The ant and the grasshopper. Who comes up with this stuff? It's great!

[davebogart]

The ant and the grasshopper

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

-------------------------------------------

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands
to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others
are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table
filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is
allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries
when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the
news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has
the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the
ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an
immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs
and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is
confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation
suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal
judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare
recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the
ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be
the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now
abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once
peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008.

[pseudonym]

The old version? Aesop.

The new version? Karl Rove.

[smak]

New version:2001-2008 never happened.

-smak-

[JP]

I love conservative bedtime-stories. :)

PLEASE, Pa, tell us another?

Tell us the one about the brave Maverick who defeated the evil community organizer!

No, wait! I wanna hear my favorite! Tell us the one about the WMD and how we'll be greeted as liberators with flowers and candy!

[davebogart]

I love conservative bedtime-stories. :)

PLEASE, Pa, tell us another?Okay, here's a good one:

Today on my way to lunch Stephen & I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' We laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again we laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I got the check but Stephen demanded to take care of the tip. Stephen decided not to tip the server and explained to him that he was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while Stephen told him that he was going to redistribute his tip to someone who he deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from our sight.

We went outside, stephen gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment we realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that we gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application..........OR....... IS IT REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH THAT IS A GREAT IDEA..............or just a fools game !!

[JP]

Okay, here's a good one:
It's actually this one:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/comment-o-day-i-cant-believe-its-not.html

But okay, the moral of this story is "conservatives are asshole jerks"?

And if I'm not mistaken, one version of the story concludes with him going back the next day to discover the server has been Born Again politically, having Seen The Error Of His Ways, and is wearing a McCain tie. The moral of THAT story would be "conservatives are asshole jerks who make stuff up to make themselves look important"?

[TheIndependent]

asshole jerks? the story is exactly what the redistribution of wealth proponent want to do, take money from the people with more and give it to the people with less. what exactly is off about the story JP (other than it probably being made-up, the point about removing the waiter's tip to give to the unemployed homeless man is still salient)

[davebogart]

"conservatives are asshole jerks who make stuff up to make themselves look important"?
It's ugly comments like this that make me think all liberals are vile people.

[JP]

asshole jerks? Yup. What had the waiter done to the asshole jerk in the story other than hold a different opinion than his? So the asshole jerk decides to be an asshole jerk about it. It's not surprising to me, conservative humor often seems to revolve around making other people suffer, either to teach them a lesson or just for jollies (or both).

the story is exactly what the redistribution of wealth proponent want to doBZZZT. Nope, it's not. Nobody steals the waiter's tip in any Dem scheme. But if the asshole jerk had said instead "I want to show you what Obama's plans are about, so I'm going to give you an 9 dollar tip and how about I give the other dollar to that hungry guy out front, would that be okay?", then it wouldn't be much of a conservative bedtime-story.

[davebogart]

Nobody steals the waiter's tip in any Dem scheme. But if the asshole jerk had said instead "I want to show you what Obama's plans are about, so I'm going to give you an 9 dollar tip and how about I give the other dollar to that hungry guy out front, would that be okay?", then it wouldn't be much of a conservative bedtime-story.Same story. Just different extremes.

[JP]

"conservatives are asshole jerks who make stuff up to make themselves look important"?
It's ugly comments like this that make me think all liberals are vile people.We're even then, I guess, it's stories like the one you posted that could surely make a person think all conservative people are. Certainly the guy telling the story is a vile and contemptible little person.

And if in the version I mentioned he expects us to believe he came back later and the waiter had Converted, then he's both a liar and a fool in addition.

[JP]

Same story. Just different extremes.Other than one wouldn't include being needlessly mean to a hard-working waiter who's only crime is having a differing political opinion than your own and that would reflect reality far better than conservative fantasy?

But if we're allowed to take liberties with extremes, I can say things like John McCain wants to start a war with every country on earth. Okay, he only wants to start one with Iran, but it's the same story just with different extremes, right?

[davebogart]

So I take it these little parables haven't swayed you?

[JP]

So I take it these little parables haven't swayed you?They've swayed me more liberal, if that's what you mean.

Have you conservative types ever considered discussing the merits of your beliefs factually and actually, rather than making up these wild fantasy bedtime-stories for yourselves where it's fun to be mean to people who don't believe what you do?

[davebogart]

So I take it these little parables haven't swayed you?They've swayed me more liberal, if that's what you mean.

Have you conservative types ever considered discussing the merits of your beliefs factually and actually, rather than making up these wild fantasy bedtime-stories for yourselves...?You mean made-up stuff like this? http://www.mainsquare.org/showthread.php?t=6093

Edited to add: That was pretty funny!

[JP]

You mean made-up stuff like this? http://www.mainsquare.org/showthread.php?t=6093

Edited to add: That was pretty funny!I liked the post better before you edited it. :)

And yeah, that video was pretty funny. That's for Dems to poke fun at other Dems for not voting, though, not making up stories where we laugh at the misfortunes of people who commit the crime of not agreeing with us. You can find that sort of thing in darker corners of the internet, for every fetish there's sure to be a supplier for it. But I don't find it funny, or expect conservatives to find it instructive.

[TheIndependent]

asshole jerks? Yup. What had the waiter done to the asshole jerk in the story other than hold a different opinion than his? So the asshole jerk decides to be an asshole jerk about it. It's not surprising to me, conservative humor often seems to revolve around making other people suffer, either to teach them a lesson or just for jollies (or both).

so redirecting the server's tip (income) to someone without income (the bum) is now "making other people suffer". you seem to be adopting the wrong set of values being you support redistribution of wealth.

the story is exactly what the redistribution of wealth proponent want to doBZZZT. Nope, it's not. Nobody steals the waiter's tip in any Dem scheme.

bzzt, yes it is. it's as much "stealing the waiter's tip" as it is "stealing my income with increased taxation" and as much redistribution to someone that doesn't earn it/deserve just like the Dem scheme is.

But if the asshole jerk had said instead "I want to show you what Obama's plans are about, so I'm going to give you an 9 dollar tip and how about I give the other dollar to that hungry guy out front, would that be okay?"

you really don't understand Obama's plan i see. not a surprise.

[JP]

so redirecting the server's tip (income) to someone without income (the bum) is now "making other people suffer". you seem to be adopting the wrong set of values being you support redistribution of wealth. No Dem plan takes away everything somebody makes for their effort and gives it to somebody else. In the story the waiter does his job for the asshole jerk customer but gets no tip. That's the asshole jerk making the waiter suffer because the asshole jerk wants to make some point, one which isn't even applicable. But that's conservative humor for you, I guess.

you really don't understand Obama's plan i see. not a surprise.Go ahead and explain, then. What percentage of the waiter's effort for a job does any Obama tax plan take away from him? According to asshole jerk, it's 100%, at least when serving asshole jerks. What's the real percentage?

[TheIndependent]

so redirecting the server's tip (income) to someone without income (the bum) is now "making other people suffer". you seem to be adopting the wrong set of values being you support redistribution of wealth. No Dem plan takes away everything somebody makes for their effort and gives it to somebody else.

this doesn't take away everything from the waiter either. the waiter makes a base pay and his tips are a percentage of his income and extra above his base amount.


you really don't understand Obama's plan i see. not a surprise.Go ahead and explain, then. What percentage of the waiter's effort for a job does any Obama tax plan take away from him? According to asshole jerk, it's 100%, at least when serving asshole jerks. What's the real percentage?

it's not 100%, and no one claimed it was.

[Otto]

you really don't understand Obama's plan i see. not a surprise.
Well, I can't speak for JP, but I certainly do understand Obama's plan, and everything you've said in this thread is complete and utter crap.

So, on that level, I have to agree with JP: Conservatives frequently come off as jerks.

[jgerry]

I don't view the parable so much in terms of money, but in terms of compassion. I wouldn't stand around letting another person die if I could help in any way. Clearly, that's not the way the conservative mind works.

[JP]

this doesn't take away everything from the waiter either. the waiter makes a base pay and his tips are a percentage of his income and extra above his base amount.Most waiters get paid squat, under minimum wage even, and tips make up the bulk of their income. What Dem plan takes away the bulk of the waiter's income?

it's not 100%, and no one claimed it was.Well let's do some math, then. Say the waiter is making $6/hour. Say he serves an average of 3 customers an hour (it's likely more) with a $10 tip each. So every hour he makes $36, 16.6% from base and 83.3% from tips. Taxes are of course taken out. What Dem plan deprives the waiter of 83.3% more of his income for an hour of work? Or let's consider that in that hour he only has the ONE asshole jerk customer, then he's only lost 27.8% more of his income for that hour. What Dem plan does that to him?

You see why I call this a conservative bedtime-story? It's not real. Though now that I think of it, a better analogy would be "conservative porn". Seriously, it's like Penthouse Letters.

[davebogart]

you really don't understand Obama's plan i see. not a surprise.
Well, I can't speak for JP, but I certainly do understand Obama's plan, and everything you've said in this thread is complete and utter crap.

So, on that level, I have to agree with JP: Conservatives frequently come off as jerks.And liberals, at least within this forum, always do.

[JP]

you really don't understand Obama's plan i see. not a surprise.
Well, I can't speak for JP, but I certainly do understand Obama's plan, and everything you've said in this thread is complete and utter crap.

So, on that level, I have to agree with JP: Conservatives frequently come off as jerks.And liberals, at least within this forum, always do.Try being wrong less often. :)

(sorry, yes, I know, it's another nail in the vile-liberal coffin)

[davebogart]

I don't view the parable so much in terms of money, but in terms of compassion. I wouldn't stand around letting another person die if I could help in any way. Clearly, that's not the way the conservative mind works.You want to talk about saving lives? Who's for killing babies? Who isn't?

[JP]

I don't view the parable so much in terms of money, but in terms of compassion. I wouldn't stand around letting another person die if I could help in any way. Clearly, that's not the way the conservative mind works.You want to talk about saving lives? Who's for killing babies? Who isn't?Dave, dude, you don't wanna go there.

But I can play the game if you want. Who's for making sure the babies that get born to poor families get all the help they need, and which party stops caring about them the moment after they're born and harps incessantly about cutting the spending that aims to help them (and invents fables like the one with asshole jerk, to try to convince people)?

[jgerry]

You want to talk about saving lives? Who's for killing babies? Who isn't?
We're not talking about babies of course, but you had to go there. You just had to.

But I am for killing babies! I love them. Zygotes, fetuses, babies, all of 'em. They're sooo delicious. I can't stop eating babies.

:2funny:

[busyba]

Today on my way to lunch Stephen & I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' We laughed.

That must be that "compassionate conservatism" I hear so much about.

[Pablo]

Okay, here's a good one:
It's actually this one:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/comment-o-day-i-cant-believe-its-not.html

But okay, the moral of this story is "conservatives are asshole jerks"?

And if I'm not mistaken, one version of the story concludes with him going back the next day to discover the server has been Born Again politically, having Seen The Error Of His Ways, and is wearing a McCain tie. The moral of THAT story would be "conservatives are asshole jerks who make stuff up to make themselves look important"?

Actually, it appears that the moral of this story is that liberals would rather insult people that they do not agree with than explain why their position is not represented by the story.

[JP]

Actually, it appears that the moral of this story is that liberals would rather insult people that they do not agree with than explain why their position is not represented by the story.Whaddaya talking about? I did both. :)

[aindik]

No Dem plan takes away everything somebody makes for their effort and gives it to somebody else.

