Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Smear e-mail I got today - not yet debunked

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:48 AM
Original message
Smear e-mail I got today - not yet debunked
Edited on Mon Oct-27-08 09:50 AM by frickaline
I received this in e-mail and I could not find it on snopes nor on fightthesmears. I have already sent it to fight the smears. The one thing I did find was this:

"Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it." ~ http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

I'm not sure if this is referring to this e-mail or something else. Hopefully that is the real Dr. Kamerschen anyway. Clearly this isn't how taxes work. Here's the e-mail:


Subject: Obama-nomics


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. '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 paid $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.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. OH FOR FUCKING CHRISTS SAKE!!!

STOP WITH THE FUCKING "NOT YET DEBUNKED RIGHT FUCKING WING HATE EMAILS!!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Would you calm down please.
Can we not share information. Is that not the POINT of a forum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. NO!! We're sick of this SHIT here
Go fucking annoy somebody else's forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Read this post and learn how to answer people properly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Why didn't you do the research before posting this lame BULLFUCKING SHIT
Haha - you are lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Welcome as my first ignore list member - your name really doesn't do you justice.
Edited on Mon Oct-27-08 10:02 AM by frickaline
For a thread you don't want to read, you sure spend a lot of time here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Good
You're clearly a low-information poster - I don't need this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
30. "We" are?
Speak for yourself. Go take a break from DU, you obviously need it, if you can't do more than scream at someone who asks a fucking question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. OH FOR FUCKING CHRISTS SAKE!!!
Edited on Mon Oct-27-08 09:50 AM by HughMoran

STOP WITH THE FUCKING "NOT YET DEBUNKED" RIGHT FUCKING WING HATE EMAILS!!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is OLD, and supposedly humorous...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thank you. Now I can respond to it.
I searched the Obama area up there and not the taxes part. I appreciate the help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. This looks like a variant of one that's been passed around over and over again...
It is on Snopes, but it the authorship that's in question. I'm almost certain I've seen DUers pick this thing apart many times but I wouldn't know where to start searching for it.

here's the snopes URL: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. This is false.
Edited on Mon Oct-27-08 09:58 AM by Eric J in MN
The government can give tax breaks by expanding the 0% bracket.

Then someone who makes $50K and someone who makes $50 million would get the same amount of relief.

This email implies that the only way to lower taxes is to lower every rate (that is false.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's an easy debunk
Kamerschen says he did not write it.

Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. "easy"
...for someone who doesn't want to just clog up DU with "easy to debunk" bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Can you prove
that he's not lying when he says he didn't write it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. got me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. There's nothing in here that mentions where their money comes from
in the first place.

The scenario above assumes everyone starts with an even playing field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
16. It's Not That Simple
Because it is not just a matter of the restaurant/bar owner cutting prices to be generous. More than likely the lower prices will be accompanied by reduced services. Maybe, after a while, the owner will no longer be able to offer the free snack mix he set out on the bar. Now that may not matter so much to the wealthiest, they can afford to buy their own snacks. But, maybe it is not so easy for the poorest.

Maybe, because the establishment owner has cut prices, he isn't as careful about cleaning the place as he used to be, and it starts looking kind of shabby. Again, this is no problem for the richest, they can go elsewhere, even if it means the menu items cost a little more. It may be a problem for the poorest if the rich decide now that they are spending more on their meal/snack/beer (in a nicer place) that they can no longer afford to subsidize the others. And the ones in the middle keep going to the now shabbier place, because they can afford their own stuff, but not to support others. So, the richest men are better off, while the guys in the middle are slightly worse off and the poorest out completely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
17. I got that one too
My SIL sent it to me. I think (not 100% sure) that those numbers are just for federal income tax, which only makes up about 1/4 of the total tax burden in this country.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Social security taxes for example are capped at about 100k, so the bottom 90% of taxpayers will pay a good chunk of that.

Basically that email is based on a very manipulative, misleading presentation of numbers.

First ignore all taxes except federal income tax. Ignore sales tax, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, FICA taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, etc. Only focus on the truly progressive tax (federal income) and ignore all of the regressive taxes (alcohol, gasoline, sales, FICA).

Secondly, ignore the fact that even though the wealthy pay about 60% of the federal income tax, it is because they control most of the wealth and income.



Whining because people who make 60% of the income pay 60% of the taxes is stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
19. Why oh why won't anyone forward chain mails about how Reagan
increased the 11% tax rate, for the poorest workers, UP TO 15%, and reduced the 70% tax rate for the wealthiest DOWN to 28%, before the latter was raised back up to 31% by Poppy (and then increased more under Clinton)? It just boggles the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
casus belli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
21. This is very old...and extremely flawed.
It tries to oversimplify several details of the progressive tax system, not the least of which is that if it were truly representative of how a progressive tax system works - the guy in the 10th position makes more than all of the other 9 combined and pays, as a percentage of his income, less than any of the other groups except those who pay no taxes at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
22. Looks like this e-mail is getting around the 'Net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
23. Not a smear, but not realistic either
Among the many flaws in this grossly over-simplified parable is that all 10 of the men get the same benefit from the bar. In real life, taxes pay for services and those services are NOT consumed equally and the benefits of those services do not acrue equally either. Simply change "buying beer" to "building roads" and realize that the three or four poorest either have no car or can afford only a rare drive--they make no money off the road system. The middle men do drive, but otherwise derive no benefit. The richest men not only drive, but profit because they use the roads to haul materials and goods to their factories, place their shops along those roads to gain access to consumers, etc.

It's clear that the poor guys aren't getting "free" beer, they simply aren't being charged for something they don't or can't use. The middle guys are paying for something that only somewhat benefits them. The rich guys are simply paying for the infrastructure that makes them the rich guys in the first place. What part isn't fair? If the rich guys simply stops paying for the roads, guess what, the roads get crappy and people can't feed his factory or buy his goods and he becomes poor...kinda what is happening to our country right now.

Geez, this isn't even hard to debunk if you examine that one single flaw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
24. I agree with HughMoran. stop posting this crap...
here's a rule of thumb for researching this garbage.

1)it's a mass email so therefore it's total bullshit.

2)it's an attack email so therefore it's total bullshit

3)it's a retread of an old mass email, so therefore it's total and complete bullshit.

4)if you feel you must come on DU to "see if it's for real or not", it's total and complete bullshit.

now what have we learned?

it's allllllllll bullshit. do your research. don't bother us with this colossal load of crap.

good god.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-08 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
25. CRAP. Pure crap. Debunked hundreds of times.
Edited on Mon Oct-27-08 11:52 AM by Overseas
Easiest rebuttal = go see Obama tax plan. 95% pay no additional taxes.

Then go take a look at McLiar's plan to TAX MEDICAL BENEFITS as income. All those lucky enough to get medical insurance at work will be TAXED MORE.

Golly gee, who costs more?

Cute little right wing stories be damned.

They often fiddle with the dollar amounts the rich pay vs. the poor. Then wail about how the rich pay so doggone much more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
27. Oh really??
It is funny that this clowns claim of:
"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." IS A LOAD OF SHIT.

Those people did not mind Clinton Tax adjustments, DID THEY? Comparing the two, Obama and Clinton, Obam's tax adjustments are conservative.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., is not being fourth coming with the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiseoldman Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
28. Hey - Frickaline, I wouldd just reply with.....
This looks like "Bush-O-Nomics": according Snopes this "How Taxes Work" letter was posted just after the Bush "Tax cuts for the Rich - Corporate Welfare" program was put in place in 2001.

You gotta have fun with the "sheepers", back at'em and let them do the research.

And - thanks for the post - the Snopes info was interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiseoldman Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
29. OMG "they might start drinking overseas"????
"In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Actually, dude nine and ten took their "Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich" rewards and invested overseas in places like India and China.

Here is how taxes work under Bush/McCain: We borrow money from China, so we can give tax cuts to the rich, so they can invest back in China. This is called "Bush/McCain Trickle Out Economics". The Bush stimulus package (that McCain supports) was a total disaster. If you want our money to stay in America we need to give tax breaks to the middle class, who spend in America, and invest in our infrastructure.... i.e. The Obama Economic Plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
31. I got this.
The author of the parable ignores the fact that the tenth man lives in a veritable mansion, and would never, ever associate with the other nine. He ignores the fact that this tenth man sets the price of the beer, and makes a profit on the purchases by the other nine. He ignores the fact that the tenth man has been drinking for free for years. He ignores the fact that the first and second men are struggling to afford their housing and health care, not beer.

He ignores the fact that no one is proposing socialized drinking, and that this is a stupid parable that only pretends to represent life as we know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaGrl Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-28-08 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
32. Here's my take
Firstly of all we all pay taxes in one way or the other.
Secondly- there are numerous factors excluded from the author calculation that affect the standard of living for each character in this story and therefore affects their ability to pay a certain amount.
Thirdly- The tenth man is the one who owns the beer company, he employs the ninth and eight man etc. He lives a life of luxury while the others (from 6 downwards) struggle to pay bills, he may not even provide health care for the other characters. His standard of living is greatly exceeds the 6th man downwards and therefore paying $59 dollars would not affect his livelihood as the $1 would affect the fifth man. The men with the lower standard of living would have a larger burden on them to pay, and it makes it more difficult for them to elevate themselves. While the tenth man, 9th and maybe 8th has people working for them who are trained to deal with financial matters, who knows how to elude paying certain cost and how to recover any lost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC