For all you people who keep whining that Romney isn't paying his fair share of taxes look at it this way:
IT'S THIS SIMPLE!---------------Bar Stool Economics.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a 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 $1.00.
The sixth would pay $3.00.
The seventh would pay $7.00.
The eighth would pay.
$12.00
The ninth would pay $18.00.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00.

So that ’ s what they decided to.
do. The men drank in the bar every.
day and seemed quite.
happy with arraignment, 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 $20.00.
Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00.

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 their fair share?
They realized that $ 20.00 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, 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 union. We didn’t I 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, journalist 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.

For those who understand, no explanation is.
needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.

great analogy, too bad too many can't or won't understand the real meaning of fairness

They are in effect "drinking" overseas in offshore banking accounts where they don't get taxed and don't reinvest in America's economy. How much do they squirrel away? Not much, just around $32 trillion: http://finance.yahoo.com/ne...
Oh and David Kamerschen has denied being author of the drivel above which just goes to show how some people will believe anything as long as it supports right wing extremist idelogy.

Using low-tax jurisdictions is normal, appropriate, and intelligent for any business or investor, and not at all illegal. Even prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton and John Kerry do that. In fact, tax-havens help investors and companies invest in the US. But the corrupt liberal media won't mention those. Also, how can you say the above article is drivel? It reflects the current situation very well. And how are right wing views "extremist?" Which is "extremist:" wanting to keep your own money, or wanting to take someone else's money?

How about paying your fair share? The 1% pay less % than the lower 90%. This election is being bought by the 16 billionaires who support the Romney campaign. This is supposed to be a democracy, not an oligarchy or a theocracy.

Clarification: The top 1 % of Americans by income paid 36 % of fed income taxes (2009 IRS data). They are paying an UNFAIR share of taxes. To make it more fair, everyone should have the same tax rate. If you want to talk about election corruption, you could talk about how in September, the Obama campaign collected $2.2 M in donations from invalid ZIP codes, while the Romney campaign’s September total was just $29,620. As of 10/22/2012, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found overall that the Obama campaign accepted 16X more in donations that listed invalid zip codes than the Romney campaign. It reported that in 2008, Obama received 6X more of such donations than McCain. Now we see a pattern here. Both Romney and Obama have billionaire supporters, but there is nothing wrong with that per se. Right, this is supposed to be a democracy, not a thugocracy.

Hilarious! I'm sure you STILL believe that Florida wasn't stolen in '00 and Ohio wasn't stolen in '04. I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was 8.

By May 2011, at least 54 ACORN employees and individuals associated with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud. Guess who's side ACORN is with. Was anyone on Bush's side convicted of voter fraud?

They get an unfair share of the money to begin with. They don't pay their fair percentage of taxes. Think of the widow's mite. She pays more than the rich, because its nearly all she has. The rich wouldn't notice a pittance more in taxes. It would lower unemployment, improve our infrastructure, make our own citizens more prosperous and they can afford to buy more of the rich goods and service. The Rich get that money back! When the Rich had a higher tax rate, this country was prosperous. Let's go back to the Reagan tax rate. He's your God, right? Worship him than.

Correction: The rich earned their money; they did not receive an unfair share of it from someone who, as you insinuate, ought to have distributed it equally. According to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, the average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, while that for American taxpayers with an AGI of $1 million or more is 25%. The rich are paying an UNFAIR portion of THEIR money in taxes. It does not matter whether or not the rich need all of their money to survive, for it is THEIR money, NOT the public's, and their lawful personal use of their money is none of the public's business.

More taxes on the rich will decrease the economic growth rate because when you take away more of whatever money they invest in businesses, they will have less of their money to use to expand their businesses and hire more people. Ah, yes, you can improve infrastructure in the short term, but after you've punished the successful, you can expect more of them to relocate business to countries that allow them to reap more of their hard-earned wealth. The more you tax, the less you take. And when there are less jobs and wealth in this country, you don't have prosperity. Also, taking from the rich to give to the poor so that they can buy the goods sold by the rich is no different from theft. The money was just exchanged for a commodity. The rich didn't get their money back; their money was stolen from them. Reagan reduced the tax rates, among other things, and under his terms, there was more prosperity than under Carter. You think Reagan's my god? I wasn't even born when he assumed office. Perhaps by your avatar and snide rhetoric, one might say Obama is your god. After all, he has accumulated more debt (6.5 T) than the previous 43 US presidents combined (6.3 T), and that makes him a god (of debt). Or, is it Marx?

@facebook-1002206962 No. There is no such thing as someone getting "an unfair share of money to begin with" in a free market. This is because, in a free market, but only in a free market, the wealth of the wealthier doesn't come at the expense of the poorer. Your criticism is of socialism, ironically.

Predatory unfair business practices give them an unfair advantage. Having special entitlements allow them to keep more of it. Fraud, greed, and cheating, allowed them to make most of it. They should be in jail. not in mansions. Its *your* money they scam. Why do you defend them?

Fair tax is the most unintelligent form of taxes unless it's based on percentages of personal income. Look at it like this you make 50k/yr I make 200k/yr. The tax rate is we'll say just a measly little 10%. You pay 5000 which will hit you very badly financially (i.e morgage, car payments, loans, bills you have to pay, etc.) and I pay 20000, which I really won't miss because I on the other hand have all these other untaxed bank accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland. So you will take the hit every time not me.
Also according to Forbes magazine Obama has about 5-8 billionaire supporters all who have donated less than roughly $5 mil. Romney who is trying to give tax breaks to these people has on his "team" OVER 20 who have each donated $50 million+. YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE OR DO YOU STILL WANT TO BE BLIND. I LOOK AT BOTH SIDES. The Majority of people don't want to die in poverty, but the complete idiots and and some of poorest white Americans do. Why don't you guys all move to Texas and secede from the rest of the country? Idiots deserve each other and if you want to die because Romney and his friends want to work you like a slave so be it, just don't make it include me, because what Romney is doing is going to starve out the poor and if you can't take a hint from history you will NEVER learn and you NEVER WILL LEARN.

Me not you Your outrage at Romney, and vitriol at his supporters, seem to be based on two false assumptions. First, your outrage at "tax breaks" for wealthy individuals depends on assuming the money was the government's money to begin with. But that's false. Second, the only sense I can make of your poverty comment is that it's an expression of a zero-sum game fallacy. But a free market is not a zero-sum game. Indeed, it's the only system by which the rich or the poor can justly become richer.

Why not put the tax rate where Reagan had it? That's what Obama wants to do. Let the special entitlements run out.

Ideally, we should pay the govt according to our use of it. But, that's difficult to quantify. A flat tax rate on income AFTER DEDUCTIONS is perhaps the closest practical thing to fairness we could achieve, as of the moment. I emphasized deductions because those are meant to keep you from being financially hardly hit by taxation. Of course, if you live an extravagant lifestyle and your income is not enough, you will suffer financial losses, but not because of the flat tax rate, but because of your financial mismanagement. Foreign bank accounts are not under the jurisdiction of your govt so it shouldn't tax you for them.

Obama's billionaire backer George Soros has donated untold sums in kind to Team Obama through Soros-funded organizations such as the Open Society Institute, Center for American Progress, Institute for America's Future, Feminist Majority, People for the American Way, Human Rights Watch, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, MoveOn.org, Pacifica Foundation, etc. The website Obama.com is owned by a Shanghai bundler with ties to the Chinese govt. The Obama campaign doesn't use the card verification value system in accepting donations (the Romney campaign does), making it easy for foreign donors to donate to his campaign. It's also quite interesting that for the $181 million in donations that the Obama campaign and the DNC raised in September, only 2 % of the contributions were reportable. Also, according to the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) the Obama
campaign accepted 16X more in donations that listed invalid zip codes than the Romney campaign. Did you seriously look at both sides?

