untaxed?

>>while only make a small difference to the richest<<

It seems to bother you most that people with More money don't have

to Pay more... If you're all paying 5% (or whatever amount) it's

equally fair.

Personally, I don't give a rats behind what the guy next door makes,

if he earns it, that's his business. If he wants to buy a 5 million

dollar house and pay 5% Great, I'll buy my 100,000 house and pay 5%.

I don't understand why you feel that the Rich should be penalized

for their success? It feels like you want to impose a jealousy tax.

They have it so they should pay it and I'm broke so I shouldnt have

to. If your that broke, you shouldn't be wasting money on frivolous

items that you cant afford.

If I made \$500,000 a year because I succeeded in business or the

stock market I sure as hell wouldn't feel it was fair to pay double

in taxes because I made some smart choices.

The smart choice in this idea is- if you don't want to pay more in

taxes- than don't buy a bunch of stuff you don't need. You don't NEED

a new car every year, you don't NEED the newest gadget that pops up

in on your Big Screen, the point is, if you Live within your Means

then you will pay less.

Liss

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Last