How taxes work

[Chick]

While working on end-of-the-year tax materials I came across this simple to understand explaination of how our tax system works.

Thought some of you might find it interesting.

[Macker]

Great...I printed it for ref.

Thanx Chick

[Chick]

WOW!!! Must have hit a nerve with someone -- got a negative added to my "reputation" for that post. :D

[RVB1019]

Hate to tell you- BOGUS STORY!


http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp


Hey Mconlogue , this is fun!

[rickcavanaugh]

Authorship maybe in question, but the basic concept is pretty close to the truth.

[meese]

Except that both the Snopes version and the attached version have mathematical errors. In the Snopes version, the 9 diners would be short $44, not $52. In the attached version, after the "tax cut," the group of 10 only put in $79 for an $80 bill. They don't bother to calculate the missing sum for just 9 diners.

I know that doesn't really change the story, but if they can't even get the simple details right, then how are we to put much stock in any of the rest of it?

Referring to the wealthiest contributors as just not being there is probably more accurate than anything. They're the ones with the accountants, lawyers, and assets to make the most of deductions and loopholes. Plus I bet if you looked at actual taxes paid versus income, or more accurately net worth (as it's easy to minimize stated income), you'd see the lower income earners paying more when viewed as a percentage.

Even the professor wrongly attributed to the piece concedes that it's all much more complicated than that made-up story shows.

[BkrK12]

There are so many errors in that exposition that, is the individual is really a University Professor, we should all be worried about the education our children are receiving.

[Chick]

Sometimes it is worth it just to get you guys all riled up. :D

[BkrK12]

Not riled, just observing.

[messenger13]

I've tweaked the numbers and corrected the mathematical errors for my own private use. Personally, I LOVE IT!!! It nails the heart and soul of "gimme gimme gimme" right on the head! Thanks for posting!!!

As for the negative reputation...whoever said the truth would make you "popular"?! :D :D :D

[Chick]

As for the negative reputation...whoever said the truth would make you "popular"?! :D :D :D

Good point, Joe! :thumb:

Kinda brings John 15:21 to mind, doesn't it???

[meese]

Sometimes it is worth it just to get you guys all riled up. :D
There's a name for that:

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/troller.jpg

BTW, who is John15:21? I don't recognize his login name? ;)

[Chick]

BTW, who is John15:21? I don't recognize his login name? ;)

That does not surprise me at all! :D

[meese]

That does not surprise me at all! :D
I did, however look up the quote, as I try to keep an open mind about such things. But that quote clearly supports the fact that "true believers" tend to think of themselves as poor, misunderstood martyrs, who are put upon and persecuted by the unwashed unbelievers. Sorry, not buying it, especially since the christians, once in power, were as deadly and determined in their persecutions as anyone throughout history. Even the current religious terrorists, as fanatical as they may be, have nothing on the past transgressions of the church.

BTW, in a previous thread you mentioned that you were a literalist when it comes to the Bible. I meant to ask you, which version? King James, with all his prejudices and political bias?

"The King James Version of the Bible, itself is merely a translation from the original Greek and Hebrew texts written hundreds or thousands of years before. The work itself came out by an order of the King of England, King James the First who decided that his government and the Church of England needed an English translation of the Bible in order to cement his reign and prop up the church against the tyranny of the Catholic Church.

Remember, the Church of England was essentially a knock-off of the Catholic Church. The English break-away from the Roman church was motivated by sexual problems of King James’ ancestor, King Henry. Henry desired a son to succeed him in keeping the family dynasty going. He kept choosing wives that could not bear him a son. The Catholic Church via the Pope became tired of Henry’s demands for annulments of marriages. The only merits for divorce or annulment were based upon the lack of producing a son.

The translators were clearly focused on establishing the pre-eminence of a priesthood that would exert power over the members. It would be a way to help control the members for the King who was the “Head” of the Church of England. You see, James was a bit of an egotist. He thought he was like a ‘god’ himself." link (http://aoreport.com/200503_stdy-wrongKJVonly.htm)

Or perhaps you prefer one of the other current English translations:

New International Version
Revised Standard Version
Living Bible
New World Translation
New American Standard Bible
American Standard Version

Or even the earlier Anglo-Saxon or Middle English versions, such as The Wyclif Bible, translated from Latin in the 14th century. Or maybe you prefer something earlier, like one of the Coptic dialect versions, or heck let's even go way back to the previous Greek or Hebrew versions.

But then why not go back to the original Aramaic? Isn't that what Jesus himself spoke? Fortunately, there are many current projects attempting a new translation from the "original" works (google on aramaic bible for several links), so now maybe we can finally see exactly what it is that Jesus wrote. But then, he didn't actually write it, did he? Oh well, why bother messing with thousands of years of dogma and doctrine just because you've found new source material. Better to just know you're right, shun all challenges, and bask in your own superiority.

But I'm pretty sure that Jesus wasn't all about excessive shopping, or sending all your money to guilt palaces erected in his honor, or persecuting those who may hold an opposing but equally valid opinion. After all, isn't that exactly what he died from? Have we learned nothing in the last two thousand years?

It just doesn't add up, that's all.

[messenger13]

Better to just know you're right, shun all challenges, and bask in your own superiority.Works for you...so why can't I try it just once?

[Chick]

It just doesn't add up, that's all.

To you, Ken, it doesn't add up. That is your prerogative. However, to me it is all quite logical and I accept it by faith. I did't always do that, in fact I used to believe much as you do. Then I came face to face with Jesus Christ and religion was no longer an issue for me. I now hold to the belief that Biblical Christianity is not about religion at all -- it is about a relationship. A relationship with Jesus Christ.

As for which translation of the Bible that I use. I currently use the NIV but prefer the NASB even though both of those translations have "issues" due to the difficulty of going from one language to another. I have used the Greek New Testament (which is what the NT was written in, along with a little Aramaic) and the Hebrew Old Testament. However, as I age my memory of those languages is fading fast. :D Now I use them as reference tools only.

Isn't it great that we can have this discussion and agree to disagree on things like this? Is this a great country or what? :thumb:

Merry Christmas, Ken, and God bless!

[meese]

I do find it interesting that a specific instance seems to have taken you from a non-believer to one who embraces christianity, whereas my interpretations have gradually but consistently taken me farther away from traditional religions. My wife had what could be considered a religious epiphany many years back (when we were just friends, actually), and she struggled to fit that into the traditions which she was raised with. When that failed, she explored other alternatives, and finally found something that fit her own experiences and needs. It just doesn't happen to revolve around a particular book or father-figure. Since then, we've met many people who have followed similar paths to "non-traditional" belief systems, and who are just as fervent as anyone who claims to be in the majority.

Each of us has to follow what's right for us, and hopefully allow others to do the same.

Oh, and Happy Holidays to you. :D

[meese]

Well OK, maybe a little. :) But I truly can't understand why someone, given the same "facts," would choose something that to me doesn't make any sense. I'm sure many others feel the same way about my beliefs. At least we have the freedom to disagree, and the intelligence and compassion to remain friends.

[Tbird]

Capt.,

Thanks for the posting of this again. I like to see this making the rounds agaiin.

It's funny how it brings out the folks who would try to poo poo the whole, entirely spot-on, concept just because of some insignificant rounding errors. I guess that's called "throwing out the baby with the bath water". It really irks me when the media, in general, pushes the idea of any tax relief being aimed at the richer segment. There is NO WAY that anybody can argue against the reasoning in that letter, be it bogus or not...there is nothing to Snopes. If you argue against the concepts then you are wacked and should
give ALL your income to those who want and need your money.

Why don't we turn the tables and redfine Tax Relief as getting those lifelong USERS and ABUSERS of socailly used taxes off the free ride programs. I'd bet that get the attention of the media and the liberals. Kind of like when FEMA announced those types from New Orleans would be kicked out of the hotels.

Gimme a break. If a man pays in half his income in taxes to support those that pay in none...he out to be the one who gets the break!!! End of argument.

[zippy_gg]

WOW!!! Must have hit a nerve with someone -- got a negative added to my "reputation" for that post. :D
Just to balance things out I just gave you a positive ;)