PDA

View Full Version : Stupidonomics made EZ to understand.



LWW
04-12-2011, 11:47 AM
There are those who are numbed ... either by illiteracy, ignorance, ideology, or doublethink ... into being totally unable to comprehend the difference, at a conscious level, between a million and a billion and a trillion and a gazillion.

In an effort to help some understand ... I have prepared some examples.

The first, however, I cannot take credit for as I found it online sometime ago:

"We'll start with a $100 dollar bill. Currently the largest U.S. denomination in general circulation. Most everyone has seen them, slighty fewer have owned them. Guaranteed to make friends wherever they go.

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/bill.jpg

A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2" thick and contains $10,000. Fits in your pocket easily and is more than enough for week or two of shamefully decadent fun.

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/packet.jpg

Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it.

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/pile.jpg

While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable. It fits neatly on a standard pallet...

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/pallet.jpg

And $1 BILLION dollars... now we're really getting somewhere...

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/pallet_x_10.jpg

Next we'll look at ONE TRILLION dollars. This is that number we've been hearing so much about. What is a trillion dollars? Well, it's a million million. It's a thousand billion. It's a one followed by 12 zeros.

You ready for this?

It's pretty surprising.

Go ahead...

Scroll down...

Ladies and gentlemen... I give you $1 trillion dollars...

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/pallet_x_10000.jpg

Notice those pallets are double stacked.
...and remember those are $100 bills.

So the next time you hear someone toss around the phrase "trillion dollars"... that's what they're talking about."


And that $1,000,000,000,000.00 would currently balance the US budget for roughly 8 months ... not quite as long as it takes to seed a new taxpayer and see them sprout.

LWW
04-12-2011, 11:54 AM
Here's another.

We can all imagine what a million US dollars are and what we would do with it.

Now let's imagine that you had $1,000,000.00 per hour to spend.

Well, if on the day Abraham Lincoln was elected, if you had spent $1,000,000.00 per hour without fail ... you would have a little over 21 more years to continue before you had spent the $1,500,000,000,000.00 needed to balance the US deficit for a single year.

LWW
04-12-2011, 11:56 AM
But El Dubb, nobody spends $1,000,000.00 an hour every hour of every day you might claim.

I'd agree.

So, let's talk professional athlete money.

If when the great pyramid of Giza was completed you had started spending $1,000,000.00 per year ... you would have a little over a century to continue before you had spent enough to balance the budget.

LWW
04-12-2011, 11:59 AM
But El Dubb ... why don't we tax the billionaires to solve this issue you may ponder?

Well, ;let's buy into the Marxist "EAT THE RICH" class warfare.

According to Forbes there are 403 US billionaires.

If we levy a $1,000,000,000.00 (That's ONE BILLION US DOLLARS) tax penalty ... over and above the taxes they already pay ... we could balance the US budget, for about 100 days.

pooltchr
04-12-2011, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But El Dubb, nobody spends $1,000,000.00 an hour every hour of every day you might claim.

</div></div>

I think Congress might take a strong swing at it!

Steve

LWW
04-12-2011, 12:04 PM
Well El Dubb you might say, whaty about the millionaires ... they're also rich.

Fair enough.

There are roughly 2,500,000 millionaires in the USA. Let's say if we tax them all $1,000,000.00 each ... plus the tax they currently pay ... we could balance the US budget for approximately 20 months.

llotter
04-12-2011, 12:50 PM
as I was counting those pallets, I thought I noticed one toward the rear center area was a bit light and was wondering if I should count it just like all the others?

LWW
04-13-2011, 02:03 AM
A billion here ... a billion there ... you act like it's a lot of money.

LWW
04-13-2011, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars.</span> That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money<span style='font-size: 11pt'>? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above.</span> By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days</span>, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits.</span> Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners.<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days</span>, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August.</span> The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>They're going to have to go after the non-rich.</span>

But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.</span>

Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It's not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us -- liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

What's the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP.</span> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues</span>.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.</span></div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich)

cushioncrawler
04-13-2011, 04:57 PM
If i were King there would be zero tax.
mac.

JohnnyD
04-13-2011, 05:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i were King there would be zero tax.
mac. </div></div>Thanks mac.That does have a nice ring to it,King Mac.

LWW
04-14-2011, 03:43 AM
Your reign be short.