N.J. Democratic senator proposes bringing back 'millionaires tax' (Fairfield: bankrupt, income)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
High earners already pay a higher tax rate and due to the AMT are not able to benefit from almost all tax deductions. So it is not as simple as a 33% tax rate vs a 35% tax rate, because of the AMT high income earners are paying an even greater share of taxes.
This story has been repeated and published many times and places, and I'm not certain where it originated. The closest attributions I've seen are to a Don Dodson from Ft. Worth, Texas or Professor Davies of South Dakota Business School.
Regardless of the source, it's a great analogy about our current Federal Income Tax system.
10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill, each would pay $10.00.
The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay, inspired by the government's progressive approach to collecting income taxes. The formula they eventually agreed upon included the following payment arrangement.
Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 paid nothing.
Man #5 paid $1.
Man #6 paid $3.
Man #7 paid $7.
Man #8 paid $12.
Man #9 paid $18.
Man #10 paid $59.
After a number of weeks of the 10 men reliably frequenting his establishment, the owner of the restaurant decided they deserved a discount. He offered to reduce the total cost of the men's lunch by $20.
This created a bit of a problem among the gentlemen, because the four men who paid nothing felt cheated that they were not sharing in the windfall. The others complained that if the $20 were to be distributed proportionally based upon the amount each paid each week, Man #10 would receive over half of the total discount amount.
So the restaurant owner proposed this solution:
Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 still paid nothing. They were unhappy at being excluded from the benefits of the reduction, but a discount from zero is still, in fact, zero.
Man #5 now also paid nothing. His contribution went from $1 to $0, so he received a 100% discount.
Man #6 now paid $2, receiving a 33% discount.
Man #7 now paid $5, receiving a 28% discount.
Man #8 now paid $9, receiving a 25% discount.
Man #9 now paid $14, receiving a 22% discount.
Man #10 now paid $50, receiving a 15% discount.
So they completed their meal and left the restaurant. Once outside, an argument ensued.
Men #1 through #4 were displeased that everyone else received a benefit except them. Man #5 was upset that he only got $1, while Man #10 got $9. Likewise Man #6. So these men beat up Man #10, took his money and left him bleeding on the sidewalk.
The men returned to the restaurant the following week for lunch, but of course Man #10 was a no-show. So when the bill arrived, the remaining men discovered they couldn't afford to pay even half the bill.
The analogy is a great illustration of today's "Progressive" tax system. Current statistics show that 80% of the tax burden is borne by the wealthiest 20% of the population. When Bush cut income tax rates, he substantially cut them in a similar manner to the restaurant owner in the above story.
Do you think the distribution of the cut was fair? If you think it was unfair, to whom do you believe it was unfair? The Bottom 4, the guys between 5 and 9, or #10? How would you split the bill if the decision were left to your wisdom?
Based on the rhetoric employed on the tax issue today, the Democrats are represented in the story as Man #1 through #6. Man #10 didn't want to get beaten again, so his decision not to show up the next week is analogous to him moving his companies offshore, presumably where he would not be beaten to a pulp.
So those first 5 or 6 are now in charge of the country. As far as I can tell, they already have their clubs, bats, and brass knuckles out and have started swinging. Care to guess what will happen next?
Based on the rhetoric employed on the tax issue today, the Democrats are represented in the story as Man #1 through #6. Man #10 didn't want to get beaten again, so his decision not to show up the next week is analogous to him moving his companies offshore, presumably where he would not be beaten to a pulp.
And dont forget their propaganda machine that they use to convince people that Man #10 likes the restaurant SO MUCH that he will continue to take the beating indefinitely, just to eat there.
...Until we find ourselves 10 years later when many corporations HAVE, in fact, moved offshore, and much of NJ's wealth and jobs has moved to other states.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdustmaker
I saw a perfectly good road, in semi-rural NJ, that I drive all the time, and was just "built" less than 10 years ago, get ripped up and re-done with a big old "Your Federal Tax dollars at work under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act".
There was no reason for it.
Took the "crew" about a month to do the same amount of work that I've seen done in a matter of days elsewhere.
That's great. When I was up in the fall, the roads in South Jersey were, in general, in total disrepair. It was about as bad as driving on the roads in South Carolina.
Look at the property tax rates, sales tax rates, state income tax rates, etc.
As I've stated many times.
I pay more in taxes than most of you earn.
why does that matter? you earn way more then if that's the case. what the heck is your point? anyone who earns more money pays more taxes than someone who earns less than them. you want a cookie?
And dont forget their propaganda machine that they use to convince people that Man #10 likes the restaurant SO MUCH that he will continue to take the beating indefinitely, just to eat there.
...Until we find ourselves 10 years later when many corporations HAVE, in fact, moved offshore, and much of NJ's wealth and jobs has moved to other states.
Solution - move to Florida. The middle class has it way tougher than the top earners in NJ. We don't need the whining.
why does that matter? you earn way more then if that's the case. what the heck is your point? anyone who earns more money pays more taxes than someone who earns less than them. you want a cookie?
Exactly. It's called a progressive tax system for a reason. If you think 35% is bad, go ask your grandparents what the rich paid in the 50s & 60s. I bet capital gains rates were much higher back then too.
You don't understand - this is the best it's going to get for top earners thanks to Dubya's Chinese credit card. It's all downhill for you going forward. Enjoy it, stop b*tching how you'll move, or shut down your businesses, or stop spending, etc. Nobody's buying it. Jersey is ideally situated to take in more rich people when you move elsewhere. Same with Long Island, Westchester and Fairfield County, CT. Unless all the big jobs dry up in NYC, it will always be this way.
It just "fell" in their laps, they didn't earn it? Never lifted a finger? They don't deserve what they make in a day because someone else doesn't?
How is the middle class supporting tax shelters and capital gains taxes? Who is investing the money to sustain the funds (or the economy/stock market) from which the capital gains taxes are garnered from?
The "poor me" crowd who wants those "millionaires" to spread the wealth around is getting really whiney.
Some did earn it, some didn't. The idea that there are no idle rich in NJ or this country, that everyone started out of their garage like Bill Gates is not based on fact. Bill Gates grew up in luxury too so that might not be the best example, but you get my point.
BTW - how much did the billionaire Steinbrenners pay in estate tax last year when George kicked?
So are you for income redistribution and socialism? Raising taxes is not the answer. Less spending and reducing the size of government and entitlements is the answer and having a president who is not so hostile to business is the answer. We need to grow the economy not kill it like this president has. By the way the unions in this state are killing the middle class with property taxes that are sky high. I am for private sector unions not public unions. Why should government workers who are payrolled by the private sector not pay their fair share of benefits and pensions like the rest of us? Is that too much to ask? Why the double standard? I'm not rich and I'm not defending the rich, but what is fair is fair. Dont they already pay more taxes than everyone else. Are we going to punish the winners and reward the losers. This is unAmerican and it will only end up only hurting our economy even more. I never was hired by a poor man. How about you? Enough of the class warfare and the nanny state mentality. We are broke incase you didnt realize that. We cant spend our way out of debt! How asinine! This state is bankrupt and I'm glad the governor is taking steps to get us on the road to economic and financial recovery and well being. By the way why dont you and other liberals voluntarily give more taxes if you are such a big believer in higher taxation and bloated government. No one is stopping you from paying more taxes! Tax and spend. When has this ever worked before??
Quote:
Originally Posted by JERSEY MAN
Since we are in the mood for hating middle class families and the poor and unions by only requiring them for SHARED SACRIFICE a proposal for the rich for the same sacrifice. And this is only after 1 million dollars. Let's see if Christie wants to sign it and spread the SHARED sacrifice around.
Wall Street, the Fed and the mortgage industry (all rich elites who get 2nd, 3rd and 35th chances to constantly f*ck up) colluded to collapse our economy, not unions. You right wingers conveniently forget that. We all have to suck it up now, but there should be some white shoe executives thrown in the slammer and blame assigned to the right areas so it doesn't happen again in 5 years.
The SEC dropped the ball in the 2000s when Bush called for an "ownership society" and that doddering dumbass Rand-ian, Alan Greenspan, dropped interest rates every quarter to fuel the unrealistic housing bubble. I know this is all too complicated for most people here to understand but LESS regulation brought our economy down, not more. The gift from Reagan that keeps on giving.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was up in the fall, the roads in South Jersey were, in general, in total disrepair. It was about as bad as driving on the roads in South Carolina.