Uh, what?

Obama's tax plan increases taxes on salaries, right? What are salaries?

[JP]

No Dem plan takes away everything somebody makes for their effort and gives it to somebody else.

Uh, what?Yeah, I been having that kinda day myself.

Obama's tax plan increases taxes on salaries, right? What are salaries?The story with the asshole jerk is the asshole jerk giving the waiter a 100% marginal rate on tips for serving the asshole jerk. Does any Obama plan make the marginal rate for anybody 100%?

[HeyItsCory]

I like that both stories imply that poor people are lazy and feckless. If they'd only work hard, they wouldn't be poor, after all.

[Pablo]

Actually, it appears that the moral of this story is that liberals would rather insult people that they do not agree with than explain why their position is not represented by the story.Whaddaya talking about? I did both. :)

Sorry. I did not know that you thought insults were the same as a well thought out argument. You would fit right in with Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. :)

[davebogart]

Today on my way to lunch Stephen & I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' We laughed.

That must be that "compassionate conservatism" I hear so much about.That's classy. I could probably pick individual words out of your posts and make it look like you want to suck McCain's dick.

[aindik]

No Dem plan takes away everything somebody makes for their effort and gives it to somebody else.

Uh, what?Yeah, I been having that kinda day myself.

Obama's tax plan increases taxes on salaries, right? What are salaries?The story with the asshole jerk is the asshole jerk giving the waiter a 100% marginal rate on tips for serving the asshole jerk. Does any Obama plan make the marginal rate for anybody 100%?

He didn't take away everything. He took everything the guy earned on one table, of the many tables he waited that day. Kinda like the government takes away everything I earn in the months of January through April.

[Uther]

I don't know why you people complain about paying taxes. You can just stop working, and then you'd be the ones collecting all this free money that the government gives out to worthless layabouts. Why don't you do that? Sounds like those people have a sweet deal.

[leahn]

This.

Lets all do this!

-John

[aindik]

I don't know why you people complain about paying taxes. You can just stop working, and then you'd be the ones collecting all this free money that the government gives out to worthless layabouts. Why don't you do that? Sounds like those people have a sweet deal.

Is your argument that all taxes are fair if they leave the taxpayer better off than your average welfare recipient?

[Uther]

My argument is that you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to. It's the ybrew argument. It works for just about anything. :)

[TheIndependent]

My argument is that you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to.

how'd that go for Wesley Snipes?

[aindik]

My argument is that you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to. It's the ybrew argument. It works for just about anything. :)

Yep. The income tax is voluntary, so sayeth Harry Reid.

[Uther]

My argument is that you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to.

how'd that go for Wesley Snipes?

I don't keep up to date on Wesley Snipes. I'll assume he had some income though. The trick to not paying income taxes is to have no income.

[JAB]

I like that both stories imply that poor people are lazy and feckless. If they'd only work hard, they wouldn't be poor, after all.

Actually, I don't think that's the argument at all. Some people, even if they work hard, simply aren't capable of earning much, because they have no valuable skills. That's life. There will always be poor, hard working people because of it. But, the fact that they are hard working and poor still doesn't make it right for the government to take the fruits of my skill and labor and give them to someone else.

[TheIndependent]

I like that both stories imply that poor people are lazy and feckless. If they'd only work hard, they wouldn't be poor, after all.

Actually, I don't think that's the argument at all. Some people, even if they work hard, simply aren't capable of earning much, because they have no valuable skills. That's life. There will always be poor, hard working people because of it. But, the fact that they are hard working and poor still doesn't make it right for the government to take the fruits of my skill and labor and give them to someone else.

Marx disagrees, as does JP, smak, and the Democrats.

[bryce1012]

I like that both stories imply that poor people are lazy and feckless. If they'd only work hard, they wouldn't be poor, after all.

Actually, I don't think that's the argument at all. Some people, even if they work hard, simply aren't capable of earning much, because they have no valuable skills. That's life. There will always be poor, hard working people because of it. But, the fact that they are hard working and poor still doesn't make it right for the government to take the fruits of my skill and labor and give them to someone else.You're absolutely right. Some people don't have the skills they need to "make it" in today's world. But that's the great thing about this country -- you have more opportunities to educate yourself, to advance yourself, than probably anywhere else in the world. And to that end, I'm all in favor of social programs that advance that goal. Subsidized loans for education? Sure. Federally-backed job training programs? Why not. I'm OK with spending tax dollars on that sort of thing.

But "refundable tax credits"? Cutting folks a check just because they're "poor"? To me, that crosses a line.

[busyba]

I could probably... want to suck McCain's dick.

Quoted because he brought it on himself.

[evizzle]

I like that both stories imply that poor people are lazy and feckless. If they'd only work hard, they wouldn't be poor, after all.

Actually, I don't think that's the argument at all. Some people, even if they work hard, simply aren't capable of earning much, because they have no valuable skills. That's life. There will always be poor, hard working people because of it. But, the fact that they are hard working and poor still doesn't make it right for the government to take the fruits of my skill and labor and give them to someone else.

I think it does boil down to this at its core. If I fall on hard times, I will rely on my family and my decisions in the past (having insurance to cover a wide variety of possibilities). If my friends and family fall on hard times, I too will be there with open arms to do whatever I need to to help them out. What separates my family and friends from everyone else in this country is I can vouch for my friends and family and stand by them in their decisions. Many of you are my friends, and have become so over the short time I have been here (and at TCF). If someone here needs help, I am 100% committed to being there.

That being said, if someone new popped in here, and on their first post, wrote a long post that boiled down to them needing money or help, I would not be very likely to give it to them. One must earn these benefits, they are not human rights. I feel that those outside of our country deserve more help than those who have not succeeded or have failed here.

If my brother fails to succeed, it is MY responsibility to help him, not the government's. The government is here to pay for roads, build schools, build working relationships with other nations and protect us and our way of life. My health, my lifestyle, my happiness should be with as little interference as possible.

I also believe that any person (physically and mentally able) can work hard enough to succeed. Our country gives us the opportunity to do that, and by putting in the effort, anyone can get to where they want to be.

I understand that some people do not agree with this assessment, and that is fine. These fundamental differences in beliefs are what I see as a difference between my (largely) republican beliefs and many of your (largely) democratic beliefs. There are good democrats and bad republicans, and they simply cloud the discussion. There are times that more government involvement is good (IMO) and times when less government involvement is good, and that is where the political discussion can begin.

Silly name calling, jokes, youtube videos (other than DanielHarts voting one, that was funny) really don't help to do anything but get people riled up and feed into the stereotypes of the politicians.

[JP]

He didn't take away everything. He took everything the guy earned on one table, of the many tables he waited that day. The waiter was "taxed" with a 100% marginal rate on the work he did serving asshole jerk (and pal, in some versions of the story like the one posted).

But if you think I'm wrong, tell me what YOU think his marginal rate for serving asshole jerk (and pal) were.

Kinda like the government takes away everything I earn in the months of January through April.Only that it doesn't, unless you actually get no paychecks whatsoever for those months.

[JP]

Sorry. I did not know that you thought insults were the same as a well thought out argument. I don't think that. I said I've done both. If I tell you that I have both brushed my teeth and combed my hair do you conclude I think they're the same thing?

I have presented my argument for why the story doesn't match reality. And I have also not been entirely sweetness and light, referring to the protagonist of the stiff-the-waiter joke as an asshole jerk. You're welcome to take my arguments less seriously because I'm not polite, but they don't become any less correct the ruder I am to asshole jerk any more than they become more correct the politer I am. Do they?

You would fit right in with Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. :)Unfortunately, no. I may be rude on occasion, but I simply don't have their disregard for the truth.

[aindik]

He didn't take away everything. He took everything the guy earned on one table, of the many tables he waited that day. The waiter was "taxed" with a 100% marginal rate on the work he did serving asshole jerk (and pal, in some versions of the story like the one posted).

But if you think I'm wrong, tell me what YOU think his marginal rate for serving asshole jerk (and pal) were.

The marginal rate on this particular table being waited was tip/tip + wage.

But during the exact time he was serving this table, he was serving other tables and being paid for that. So, his marginal rate on that hour of labor was lower than tip/tip+wage. It was tip/total tips+wage.

Kinda like the government takes away everything I earn in the months of January through April.Only that it doesn't, unless you actually get no paychecks whatsoever for those months.

They take 1/4 of what I earn. Why does the payment schedule make any difference?

[JP]

But during the exact time he was serving this table, he was serving other tables and being paid for that. So, his marginal rate on that hour of labor was lower than tip/tip+wage. It was tip/total tips+wage.You're wrong, dude.

Think about it. Say you had a job that pays you a base salary but you receive the bulk of your income on client commissions. With one client, for some inexplicable reason, there's a 100% tax rate. Doesn't matter that you earn money from other clients, that's effort you're putting in to them and not the effort you're putting in to this one. Doesn't matter that you also have a base salary, because you get that with this client or without him.

How can you say the marginal rate for the work you do for that one particular client isn't 100%? It obviously is. You put in the effort, but you get $0 on top of what you've already earned. 100% marginal rate.

They take 1/4 of what I earn. Why does the payment schedule make any difference?Because you actually DO receive income during the 4 months you claim you don't. Do you stop complaining about taxes in May, when according to you your tax rate goes from 100% to 0%?

[aindik]

But during the exact time he was serving this table, he was serving other tables and being paid for that. So, his marginal rate on that hour of labor was lower than tip/tip+wage. It was tip/total tips+wage.You're wrong, dude.

Think about it. Say you had a job that pays you a base salary but you receive the bulk of your income on client commissions. With one client, for some inexplicable reason, there's a 100% tax rate. Doesn't matter that you earn money from other clients, that's effort you're putting in to them and not the effort you're putting in to this one. Doesn't matter that you also have a base salary, because you get that with this client or without him.

How can you say the marginal rate for the work you do for that one particular client isn't 100%? It obviously is. You put in the effort, but you get $0 on top of what you've already earned. 100% marginal rate.


The work waiting on that table is paid twice - once by the restaurant and once by the patron. The part by the restaurant, he's still getting. That's not a base salary because the waiter is an hourly employee. If he wasn't waiting on that table, but was instead at home, his take home pay would go down. He therefore still increases his take home pay by showing up for work and waiting on that table. By definition, the marginal rate is less than 100%.

Of course, it's still high. But that's the point of the story. High marginal rates are punitive.

As far as the "what if it was you" part of your post? I'd refuse to do the extra work. Which, again, proves the point of the story about what high marginal rates do.


They take 1/4 of what I earn. Why does the payment schedule make any difference?Because you actually DO receive income during the 4 months you claim you don't.

I can say I receive income in January for work done in May.

Or, I can say that I'm paid January through December for work done January through August, and the government is paid January through December on work done September through December.

And, now I can't complain about taxes if I don't pay them in a given month?

[JP]

The work waiting on that table is paid twice - once by the restaurant and once by the patron. And if you have a base salary and earn extra on commissions, you get "paid twice" for that work also?

The part by the restaurant, he's still getting. That's not a base salary because the waiter is an hourly employee. If he wasn't waiting on that table, but was instead at home, his take home pay would go down. If he's washing dishes or inventorying the freezer or even just chatting with the girls in the kitchen and NOT waiting tables he still gets paid the hourly rate.

