A little lesson for the thick-headed, via Authors Den:
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
"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.
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 curve. '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. 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 each 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, 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).
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. 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 me!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 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 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 at the table anymore."
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Oh, this tired old e-mail is making the rounds yet again?
"Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore."
Yeah?
Are they gonna stop eating meals?
Are they gonna move to France?
It's a very flawed analogy,and it insults almost everyone's intelligence.
Well, except for rightwingnuts, that is.
There-in lies the problem. Left wing homos such as yourself keep on thinking the average taxpayer will continue on his way, paying and paying while you and all the bums and deadbeats sop up the gravy. Come november, your little fantasy world will begin to become a nightmare. Donated all YOUR wealth to the POOR yet?. Have you donated anything at all? I think not. But you're more than happy to donate mine.
Sure, laugh.
The "rich" might as well be known as the "employing class".
Business minded folk always keep an eye toward profitability, making their living by providing goods and services.
If it's no longer possible to do that under the tax structure, they'll either retire or leave for greener pastures.
It's happened before.
Thank goodness most people are a bit more thoughtful than the cretins who swallow MoreLies' swill.
How in the world can you continue to take it up the poop chute from the "ruling class" and STILL defend them because "they create jobs"?
JD, if you're making less than $250,000 you'd continue to pay at the same tax rate as you do now IF the Repukes ever allowed it to come to a vote!
If you're making more than $250,000?
1. I'd be shocked.
2. You can afford to pay 4% more, and you should pay it.
Damn, people, try growing some brain cells, PLEASE?
Here ya go, JustaDumbass:
"Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality; Support 'More Distribution of Wealth': Study"
"Americans vastly underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in America, and we believe that the distribution should be far more equitable than it actually is, according to a new study.
Or, as the study's authors put it: "All demographic groups -- even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy -- desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo."
The report (pdf) "Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School (hat tip to Paul Kedrosky), shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number was closer to 84 percent.
More interesting than that, the report says, is that the respondents (a randomly selected 5,522-person sample, reflecting the country's ideological, economic and gender demographics, surveyed in December 2005) believed the top 20 percent should own only 32 percent of the wealth. Respondents with incomes over $100,000 per year had similar answers to those making less then $50,000. (The report has helpful, multi-colored charts.)
The respondents were presented with unlabeled pie charts representing the wealth distributions of the U.S., where the richest 20 percent controlled about 84 percent of wealth, and Sweden, where the top 20 percent only controlled 36 percent of wealth. Without knowing which country they were picking, 92 percent of respondents said they'd rather live in a country with Sweden's wealth distribution.
As the new Forbes billionaires list, released Wednesday, testifies, the richest Americans are getting richer, even as the country as a whole gets poorer. After 2005 income inequality continued to balloon."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html
1. If you wear high heels, i wouldn't be shocked.
2. People who actually WORK for their money should keep most of it.
3. What i make is of no concern to you.
4. When it all falls apart, i'll be taking your lunch money.
5. Government will waste any additional taxes collected with no debt reduction, as usual.
Ever notice how self-proclaimed SMART people such as yourself are always tooting your own horn?
I doubt you can be anything but a talking head.
And if you ever made lots of money, i'll bet you still have most of it. Give it away, you can afford it. Be a good demodummie. Lead by example.
"When it all falls apart, i'll be taking your lunch money."
Wow. Who woulda guessed that JustaDumbass is nothing but an overgrown schoolyard bully?
Why don't you just head down to your local elementary school, so you can feel like a Big Man again? You might even be able to find a girlfriend this time.
I'll still be taking your lunch money. Funny how ole smart dumbass never has an intelligent comeback. Maybe you could go back and find a BOYfriend.
Also you never commented on your worth. Being a bloodsucking lawyer and a union thug and a do nothing gov't worker, you're bound to have a big bank account.
Yeah, we teachers make a bundle, don't ya know?
What would constitute an "intelligent comeback" to some dumbass' thinly-veiled but impotent threat of violence? Besides,you wouldn't recgnize anything intelligent if it bit you in your JustaDumbass.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Have somebody explain that to you, JustaDumbass.
Post a Comment