"Welcome to the Republican Party"
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and supported the distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He stopped her and asked her, point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. She studied all the time and never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying because of her more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"
"Mary is barely getting by," she replied. "She barely has a 2.0 GPA, and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is extremely popular on campus. College, for her, is a blast. She goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done little or nothing! She played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Hat tip: The Conservative Legion
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 5/09/2005 07:30:00 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
It's Analogy Time!
Scholastic GPA :: Wealth
A) Oligarchy : Status Quo
B) Red Herring : Jesus
C) Iraq : Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere
D) Deprivation : Depravity
E) B.S. : Your Post
Riiiight...
No, I don't think I will bother to answer everything that is wrong about this analogy. It'd take too much time. Actually, since I'm replying, I might as well give you a link to an essay or two.
Why the rich should pay more taxes
Stuff about welfare
Cool analogy, Neo. Anon, Please dig deep to prove (B) in your flawed analogy. Dig as deeply as a young skeptic named Josh McDowell did.
Suppose you follow two people through their life and look at their overall contribution to society weighed against the drain they put upon governmental resources. Let's say Bob is a hard working, regular fellow, working at his union Papermill job. He earns an average of $60,000 per year (including benefits) for a total of 35 years. His average Federal tax burden is about 17% after all deductions, etc. (This does not include his nor his employers contribution to Social Security). That means that over the course of his employment, he has been responsible for contributing $10200 per year, a total of $357,000, to the federal government. The burden he has placed on the government is only the burden that one family typically places on the government (ie: using the infrastructure, such as Interstate highways, enjoying the security provided by federal agencies, and the other, almost intangible benefits of living in our country. In summary, the burden that Bob and family of four brings to the government is no more than the average that any gainfully employed family of four brings. For lack of a better number, let's say his actual share of the burden (not counting bloated inefficient beauracratic waste) is $10,000 per year. That means that over the course of his 35 years of employment, he has contributed a net gain to the federal government of $7,000.
Now let's look at Cathy. Cathy has a good idea and lot's of drive and ambition. She starts a Home Decor company and rapidly grows it to the point that she is providing jobs for 100 people. All of these people have full medical and dental benefits, and earn an average of $60,000 per year, including benefits (believe it or not, it actually costs around $14,000 a year to give good benefits to a family of four). Their actual federal tax burden (not counting Social security) is about 17% after all deduction etc.
Over the course of 35 years, The employees who have jobs in Cathy's company (due to her intelligence, drive, and dilligence), have contributed $10,200 each, per employee ($1,020,000), times 35 years ($35,700,000). The burden that Cathy and her employees place on the federal government is the same, on average, ($10,000 per family per year). Counting Cathy's family, the burder on the federal government is a total of $1,010,000. Over the same 35 year period in which Bob was responsible for providing for his family and bringing to the federal government a net increase of $7,000, Cathy was responsible for creating and maintaining jobs for 101 families, and contributing to the federal government a net increase of $350,000. This is if Cathy does not have to pay any personal income tax at all, and discounts the actual tax revenue generated by the flow of product to and from her company, not to mention the C corp tax off the top (in a 10,000,000 gross sales company with average margins, the C corp liability alone is around $70,000 per year) add this actual contribution to Cathy's total and you see a contribution over 35 years of $2,800,000. This is 400 times the contribution made by hardworking Bob. Not to mention the inumerable benefits to society that the 100 high quality jobs bring about.
To suggest that Cathy should pay any more tax than her lowest paid employee is absurd. The very idea of it is rooted in some kind of class envy, fomented by the faint of heart who never have the courage to reach out and start a business. If you look at the math, Cathy should not have to pay ANY personal income tax. In fact, if people could get past the entrenched class envy so prevalent today, and free up the wealth producers to do what they do best, then we'd see Cathy's endeavour (and hence, contribution), repeated far more often. We'd also see far less outsourcing/offshoring.
In case that doesn't get you to shrieking, I'd also like to submit that people who don't contribute to the overall financial good of the country should not have a vote.
Try going to any service provider, don't pay them anything, then tell them how to operate. It will be an excercise in futility (as it should). People should only be able to vote when they file their income tax, and then only if they have to pay.
(that last little bit was kinda tongue in cheek, but it does ring of truth. If you don't pay, you don't play.)
Also, though I often (mostly) disagree with you, Lone Amigo, my hat is off to you, because you display class in the way you state your mind.
Great post Neo! (although I sorta guessed the ending) it was really accurate.
(this next comment is in reply to mr. anonymous)
I have to mention something though:
a college or even a highschool education does not equal wealth! most million and billionaires only have a grade 8 education.
Why go into debt for worthless and false knowledge to end up working for someone who educated themselves by reading books that would feed their mind and surrounding themselves with successful and possive people?
Oh well! enough venting...
Don't you think it's unfair to suggest that everyone who needs welfare is a deadbeat? There are so many different possible scenarios.
Anon - Your Cathy analogy is a little flawed. First, you are arguing that our tax system should work like a ponzi scheme. The people at the top get the reward (in this case, no taxes) while those in the lower tiers get the shaft (paying taxes).
Now, why should Cathy not pay taxes? Just because she is creating jobs for others? Aren't her workers creating her company and her income for her?
Most successful businesses realize that the management/worker relationship is symobiotic. Neither works without the other. Based on that, I'd say I'm not giving a pass to Cathy.
I'd love to see lower taxes across the board. But we need to curtail spending while closing corporate and other tax loopholes. The flat tax is a flat-out sham.
Another option is a consumption-based tax, like a national sales tax. However, our economy's life blood is spending. We are a nation of spenders and consumers. Most of our businesses cater to this. That said, most of what we consume is wanted, not needed. Jacking up the price of these goods via a national sales tax could curtail spending a bit.
I know I'd think twice about buying a new car or home if the government would be adding even a 5% sales tax to it.
In truth, the scenario I describe differs from a Ponzi scheme in a number of ways......
first, in a Ponzi scheme, the entire enterprize is funded by the influx of cash from the bottom to the top. The people on the bottom receive nothing of any value. They can only gain if they recruit layer upon layer of dupes to come in under them. Just a glance at the mathematics involved should keep anyone from taking it seriously as an investment, but alas, greed does tend to inhibit mathematical reasoning. Witness the lottery, and all forms of organized gambling.
A Ponzi scheme collapses upon itself if it doesn't continually gain enlistment. That is because it is built upon fraudulent principles. The Home Decor company, and the tax revenue described, is viable, and based upon sound principles.
From the tone of your comment, I gather that you really don't need educating about the nature of Ponzi....but you mis-used the term in a way that would deceive people who don't understand it. A little literary sleight of hand, that I can't just let slide.
The employees do NOT create the company.... they enhance and maintain it, (employees are indeed the heartbeat of a company, and should be treated accordingly, but without the brain, a heart is a useless muscle). The job opportunities are created by the ambition and wisdom that Cathy brings to the marketplace. Without her continued guidance, the whole thain will collapse, and leave a gaping hole in the local economy, with a ripple effect throughout the supply chain. The numbers that come to the revenue service are real numbers, and wouldn't be there unless Cathy had chosen to follow her dream. I stand by my belief that a person who creates high quality jobs which produce significant tax revenue should not have to pay ANY tax. As it is, many think that the current system, which imposes a larger proportional burden upon higher income people, is not only fair, but should be made even worse, by increasing the burden yet more upon higher income people. This can not be justified by anything except envy. The vilification of the wealthy that is so prevalent today is absurd. Without the influence of the wealthy (most wealthy people become that way by starting and growing business ventures) the very people who constanly speak against them would be without a way to earn a living. Especially the arrogant non-productive leaches scattered throughout academia, spouting their Marxist philosophies into impressionable young minds.
At any rate, I digress.
All this being said, I, too, am intrigued by the tought of a National Sales tax replacing all income tax. You could easily address the issue of taking care of the less fortunate, by exempting most food items and toiletries. It should then be self regulating. If I want to pay Chevy tax, I'll buy a Chevy. If I don't mind paying Viper tax, I'll buy a Viper.
Hate to go so soon, but work calls. Must create more jobs.
D
I just checked your profile, and it says you are a year older than you were the last time I checked. Happy Birthday, Neo! (hope this isn't really late, lol)
Ryno
I love it! Great blog, too. I found this from RcYoAxN's blog, and I think it's just GREAT!
I'll link to you if you link to me. It's "http://www.standonbible.blogspot.com".
In Him,
David S. MacMillan III
Great post, NeoFascist?. It shows how even liberals have to admit that they really ought to get what they earn.