He therefore still increases his take home pay by showing up for work and waiting on that table. By definition, the marginal rate is less than 100%. Let's work it out, then. Say the guy makes $6/hour and waits on 10 tables in that hour. 60 cents per table, so that's what he makes from the restaurant for serving asshole jerk and pal. That makes his marginal rate (1 - ($0.60/$10.60)) or 94.3%. What Obama plan makes anybody's tax rate, let alone a waiter's, 94.3% ? Or make it just 3 tables an hour. That's (1 - ($2/$12)) or 83.3% What Obama plan makes anybody's tax rate, let alone a waiter's, 83.3% ?

Of course, it's still high. The phrase you're searching for there is "of course, that's completely divorced from reality".

But that's the point of the story. High marginal rates are punitive. The only moral I can see is still "conservatives are asshole jerks". They think it's amusing and instructing to abuse some poor waiter who's only crime is supporting a candidate they don't like, and they're willing to engage in wild exaggeration to support their point. Perhaps because without the wild exaggeration it's not much of a point. And of course then it wouldn't be as funny.

And, now I can't complain about taxes if I don't pay them in a given month?You should be complaining about the 100% you pay in January through April, but - while you can complain about the 100% rate from the first part of the year throughout the year - you should be singing hosannas about your 0% tax rate the rest of the year.

I haven't noticed this behavior in you. It's October now, for example, and I don't hear any hosannas. Okay, I have no idea what those sound like and I suspect they're a Christian thing anyway, but you oughta be singing something. Tunes from Cats or My Fair Lady, or something. Why no singing?

[grondramb]

Back to the OP, the fable should be updated for modern America - who wants a starving grasshopper staring in your window?

[aindik]

The work waiting on that table is paid twice - once by the restaurant and once by the patron. And if you have a base salary and earn extra on commissions, you get "paid twice" for that work also?


I didn't mean "paid twice" as a perjorative or to imply he didn't earn the money. His pay is split from two sources, is what I meant. It was split in parts, and he kept one part and the other was stolen. IOW, not all of it was taken.


The part by the restaurant, he's still getting. That's not a base salary because the waiter is an hourly employee. If he wasn't waiting on that table, but was instead at home, his take home pay would go down. If he's washing dishes or inventorying the freezer or even just chatting with the girls in the kitchen and NOT waiting tables he still gets paid the hourly rate.

Do waiters typically wash dishes too? I think in most restaurants, the people who wait tables and the people who do dishes are different people.

But if he's doing those things he showed up for work and is being paid. He might be working harder at work if he was waiting table, or the work might be different. Either way, he showed up for work and got paid. Marginal rate less than 100%.

Let's work it out, then. Say the guy makes $6/hour and waits on 10 tables in that hour. 60 cents per table, so that's what he makes from the restaurant for serving asshole jerk and pal. That makes his marginal rate (1 - ($0.60/$10.60)) or 94.3%. What Obama plan makes anybody's tax rate, let alone a waiter's, 94.3% ?

If he's waiting on 10 tables an hour and each one leaves him a $10 tip, he's making $106 an hour. Not likely. (If he did earn $106 an hour for 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, Obama would want to raise his payroll taxes. If he was married to someone who earned $38k, Obama would also raise his income taxes.).


Or make it just 3 tables an hour. That's (1 - ($2/$12)) or 83.3% What Obama plan makes anybody's tax rate, let alone a waiter's, 83.3% ?

In that hour of work he waited on three tables and expected a $10 tip from each. Expected compensation for that hour: $36. Tax: $10. Marginal rate for the hour: 27.7%.


The only moral I can see is still "conservatives are asshole jerks". They think it's amusing and instructing to abuse some poor waiter who's only crime is supporting a candidate they don't like, and they're willing to engage in wild exaggeration to support their point. Perhaps because without the wild exaggeration it's not much of a point. And of course then it wouldn't be as funny.


This is a story. It didn't actually happen. It's a "how would you like it if" story. Of course the guys in the story are jerks. They represent the government in the analogy.

And, now I can't complain about taxes if I don't pay them in a given month?You should be complaining about the 100% you pay in January through April, but - while you can complain about the 100% rate from the first part of the year throughout the year - you should be singing hosannas about your 0% tax rate the rest of the year.

I haven't noticed this behavior in you. It's October now, for example, and I don't hear any hosannas. Okay, I have no idea what those sound like and I suspect they're a Christian thing anyway, but you oughta be singing something. Tunes from Cats or My Fair Lady, or something. Why no singing?

I'm as free as a bird now . . . .

If you had your pocket picked, would you stop complaining about it when the calendar flipped to a new month?

Of course the "you take four months from me" thing isn't the actual way they take taxes. But it's mathematically equivalent to taking 1/4 of every dollar I earn, to take 100% of every fourth dollar I earn.

[Mysteryman]

When the bill came I got the check but Stephen demanded to take care of the tip. Stephen decided not to tip the server and explained to him that he was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while Stephen told him that he was going to redistribute his tip to someone who he deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from our sight.


I'd recommend that "you" and Stephen go back to that resturant and see if the waiter's attitude has changed since the "experiment". Oh, and enjoy the feces of most of the line staff you get in your burger when they remember who you are.

Who but the most idiotic would screw over someone who can determine what you put in your body?

[grondramb]

Who but the most idiotic would screw over someone who can determine what you put in your body?

And yet wives screw over husbands all the time...

[JP]

In that hour of work he waited on three tables and expected a $10 tip from each. Expected compensation for that hour: $36. Tax: $10. Marginal rate for the hour: 27.7%.Including all other work done in that hour serving OTHER customers, perhaps. For the effort he put into serving asshole jerk and pal customers - which is work separate from serving other customers - the marginal rate for that effort is 83.3%.

This is a story. It didn't actually happen. Yes, but the conserv-a-sphere's got a woody dreaming about it. Like I said to somebody earlier, it's like Penthouse Letters.

It's a "how would you like it if" story. Of course the guys in the story are jerks. They represent the government in the analogy. No. The story presents them as good honest level-headed conservatives teaching a lesson to the poor muddle-headed liberal, whose only offense has been to wear an Obama tie (and be unlucky enough to have asshole jerk and pal seated in his section). It's not meant to be an allegory. It's meant to be something - stupid and cruel - that conservative people actually did.

But for some reason it's the sort of "joke" conservatives appear to eat right up. It's like the "great!" ant and grasshopper tale that started this thread, where in the end the lazy (liberal, but I repeat myself, hee hee) grasshopper gets killed in a drug deal. Ha ha! You know what them welfare-liberals are like! But he got what was coming to him in the end, eh?

I'm as free as a bird now . . . . Ooo. Skynyrd. Good choice.

If you had your pocket picked, would you stop complaining about it when the calendar flipped to a new month?No. But if I didn't have to pay taxes for 8 months out of the year I'd be singing something. I kinda like show-tunes. How about something from 42nd Street?

[aindik]

In that hour of work he waited on three tables and expected a $10 tip from each. Expected compensation for that hour: $36. Tax: $10. Marginal rate for the hour: 27.7%.Including all other work done in that hour serving OTHER customers, perhaps. For the effort he put into serving asshole jerk and pal customers - which is work separate from serving other customers - the marginal rate for that effort is 83.3%.


He spent an extra hour at work and took home a little less than 3/4 of what he earned. I don't know why you insist on parsing it beyond the hour he worked.

At least we're down from 100% to 83%. And at least he only paid an 83% marginal rate on 20 minutes of work, once. His marginal rate on the other 2/3 of the hour, and the other 7 hours that day, was 0%. Obama's plan raises the marginal rates to 39.6% and then leaves them there.


No. The story presents them as good honest level-headed conservatives teaching a lesson to the poor muddle-headed liberal, whose only offense has been to wear an Obama tie (and be unlucky enough to have asshole jerk and pal seated in his section). It's not meant to be an allegory. It's meant to be something - stupid and cruel - that conservative people actually did.


But the conservatives in the story acted like jerks as part of the lesson about how jerky it is to raise taxes on some people to give the money to others.



No. But if I didn't have to pay taxes for 8 months out of the year I'd be singing something. I kinda like show-tunes. How about something from 42nd Street?

I'm free. And freedom tastes of reality.

(Tommy is a musical, right?)

[JP]

He spent an extra hour at work and took home a little less than 3/4 of what he earned. I don't know why you insist on parsing it beyond the hour he worked. I'm parsing it by the effort the waiter put in (he served the asshole jerk, effort made in addition to serving his other customers) and the income he eventually received from that effort. That's obviously how one should consider marginal rates and effort/incentive, is it not?

So clearly the marginal rate on serving asshole jerks is MASSIVELY disincentivizing. :)

At least we're down from 100% to 83%. And at least he only paid an 83% marginal rate on 20 minutes of work, once. His marginal rate on the other 2/3 of the hour, and the other 7 hours that day, was 0%. Obama's plan raises the marginal rates to 39.6% and then leaves them there. Something that you know going in, though, right? You start off the year knowing what taxes you can expect. You can adjust your effort as you see fit. You can shuffle around your income and capital gains, put money away in an IRA or other tax-deferred doo-dads. You may not like what you pay, but you aren't caught flat-footed by it.

The waiter, on the other hand, does his job in the expectation of additional income - is probably working to make sure he maximizes that extra income by giving good service - and then the asshole jerk decides to teach him a lesson with his little surprise. And then he gets nothing.

Does the government do that to you? Let you work all year and then say "sorry, but while you THOUGHT you were working in the 30% bracket this last year you were ACTUALLY working in a 39% bracket, Ha ha!" ... ?

But the conservatives in the story acted like jerks as part of the lesson about how jerky it is to raise taxes on some people to give the money to others. Dude, anybody who could actually do that, even seriously think about doing that - punish somebody who's waited on them just for the tie they're wearing - they don't just decide to be a jerk. They were a jerk when they walked in the door. They were a jerk when they woke up that morning. They've been a jerk for years. They were probably a jerk as a child.

I'm free. And freedom tastes of reality.

(Tommy is a musical, right?)Yes. Just not a good one. But the music if fine, and it tells you just how bad a musical is if even music from The Who can't save it.

[aindik]

I'm parsing it by the effort the waiter put in (he served the asshole jerk, effort made in addition to serving his other customers) and the income he eventually received from that effort. That's obviously how one should consider marginal rates and effort/incentive, is it not?


Strictly speaking, the marginal rate is the rate on the last dollar you earned, or the next dollar you will earn.

Apart from that, I'm not sure serving this table is all that separable from everything else he did that hour or that day.


So clearly the marginal rate on serving asshole jerks is MASSIVELY disincentivizing. :)


That being the point of the story. Perhaps the rate is high (if calculated per table rather than per hour), but the story uses this hyperbole thing you seem to be so easily able to spot.

If the story were the patrons tipping $5 instead of $10, and giving the other $5 to the homeless guy, the marginal rate would have been 41.6% by your math ($5/$12). You don't think that same incentive not to serve those people would still be there?


Something that you know going in, though, right? You start off the year knowing what taxes you can expect. You can adjust your effort as you see fit. You can shuffle around your income and capital gains, put money away in an IRA or other tax-deferred doo-dads. You may not like what you pay, but you aren't caught flat-footed by it.

I can't really do any of those things, personally, other than a 401k. My salary is paid in cash and I can't magically turn that into a dividend or a capital gain to reduce my tax rate.

But if the story was that the guys told the waiter that tomorrow they were going to come back and cut his tip in half, that would have made them less jerky in your eyes?

Again, right into the moral of the story. The guy wouldn't have shown up for work, or wouldn't have served that table.


Does the government do that to you? Let you work all year and then say "sorry, but while you THOUGHT you were working in the 30% bracket this last year you were ACTUALLY working in a 39% bracket, Ha ha!" ... ?


Didn't Bill Clinton sign a tax increase in 1993 that was retroactive to January 1?

Dude, anybody who could actually do that, even seriously think about doing that - punish somebody who's waited on them just for the tie they're wearing - they don't just decide to be a jerk. They were a jerk when they walked in the door. They were a jerk when they woke up that morning. They've been a jerk for years. They were probably a jerk as a child.


Again, it's a story. The guys are posing as tax collectors. They're supposed to be mean. They're illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Sound familiar?

[Marco]

To hear some of the folks in this thread, and the McCain campaign, tell it, progressive taxation was either just invented specifically by the Obama campaign, or has always been enacted over the strenuous objection of every single member of the Republican Party;

and it is morally if not functionally equivalent to Marxism or socialism or both.

If it is such a perfectly awful, reprehensible concept, and inimical to the tenets of a republican (small r) form of government, to say nothing of capitalism, ... why is this particular line of argument being advanced with such vigor in the 2008 presidential campaign? Why not in 2000, or 1992, or 1980, or ... 1932? ... and why haven't the Repubs gone to the mattresses?

C'mon Jenkins, I teed one up for you, hit it out of the park!

[aindik]

Progressive taxation is only half of redistribution. The other half is actually distributing it (this time in the form of checks sent to people who pay no federal income tax).

[bryce1012]

Progressive taxation is only half of redistribution. The other half is actually distributing it (this time in the form of checks sent to people who pay no federal income tax).Thanks for saying it far more succinctly than I would have.

Mildly progressive taxation is one thing... negative tax burdens (e.g. the gov't sends you a check) is a whole 'nother thing entirely.

[JP]

Strictly speaking, the marginal rate is the rate on the last dollar you earned, or the next dollar you will earn.

Apart from that, I'm not sure serving this table is all that separable from everything else he did that hour or that day. Sure it is. Any service he provides asshole jerk and pal is coming out of minutes he could be providing service to other customers.

You're one of them lawyer dudes, right? Billable minutes you spend on one client are billable minutes you aren't spending on others. If for one client you got a 100% tax rate, every minute of effort you spend on that client has a marginal rate of 100%, yes?

Tell me you wouldn't think of it that way, that instead you'd work out what your marginal hourly rate was and think of THAT during every minute you're putting out effort for this client and making no money for it. All you gotta do is tell me, I'll take your word for it.

That being the point of the story. Perhaps the rate is high (if calculated per table rather than per hour), but the story uses this hyperbole thing you seem to be so easily able to spot. It's one thing to use hyperbole in a discussion. It's another thing entirely to employ it in real life, or anyway talk about employing it in real life, to use it to hurt somebody else - somebody who I will remind you did nothing wrong but hold a different political opinion than asshole jerk. Would you agree those are very different things?

If the story were the patrons tipping $5 instead of $10, and giving the other $5 to the homeless guy, the marginal rate would have been 41.6% by your math ($5/$12). You don't think that same incentive not to serve those people would still be there?Yeah, but that wouldn't make quite as funny a story. And an example I gave earlier was closer to reality, the one where the waiter gets $9 and homeless guy gets $1, making the increase in marginal rate waiter pays (on top of other taxes) $11/$12 or 8.3%. That's not much different than the marginal income tax rate going from 30% to 39%. But it's MUCH less funny. Because the silly liberal doesn't get hurt as much. And that's necessary for the joke to be funny.

But if the story was that the guys told the waiter that tomorrow they were going to come back and cut his tip in half, that would have made them less jerky in your eyes?A little less jerky. The waiter could have taken the day off, and/or warned every waiter and cook in restaurant of their scheme. I expect they'd have paid in some way for it, well worth $5 or $10 in entertainment value. :)

(Hey, waitaminute, you say? Why is it funny for the restaurant staff to play a trick on asshole jerk and pal, but not for asshole jerk to play a trick on the waiter? Because asshole jerk was known to be planning on doing something mean and was amusingly made to pay for it in some way. Thwarting meanness is legitimately funny. While all the waiter was doing in the original joke was doing his job and hoping for a good tip, when asshole jerk decides to play a surprise joke on him for wearing a tie asshole jerk didn't approve of. Being mean to people just doing their jobs isn't funny. Not unless you're an asshole jerk.)

Didn't Bill Clinton sign a tax increase in 1993 that was retroactive to July 1?You'd have to give me a link.

Again, it's a story. The guys are posing as tax collectors. They're supposed to be mean. They're illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Sound familiar?No, they are NOT posing as tax collectors. It's not an allegory. This is something that's actually supposed to have happened, or that conservative people want to think happened. With real people. A real waiter, a real homeless guy, and a real asshole jerk who gets pissed at seeing an Obama 08 tie and decides to be mean to the guy wearing it to teach him a lesson.

And conservatives think it's a laugh-riot. And yeah, that sounds familiar. Just about every conservative joke I've ever heard is this way, including the actually allegorical one that heads the thread.

I suppose there are liberal jokes that are the same way, but I don't think they're funny either. Even if they pretend to be "instructive". They're liberal porn the way these stories are conservative porn. And I don't feel any need to post liberal porn in public.

[evizzle]

I think the 'joke' is very similar to when I receive a bonus or work overtime and my pay check is marginally higher than it would be without the extra time put in or extra effort to earn the bonus. Those extra 8 hours put in only really equated to 4 hours because I am taxed as if I make more money than I realistically do. Then, at the end of the year, I get some of that back, but the government got an interest free loan from me and I paid more social security and unemployment taxes than I should have. Kind of kills the incentive to go in for that extra day of work...