I'd gladly move to Texas, where the unemployment rate of 6.8 % is lower than the national rate of 7.8 %, according to September 2012 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Texas is 17th best in this respect, unlike big govt, high-taxing, over-regulating California, which is 49th-the third worst in the nation. I don't have the time to respond to your other comments that constitute plain malarkey (a term that malarkey-spouting Joe Biden likes to spew in lame attempts to project his own malarkey on honest people like Paul Ryan).

Oh, you mean after Republican Arnold destroyed California?

After liberalism destroyed California. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Democrat in Republican's clothing, a.k.a. a RINO-Republican in Name Only.

Why should someone's bank account be taxed? Isn't that taxing them twice? Once for income and again for assets? No wonder so many of the rich want to move to other countries!

I am honestly against property tax (it hurts the elderly/retired) and inheritance tax (once again, it taxes the same money more than once). Income tax and sales tax (including selling one's home) are fine, though.

Maybe a fair income tax would be: 0% for people below the national poverty line, 10% for most people, and 20% on the super-rich. The extra 10% can be spent in ways they choose but it has to be used to help people: create jobs, charity, schools, libraries, hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, their church etc.

Also take into consideration that, as a Mormon, Mitt Romney donates 10% of his income to his church, which has programs to help the poor, unemployed, etc.

Republicans are also more likely to give to charity than Democrats. Republicans are not against helping the poor; they are against the government taking their money to give to government/political causes that they may or may not agree with. Welfare is good for the poorest of the poor, but not good because it creates a cycle of government dependency, so it needs to be reformed. Republicans want to choose who they help, not have a committee decide for them.

If you want to talk about unfair donations to political campaigns, it's the Democrats who are getting unfair donations, at least here in California. Labor unions take money out of people's paychecks and many people cannot get hired unless they join the union. I read somewhere that 93% of labor union dues in California go to the Democratic party. Now, let's see... the voter turnout for 2008 was 79%, which means 21% of people have no party preference. Of the people who voted, 61% of the votes were for Obama and 37% of the votes were for McCain, which leaves 2% for another candidate or their vote didn't count for whatever reason (left blank, duplicate vote, etc.). Is it fair that 93% of the money goes to the Dems when only 48% (61% of 79%) of the people voted for a Democratic president in the last election?

I have no problem with individuals who want to donate their personal money to a cause or candidate, but companies and unions need to stay out of politics.

Which do you think will increase prosperity in America: a system with high taxes or low taxes? More or less take-home pay? A system that is set up where people can take care of themselves, or where the government takes care of everyone and makes decisions for its people? Where people are encouraged to work hard to earn money (while helping our nation to better itself), or where people are encouraged to make babies they can't take care of, stay home and play video games?

If you want to see an example of high taxes, look at Europe. Their economies are worse than ours.

What about universal health care? As great as it is to allow the super poor access to health care, it needs to end with the super poor getting basic care. Everyone else should be allowed to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance, what kind of insurance they want, etc. Otherwise, the free market is gone, which means the standards go down; people cannot get access to the care they need, because the government decides not to cover it; and eventually the government decides to deny care to elderly and disabled persons who cannot "contribute their fair share to society" because it's too expensive. You eventually run out of other people's money.

Me not You, you have one problem, a responsible financial practice is to devide up your money by precentage, if giving 10% of your income up make you take a significant hit, your are living above your means. I put 10% towards charity of every pay check, plus 10% to a savings account, and 80% to live off of. as any responible person should. I would love to only have to give 10% of every paycheck to the governemnt and live off of 70% that would be easy and I would welcome it.

How many Democrats have offshore banking accounts? Wasserman-Schultz does, as do many Democrats who squirrel away their money overseas- same with Obama. Obama's money is invested in a Vanguard fund that invests overseas and doesn't reinvest in America's economy. By the way the money they invest has already been taxed in America, they are investing their savings. All the politicians do this. Yet you have no concern for Soros funding Obama's campaign. For Hollywood multi-millionaires and billionaires funding Obama and they film their movies out of the country (overseas, offshore) to save on taxes and don't invest in American workers!

Investing tax-free in offshore accounts may well be profitable but I doubt that it works too well vis-a-vis the moral demands of Catholic subsidiarity and solidarity. The reality is that people who squirrel away their profits in tax-free offshore accounts do not reinvest a commensurate amount in America. Try to spin all you want but that reality remains. But you are right in observing that millionaires, Democrat and Republican, take advantage of the rest of us. Finally, to show true non-partisanship, why not include Virgil Goode in the comparison? Romney favors legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, supports civil unions for homosexuals and homosexual Boy Scouts, and is a globalist. He also threatens to preemptively attack Iran. Goode agrees with true Catholics.

What do you get from being an ass? Nothing, but pure loneliness. Maybe you should sit back and before you speak or type think to yourself, "is this helping those around me or am I saying things just to make myself feel better?" If at any point you feel you are just going to say something to stroke your own ego... keep your lips shut, because ,"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue." Proverbs 17:28

@Watching Whirlies I'm not sure how subsidiarity is relevant to your objection. Subsidiarity is a doctrine of who has primary versus secondary versus n-ary responsibility in stewarding a given thing. Subsidiarity is how we justify keeping gov't as small as possible, but it has nothing to say about how free individuals invest their own money.

He ran his corporations into the ground so those thousands upon thousands ALL lost their jobs and he got the money for it. SO RESEARCH and LEARN. No class envy here. It's just real talk.

For the Chinese and Indians. He destroyed many thriving businesses to make money. He is secretive and dishonest. How can you even respect him, let alone support him? And why should women support the misogyny of the Republican party.

Should these companies who ship jobs and business overseas get special tax breaks?

@facebook-1002206962 Companies that ship their jobs overseas do not get "special tax breaks." They get the same tax exemptions they would otherwise get were they to merely move their business domestically. If your objection is rather THAT they move their business overseas, that's a different objection, and the reply is that prohibiting an overseas move would require government intervention in the market to a morally unjustifiable degree.

yes, except Mr Romney does not pay income tax. He pays a small amount on money other people make for him.

your an idiot

*you're an idiot

Gil you got burned, you got burned really really bad.

please define a small amount? 14% of a million is $140,000 how much do you want? that is $140,000 that goes to DC, how much do you want? that is a $140,000 that cannot be used to hire workers, go to a charity of his choice, How much could he pay, just wondering you guys always say it is not enough, but never say how much is enough?

You don't know much about economy. That money pays our troops, helps support our fire fighters and police. That money pays for roads, hospitals, disaster relief. All the things that government does creates a *lot* of jobs.

@facebook-1002206962 It is false that the gov't creates jobs if by jobs you mean wealth-creating jobs. Only private enterprise can do that--or at least can do it without taking money away from other jobs that could have been (but now will not be) created--and jobs in the private sector will, on the whole, be managed much more efficiently. The market sees to that. The federal and state and local governments have a place, to be sure, but they're limited in scope, and are subsidiary in authority to the individual. I might turn the tables here and respectfully suggest that you don't know much about economics. It's evident in posts like the one above, frankly.

You realize that really, our roads, hospitals, and other things are built by private companies right? for instance, here in Las Vegas, most of our roads are built by Las Vegas Paving Company, that's not the government and we don't need the government to do that. if we didn't pay taxes, Id bet you companies on those roads would pay for the roads to be maintained on their own. So please stop with this stupid foolish Argument.

Violet Reign He paid income tax already. He doesn't make a paycheck and hasn't for years, so it's odd to charge him with something wrong for that. And about the tax paid on investment earnings, two replies. First, it's no objection to call it "small" since it all depends on what counts as "small." Second, earning money on interest, per se, (or even via the risks taken in employing others) is a wholly moral endeavor, and has long been recognized as such.

