First of all, I want to start out by wishing a huge Happy Birthday to my old friend Chris over at www.redhogdiary.com. Chris turned 48 today, the same age that I will be turning in three weeks, and while I am not sure if that number - 48 - is an issue for Chris, it's been on my mind a lot lately. Why? I mean when you think about it, 48 isn't a "milestone" birthday like 40 or 50. I think the thing that bothers me about 48 is that I will no longer be able to refer to myself as in my "Mid-forties." 48 is closer to 50 than 45, so I will soon be in my "Late-Forties". But, the good news is that no matter how old I get, The ol' Red Hog will always be older - even if only by three weeks.
And if number 28 isn't bad enough, I have only four months until my 30th High School reunion, which means I only have four months of my youth left. The people I went to high school with, most of who I haven't seen since the 20th reunion, looked pretty good at that reunion. I have a feeling that the 30th won't be as kind to some of them. Oh, not me - I haven't aged a day since high school.......
And while I don't really want to pile on Chris on his birthday, I do want to address some comments he made the other day on his site. Normally I would comment there, but Chris's site has been undergoing some changes, and leaving comments has been difficult.
Chris reported on the NY Times accusations of John McCain last week, and while Chris is a liberal and it shouldn't surprise me he took the Times side, I was disappointed with his reaction. What disappointed me was the following sentence: "The story is no less newsworthy than the stories about the alleged and the proven affairs of Bill Clinton and it obviously has an infinite amount of more credibility than the Swift Boat allegations made against John Kerry." Lets look at that, shall we?
First of all, the "allegations" regarding McCain's "affair" amount to a former aide suggesting that McCain avoid contact with Vicky Iseman during his failed 2000 Presidential run. It appears that the most damning thing we have here is the fact that these two had contact with each other. Period. There is zero evidence of an affair, not even a shady witness who saw or knows something. Compare that to semen-stained dresses, accusations of unwanted physical attacks, and settling sexual misconduct cases for hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention Clinton testifying under oath that he and Genifer Flowers did have a sexual affair - after years of accusing Ms. Flowers of being a lying loon. Yeah, I'd say the two are equal.
The funny thing here is that anytime I commented on anything regarding Clinton's sexual past, Chris would attempt to shoot me down for wallowing in the gutter, and ignoring real issues. Yet as soon as he has the chance to wallow in that same gutter - regardless how flimsy the charges are - he jumps right in.
And then there is the "swiftboating" comparison: The story.... obviously has an infinite amount of more credibility than the Swift Boat allegations made against John Kerry." Oh really? Well, here we are several days after the McCain "story" broke, and the big explosion that Chris was expecting is there - however it has been addressed at the Times for "reporting" such a shallow allegation. Not unlike the story that Dan Rather broke about George Bush's service which ultimately lead to his downfall, the Times has shown that as long as the target is a Conservative, the left will believe anything.
And let me say this before I go any further: The story that the Times is reporting MAY be true. I doubt that it is, but I don't discount the fact that it could be. And if it is, then I will deal with that, but I'm not going to waste any thought on what might be, until you can give me a little more proof.
And what about Kerry and the swiftboaters? Well, basically the swift boat advertisements claimed that Kerry lied about parts of his military history, and Boone Pickens, one of the funders of those ads, publicly challenged the critics to demonstrate the ads' inaccuracies. He promised to provide $1 million to anyone who succeeded. Well, Kerry took the bait, and wrote to Pickens that "I am prepared to show they [the Swift Boat Veterans, often his fellow officers] lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false, I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."
Pickens's perfectly reasonable response was to ask for Kerry's proof. As of today, no proof has been tendered by the Massachusetts Braggart.
As retired Marine Corps Major Michael E. McBride wrote in Townhall.com, Kerry "has always had the power to clear up any of the Swiftboater challenges; all he had to do is allow the Navy to distribute unaltered copies of his service record, medical records, and DD214. It is essential that these records come from DOD, so that they cannot be tampered with by Kerry or his supporters. The DOD copies are the true copies of record and the only viable evidence for these maters." McBride, citing Kerry's long reluctance to do, so goes on to write, "it is unlikely that any credible evidence exists to refute the base charges of the Swiftboaters." He concludes, "If any of my ex-squadron mates dumped on me like the Swift boat vets are dumping on Kerry, my records would have been available the next day...."
Chris my friend, I'd like to give you Birthday present: Next time you want to take the side of the New York Times, don't use as your basis for a moral foundation Bill Clinton's alleged sexual exploits (because the word "alleged" is rarely necessary in any story about Bill Clinton and sex), or John Kerry's swift boat allegations, allegations that Kerry himself can not offer any proof that they are false.
Happy Birthday My Friend!!!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Thank God some things never disappoint....
After roughly 100 posts without missing a day, this will be my only my second in the last two weeks. Why? Well, most of you know that I recently started a new job and I have spent the last two weeks (and next week) out of town training, and even though I had my evenings in the hotel to myself - perfect blog time - I just didn't have anything to talk about. Oh, I had stuff I could talk about, but just wasn't interested in talking about.
I'm hoping that as I settle into the new job that I will return more to blogging. in the meantime I will try to get one or two posts a week in.
So what do I write about? The fact that as my friends back in Iowa were enduring single-digit temperatures I was tooling around L.A. with the top of my convertible down, enjoying whether in the 80's? Naw, that's just mean. Do I discuss the differences between spending last week in L.A. and the week before in Bakersfield? Naw, suffice to say that 100 miles is sometimes the difference between two completely different worlds. Do I talk about my favorite topic, Hillary? You bet.
A story out today on Foxsnews.com starts out with: "A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision."
The advisor by the way was Harold Ickes. The thing I find interesting about all of this is that the Clintons are being so honest about their intentions. The fact that this is their plan does not surprise me, but the fact that they admit it does.
Look folks, if Clinton and Obama come out of Puerto Rico - the last primary - on June 7th basically neck-and-neck, then those Superdelegates are going to play a big, big role. But lets say that on June 7th Obama is three or four hundred delegates ahead, but still doesn't have the 2,000-plus delegates necessary to wrap up the nomination. In this Scenario, Hillary see's about 600 or so of the 795 Superdelegates coming to her, securing the nomination. could this happen? Sure it could, and I'm hoping it does. Why?
Simple. This would not only spell the end of Hillary as we know it, but it would hand the presidency to McCain. Look, Obama supporters are going to see this as Hillary "stealing" the nomination, and they’d be "almost" right. "Almost", because what she would have done IS legal, but farther from moral than Bakersfield is from L.A.. If Hillary gets away with this she may win the nomination, but she will lose a huge share of Obama’s supporters. Now I'm not sure those Obama people would vote for McCain, but they certainly wouldn't vote for Hillary.
The funny thing about this is that Ickes is saying that the superdelegates would swing towards Hillary because they "have a sense of what it takes to get elected”. So what Ickes is saying is that even the superdelegates that WANT to vote for Obama will swing towards Hillary, because supporting Obama does them no good if the guy can't win. Never mind that the averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing.
Yeah, it looks like there will still probably be things to talk about as long as Bill and Hillary stick around. And like that bad smell in my garage that I STILL can't find the source of, I don't think Bill and Hillary are going away anytime soon.
I'm hoping that as I settle into the new job that I will return more to blogging. in the meantime I will try to get one or two posts a week in.
So what do I write about? The fact that as my friends back in Iowa were enduring single-digit temperatures I was tooling around L.A. with the top of my convertible down, enjoying whether in the 80's? Naw, that's just mean. Do I discuss the differences between spending last week in L.A. and the week before in Bakersfield? Naw, suffice to say that 100 miles is sometimes the difference between two completely different worlds. Do I talk about my favorite topic, Hillary? You bet.
A story out today on Foxsnews.com starts out with: "A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision."
The advisor by the way was Harold Ickes. The thing I find interesting about all of this is that the Clintons are being so honest about their intentions. The fact that this is their plan does not surprise me, but the fact that they admit it does.
Look folks, if Clinton and Obama come out of Puerto Rico - the last primary - on June 7th basically neck-and-neck, then those Superdelegates are going to play a big, big role. But lets say that on June 7th Obama is three or four hundred delegates ahead, but still doesn't have the 2,000-plus delegates necessary to wrap up the nomination. In this Scenario, Hillary see's about 600 or so of the 795 Superdelegates coming to her, securing the nomination. could this happen? Sure it could, and I'm hoping it does. Why?
Simple. This would not only spell the end of Hillary as we know it, but it would hand the presidency to McCain. Look, Obama supporters are going to see this as Hillary "stealing" the nomination, and they’d be "almost" right. "Almost", because what she would have done IS legal, but farther from moral than Bakersfield is from L.A.. If Hillary gets away with this she may win the nomination, but she will lose a huge share of Obama’s supporters. Now I'm not sure those Obama people would vote for McCain, but they certainly wouldn't vote for Hillary.
The funny thing about this is that Ickes is saying that the superdelegates would swing towards Hillary because they "have a sense of what it takes to get elected”. So what Ickes is saying is that even the superdelegates that WANT to vote for Obama will swing towards Hillary, because supporting Obama does them no good if the guy can't win. Never mind that the averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing.
Yeah, it looks like there will still probably be things to talk about as long as Bill and Hillary stick around. And like that bad smell in my garage that I STILL can't find the source of, I don't think Bill and Hillary are going away anytime soon.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
I'm Still Here....... Kind Of
Well, it's been about a week since I last posted, and it may be rare that I post for the next month or so. I have started my new job, and I spent all of last week in Bakersfield, and tomorrow I head to L.A. for a couple of additional weeks of training. I assumed that since I had my nights free - and since Bakersfield is not necessarily the entertainment capitol of the world - that I'd be able to do a lot of posting in the evenings. However, given the choice of blogging or lying on a fluffy bed watching T.V. all night, T.V. seemed to win.
Obviously a lot has happened in the world of politics since we last spoke. It's just a formality, but McCain has won the Republican nomination, and given Obama's performance on Super Tuesday, and especially his performance SINCE Super Tuesday, I'd say he's on the way to wrapping up his parties nomination, although that is far from a foregone conclusion, and knowing the Clinton's we are going to see a sudden rise in "dirt" on the Senator from Illinois.
So how do I feel about this turn of events? Well, I'm not a big fan of McCain on most fronts, but I do think that he has the best shot of beating Hillary in a head-to-head battle. The question is, is that the best outcome? I've been a strong proponent of the "Anyone but Hillary" stand, and I know that McCain will be 100% better than Hillary. But, I doubt that McCain will be the great president that we need, and it might be the best thing for the Republican party to have Hillary in the White House. Look, it took the abysmal record of Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan, so in the long run Hillary might be a blessing. That is if there is still a country left to save.
In an Obama/McCain race, I'd give the edge to Obama. I think the reason McCain beats Hillary is because A) There is so much hatred for Hillary on the right that her candidacy will bring out the conservatives who otherwise might not support McCain - not as much of an issue in an Obama race, and B) McCain generally does well with independents, but those same independents would probably favor Obama.
But the bottom line is, there is still a long way to go between now and November. While we have a good idea of who the players are, we only know the tip of the iceberg as far as what their policies are. Sure, we know all about thier campaign promises, but now we start to actually analyze those plans, and decisions will be made.
But me, I have a lot of learning to do. So while I will try to add to these pages as often as possible, for now it may not be too often. We'll see.....
Obviously a lot has happened in the world of politics since we last spoke. It's just a formality, but McCain has won the Republican nomination, and given Obama's performance on Super Tuesday, and especially his performance SINCE Super Tuesday, I'd say he's on the way to wrapping up his parties nomination, although that is far from a foregone conclusion, and knowing the Clinton's we are going to see a sudden rise in "dirt" on the Senator from Illinois.
So how do I feel about this turn of events? Well, I'm not a big fan of McCain on most fronts, but I do think that he has the best shot of beating Hillary in a head-to-head battle. The question is, is that the best outcome? I've been a strong proponent of the "Anyone but Hillary" stand, and I know that McCain will be 100% better than Hillary. But, I doubt that McCain will be the great president that we need, and it might be the best thing for the Republican party to have Hillary in the White House. Look, it took the abysmal record of Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan, so in the long run Hillary might be a blessing. That is if there is still a country left to save.
In an Obama/McCain race, I'd give the edge to Obama. I think the reason McCain beats Hillary is because A) There is so much hatred for Hillary on the right that her candidacy will bring out the conservatives who otherwise might not support McCain - not as much of an issue in an Obama race, and B) McCain generally does well with independents, but those same independents would probably favor Obama.
But the bottom line is, there is still a long way to go between now and November. While we have a good idea of who the players are, we only know the tip of the iceberg as far as what their policies are. Sure, we know all about thier campaign promises, but now we start to actually analyze those plans, and decisions will be made.
But me, I have a lot of learning to do. So while I will try to add to these pages as often as possible, for now it may not be too often. We'll see.....
