# Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

Discussion in 'The Lighter Side' started by Hank Hill, Jan 9, 2003.

1. ### Hank Hill

Messages:
138
0
Joined:
Jul 18, 2002
Location:
Born in Texas, currently in occupie
Today, Bush unveils his tax "scheme" (as an 'unbiased' ABC radio news reporter referred to it the day BEFORE it was published).

Here's a MUCH simpler explanation of "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy"

(Before you read this, understand that according to IRS Tax Year 2001 data, if you earn over \$63,500 you are in the top 10% of all income earners in America. And if you earn \$225,000... Congrats! You're the top 1%!)
-------------------------------------------

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 dinner bill the way we Americans pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing. That's right, zilch.

The fifth would pay \$1... One buck.

The sixth would pay \$3;

The seventh \$7;

The eighth \$12;

The ninth \$18.

The tenth man - the richest - would pay \$59. Almost 60% of the entire dinner tab for all ten men, all by himself.

And 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 of the restaurant 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."

"That's great!", said all ten men. "Thanks!"

So now, dinner for the ten only cost \$80... But the group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

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 the "paying customers" share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up actually 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 percentage he usually pays, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

So now, the fifth man also 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.

Now, each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And of course, 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. "But he 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. "At least you guys got something back! We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men grew resentful of the tenth man, surrounded him.

They told him he was evil, greedy, wasn't being 'fair', and threatened to use the simple fact they outnumbered him to make him take out his wallet and give them more of his money.

So, the next night, he didn't show up for dinner. The other nine sat down, said "Good riddance!", and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important...

They were \$52 short.

And that, boys and girls, (journalists and college nstructors) is how the "progressive" tax system works.

OF COURSE the people who pay the 60% of all the taxes will get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Duh.

Go ahead... Tax them more. Attack them simply for earning more...

But what will you do when they don't show up at the table anymore?

2. ### Steve KoskiGot Insurance?Millennium Member

Messages:
7,059
5
Joined:
Jan 31, 1999
Location:
Montanuh
Fascinating!!!

3. ### trcubedSenior Member

Messages:
792
4
Joined:
Jan 23, 2001
Location:
Kuhnigitdale, NC
That's the most understandable explanation I've ever seen. Thanks for posting it.

I'll use it a lot, if you don't mind...

4. ### Hank Hill

Messages:
138
0
Joined:
Jul 18, 2002
Location:
Born in Texas, currently in occupie
It's not original with me, a buddy sent it to me. Please pass it around to everyone you know. It certainly gets the point across.

5. ### fastvfrAncient Tech

Messages:
2,344
0
Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
Location:
SW Oregon
Yes, but when you take into consideration the fact that our esteemed representatives manage to squander everything they filch from us to supply themselves with ever-increasing numbers of prisons, then confabulate new, idiotic laws to fill those cages, and tell US that WE need to pay more or they will cut out funding for your kids' schools and your roads, and extort that money from you with promises to parole murderers and rapists...while leaving a harmless dope smoker in chains for years....

It becomes obvious that America wants the total, absolute death of common sense (and the Constitution's first 10 amendments) NOW. Immediately.

Otherwise, no one would vote for (or believe) ANY republican OR demoncrat. Ever.

Sorry to ruin the Lighter Side mood, fellows...but there is something to be said for PAYING ATTENTION rather than submitting to sleight-of-hand theivery on a constant basis. And remembering what you see and hear.

6. ### Hank Hill

Messages:
138
0
Joined:
Jul 18, 2002
Location:
Born in Texas, currently in occupie
When I was in law school, I took a seminar class called "Policy of Tax Law." It was a pretty good class and there was no final, only a paper due at the end of the semester. I did my paper on the actual taxes assessed against the average American.

I took into account not only income tax, but sales tax, excise tax, taxes passed along by manufacturers, etc. My finding, back in 1976, was that about 87% of what we earn goes to various governmental entities in the form of taxes.

7. ### Junkyard Dawg

Messages:
54
0
Joined:
Jun 21, 2001
Location:
This item first appeared in the 1930's in reactionary opposition to then Pres. Roosevelt's New Deal program. It is an oversimplfication of flawed arithmetic and most math people can easily refute the logic. Basically, it tries to establish that the rich pay a disproportionately high (60%) of taxes and the poor pay little or nothing. This is patently false, the wealthy pay disproportionately lower taxes, some pay no taxes at all!

This is still a cute story and thereby is correctly posted in "The Lighter Side".

8. ### Hank Hill

Messages:
138
0
Joined:
Jul 18, 2002
Location:
Born in Texas, currently in occupie
Unless you are saying that those who have more should pay more (and for no reason other than they do have more), I'd be interesed in seeing the facts and reasoning behind the conclusions that you offer.

9. ### shuMillennium Member

Messages:
78
0
Joined:
Dec 10, 1999
Location:
pharr, tx
If i understand the shadow party's plan, the first four guys would get an income tax credit evan tho they pay no tax. That is, if the Dems have their way they would be paid to come and eat.

Messages:
514