On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:26:25 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

When leftists bleat that bit of stale dogma, they never define "the
system", and with good reason. What they want to pretend is that they
believe the rich should pay a disproportionately higher share of the
publicly funded infrastructu public safety, defense, roads and
bridges, airports, judicial system, air traffic control, regulatory
bureaucracy, etc.

Your screed is as ahistorial as it is deceptive. It is the Robber
Baron justification for greed -- something that we face from time to
time in this country, until the social unrest that results leads to
reform and a moderate levelling; just enough to prevent a new
revolution. Because the historical record shows that income inequality
on the scale we're approaching now is inherently unstable and
untenable in a popular government, whether a republic or otherwise.

The ideas in that piece were rejected by the Founders and many of the
philosophers upon whose thinking our government is founded:

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the
individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15,
Papers 7:557

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to
exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher
portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

Jefferson and Madison even proposed taxing ONLY the rich, which is
interesting, because Jefferson was, at the time, among the rich
himselfr:

"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on
consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general
desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible.
And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of
government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and
domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110

"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign
luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford
themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer
its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public
education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public
improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional
enumeration of federal powers." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual
Message, 1806. ME 3:423

Madison recognized the degeneracy resulting from "the inequality of
fortunes," and the parallel between that degeneracy and the degeneracy
resulting from war:

"...taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the
domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the
Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors,
and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds,
are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same
malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of
fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of
war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by
both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual
warfare. -- James Madison, "Political Observations" (1795-04-20)

And lest you think that Madison and Jefferson were just proto-liberals
in today's mold, note that the father of modern economics, the darling
of conservatives everywhere, recognized the same issue:

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the
public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something
more than in that proportion.” -- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations",
V.iie.6: p 842

So your apologia for greed doesn't comport with the founding
principles of this country, and deserves to be denounced and condemned
today as it was during the founding era.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:26:25 -0800, George
Plimpton
wrote:

When leftists bleat that bit of stale dogma,
they never define "the
system", and with good reason. What they want
to pretend is that they
believe the rich should pay a disproportionately
higher share of the
publicly funded infrastructu public safety,
defense, roads and
bridges, airports, judicial system, air traffic
control, regulatory
bureaucracy, etc.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

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 ball. "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 men would 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 ? 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 a h
higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the
principle of the tax system they had been using,
and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first
four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3
(33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7
(28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12
(25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18
(22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59
(16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than
before. And the first four continued to drink for
free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20
saving," 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 benefit than
me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh
man. "Why should he get $10 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.
This new tax 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
their 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 government ministers, is how our tax system
works. The people who already pay the highest
taxes will naturally 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.

For those who understand, no
explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no
explanation is possible.

On 01/24/2012 01:36 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out
for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

They never go out together for beer, though.
The tenth man (the richest) goes at a fancy club, where goblets of St.
Pauli Girl are brought to his table.
....
The first four men (the poorest) are in Hank's yard sharing a six-pack
of Bud.

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.

They're already catching overseas flights for drinks. Too bad Concorde
is out of service, oh the hardship.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

.... who hopes we'll believe that we must fit one of the following groups:

For those who understand, no
explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no
explanation is possible.

On Jan 25, 8:01*pm, beryl wrote:


They never go out together for beer, though.
The tenth man (the richest) goes at a fancy club, where goblets of St.
Pauli Girl are brought to his table.
...

St. Pauli Girl , "Surely You're Joking"

Dan

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:01:45 -0800, beryl wrote:

On 01/24/2012 01:36 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out
for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

They never go out together for beer, though.
The tenth man (the richest) goes at a fancy club, where goblets of St.
Pauli Girl are brought to his table.


Odd that you would think that. Dont know any rich guys do you?

Gunner, in the heart of the oil fields


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch