Kind of a Big Deal - Latest Comments

Re: Money may be tight, but pessimism and incompetence are hot right now!

loanketz000 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:44:25 -0000

Great job!! this post really show the details.. Nice graph.. it make your post more understandable..

Re: Money may be tight, but pessimism and incompetence are hot right now!

Quotes — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:35:22 -0000

Your Graph says it all, thanks for sharing, i liked your work. Subscribing your blog through RSS feeds. Keep posting, will definitely be here again.

Thank you
Chris

Re: Our tax system explained in terms of beer

webXL — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:48:31 -0000

That's why I and many people I know are in favor of a flat tax or national sales tax. Both types of taxes would almost eliminate all loopholes and special interests out of the tax code. Sadly, that's probably why we'll never see either of those reforms. It's not in the interest of those who benefit from those special interests. But now that three Obama appointees have failed to properly pay their taxes, maybe something can be done.

Re: Our tax system explained in terms of beer

Rick — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:52:24 -0000

I have never seen this story, thanks for posting it. If nothing else, the point I took away from this story is that at any time the rich will have had enough and will withdraw. Now that I am finally accumulating some savings I can see all kinds of legal instruments to reduce my taxes. These would not be necessary if taxation was more fairly administered.

Re: Our tax system explained in terms of beer

webXL — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:06:34 -0000

1. What is your point and why does that take away from the moral of the story?

2. Again, what is your point? The story has nothing to do with what kind of economy we have, only the tax policies and what happens when the numbers are twisted around to show how the poor are getting screwed. The corruption that leads to corporate welfare is a separate issue, but using that fact to justify taking more from the wealthy makes absolutely no sense. Why not just let them keep it in the first place and then they won't try to buy off their government buddies?

3. What about the services that the government provides? The whole point of the illustration is to show who funds the government (simplified as purchasing beer) and who the government benefits (the people drinking the beer). You are arguing about inequality as if it is the sole purpose of the government to make everything equal for its subjects. Government's sole purpose is to enact and carry out the laws a society needs to operate. In a capitalistic society, which you correctly point out that in America, it is a bit of a mirage, we let the free market provide for a great deal of needs and wants, therefore law is mostly limited to rights that protect life and property. In a socialistic society, the government provides for the majority of the needs (food, shelter, medicine) and wants (education, stuff). Every country is somewhere in the spectrum. The USA was founded as capitalistic, and has been successful in terms of standard of living (education, health are debatable). That can be because a variety of factors, like natural resources or even luck, but there has been a concerted effort in this country to fix what isn't exactly broken by changing a relatively HEALTHY form of government (by ALL factors when compared to other current and past ones) to one like those of Western Europe where you have a whole different set of problems, but at least there's more equality. My question is, why change this one when you can move to the one you desire? If the grass is greener on the other side, why not walk across the street?

4. We spend more on education than any other country. Money hasn't fixed the problem. The solution will be to STOP spending money in certain areas (like bureaucracy) and spend more on teachers, especially those who excel, and those who make a difference in kids' lives during the most critical years. I believe the government could actually MAKE money with such a plan, but it will never happen because bureaucracies take care of their own, and unions reward mediocrity. The problem with giving the government more money is that everyone thinks they deserve a piece of it, and there are no incentives to use it effectively. Just as monopolies are bad for consumers because there are no incentives (competition) to get them to provide better service, the government is bad for users of their services. Some people are finally getting it and are starting charter schools and pushing for vouchers. It would be nice to live in a world without competition, but it sure has made our world a lot nicer. There is no free lunch.

5. Have you ever heard that wealth is not fixed? Look around you. Was this stuff (buildings, roads, computers, TVs, phones, etc) always here? No. Human beings created it. Why did they create it? the simple reason is that they wanted to be wealthier, and knew other people wanted that stuff. Both parties gained through trading. You, the house. The builder, your cash that you got and will get by providing services to other people (employers). Do you see how in such a system how inequalities may arise? In a free market, both parties are better off (whether the benefit is perceived or real). Wealth has been created if at least one of the parties is better off while the other hasn't lost anything. There was a lot of oppression in Biblical times. There also wasn't a lot of capitalism. Rome used force to confiscate wealth, and there was very little incentive to trade because of it.

Now there are two ways to obtain wealth. By trade and by force. The market represents trade. The government represents force. Now it's not as black and white as that, as force can be used for good and trade can leave some people worse off, but usually force creates negative outcomes while trade usually creates positive ones. Force makes it harder to trust one another while trade fosters cooperation and mutual respect. Why? because two people who wish to trade will only do so if they both have something to gain. Whether it be you and your employer, you and your grocer, you and your teacher, you and your landlord. You all are cooperating without force. You all are benefiting without force.

Re: Our tax system explained in terms of beer

david — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:46:08 -0000

I’ve seen this illustration countless times but it is very misleading for several reasons.

1. All we are privy to is what each man at the table pays for the total bill (i.e. his taxes). We have to do the math to figure out what each one makes according to the 2008 tax brackets. To pay $0 of a $100 tab, the bottom four men must make $8000 or less a year. Our present poverty line for singles is $10,400, neither of which are livable wages. For the richest man to pay $59 he must be making 44 times that amount, or $354,000.

2. In reality of course, taxes don’t buy beer. Pure capitalism is a bit of a mirage. Big business in America takes a lot of government money to float by way of infrastructure, subsidies, security, etc. So the richest men at the table are paying money to make money, not just to fund others’ drinks.

3. In the illustration the money is paid in exchange for equal rounds of beers for all participants. The poorest appears to drink as heartily as the richest. Sadly this is embarrassingly untrue. Of course richer folks will live more comfortably on their own income than poorer folks, but how do we account for the huge disparity on government spending between wealthier and poorer communities? Let’s just say kids in Richland County don’t go to the same public schools as kids in Lexington.

4. On that note, the illustration fails to account for the members at the table as human beings, instead of units of economic output. Each man at the table represents not just himself but his family, his community, his school, his subculture. America is not a level playing field. Sure there are lazy, greedy, mooching poor people (just as there are lazy, greedy, mooching rich people). But unless we are willing to say that the reason 80% of black kids in inner-city Baltimore fail to graduate high school is laziness, we are just beginning to scratch the surface of a problem much bigger than we realize. Meanwhile, we’re arguing over who gets to pay the least for it. Surely money is not the only answer, but I’m not holding my breath for a free one.

5. Another barrier to a level playing field yet to be mentioned is oppression. The Bible is not ignorant to the inherent wickedness and laziness in man (see Proverbs and Paul). But by far, the number one factor contributing to poverty according to the Scriptures is oppression (see Pentateuch, History, Psalms, Proverbs, Prophets, Gospels, Paul, and James). Of course there are rich people who are innocent of malicious oppression; and there are rich people who are ignorant of their oppression; and there are rich people downright guilty of it in complex economical, social, and political ways biblical writers’ couldn’t have dreamed of. Whatever the reason, chances are at that table, some are able to pay more of the bill because others can’t.