Yep, I really do have to admit that taking my money and spending it on crap while others starve to death or get killed in the streets thanks to a lack of police is an excellent idea. I mean, it is pure and absolute genius.
I wasn't arguing against giving any money to the government. That would be total foolishness to any freedom-loving person.
I think that people who work shouldn't provide for those who can work but don't. If we give people who don't want to work a way to go on that way, we will have a nation of people who depend on others to fulfill their needs. How is that better than having free, independent, hardworking people who can support themselves without the help of the government?
The key is to understand the difference between helping people truly in need, and enabling people who are only in need beacuse of their own bad decisions.
D
Maybe this girl just isn't as smart as the other kids and it takes her twice the amount of time to do her work?
Maybe this girl was born into a life of privilege and her parents paid her way through college, and the poor kids have to work their way throughout college, or didn't get to go at all. Or maybe this girl’s dad went to that prestigious college and got an A because her father contributed money to the board, was the head of the CIA, and later Vice President of the country, and they therefore gave her 4.0 even though she was mildly retarded and didn't deserve it.
Or maybe it's just the opposite, maybe this girl wasn't born into a life of privilege but her friend Mary was, so even though Mary has never had to work for her money, or for her grade, she can still do anything she wants, get a worse grade than this girl, and still get a better job and be richer only because of who her parents are and how rich they are. And then maybe this girl can take her 4.0 and be Mary's maid since Mary's dad has already outsourced all the good jobs to India.
Or maybe this girl got this grade at the expense of her other classmates and that without her copying their work, destroying theirs, and fluffing the professor she would have never gotten a 4.0 anyway, so therefore, doesn't deserve that 4.0.
Things you have to believe to be in the Republican party today:
- Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery
- Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness
- "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India
- A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation
- Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of gays and Hillary Clinton
- The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
- If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex
- A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money
- HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart
- Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
- Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools
- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion
- A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet
- The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
-Black people have the same oppurtunities in life as white people.
-Being born with money doesn't give you any advantages or benefits over people who are born without it.
-Babies who are born poor, are just lazy.
- What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
- Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony
How many points in the preceding diatribe are inherently wrong, and smack insidiously of the hysterical shrieking of the lunatic left?
Let's try 20, not counting the thoughts in the first four paragraphs.
Keep showing that much ability for R&R (repetition of rhetoric)insight, toady, and we just might have an amphibian on the Dem ticket for 2008.
D
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RE: Anonymous
Oh so you are saying that stiff Republican drug laws do apply to Rush?
Why is Rush on the Radio and my brother just got out of jail for drugs?
Are you saying that this administration doesn’t support outsourcing?
Are you saying Republicans don’t hate big government unless it’s banning marriage, governing our bedrooms?
You really think Jesus hates Hillary Clinton and Gay people?
Not that Jesus is alive
Are you saying the US Government isn’t cutting veterans benefits and closing bases? (Where have you been the last week?)
Do you really think that no condoms means no sex?
You are disconnected from reality
Do you really think Insurance companies care about you?
Then you are naive
So you are saying Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer? Tell that to my aunt and uncle. Oh, I guess you'll have to wait until you go to heaven.
You really think Saddam posed a bigger threat to the US than Bin Laden, N Korea and all the missing Russian warheads?
Do you really think the constitution says anything about gays and censorship? I would like to know what section.
Do you honestly think a black kid born into a family, or lack of family on welfare has the same opportunities as George Bush did?
Wake up!
Do you really think that all poor people are just lazy?
Can you explain the difference between doing trade with China and doing trade with Cuba? Besides the fact that Cuba doesn't use slave labor? And then why, is it so bad to do business with Cuba and not China?
Please let me know how
"Inherently wrong" I am. I want to be enlightened. And this time, address a specific issue instead of just saying "you're wrong because you’re Liberal".
I challenge you to find a whole in any of the issues above.
Hey, if stuff keeps going the way it's going, the Dems should be able to run a frog in 2008 and win.
ALRIGHT, the gig is up! I know now that Toad is actually my mother-in-law, come to the cyberworld to haunt me with yet more regurgitated Frankensense (AL, that is). The cheesy avatar was the giveaway (I've never seen her without her wig, though. Scary).
;-0
..................but just in case some might take the diatribe seriously, I'll respond to a couple just so the slower folks can maybe pick up on the drift.
