How the Tax System Really Works

This made the email circuits a while ago, but it's worth repeating. For additional reading on the topic, try any Ayn Rand novel, particularly Atlas Shrugged.

-------------------------------------
This is a very simple way to understand the tax laws. It was prepared by Tom L. Davies at the University of South Dakota. Read on-it will make you think.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. 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 $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18 and the tenth man-the richest-would pay $59. 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 curve (in tax language, a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. 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-the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six men 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 end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant 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 paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six 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, "but he," pointing to the tenth, "got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too...it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? 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 he 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, a little late, what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill.

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the 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 at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic.

Canon 300D Users Forum - My posts

I participate in an extremely active little community of Canon Digital Rebel (300D) users, with members all over the world. Recently, I have found their moderators filter a little bit too aggressive, not with content, but with method. Consequently, the following three messages where blocked, but I feel that they are of value to some of those members, and in fact, where written in direct response to questions posed. Thus, I have posted them below for their access and hopefully, benefit.

There are three messages:

• Message 1: Lens tests (was "Sigma 18-125 vs Tamron 18-200")
• Message 2: Shooting Concerts and the such.. (IS lens theory)
• Message 3: New Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS lens

Regards,

~ NW
-------------------------------------
Message 1: Lens tests (was "Sigma 18-125 vs Tamron 18-200")

I have found a few great sites for lens tests, and they are probably one's I have gleaned from this forum, so it's only fair that I return the favor and post them again:

- http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php?
- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/
- http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php
- http://www.imaging-resource.com/

I personally owned the Tamron 18-200 and was very disappointed. I bought the "Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom" to replace it, but I haven't tested it yet. Today, while browsing a new camera shop (Cal's in Newport Beach), I watched a guy trade in his brand new EF-S 17-85mm F3.5 EOS kit lens (the upgraded one for the 20D), so I snagged it as "used" for a bit of a discount.

While in the shop, I played with the Canon 28-75 F2.8/L and the EF-S 17-85, and yes, it's not the same quality of lens, the range is really quite significantly enhanced, and the EF-S lens has image stabilization which goes a long way in helping an amature like me get a sharp image.

I actually sold my 300D to business partner who needed it RIGHT NOW and made me an offer I couldn't refuse. Sure feels silly buying lenses when I don't own a camera (at the moment). I'm debating whether to buy the 20D or the 350XT. I know I like the 20D, but I don't want to buy it and have the price plummet soon after..

Anyway, on the POTN link above, there is a discussion of the Tamron 18-200, and a few image gallery links, one of which impressed me far beyond what I was able to obtain. Here is the discussion:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63829

Cheers,

Nathan Woods
---------------------------

Message 2: Shooting Concerts and the such.. (IS lens theory)

Salty, I think you have that exactly backwards. Objects that move around a lot don't benefit from image stabilized lens's, because you are moving the lens far more than the little micromotors do. I have
read, and have personally experienced, that IS on moving objects is counterproductive.

It is stationary objects that you are trying to capture using longer lens focal lengths, that really see the benefit of IS lens's. As your camera is allowed to lock solidly onto it's target, and simply corrects for your own natural oscillations as you breathe, etc.. Imagine a Navy ship with a big deck gun training it's sights on a distant target while rolling on the rocking seas. That is was IS does. It's basically a gyroscopic stabilized platform from which you shoot.

This is of course assuming hand held shots. With tripods, everything is different, and IS's relative enhancement is lessened.

I have recently purchased a 70-200 F2.8/L and it's quite nice. My targets are fast moving planes, and I am shooting handheld. I don't think the IS would benefit me all that much in my environment. But for long distance portraits or nature photography, it would be a very welcome benefit, one that is worth the extra stack of bills.

I have a link somewhere around here to one member's lens test using IS on stationary targets, and the results are quite amazingly telling.....

Nathan Woods

Origional Message:
> I have heard (probably from reading this list) that while an IS
lens is
> superior for shooting fast action like sports or racing, it is not
> really much of an improvement over a non-IS lens for shooting live
music
> where the performers are fairly stationary.
>
> Have you tried both types of the same lens, so that you can lay
this to
> rest? My dream lens is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8, but I would need a
lot
> of convincing, if not downright proof, that spending another $500-
600
> for the IS version will provide enough improvement over the non-IS
type
> to justify what amounts to a nearly 50% cost delta.
>
> You have a very nice gallery, BTW, I will study it more closely
later.
>
> Salty

------------------------

Message 3: New Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS lens

I recently purchased the EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS lens, as well as the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 lens. They are both intended to be my general purpose walk around lens, that will probably see 75% more use than my other two lenses (10-22mm and 70-200mm), simply due to the convenient size.

I have shot about 300 photos in total with both of these lenses, trying to pick one to settle on, and I'm having a hard time. But irregardless, I will answer your questions and then give my thoughts on them.

1) The EF-2 lens is for the mid grade digital cameras only, currently the 300D, 350D, and 20D only. The higher end digitals and all of the film cameras cannot use this lens because they do not have the EF-S lens mount (white dot). I personally think the EF-S line is here for a long time, but yes, if you upgrade, you will not have access to them. Why not provide the EF-S mount on the higher end cameras? I guess because those fortunate guys use the pro series "L" lenses (such as the 70-200mm F2.8/L IS lens for only $1650!). The optics and bodies on the L lens are much superior to the more consumer grade EF-S lenses, though actual photo quality can certainly be comparable, but not as frequently. Your shot ratio for "keepers" with L lenses will be higher, typically.

2) F stands for F-stop, which is Aperture, which is the F4-5.6 range of your target lens. The lower the number the better. The lower the number, the faster the lens, meaning it lets more light in, in a given amount of time. The more light, the better the image, and the greater the range of photographable events you are exposed to. The EF-S 17-85 does not have a great aperture rating. As you telescope it (towards the 85mm end), the aperture goes down to 5.6, which means you have to shoot slower shutter speeds to allow more light in. The slower the shutter speed, the more likely blurring will occur to camera shake. Another significant aspect of aperture is the effect on depth of field. The lower the number (higher/wider aperture), the narrower the depth of field. This is very advantageous sometimes, so that items in the foreground and background are blurred out, and only your subject is crisply in focus. This is much harder to do in slower aperture lenses (F5.6 for example).

3) the digital effect. Your 35-80mm lens's focal length is multiplied by 1.6x when used on your digital SLR's. Meaning, you really have a 56-128mm when used on the Rebel (300D). I can tell you that a wider lens is going to be noticeably handy once you've tried one. Now interesting, the Kit lens
(18-55) is really more like an 28-85mm when compared to a film camera, which is sorta a historically accepted normal lens range).

4. The cost. So here is the real item to mull over. How much you want to pay? The EF-S 17-85 is a great range size, both fairly wide and fairly long. And it's IS feature (image stabilization) works really well, allowing you to shoot fairly slow shutter speeds on long focal lengths (85mm), despite the aperture (F5.6). But it costs about $600 as a standalone lens.

So you have other options. The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a critically acclaimed lens, used by pro's and consumers alike. The F2.8 at all focus ranges allows excellent shot opportunities, and at higher aperture settings, F22+, it is amazingly crisp. BUT, it is not as wide. The difference between 17mm and 28mm is really dramatically noticeable. The long side (85mm vs 75mm) is not so noticeable. The nice thing is that the Tamron is only $400, so that's more cash in your pocket.

Which is better? I have no idea. I'm not done testing yet. I need to shoot more indoor stuff, but I had to return my buddies 20D and mine hasn't come in yet, so they sit on the shelf this week. Doh!

I hope some of this was helpful. Back to lurking now...

Nathan Woods
SoCal


-----------------
Origional Message:
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 03:49:02 -0000
From: "John Ortt"
Subject: RE: New Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS lens



Hi All,

I am thinking of swapping my standard EF-S 18-55mm F 3.5 - 5.6 Digital Rebel lens

for the new Canon 17 - 85mm F4 - 5.6 IS lens.

I also have a fairly basic 35 - 80 (I think) lens which it could also replace.

So you see I am justifying it based on it taking the place of the two I have currently (which is more convienient) and being a better lens anyway which should result in better shots.

The only issue I have is that the old lens was f 3.5 - 5.6 while the new one would be f 4 - 5.6.

I have to confess I don't fully understand this and how it relates, but the reduced range makes me worried....

Does the f stand for focal length? I'd appreciate anyone who can explain it to me or point me in the direction of a website which could educate me.

My other question is whether this lens is a "digital only" lens in the same way as the 18 -55? I ask this as I am expecting the full frame sensors to drop in price eventually and would like to build up a lens collection which will be as future proof as possible.

My main reason for upgrading at this time is that my fiancee and I are getting married in October and I was hoping to give a close friend the 300D for the day and I thought a longer zoom (especially with IS) would be a useful tool for him.

Thanks in advance for the advice,

John.
------------------------
~ end