Monday, February 4, 2008
It's Not Easy Being Green
Today we have a guest post from Robert Parkhurst. Robert is a gentleman who I recently met online after I published one of his Letters to the Editor here on my site. Robert contacted me via e-mail, we've corresponded via e-mail, and today I am pleased to present another of Robert's essays here today. Thank you Robert.
What Being Green Means To Me by Robert Parkhurst
Being “green” is what our grandparents practiced and it was just called frugal living. They didn’t have to worry about low flush toilets; they called them outhouses — no water at all. They didn’t have to worry about efficient clothes driers; they called them clotheslines and they used fresh air and sunshine. That was “green” living the old fashioned way. I remember my grandmother darning socks when they got holes in them by using a needle and thread to weave the thread back and forth to make them like new. What do we do now? Throw the socks out and buy new ones, of course!
About a year ago our 30-year old Maytag drier would not work any more. My wife called the Maytag repair shop and was told they could not repair it — they just didn’t have the parts. They informed her that they would sell her a new efficient “green” drier for less than $500 and that included picking up the old one. After calling around, she finally located an older shop that said they might have a replacement pilot light for such an old drier and they would check. The repairman came out and replaced the pilot light (a small part the size of a cigarette). The charge was about $80. My 30-year-old drier didn’t have to be transported to San Francisco, crushed, shipped to China, smelted down into metal ingots, rolled out into sheet metal and stamped out into new more efficient “green” driers. The amount of energy that would have been required to get the new drier compared to the amount of energy to repair the old one would be a good exercise for a college engineering class but it was a lot cheaper for me to just have the old one repaired. Even without the engineering class’s report, I can assure you my wife was doing the green thing just like grandma would have done and I didn’t have to burn all that gas going to work to earn the $500 either. Will the real environmentalist please stand up? Yeah — it’s my wife!
It may not surprise anyone that the Maytag repair shop didn’t carry spare parts for an old drier. They would be happier selling us a new drier even taking away the old one all included in the price. You may not even be surprised that businesses are all trying to sell you a new, more efficient “green” everything from new cars to a whole new house. No one can blame them, that is the way they make a living — nothing wrong with that. It used to be that the businesses had to convince the purchaser that the product was really worth their hard earned money. That is all changed. Now businesses and the government have discovered that they can work together. Businesses lobby to get the government to make laws mandating that many products are obsolete, inefficient or unsafe and that consumers will just have to buy new replacements. The businesses win because the consumers are buying more and the government wins because the more consumers buy the more taxes are paid. What a deal: everybody wins — well, maybe not everybody — the consumers don’t win if they buy things they don’t need and the environment is not improved if people are discarding usable items that could be fixed — you know, like my wife’s drier or the socks we discarded last week.
What Being Green Means To Me by Robert Parkhurst
Being “green” is what our grandparents practiced and it was just called frugal living. They didn’t have to worry about low flush toilets; they called them outhouses — no water at all. They didn’t have to worry about efficient clothes driers; they called them clotheslines and they used fresh air and sunshine. That was “green” living the old fashioned way. I remember my grandmother darning socks when they got holes in them by using a needle and thread to weave the thread back and forth to make them like new. What do we do now? Throw the socks out and buy new ones, of course!
About a year ago our 30-year old Maytag drier would not work any more. My wife called the Maytag repair shop and was told they could not repair it — they just didn’t have the parts. They informed her that they would sell her a new efficient “green” drier for less than $500 and that included picking up the old one. After calling around, she finally located an older shop that said they might have a replacement pilot light for such an old drier and they would check. The repairman came out and replaced the pilot light (a small part the size of a cigarette). The charge was about $80. My 30-year-old drier didn’t have to be transported to San Francisco, crushed, shipped to China, smelted down into metal ingots, rolled out into sheet metal and stamped out into new more efficient “green” driers. The amount of energy that would have been required to get the new drier compared to the amount of energy to repair the old one would be a good exercise for a college engineering class but it was a lot cheaper for me to just have the old one repaired. Even without the engineering class’s report, I can assure you my wife was doing the green thing just like grandma would have done and I didn’t have to burn all that gas going to work to earn the $500 either. Will the real environmentalist please stand up? Yeah — it’s my wife!
It may not surprise anyone that the Maytag repair shop didn’t carry spare parts for an old drier. They would be happier selling us a new drier even taking away the old one all included in the price. You may not even be surprised that businesses are all trying to sell you a new, more efficient “green” everything from new cars to a whole new house. No one can blame them, that is the way they make a living — nothing wrong with that. It used to be that the businesses had to convince the purchaser that the product was really worth their hard earned money. That is all changed. Now businesses and the government have discovered that they can work together. Businesses lobby to get the government to make laws mandating that many products are obsolete, inefficient or unsafe and that consumers will just have to buy new replacements. The businesses win because the consumers are buying more and the government wins because the more consumers buy the more taxes are paid. What a deal: everybody wins — well, maybe not everybody — the consumers don’t win if they buy things they don’t need and the environment is not improved if people are discarding usable items that could be fixed — you know, like my wife’s drier or the socks we discarded last week.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
We're Baaaccckkk!!!
Well, Cindy and I are back from Vegas, and what a great time we had. While I go to Vegas a couple of times a year with some buddies, It's probably been at least four years since Cindy and I have gone together, maybe longer.
Well this time we decided that we would see a show, and after researching our options we narrowed it down to three shows: The Producers, Mamma Mia, and Spamalot. We decided to see The Producers, the musical by Mel Brooks, at The Paris. What a great show, we really, really enjoyed it. And we were lucky to get to see it, as it's year long run comes to an end next week. I loved the original movie starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, and have yet to see the Nathan Lane/Matthew Broderick movie, but the play, starring Tony Danza, was great.
So great in fact that we decided to catch another show the following night, and this time we decided to see Mamma Mia, the broadway musical that's been playing for years at The Mandelay Bay. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Mamma Mia, it's a musical based on the music of Abba. Okay, that probably doesn't sound like a selling point, but it really was an amazing show. It's hard to believe that you can take a group of songs and plug them into a story and actually make sense of it. Now I'm a big fan of Hollywood musicals, and both of these shows were as good as anything coming out of Hollywood.
Then there was the gambling. Ah, the gambling. Well, I'd love to tell you that I was so lucky at the tables that I don't even need to start that new job on Monday, and that is exactly what happened..... Nah, just kidding. I didn't do so hot at the tables, but fortunately I had a nice winning streak towards the end that helped me leave town just a little shorter than when I came in.
We decided to make the trip to celebrate out 22nd Anniversary, and also because I had a few days off before I start my new job on Monday. One of the reasons that the two of us rarely go together is because I really enjoy gambling, and Cindy doesn't, so even when we do go together, we rarely spend time together. One of the other things that we rarely do is see a show, despite the fact that there is always world class entertainment in Vegas.
Well this time we decided that we would see a show, and after researching our options we narrowed it down to three shows: The Producers, Mamma Mia, and Spamalot. We decided to see The Producers, the musical by Mel Brooks, at The Paris. What a great show, we really, really enjoyed it. And we were lucky to get to see it, as it's year long run comes to an end next week. I loved the original movie starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, and have yet to see the Nathan Lane/Matthew Broderick movie, but the play, starring Tony Danza, was great.
So great in fact that we decided to catch another show the following night, and this time we decided to see Mamma Mia, the broadway musical that's been playing for years at The Mandelay Bay. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Mamma Mia, it's a musical based on the music of Abba. Okay, that probably doesn't sound like a selling point, but it really was an amazing show. It's hard to believe that you can take a group of songs and plug them into a story and actually make sense of it. Now I'm a big fan of Hollywood musicals, and both of these shows were as good as anything coming out of Hollywood.
Then there was the gambling. Ah, the gambling. Well, I'd love to tell you that I was so lucky at the tables that I don't even need to start that new job on Monday, and that is exactly what happened..... Nah, just kidding. I didn't do so hot at the tables, but fortunately I had a nice winning streak towards the end that helped me leave town just a little shorter than when I came in.I did learn something important though. If you've ever been to Vegas you've seen signs in front of the Casino's saying "Liberal Slots". I always thought that that meant that they were liberal in their payoffs. No. Liberal in Las Vegas means the same thing that Liberal means in Washington: They take ALL of your money.
But all in all we had a great time. Now, when can we go back?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Barstool Economics
Okay, I'm cheating. This is my Friday post, and I've already posted the Wednesday and Thursday ones as well. As you know I am heading to VegasWednesday morning, and as much as I love my blog and my readers, I love Vegas more. But rather than short change you, I decided to post three days of posts at once.
This is a terrific piece called "Barstool Economics" from David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia:
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 on 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.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
This is a terrific piece called "Barstool Economics" from David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia:
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 on 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.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