First thing:
To insinuate that ANY of the absurd statements you made apply to most mainstream Republicans is wrong. The statements are nonsense.....for instance.....
" Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery"
While it is true that drug addiction, (as well as food addiction, sexual addiction, and any of a number of other indicators of hedonism), are moral failings, and CAN be corrected if people are willing to own up to the fact that they are accountable , and have a free will, about what they do with their bodies, any thinking person realizes that all people are subject to these issues, and should be dealt with equally. The preferential treatment that you perceive Rush was given was a result of fame and influence, not his political leanings. If I wanted to go to the trouble, I could certainly show you more examples of Left leaning celebrities receiving such treatment, simply because their very nature makes them more likely to stumble. The truth is, all Christians have a duty to pray for ALL people, famous or not, to be able to overcome their selfish addictions, and live free of that bondage.
I wish I had more time, but wortk calls. Here is the most absurd statement of all, so I'll deal with it, and leave the rest to your imagination. Please rest assured, with the flawed reasoning and obvious agenda you show, the rest would shred just as easily:
"You really think Jesus hates Hillary Clinton and Gay people?
Not that Jesus is alive"
First and foremost, it is apparent that you have either never actually interacted with an actual Christian, or you choose to deny what you found when you did.
It is true that there are lunatic fringe religious zealots who demonstrate hatred, but these do not represent Jesus. Although there is no historical reference to Jesus' interaction with one who practiced homosexual behaviour, there is a record of what Jesus had to say to a woman who was accused of adultry (another form of selfish fulfillment of lust). He looked around at he religious zealots wanting to stone her, and said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He then looked down and began to draw on the ground with a stick. When he looked up, everyone had left accept the accused. He looked at her in love and said "go, and sin no more". Never, in any record anywhere, did Jesus display hatred for anyone. He did, however, encourage people to turn from destructive behaviour.
That is the way actual Christians view moral failings in others. We realize that we, too, have our own failings, and but for Grace, could never be accepted into the Kingdom of God.
It seems that you have probably run into some legalistic, Pharisaic, religious zealots at some point, purporting to be Christian. You may also hear some occasional loudmouth fringe preaching.
I hear liberal left fringe such as NAMBLA spokesmen, too. I do understand that just because the agenda of NAMBLA is total liberty to do whatever one wants, it doesn't mean that all liberals are tarred with the brush of pedophilia.
Time to go; gotta work. Sorry about the mother-in-law thing. Just struck me as funny.
D
D - I have a pretty nice stock portfolio. My money is invested in publically-traded companies and corporations. My money helps fund these entities' growth and provided jobs. Should I pay taxes?
Also, it sounds like you really believe people like Cathy should pay no taxes, even though, since they have so much more than everyone else, they have more to lose if this country goes belly-up. Don't you think Cathy should pay some taxes to pay the grunts on the front line protecting her and her right to have a business?
Also, please study the tax policy of banana republics, and you'll see that they don't tax people like Cathy, and stiff the working grunts. That policy has really worked great in places like Guatemala and Boliva. Top-notch.
Lastly, I don't know if you're old enough to have a job yet, but if you don't, then you'll soon learn employees are just as important as the Cathy's. In fact, go find yourself a Cathy and ask her if the employees are important. If they have credit for making her company successful. If that owner says no, then he/she is probably lying. Or soon going bankrupt.
PS - One last thing - how do you tax public corporations? Do the shareholders get a free ride? They are the owners - they shouldn't pay taxes?
Semantics.....Cathy IS paying. Give her credit for the revenue her endeavours generate.
Cathy HAS so much? How about Cathy GENERATES so much. The numbers generated by the jobs created are REAL, and they would not happen if someone didn't take the initiative and start, then run and grow, the businesses.
Banana Republics compared to U.S economy? Give me a break.....that is bananas to corn, or apples to oranges, or whatever. Nothing is gained by looking at the comparison, because there are so many other variables.
Is capital gains on investments a just tax (considering that the money is already taxed at a confiscatory rate, usually more than once, before the investments can be made, unless in a tax-deferred plan)? No, it is not. So, no, you shouldn't be taxed on your investment earnings.
Am I old enough for a job? Well, I've been filing and paying taxes now for 26 years, the last 5 as one of the principle owners in a tech sector manufacturing facility.
Do I understand the importance of employees? Well, the people who help me run this thing all draw salaries that are 20-30% above the norm for my industry, and we are located in a rural area. They all have full medical, dental, and vision care, paid for on top of their salaries because it is the right thing to do. The top two have been given a 5% ownership stake, and when the time is right, then the others will follow.
I DO understand the value of people.
I simply believe that people should be given credit (by the IRS) for their overall net impact on the economy. It's really simple. As soon as the statement "but they HAVE so much" comes in to the dialogue, it is apparent that reason is gone, and envy has arrived. Most people are not GIVEN all these things, Quite a few of us EARN them. In the process of earning them, jobs are usually created.
Am I greedy? Well, around 12% of my gross (not net) income went to charity last year. My goal, long term, is to live on 10% and give away 90%.
I just don't want to give it to bloated, inefficient buraucracies that usually do more to enable people to continue in unproductive behaviour than they do to help people learn to be self-sufficient.
D
D - you never addressed my concern: why shouldn't you pay for the armed services, vets like me, who protect you while you generate wealth?
Too good for that?
I don't think so.
I'm glad you're generating wealth -but you're also using plenty of gov't sponsored resources to do it. And you're not the only one generating the wealth. Your employees are. They are paying taxes and so should you.
I never said that taxes on capital gains were good. I say get rid of them. But don't tax exempt business owners.
Now that you say you are one, I can understand why they shouldn't be taxed. More money for you!
You never actually stated that your status as a veteran was a concern. I certainly don't mind the money that I generate being spent on the armed forces.....
I was a volunteer myself from 1980-1986. Honorably discharged veteran. Proud of it.
The point that I was attemting to get across might be made a little more clearly if I use the following illustration (FYI, the numbers are not exact, but proportionally realistic.
Person "A" has a job paying 60K per year. Pays personal income taxes of 15K.
Person "B" has job running company with a salary of 60K, plus "profit share" of 60K showing up as income on K1. Problem is, the 60K on paper profits has to stay in the company because it is tied up in inventory and other overhead. Person "B" has to pay tax on the total of 120K, while only drawing the actual salary of 60K. Hopefully, enough profits can be distributed to at least cover tax liability, but that is not always the case. Eventually, the retained earnings will be of value, but in the meantime, operating capital (very important for expansion ie: new job creation) must be delved into to simply pax tax on profits.
This is the case with sub-chapter S corps; with C corp, it is worse (in my opinion), because corporate profits are taxed, and then shareholders equity increases, as well as personal income tax ON TOP of that.
In the Cathy analogy, the point I was trying to make is that she is already pouring many times more dollars into the federal coffers than she would if she were simply an employ. When she pays personal income tax on top of all of that, it is, in effect, double (actually more like quadruple) taxation.
Simply add up the dollars resulting from her endeavours.
btw....thanks for volunteering.
D
Something else I though about.....(that's why I enjoy these exchanges. They make me think about my positions, and clarify what it is that I really think).
The real thing that bugs me about the current system is not the fact that business owners pay taxes; it is the inherent injustice of graduated the graduated brackets. Everything in the free market world operates off the principle that increse in volume equals a decrease in per unit pricing. The reasons for/benefits of this principle are too numerous to detail here....it works, and is right.
Contrast that with the current graduated tax scale. It is diametrically opposed to the principle of greater volume/lower pricing. If you forced the world's industries to try and operate with a system that dictates "greater volume/higher pricing", it would all grind to a halt within 30-45 days (enough time to allow current orders to be fulfilled).
In truth, if people simply had to pay the same amount proportionally, that would, indeed, be just. To pay proportionally more because you have the audacity to earn more is ridiculous.
On a side note, recognize the satire that Neo used in the France thing for what it is. The nature of satire is to highlight issues by amplification. Kinda like verbal characature. The issues he was highlighting (not the ampifications themselves) are all matters of France's international diplomacy, and can all be illustrated as facts (as long as you believe media reports). Some of the post may have gone a little over the top, but come on, it's satire.
Give him a break; you ever get on a roll, and fall into youthfull exuberance as you rant?
D
D - I find it funny when conservatives "get on a roll" its just satire, fun, you know?
When liberals do it, they are scum.
Neo showed he has no idea how the rest of the world operates. And showed that he is mildly hypocritical as well. If he wants to slam liberals on how they portray Christians and conservatives, great. He can make a good case.
When he turns around and disparages a whole country and its citizens, then he loses the right to criticize.
Post a Comment
<< Home