All analogies eventually break down, but this one does so sooner rather than later - and reflects no understanding (or a rejection) of the Church's teaching of the universal destination of goods (aka economics with a truly long-term perspective).
"Boys and girls" and Professor David: if the tenth guy in the story above owns 59% (or 90%) of the capital, how is it unjust for him to pay 59% (or 90%) of the taxes? If the 10th guy is able to lobby/buy Congress, which will (and has) send our military and leverage our country's political weight to ensure maximum profits for the owners of capital, then the owners of capital should pay for what they are buying - not the common man (who will be asked to fight in said wars, pave the roads for large multi-nationals, and compete with the third world for wages while trying to play catch up in a runaway cost-of-living environment).
David, if you truly believe the analogy you offered is legit, please qualify your comments as not compatible with Catholic Social Doctrine when posting in a specifically Catholic forum (since you should know better, even if all of your readers don't).
Tim, MBA

Capitalism and socialism (to which much of current Catholic social-justice doctrine aligns) are both sides of the same coin: materialism. Catholicism is a doctrine of 'eternalism', not materialism. The Lord tells us (His disciples) to care for the needy/poor. He NEVER instructed Caesar to do that, did HE?
To preach real Catholicism, one must first attempt to salvage souls. Then, by way of Jesus' teaching, we instruct and proselytize the wealthy to give to the poor. Jesus never told his disciples to 'take from the rich and give to the poor', did He? Of course not.
So get on board with real Catholic social justice where each person carries his own weight and does not break half the commandments about coveting his neighbor's things. Good grief!
...

In order for churches to replace the support the government provides to elderly, children, and the disabled, each church would have to raise an additional $500,000 a year. I don't know any church (except maybe the mega churches on TV) that can do it. Most churches can barely support themselves. Church charities are good, but they can nowhere nohow provide all the support needed. So unless you don't mind people dead in the streets or begging, we all need to pay taxes. (and Jesus supported paying your taxes!). It was the corporate welfare, corporate greed, and special entitlements for the rich that crashed our economy. Your St. Reagan advocated a much higher tax rate for the rich than Bush Romney.

It is unjust for the 10th guy to pay more because the price of a bottle of beer is $ 10, not $ 59. He should pay only $ 10. Also, you cannot blame capitalism for the faults of crony capitalism. You seem to equate the two. Also, Catholic teaching does not advocate socialism.

"Also, catholic teaching does not advocate socialism."

Eh... I seem to recall Christ saying
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven," and "[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Basically, the basis for your own religion says that the rich have to help the poor. So... socialism.

Jesus said that to the rich young man in Matthew 19. He also told the disciples in Matthew 15:16 "You give them something to eat." In Acts 4, the believers shared their possessions. There is no mention of any type of government. If anything, it looks more like communism than socialism, but it is neither. He places the responsibility for caring for the hungry and poor on the believers. In Matthew 25, Jesus explains how the hungry are fed, the thirsty have drink, strangers are welcomed, the naked are clothed, and the sick and prisoners are visited...by the righetous...not the government.
Jesus wasn't a socialist, communist, democrat, or republican. He was, and is, King.

Pondering:
Conservatives want the government to reflect Christian values on
abortion and homosexuality, but don't want the government to reflect the
Christian values on taxes, helping the poor and peace.

Well, if its up to Christians to support the poor, the widowed, the children...they are doing a truly crappy job of it.

Jesus asked the young man to VOLUNTARILY give to the poor; he didn't call on govt to FORCIBLY take the wealth of some to redistribute to others. Jesus knew that govt programs won't fix poverty. He said "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want." Mk. 14:7.

Are you arguing against the Church tax than many European nations have?

No, but I think non-profits should not pay taxes or have their tax-exempt staus threatened when they speak against certain candidates.

I don't see the connection. You are against taxation for social good. In some European countries, there is the "Church Tax." Are you against the Church having this system and replacing it with purly voluntary contributions to the Church? Would you consider a move to abolish the Kirche tax just and fair?