A Good Illustration of our Tax System

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way w e 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 ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a c urve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner 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 eat 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 eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

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 paid $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... the least proportionate savings) Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat 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 unf air that he got ten times more than me!" "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!"

As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate 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 eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

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

A "Valid" Argument

In the midst of my studies the other day I recalled a conversation with a buddy some time ago.  In discussing world religions he suggested that more than one religion could be "valid."  I believe that my response involved noting that truth claims were still the heart of the issue, or something to that effect.  And while my response was correct to a degree, it failed to acknowledge that my friend too was correct in his statement. We did not truly tackle the difference between validity and truth.

An argument (or belief system) can indeed be valid, even if it is not true.  Validity simply refers to the fact that the conclusion follows logically from the premises.  However, it does not establish the truth of the conclusion, unless the premises are also true.  For example, consider the following syllogism:

All dogs are blue

Marley is a dog

Therefore, Marley is blue.

This is a valid argument.  It is well constructed logically in that the conclusion, "Marley is blue" logically follows from the premises.  However my dog Marley is not blue.  So the argument is valid, but it isn't sound.  The conclusion is false.  In that case, we look to the premises to find the problem and we see that Premise 1 - "All dogs are blue" is not in fact true, because we can show many examples of things that are dogs that are not blue.

The laws of logic can and should be applied to any religion to test the validity of the claims, but also the truth value of the premises.   With the stakes so high, (in fact, none could be higher) I am not satisfied with a religion that is merely valid.  I want a system that is both valid and true.  

Explore the truth claims of various religions.  See how the conclusions are reached, and how the premises are supported.  It can be an enlightening experience.  Once again we see that faith (held beliefs) and reason (logic) are not mutually exclusive.

Ron Paul Strikes Again...

Because I care (see above) about individual liberty and preserving the Constitution, I'm encouraged by the amount of exposure that Ron Paul has garnered amidst the financial crisis. Millions joined his grass roots movement during the Presidential campaign and he continues to be a voice of reason amidst the "changing" american landscape.

Here's the latest post on CNN.

Mr. Telephone Man...or... Fun with Numbers

"The Bible is full of errors. It has been changed over time. It has been revised to promote power for certain groups and degrade others."

These are common allegations. You may even believe these statements yourself. They are easy statements to make. Seemingly logical, but they are mere assertions that require proof. Remember, those that make the assertion bear the burden of proof. But for a minute, I'll waive that right. I'll bear the proof for the counter point...

Remember the "Telephone Game?" You would start with a line of people. The first person would whisper a few sentences into the ear of the second person. Who would then turn and whisper to the third and so on. By the time that the message reached the end of the line it was often so garbled and messed up from the original that it was a great laugh.

Well suppose that we wanted to know what was said 2,000 years ago? If we were relying on oral tradition, as shown in the telephone game, we may be in trouble.

This analogy is often used to describe the authoring and transmission of the Bible, and hence introduces the possibility for a garbled message that was not the original author's intent. But it is a false analogy. First, the method of communication is not the same. When dealing with ancient texts, we are dealing with written communication, not oral tradition. For the analogy to work, the telephone game would be played with pen and paper, each copying down the message from the previous person. But then one might say, "there can still be copying errors, editors mistakes." Granted there may be copying errors. So how can we be sure that what we have in our hand is what was originally written down? How can we be sure that we have an accurate copy? Obviously, we would check against the source from which we're copying.

OK, but suppose that we missed one punctuation mark, one letter, or even one word. Then the next person in line would promulgate that mistake and perhaps add others if we're not careful.

Would it make a difference if a person at the end of the line could refer back to not only the copy immediately preceding it, but also the one before that, and the one before that, and on back to the original? Of course it would. And this is how ancient texts are transmitted, not in the "telephone" game-like style that is so easy for critics to dismiss.

So with this as the backdrop, let's look just a bit closer. Textual critics look at several factors dealing with the authenticity of ancient texts, but we'll look at two:
1. The number of manuscripts in existence (or that have been discovered)
2. The date of the manuscripts (the earlier or closer to the original the better)
- An important component of this category is the time gap between the writing of the original text and the first discovered manuscript (ie, the closer to the original, the greater the chance that it is an accurate copy).

Let's see how the Bible compares to some other ancient texts. And note that these are not just randomly selected poor performers. These are the all-stars of ancient literature, by the criteria above.


*(Comparitive Chart courtesy of Dr. Norman Geisler)

When you start looking at the numbers, the criticism just doesn't add up :)

Contact Congress

Go to www.congress.org and email your representatives to tell them to stop the bailout.  The site is very user-friendly.  You can look up your senators and reps by your zip code and then email them all using the form they provide.  The following is what I sent to my reps.  Feel free to copy/paste.

"Dear President Bush; Senators Burr and Dole; and Representative Price:

You MUST reject the Paulson/Bernanke plan for bailing out and propping up reckless banks at taxpayer expense. This is madness to ask us, the taxpayers, to cover the liabilities of Wall Street. We are tired of being fleeced. Let the market work, let prices fall, and trust in the American people to endure in the short term rather than attempting to regulate our way out of this. The stability and integrity of the American dollar is at stake."

Details of the bailout bill...

A couple eyebrow-raising details of the bill are noted below in a message from Ron Paul.

Message from Ron Paul to the Nation:

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! “This is welfare for the rich,” he said. “This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.”

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we’re being told it’s unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.” This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there’s this: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this “sadly necessary.” Sad, yes. Necessary? Don’t make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul