What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
93 Comments
- REBECCAFRIEDMAN, on 02/19/2009, -10/+48NY is the most expensive, overrated place to live in the whole country. We already pay $8 just to enter the place, $40 to park, $100 to eat, and $4000 if you like it here and want to rent a pad. I think lots of people will be relocating to warmer, nicer, cheaper places very soon, with or without a tax hike.
- Nickolassc, on 02/19/2009, -5/+35I don't see how anyone could afford to live there without making at least 200,000 annually.
- inactive, on 02/19/2009, -7/+35Bar 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. 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, boys and girls, 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. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
This is of course a light hearted way to poke fun at "the system", but still yet an interesting look at the North American tax system. It also observes how we can sometimes get caught up in our own worlds such that we lose sight of the forest through the trees.
- inactive, on 02/19/2009, -6/+27It is simple,
If you keep demonizing and stealing from the very people that provide most of the tax income and you will soon have trouble funding all the give-a-ways the deadbeats love so much.
The rich didn't get rich by throwing money away. - wolfing, on 02/19/2009, -3/+20Maybe it's actually better for NYC if people start moving out of it.
- supercandy, on 02/19/2009, -24/+41he has been awful, a populist Democrat who ran on Rudy's fine reputation of saving the CITY, (ironically with tax reduction).
will never forget Bloomberg's quick embrace of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may be the most corrupt of all (with her husband involved).
they were getting illegal campaign contributions via anonymous donors in Chinatown, ran one of the ugliest Democratic Primary efforts which included disgusting racist implications, repeatedly lied about voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, claimed bizarre 'dodging of sniper fire', and whoppers about being involved in the Irish Peace Process...
and Bloomberg cheered it's success ! (desperately seeking Hillary voters in NYC for a vapid, egotistical third term?)
no one needs one person that badly to be Mayor, Mr. B.
you are looking more like a little - tamer version of HUGO everyday... - Atomic1fire, on 02/19/2009, -0/+13Aside from paying more taxes then everyone else, and by proxy,
Paying for other peoples welfare and the infrastructure. - TubaTechno, on 02/19/2009, -0/+12Please tell me you're just being sarcastic...
- mtraskos, on 02/19/2009, -3/+15Really? You mean that people might consider moving to a location with a lower tax rate? But then how will the city be able to keep all of their crazy promises?
- Chahrlie5, on 02/19/2009, -2/+14You'll just miss the jobs created by the companies they organize and run, and the taxes paid by them to the government to take care of idiots on welfare, taking off some of the tax burden from lower income people who will have to make up for it eventually.
dolt - MCBROCK, on 02/19/2009, -2/+14Just think of it as a stimulus package ...
for New Jersey! - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -3/+14Even worse over taxing the top income bracket could result in them leaving the country for a less penurious country. Then we lose more jobs and have less people contributing to our economy.
- MFoody, on 02/19/2009, -2/+11Don't drive into new york then, there's a reason why parking is expensive; because there isn't enough parking. And don't eat at 100 dollar restaurants if you don't want to pay that much you can get a ten dollar dinner in new york that is as good as a ten dollar dinner elsewhere in the country. Rent is really expensive and I can't afford to live there but it isn't overrated, it's just not for everyone.
- govsucks, on 02/19/2009, -2/+11New York of the 1970s here we come.
- Dustin00, on 02/19/2009, -11/+19No they won't.
They can't walk away from that "I live in New York and I'm better than you" attitude. - Gndoab, on 02/19/2009, -11/+18overrated my ass. If it wasn't such an awesome place to live, people wouldn't pay it.
- maz2331, on 02/19/2009, -7/+14I won't even go to NYC to visit.
- jimmies, on 02/19/2009, -3/+10Nonsense. I make significantly less and live in Manhattan just fine. I accept that I live in a postage stamp sized apartment because I have so many things to go out and do - my place ends up being just a room to crash in.
- thegreatgazoo, on 02/19/2009, -0/+7South Beach Miami. Cheaper real estate, 0% income tax.
- pilot3033, on 02/19/2009, -2/+9"I don't want to blame the rich for what they got, or point my finger at the poor for what they have-not."
- k3rfuffl3, on 02/19/2009, -3/+9I think New York's problem IS too many people. As population density increases the city's infrastructure becomes less efficient because it's not designed to handle that many people. You either have to increase taxes to change the infrastructure or have people leave. Sometimes both.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 02/19/2009, -3/+9Good to see all your rabid capitalists that won't even bother reading The Wealth of Nations. If you can't explain the reasons and merits of progressive taxation and understand it's roots then you have no place here, trying to string together some moronic anecdote to excuse a regressive or flat tax. You either follow the rules of a sustainable capitalist economy or you keep creeping back into robber baron social stratification and the follow on inevitable depression.
I never realized how blind people are until the internet made it so utterly clear. - Metasquares, on 02/20/2009, -0/+6The first rule we learned in urban development was "the rich have the greatest mobility". The poor can't afford to move. The rich can.
- thebaron2, on 02/19/2009, -0/+6But which ones do you want leaving? As Bloomberg said, 1% of the people pay 50% of the taxes as it is right now.
If some of those 1% leave it could mean big problems - if some of the other 99% leave then no one would even notice. - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -1/+7So why does Warren Buffet pay less tax % than his secretary?
- Juliaxa, on 02/20/2009, -1/+6Wait a minute! I thought taxes were GOOD for the economy and creating jobs.
Where could I have heard that? - Zap2, on 02/19/2009, -1/+6North America?
You think Europeans do it differently, heck its higher over there!
(nothing wrong with that, just stating facts) - zombiecarlin, on 02/19/2009, -1/+6Brilliant but I agree with Zap parts of Europe have a heavier taxation policy on the wealthy
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -4/+9Don't worry - you won't be missed.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -1/+6NYC boroughs can be pretty affordable if you make a NYC salary. If you pull 75k you can get by pretty well and still have some fun once in a while.
Bloomberg always will see things from the super-wealthy point of view, because....he's super-wealthy. He hasn't done a thing to help the middle class in NYC. - pinchduck, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5Whose greed, the wealthy folks who are tired of being taxed, or the cities, who assumes that a good chunk of what you earn is rightfully theirs? You would think that the capitalist Bloomberg would understand how competition works, and that he is competing with other municipalities for the homesteads of these people.
- BassMasterP, on 02/19/2009, -0/+4sounds like the population model of the world...
- PopcornDave, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5Because he's paying on capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than income.
- Metasquares, on 02/20/2009, -0/+4Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.
- Gndoab, on 02/19/2009, -1/+5brooklyn?
- TubaTechno, on 02/19/2009, -1/+4What IS fair?
- REBECCAFRIEDMAN, on 02/20/2009, -0/+3To answer some of the ??? I got from my prior post:
1. Regarding $100 dinners out - that's the average price for dinner for 2, nothing special. Don't know of any place but Gray's Papaya where you could get a $10 dinner for two people!
2. The only time we ever go out to eat in Manhattan is a significant occasion (my husband's 40th birthday we spent more than $100 on a simple dinner) and it's no more than once or twice a year.
3. Rent: I no longer live in Manhattan - I moved out in 2002 when my 1 bedroom apartment rent went up to $2200/month. We now live in northern NJ, where we pay $1200 for a 1 bedroom apartment with a pool and parking, including utilities. It's safe and friendly, and we have no problem at all being New Jersey folks now.
4. Why drive into the city? Well, it's the same price to drive as it is to take the bus or train, and frankly, until that formula changes I will probably continue to drive to client meetings and so on. I never actually pay for parking in a garage, as I am one of those crazy lucky people who finds street parking wherever I need it.
5. Would we move if the taxation rate increased? (even though we live in NJ now, we pay state taxes to NY for the privilege of working there) Yes, eventually. We make more than 6 figures combined salary and we are struggling to get by. Had to drop health insurance because we couldn't afford the $800/month anymore. No savings or retirement to speak of. Seems funny, but there you have it. By the time we pay student loans, rent, insurance, food, gas, etc., there is nothing left. Supposedly upper middle class earners, right? ;-) This is true of everyone I know in the NY area, by the way. Nobody has savings here, just debt. - govsucks, on 02/19/2009, -2/+5Excuse me but since when did you have a right to do anything to anyone? I guess now its "well we have a big mob of people so do what we say or we'll hurt you and take your stuff?"
You are a frakin primate. - JimmyIkon, on 02/20/2009, -1/+4I think the republicans are taking over Digg. Thank god.
- KingWilson, on 02/20/2009, -1/+4Semblance.....most rich people are smart enough not to put up with ***** income discrimination. If you try and suck them dry they will ***** leave. There's nothing magical about it, its basic human nature to avoid disadvantageous situations.
- mikelieman, on 02/19/2009, -3/+6Hugo Chavez just had Term Limits lifted -- just like Mike Bloomberg.
- publiclurker, on 02/19/2009, -2/+5NY has always been expensive, and people still stay there for the image it presents. Personally, I think any claims of moving out are just hot air, as I really doubt any of them would be seen dead in Hackensack.
- Chahrlie5, on 02/20/2009, -0/+2No they're gone because the same government you loved so much thought it'd be a wonderful idea to force banks to loan money to broke ass people to buy McMansions they couldn't afford and now you're trusting the same government to fix it.
- rald84, on 02/19/2009, -1/+3are you that ***** who wrote that article in the NYtimes about how the economy is bad so here's 10 ideas on how to spend 100 bucks on a meal?
- cliffzdude, on 02/20/2009, -0/+2Under the US tax code the first four don't just pay nothing, they pay nothing and then the bar owner give's them money at the end of the evening.
- DiggsOnlyJew, on 02/20/2009, -0/+2Yeah anthropodeus, that's why their economies are thriving now... right?
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -1/+3Michael Bloomberg's Tax Lesson in New York City probably finally realized what he always knew the rich think paying taxes are for the poor folks.
- jofwooster, on 02/20/2009, -0/+2"Now, let's put this in perspective. New York City is the financial capital of the world, right? New York City is considered the hub of the United States of America, right? How many people live in New York? I mean 14 million people go to work every day, eight million people in New York City, right? That right? Do you understand what you just heard? Forty thousand -- did he say people? He did. Forty thousand people (he means families, I'm sure, but 40,000 people) outta eight million pay half the tax load in the city. Do you realize all it would take to kill that city is half of them leaving? If 20,000 of that 40,000 paying 50% of all taxes fled and decamped, do you know what would happen to New York? It would die. These people, these 40,000 people, they ought to be treated like royalty."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021909 ...
or digg it:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Forty_thousand_p ... - KingWilson, on 02/20/2009, -0/+2you wish...
- darwininmotion, on 02/20/2009, -0/+2That analogy was my first thought after reading the article.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is