Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and that the bill for all ten comes to $100. If these men paid their bill the way that Americans pay their taxes, the breakdown would be 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 drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day when the owner threw them a curve. "Since you all are such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten would 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 drink 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 and sixth men would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, so he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, is 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 drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men begin to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed at 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 I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute!" yelled the first four 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between ll 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.
That seems pretty DARN fair to me!
Posts
2 comments:
True true. But did there bar tab not go down. Did they not save money. Is that not what we need. And thats not how it works. The poor still have to pay something, i know i pay taxes every year. I paid over $5,000 last year myself. I got a $1,000 back. I cant even afford health care. And people still want another Bush in the White House. Which to me is bullshit. I was the one with the job that worked 6 alot of the times 7 days a week. I worked 60 to 80 hours week. Now i dont have a job. I dont have any where to live. I barley have a car that runs. And in your little story the poor still saved more in the end they work there jobs and didn't have to pay anything. I figure thats pretty good because i am one of those ppl. Yes number 10 got the biggest break but he has also paid the most for everyone else. The majority of these rich ppl like number 10 would never give there money away anyways. But i assume that he makes over $200,000 so he wouldn't get a break according to Obama's plan. Socialism or not we need a change and not another rich oil man. Not and indecisive one. One who agrees with Bush the whole time until the finger is now pointed at him. Not one who owns seven houses, one who's wife shows up to the convention wearing and outfit estimated at $400,000. When i have never even seen that much money. That right there seems pretty darn fair. In Obama's plan anyone who makes over $200,000 will not get tax cuts. And this whole thing about winning the war. What do we win. The fight on terrorism. Its going to come back at us harded and stronger than anytime before. We have done nothing but piss the world off. We have made more enemies than allies. The world hates our young naive country. But we are to busy trying to help things out. And for all you ppl out there that are still pulling out the race card, grow the fuck up. We say we are and advanced country. We cant even get past the color of someones skin.
This election has nothing to do with race. It has to do with media and money.
And you're right. The people who paid the most DO get the biggest taxe breaks, and they do deserve them. But, contrary to your (rather flawed) logic, this doesn't mean that they aren't giving their money away. While charitable contributions don't have very much to do with our tax system (those rich people you refer to either give their money to the government or go to jail, not a great choice), multiple studies have shown that the more wealthy a conservative person is, the more likely they are to give a greater percentage of their income to charity...the same is not always true with liberals. While Ronald Reagan gave 6% of his income every year, and the Cheney's give over 10% of their annual earnings to charitable causes, Obama gave under 1/3 of a % until he decided to run for office, when his giving spiked. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Edwards, John Kerry, and most other top liberal political earners give below 3% of their wealth.
That's the real discrepency. Learn a little bit more about the tax and fiscal system before you wrongly correlate the charitable givings of someone to a) their tax total and b) their political viewpoints.
Post a Comment