Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Liberals may not understand this story, but for the rest of you: Enjoy!

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican; a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth so she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened, and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked, and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Author unknown


Anonymous said...

Sounds fair. Redistribution of a GPA's, I'll take a hand out from the Govn't.
Knowing MK frequents this blog ahem, well dozens of blogs; I am re-posting this here. I hope you don't mind Gibbs.

From Mypoint-
awe MK made a test visit.
How's the litter box MK, change it yet?

Daniel is Ann Coulter in drag.

Just wondering, don't have to get offended. What really is Mudkitty anyhow?
Ever google that?
Seems you have quit the reputation.
I esp like this one-
Take the Mudkitty Challenge
Must be a dozen blogs or more.

You go blathering all across the blogosphere intentionally attacking opinions that are contrary to yours.
When You yourself have NO blog?
I geuss that's what makes you Mudkitty. You thrive on sligging mud!
AKA Troll!


Wild Phil said...

Hi Doug,

I like that analogy using the 4.0 GPA

I guess that Liberalism is another form of Robin Hoodlum in tights. LOL

Anonymous said...

Daniel, I may be a troll, but around these parts, I'm the pet troll. Now run along.

(Also, on this blog, not posting personal info on another is something that is honored.)


DG - as a lib, I understand this joke all to well.

Phil, you pick the song...btw, can you sing? Can you harmonize? This could be either really sweet, or hilarious, or both.

DG - did you know that Phil and I are planning to do a song duet one day on your show, that is, if you'll have us.

Wild Phil said...

Hi mudkitty,

I don't sing professionally, I am not a perfect singer.

I sing because I love to sing and for no apparent reason other than it makes me feel good to sing.

Another words it puts me in a good mood to sing. So no I have no ability to sound like a Perry Como or anything like that.

Just an every day average person who occasionally will sing in the shower for the fact that I like to feel good.

Anonymous said...

Me too - that's why we should sing a simple old song. I'm good at harmonizing, though, if I do say so myself.

What about old hymns?

Tom said...

Several times DG has posted a rant against "wealth redistribution" without, you know, explaining his preferred taxation method. Strange enough, but okay.

Most rational people call it what it is, progressive taxation, but of course one is free to use whatever sort of misleading label they want. DG is particularly fond of misleading and distorting labels.

So, I'll just ask. Everyone knows government costs money. We all have to pay for it. Does DG support a flat tax? In DG's mind, he appears to argue that Bill Gates should pay the same tax amount as us mere mortals. Is that what you're arguing for DG? From everything you've said about "wealth redistribution", that appears to be the case.

So - I assume that DG did the math and figured out what the result of that is going to be. It would be a massive tax increase on the middle class to make up for the lost revenue from the wealthy. The poor would be massively in trouble when their taxes vastly increase. It's a ridiculous argument to make.

But - it might benefit me. I earn in the top 5% of the American population, so I assume my taxes would go way down. I'm just not that selfish.

Wild Phil said...

By lowered Taxes the larger companies hire more people put more people to work which in the long run brings in more tax dollars for the U.S. Government but the trouble with you Tom is that you are so short sighted that you can't see that.

Tom said...

Phil - seriously, is that what you understood from my post? Holy cow, reading comprehension please.

The topic was not corporate taxes, yet you took the opportunity to insult me on a topic we were not even discussing. The topic was individual taxation methods.

I wish I had a pop-up book to explain it to you, but let me draw a simple analogy that describes progressive taxation versus a flat tax.

Lets say, the budget we're paying taxes for is $1000. Lets further say that in the progressive system I pay $7000 of that. DG pays $2000 of that, and you pay $1000 of that. Under a flat tax system, each one of us will pay about $3300 of that. That means DG's (representing the middle class) taxes went up $1300, and your taxes (representing the the least income) goes up $2300...

Yay - I got a big tax cut, but the middle and poorer classes get higher taxes. You like that system?

How ironic you call me short-sighted and don't even understand what we're talking about.

Anonymous said...

MK says-(Also, on this blog, not posting personal info on another is something that is honored.)

Are we taking control of Gibbs blog here or what?
Honored? Look at all your postings across the net, you don't honor anybody; only when you are told as Gibbs has in the past.

Now you HAVE to play nice here, it's not your litter box.


Tom said...

Playing nice is a two way street.

Anonymous said...

I think if DG thinks I'm ok for his site, it's really not for Daniel to judge.

BTW - Check out DG's show on MY POINT RADIO.

Wild Phil said...


As I said short sighted, just who owns those corporations, hummmmmm?
Bill Gates owns Microsoft right?
Come on think before opening up the gum_shoe.

Gary said...

"Lets say, the budget we're paying taxes for is $1000. Lets further say that in the progressive system I pay $7000 of that. DG pays $2000 of that, and you pay $1000 of that. Under a flat tax system, each one of us will pay about $3300 of that. That means DG's (representing the middle class) taxes went up $1300, and your taxes (representing the the least income) goes up $2300..."

LOL! your math doesn't even make sense. if your budget is $1,000.00 as you say, your assumed combined payment is $9,900.00 or 99 times your budgeted amount! Again, thinking with emotions cause errors.

Now to address your "flat tax" implication, from my understanding, it would be based on a set percentage of taxable income, Say 10% for everyone. So, using your example above, and a 10% assumed flat tax, your taxable income would be $70,000.00. resulting in your $7,000.00 payment. Doug's taxable income would be $20,000.00 resulting in a $2,000.00 payment, and Phil's taxable income would be $10,000.00, resulting in a payment of $1,000.00. Total combined payments would then be $10,000.00 or 10% of combined taxable income.

Gary said...

Sorry Doug,

I'm feeding the trolls again

Anonymous said...

'I think if DG thinks I'm ok for his site, it's really not for Daniel to judge.'

'BTW - Check out DG's show on MY POINT RADIO.'

PLUG; because guess which troll calls in!

Here we go again; now, you know how you offended Gibbs and he had to correct you.


Anonymous said...

This is the troll troth Gawfer.
MK feeds on Doug.


Anonymous said...

Excuse me 'trough'!

Anonymous said...

Excuse me Danny boy, but I was invited to call DG's show. Invited.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cary said...

Flat tax isn't the answer here - a national sales tax is. If you don't want to be taxed, don't buy anything. The more you buy, the more taxes you pay. The more money you have, the more taxes you can pay by purchasing your higher ticket items.