[Combat Medic]

Didn't Bill Clinton sign a tax increase in 1993 that was retroactive to July 1?You'd have to give me a link.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v10/ai_14895994

[smak]

I think the 'joke' is very similar to when I receive a bonus or work overtime and my pay check is marginally higher than it would be without the extra time put in or extra effort to earn the bonus. Those extra 8 hours put in only really equated to 4 hours because I am taxed as if I make more money than I realistically do. Then, at the end of the year, I get some of that back, but the government got an interest free loan from me and I paid more social security and unemployment taxes than I should have. Kind of kills the incentive to go in for that extra day of work...

If you get 52 checks @ $1,000 each, and then get a $10,000 bonus at the end of the year, each one of those 52 checks were undertaxed, because they were based on making $52,000 and you actually made $62,000. That's why bonus checks are taxed more.

-smak-

[HeyItsCory]

I think the 'joke' is very similar to when I receive a bonus or work overtime and my pay check is marginally higher than it would be without the extra time put in or extra effort to earn the bonus. Those extra 8 hours put in only really equated to 4 hours because I am taxed as if I make more money than I realistically do. Then, at the end of the year, I get some of that back, but the government got an interest free loan from me and I paid more social security and unemployment taxes than I should have. Kind of kills the incentive to go in for that extra day of work...

If you get 52 checks @ $1,000 each, and then get a $10,000 bonus at the end of the year, each one of those 52 checks were undertaxed, because they were based on making $52,000 and you actually made $62,000. That's why bonus checks are taxed more.

-smak-
I want that job. :(

[evizzle]

If you get 52 checks @ $1,000 each, and then get a $10,000 bonus at the end of the year, each one of those 52 checks were undertaxed, because they were based on making $52,000 and you actually made $62,000. That's why bonus checks are taxed more.

-smak-

How about when I make $1000 each check and work overtime for 16 hours but my total brought home after taxes is only $100 more for the week? I worked 16 hours for $100, despite the fact that for the year I worked 40 hours a week 51 weeks and 56 for 1 week, I made was taxed as if that overtime was the norm, rather than the exception? Why would I work OT when the payoff is so minimal?

[smak]

If you get 52 checks @ $1,000 each, and then get a $10,000 bonus at the end of the year, each one of those 52 checks were undertaxed, because they were based on making $52,000 and you actually made $62,000. That's why bonus checks are taxed more.

-smak-

How about when I make $1000 each check and work overtime for 16 hours but my total brought home after taxes is only $100 more for the week? I worked 16 hours for $100, despite the fact that for the year I worked 40 hours a week 51 weeks and 56 for 1 week, I made was taxed as if that overtime was the norm, rather than the exception? Why would I work OT when the payoff is so minimal?

Well, we should probably use real numbers.

If you make $1,000 a week, that's $25 an hour, 16 hours overtime in that one week would be $600. Obvioiusly you aren't bringing home only $100 more that week.

I think there's a pretty big difference in making $52,000 vs $62,000 and $52,000 vs $52,600.

That one check will be taxed based on a rate that will equal $83,200 a year, when you only made $52,600.

Therefore you would get most of that extra tax back.

Congratulations.

-smak-

[JP]

Didn't Bill Clinton sign a tax increase in 1993 that was retroactive to July 1?You'd have to give me a link.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v10/ai_14895994Near as I can figure it - and I'm not excusing it, I think retroactive tax increases are an extraordinarily bad idea - that surprise marginal rate increase wound up being about 3% on people making over $100K.

To give a waiter making $6/hr base and serving 3 customers per hour (so 20 minutes or $2 are applied to serving asshole jerk and pal) a surprise 3% marginal rate increase, asshole jerk would have to cut his $10 tip by... about 38 cents.

[aindik]

Well, we should probably use real numbers.

If you make $1,000 a week, that's $25 an hour, 16 hours overtime in that one week would be $600. Obvioiusly you aren't bringing home only $100 more that week.

I think there's a pretty big difference in making $52,000 vs $62,000 and $52,000 vs $52,600.

That one check will be taxed based on a rate that will equal $83,200 a year, when you only made $52,600.

Therefore you would get most of that extra tax back.

Congratulations.

-smak-

The withholding system is broken. It attempts to predict what a taxpayer will earn the rest of the year, and it does so badly, usually resulting in over-withholding.

Here's what I think is a better system.

Each taxpayer picks a bank, in which it would have a tax account and the bank would keep a running 1040 for the taxpayer. For married couples, they have one account.

Every time the taxpayer is to be paid, the employer would tell the bank how much it is about to pay the taxpayer, and ask the bank how much it should withhold. The bank would calculate this by running a 1040 for the taxpayer using year to date income and expense information, subtracting the account balance from the total tax and telling the employer to withhold that much. Each time the taxpayer earns taxable income not subject to withholding, it would tell the bank and this would factor into the withholding next time the taxpayer is paid. Same for when the taxpayer incurs a deductible expense, unless the taxpayer doesn't want to tell the bank, in which case the taxpayer doesn't see the benefit of the deduction until the end of the year.

Withholding is accomplished by the employer direct depositing the withheld amount into the tax account. The account earns interest, said interest immediately both added as taxable income to the running 1040 and also substituting for new withholding by increasing the balance in the account to be subtracted from total tax at the next paycheck. When the taxpayer completes his final 1040 at the end of the year, he pays the tax by direct depositing the money from the tax account to the treasury. The excess either is withdrawn or stays in the account, to be calculated as already withheld for the following paycheck.

This allows for more accurate withholding, more transparent knowledge of our progressive system, and preservation of the interest on the money before tax is due.