*********************
Posted on 12/16/2010 10:16:39 AM PST by combat_boots
By Michelle Malkin • December 16, 2010 12:55 PM Interesting goings-on in Washington. On the House floor just now, Democrats have just withdrawn the rule on the tax deal and moved on to a different bill providing technical corrections for the bankruptcy law.
Jo Maney from GOP Rep. David Dreier’s office explains: “Dems just pulled tax bill rule…they can amend it on the floor without having to go to back to committee. But it’s unclear how they will proceed at this point.”
Tax System explained in beer
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 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 t he 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, this 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
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Excellent! Surely, even a liberal with a degree from an Ivy League school could understand it.
It really sucks being rich.
BUMP
I’m reading here, and I don’t see what this is about. Can anyone clarify what’s going on?
I would really love it if Dreir’s office help had told us what the heck pulling the tax Rule off the floor actually means?????
Hope it means that the House dims are concerned about a procedural rebellion in the works from our dim bulbs.
Highly unlikely, I know.
“Heads up.”
Heads up for what? What does this mean, if anything? It does not seem to mean anything.
Heads up for what? What does this mean, if anything? It does not seem to mean anything._________________________
Probably means they’re breaking for lunch.
The have to have rules to determine how the debate on the bill would be handled. So no rules then no debate then no vote.
It really sucks having a single penny extracted by force from this tyrannical government, so that it may be squandered on worthless crap, individuals who do not deserve it and spent without the consent of the electorate.
The tack which conservatives, or any tax payer, should have should be that of not relinquishing ANY income, by ANYONE, EVER, to Obama’s crooked Federal government.
They are spending and spending and spending with no consideration of the fact that this money will have to be paid back. In fact, they know that they are spending us into oblivion, at which point taxes will have to be raised on EVERYONE, including the rich.
I don’t know what they’re doing, but Malkin came out with the info and posted it. She’s reliable.
Something’s afoot that’s worth mentioning. Just what is known by those who are closer to the source & insiders. I am not one of them.
But word is leaking out or Malkin wouldn’t have the info.
The have to have rules to determine how the debate on the bill would be handled.
Rules of debate? Hmmmm. Thank you for the tutorial, seriously, but as I said, the yank of the rule still may be a break for lunch. A three martini lunch. ;)
Thanks, RD 232
Didn’t Clyburn (SC) previously state that they make up the rules as they go?
Didn’t Clyburn (SC) previously state that they make up the rules as they go?
My bad, actually it was Alicee Hastings: “We make up the rules as we go along.”
http://www.narbosa.com/2010/03/alicee-hastings-we-make-up-rules-as-we.html
That’s great!
It is......I'm told.
The server at www.c-span.org is taking too long to respond.
Interesting...
are they going to turn off the mikes and lights again?
der pingle
.....the first four are now employed by Acorn and demand a ride to the bar and snacks along with imported beer.
GET FOCUSED!
This is EVERYTHING.
The GOP should vote to ensure that the Estate Tax is RAISED. Yes, RAISED. The GOP should vote in the house WITH THE LEFT WING DEMOCRATS.
The goal is to FORCE IT BACK TO THE SENATE. Force it to be redone in the Senate. BUY TIME. Also, if ANY CHANGES TAKE PLACE, McConnell and ALL THE GOP SENATORS, EVEN THE MODERATES, will stand by their commitment to allow nothing else to take place until it passes.
In other words EAT THE CLOCK. It is time for a strategic vote. Vote to INCREASE TAXES. That will never become law. It has to go back to the Senate if there are ANY CHANGES, so help the left wing FORCE CHANGES.
That’s the biggest part of the problem. They DO fully understand it. They simply refuse to recognize it.
I’m waiting on barry hussein soetero obama to start coming down on the NBA players for not doing their fair share. They need to pay more taxes....
Barry, Barry, Barry ???
Hmmm....crickets chirping
We used to know this:
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
See tagline.
You see, to a liberal, the Ten Commandments are an "evolving paradigm", a "living document", if you will. Why should we be bound by laws that were handed down in such a different time? Our needs have changed, you understand.
Our Founding Father could not have envisioned such things as tax-free bonds or cell phones or Facebook. So why should we have to live under such ancient standards of behavior?
It's all so... unfair. And that's what Government is for, after all: to make things more... fair.
Note to taxpayers: Prepare for incoming!
You are scary good with that spin, LOL.
Dems pull tax-deal rule off House floor after liberal revolt
*************************************EXCERPT**************************************
posted at 1:35 pm on December 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The Senate passed its version of the tax deal by a wide margin this week, but in the House, the plan appears to be in jeopardy. Democratic leadership had to pull the rule governing the debate on the bill after liberals in their caucus revolted and threatened to send it to a defeat. One Democrat called it a “speed bump,” but as of yet the road to passage has not opened:
A final House vote on President Obama’s tax proposal could be delayed after Democratic leaders were forced to pull a procedural measure off the House floor Thursday.
The House was set to vote on the rule governing debate on the broad tax bill, but the measure was withdrawn at the last minute when leaders realized it was likely to be rejected. Liberals opposed to the deal Obama struck with Republicans were upset that the procedure approved by the House Rules Committee on Wednesday did not allow them a clean opportunity to vote on the legislation the Senate passed on Wednesday. A final vote on the tax deal had been planned for Thursday evening.
“We’re just trying to work out some kinks,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a floor manager for the tax bill, told reporters. He characterized the decision to pull the procedural measure off the floor as “a bump” and said he did not think the House would have to delay a final vote past Thursday. Yet he said it was unclear what the next move was and said Democratic leaders were huddling over how to proceed.
Ironically, this resulted from an attempt to “deem-and-pass” the tax deal. The rule would have allowed an amendment for the sake of altering the estate-tax portion of the deal Barack Obama cut with the GOP; had it then passed, the House would have deemed the rest of the deal to have passed as well and sent the amendment to the Senate. If not, then the House would have held a clean vote on the Senate bill.
Unfortunately for Nancy Pelosi, her progressive caucus wanted a chance to vote against the entire deal rather than take a face-saving way out. That would have meant another attempt at resuscitating the Obama deal from scratch or nearly so, at least in the Rules Committee. The Boss Emeritus reports that the House could also try amending the rule on the House floor, but that might be a difficult maneuver if Pelosi’s caucus remains split on proceeding.
Most expect the deal to pass without changes in the end, but at the moment, how Pelosi gets to the end is difficult to see. If Pelosi can’t get the deal passed, it will result in a massive tax increase on January 1, which will be entirely the fault of Democratic obstructionism, as well as an indication of presidential impotence. The pressure to avoid both consequences will probably be enough to push it through to adoption.
According to NRO, the House Dems go into a closed door caucus meeting at 3:45 pm.
*********************
Funny thing about the “evolving” ten commandments.
On the left, you might as well take every one of them, state its opposite, and call the result the “new ten commandments”.
“As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” Less Nessman.
This ‘tax bill’ is a Christmas tree of corruption with food control, globull warming, gay military and foreign backsheesh rolled into one, hot peanut butter shark bait fruit salad with camambert dressing.
Freeze the turkeys and drop them out of helos, why don’t you, Nanzi, Hoyer, and the slimy statists who call themselves ‘Republican.’ Gun us all down, since that’s really what you want to do with all the spending: kill the United States.
Shame on you. And if you vote for it, may the Lord God Almighty condemn you all.
Actually, Mr. Carlson (station GM) said that famous quote. Les was the "crack" news reporter for WKRP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
