MBB: Great South Athletic Conference

[Spencer Beaty]

Gruden won't come to UT.  The real catch would be Lane Kiffin, former Raiders coach and USC assistant.

[old_lion]

FYI  Rumor is Jon Gruden might be interested in the Tennessee football job....

What do you think?

From my own biased viewpoint, I don't think we need another great football coach in the SEC East.     Although I'm sure Tennessee, the top notch program that it is, will come up with someone very good.

Seriously, I did hate to see a great football coach like Fulmer go out the way he did.

Also, will you be attending the alumni game on Nov 15th?

I hope so ... it will depend on game time of Ga/Aub.  Will you be there?

[old_lion]

You bring up some good points (even though you sound like Joe the Plumber). I am encouraged by folks on both sides of the aisle that respect him because he is more of centrist than your typical left leaning liberal.  In some respects I agree with you...

OK Wilburt, I think we can agree that some changes are needed ... and as is always the case, there are some pros and cons in this change.   But we have been remiss ... no one has yet to address the issue that is most important to the gsac hoops msg board ... How will it impact Murvul's recruiting?   

[wilburt]

You bring up some good points (even though you sound like Joe the Plumber). I am encouraged by folks on both sides of the aisle that respect him because he is more of centrist than your typical left leaning liberal.  In some respects I agree with you...

OK Wilburt, I think we can agree that some changes are needed ... and as is always the case, there are some pros and cons in this change.   But we have been remiss ... no one has yet to address the issue that is most important to the gsac hoops msg board ... How will it impact Murvul's recruiting?   

You are correct.  No one has yet to address the impact on Murvul's recruiting?  Well I think it all depends on how much East Tennessee supported the Obama campaign! 

UT needs to get someone with some NFL experience as their next Head Football Coach.

[old_lion]

Sometimes I envy people who do not live in red states.  Then again, several million folks used to and now don't, so there is hope (to borrow a phrase).

Be careful what you wish for ... some words of wisdom from Winston Churchill ...

* Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

* We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

* Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened.

* If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.

* You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else.

* Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.


and finally ...
If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.
- Winston Churchill -

[old_lion]

A parable from the flagship educational institution of a still firmly red state.
If this doesn't put the looming inherent dangers in terms that most of us can understand ... well, then I don't know how to ... keep hope alive (to borrow a phrase) that some will ever understand.

A professor at the University of Georgia explains the United States Tax
System in an easy to understand way. It's most instructive for understanding the
impact of Obama's proposed changes,  so read on...


From the University of Georgia:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are
all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being paid to drink his beer. (Hmm ... does this sound familiar?) So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh
man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all
the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

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

[Mr. Ypsi]

Very clever - but also very simplistic and misleading.

The analogy breaks down on at least two major factors:

1. The beer drinkers (presumably) are each receiving equal beer (i.e., benefits); the wealthy clearly receive (by definition) far greater benefits (in numerous ways) from the society their taxes help to maintain.

2. Income taxes are only one (relatively small) component of all taxes, and are the ONLY progressive taxes.  While many people pay no income tax, NO ONE pays no taxes.  For a majority of workers, payroll taxes greatly exceed income taxes, and are definitely regressive taxes (since they apply to only the first $106K(?) of income, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of income than the poor).  I won't even belabor sales and other taxes, which hit the poor proportionately much harder than the rich.

[Before Pat steps in - there is a politics board elsewhere on the site.]

[old_lion]

Very clever - but also very simplistic and misleading.

The analogy breaks down on at least two major factors:

1. The beer drinkers (presumably) are each receiving equal beer (i.e., benefits); the wealthy clearly receive (by definition) far greater benefits (in numerous ways) from the society their taxes help to maintain.

2. Income taxes are only one (relatively small) component of all taxes, and are the ONLY progressive taxes.  While many people pay no income tax, NO ONE pays no taxes.  For a majority of workers, payroll taxes greatly exceed income taxes, and are definitely regressive taxes (since they apply to only the first $106K(?) of income, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of income than the poor).  I won't even belabor sales and other taxes, which hit the poor proportionately much harder than the rich.

You make some valid points in #2 above.  Obviously, you understand more about our overall tax system than most of the political operatives I've been listening to the last few months.  (Assuming of course, that they really believe what they say.)

Re simplistic and misleading ... I'll give you simplistic.  But I think it is intentionally simplistic ... to put it in easy to understand terms.  That is the point of a parable.  It has to be simplistic to give many, who are not as well versed as you, a chance to understand.  Many don't have a clue ... in many cases because they aren't paying attention ... or maybe because they are listening to all the political "spinners" on TV ... in that case, no wonder they don't have a clue.

But misleading?  No way ... the simplistic, bottom line still holds ...

Tax them too much, attack them for being  wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

All you have to understand is what has already occurred in much of Western Europe.

"Those who are ignorant of history, are doomed to repeat it"
  - George Santayana -

[wilburt]

Old Lion "the economist" 

If history shows us anything, is that in this country when the times are economically bad the masses/citizens want more government (ie Great Depression).  When times are economically good the masses/citizens want less government (ie Reagan's 1980s).  It is a very fluid dynamic (for you beer drinkers)!

[Mr. Ypsi]

old_lion,

I contend it IS misleading, simply because it focusses on the ONLY progressive tax.  If you look at ALL taxes (at least as of 2002, but since that was before Bush's second tax cut, the picture may be even more regressive now - since I'm retired, I haven't had to update my info ), the poor actually pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.  Overall, taxes actually increase inequality.  Or to put in the terms that became so notorious in the latter part of the campaign, overall taxes DO 'spread the wealth' - from the poor to the rich!

[mattgrubb]

Go SCOTS

[old_lion]

old_lion,

I contend it IS misleading, simply because it focuses on the ONLY progressive tax.  If you look at ALL taxes (at least as of 2002, but since that was before Bush's second tax cut, the picture may be even more regressive now - since I'm retired, I haven't had to update my info ), the poor actually pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.  Overall, taxes actually increase inequality.  Or to put in the terms that became so notorious in the latter part of the campaign, overall taxes DO 'spread the wealth' - from the poor to the rich!

Except for that last, silly statement (overall taxes DO 'spread the wealth' - from the poor to the rich!)  you're not wrong, you are just not focusing on the key "cause and effect points" ...

Allow me to recap ...

1) Tax them too much, attack them for being  wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

or stated a little differently ...

2) With apologies to those whom this statement may offend ... how can anyone be so simple minded as to think you can raise taxes on corporations and the rich ... and not have a negative impact on the rest of us?  Do they think corporations/the rich exist in a vacuum?   Let's see ... how might corporations/the rich  react to such fiscal policies?  Some possibilities ... raise prices, cut benefits to employees, layoff people, leave the US for a more tax friendly environment, etc., etc. ... or some combination of all of the above?  All bad news for the rest of us.  Be careful what you wish for ...

Mr. Y, sounds like to me you are making a version of Obama's "fairness argument".  To my knowledge, "making sure it's fair" is very seldom a criteria that is given much consideration in any aspect of life.  With respect to the tax code, it's clearly counter productive to focus on "let's make sure it's fair" ... as opposed to let's make sure it works most efficiently for the common good on a macroeconomic basis.

Another simplistic example ...  I don't think Akeem Lunchpail (see, I can change with the times) is going to draw much comfort from knowing his wages would have been taxed more fairly if he still had a job ... after he lost it when his company reduced their workforce, or closed their doors, or moved their operation overseas, etc., etc.

Regarding that last, silly statement ... revenues from payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, etc. certainly do not go to the rich!  They go to fund various programs, infrastructure, etc. that benefit all of us. And, as you well know, the overwhelming majority of us, are certainly not the rich!

And one other thing ... Wilburt, don't you roll your eyes at me, young man!  That's not the "receptive to learning attitude" that earned you academic recognition at Fisk. You most certainly CAN handle the truth!   

[old_lion]

Go SCOTS

Come on, Grubb ... I thought you could at least relate to the story about the 10 guys drinking beer!   

[Mr. Ypsi]

old_lion,

My apologies if my 'silly' statement was not very clearly stated.  Of course the other taxes to not 'go' to the rich.  What I was presenting is the fact (as of the last time I presented such material - my lecture notes are in deep storage!) that income inequality is actually greater after all taxes are taken into account than it is on a pre-tax basis.  In that sense, to focus only on income taxes as a 'redistribution of wealth' is highly misleading, since taxes as a cumulative whole actually 'redistribute' wealth upward, not downward.

[coachwgh]

Go Panthers!