Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Why “Tax Cuts For The Rich” Is A Bunch Of Nonsense

Shamelessly stolen from the most bizarrely named blog in the blogosphere, TooMuchDogHair:

This is a really good explanation of how “tax cuts” really work! Lets put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten men 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 the 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, the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being PAID to eat their meal.

Finally, the restaurant owner suggested 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 sixth was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But, once outside of the restaurant, they 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 only got $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 to between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that 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. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean if you don’t like the food in the United States.

Comments

The tenth man (the richest), owns
the restaurant.

WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 01:48 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

So?


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 28, 2007 at 01:58 pm

The tenth man (the richest), owns
the restaurant.

He’s still paying more the the rest combined besides proving the environment to have the meal in the first place.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 28, 2007 at 02:04 pm

When you include subsidies for the poor like EIC, the bottom 20% actually get back about 5% of the income they’ve earned.  So they’d get about $5 back for showing up…

Carrick on February 28, 2007 at 02:09 pm

The tenth man (the richest), owns the restaurant.

Typical leftie distraction to obscure an obvious truth.  The example clearly does not support this invention.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2007 at 02:16 pm
Avatar for HG

Rob, excellent analogy.

Carrick is right.  The bottom 4 should get paid to eat dinner for free. It’s only “fair”.

R108, without obfuscation, what would Woof have to offer?

HG on February 28, 2007 at 02:22 pm

The bottom four don’t eat in the restaurant , they get leftovers at the kitchen door in the alley.

The bottom four get paid so they won’t
eat the tenth man.

When the restaurant is threatened the bottom four get uniforms and a rifle.

Without bread, there’s no law, freedom, justice

Danton?

WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 02:53 pm
Avatar for HG

Woof,

Without work, there is no bread.
Something 1-4 may never learn and always demand if the agreement isn’t changed.

HG on February 28, 2007 at 02:58 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

More class warfare from Woof.  The bottom four are starving, even though they actually get money back from the rest of us.  And we make the poor fight our wars too!  Despite, of course, statistical data to the contrary which Woofie ignores.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 28, 2007 at 03:08 pm

Arbeit macht Frei

WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 03:17 pm

Arbeit macht Frei

WOOF: Are you suggesting that they would be better fed in concentration camps? How liberal of you!



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on February 28, 2007 at 03:22 pm

The bottom four don’t eat in the restaurant , they get leftovers at the kitchen door in the alley.

More lying leftie attempts to change the example to conform with the required ideology.

Lefties lie; it’s all they have.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2007 at 03:33 pm
Avatar for HG

Arbeit macht Frei

Socialism extends this same false hope.  I would expect Woof to offer such.

HG on February 28, 2007 at 03:33 pm

Arbeit macht Frei

This was a National Socialist(NAZI) slogan to get people to work in a system that doesn’t contain the incentive of self-interest.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2007 at 03:36 pm

Arbeit macht Frei

was written on signs above the Nazi concentration camps offering the false hope that they would be free.

Any wonder why WOOF would repeat such an infamous lie?



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on February 28, 2007 at 03:50 pm

WOOF:

When the restaurant is threatened the bottom four get uniforms and a rifle.

This is really ironic, given that in the real world the bottom 40% in terms of household income, gives rise to only 32% of recruits.  The top 40% on the other hand gives rise to about 45% of recruits. [*]

WOOF, sometimes you’re just a d@med idiot.

[*] The percentage recruitment for all income brackets positively correlates with household income, that is, the wealthier your family is, the more likely you are to volunteer.

Carrick on February 28, 2007 at 03:56 pm
Avatar for Seth Williams

The tenth man (the richest), owns the restaurant.

...and after the beating from the other men, he closed the restaurant and moved to Argentina. The other nine lived happily ever after subsisting on a diet of Ramen and oyster crackers, until they died of malnourishment.

Viva la revolution, Woof!

Seth Williams on February 28, 2007 at 04:15 pm

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner

That’s because his Sikorsky S-76 was grounded due to bad weather (not global warming related)and the runway at the local airstrip was not long to accommodate his Falcon 50 so instead he got take out and visited his friend Larry.
7 World Trade Center


“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

Mark D on February 28, 2007 at 05:17 pm

subsisting on a diet of Ramen…

Hey! Don’t knock Ramen! It’s a college student’s and bachelor’s best friend!



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on February 28, 2007 at 05:26 pm

The straw in the restaurant argument is taxes. The poor don’t pay income tax, they do pay payroll taxes.

Eight out of the ten men would hardly ever be in the same restaurant as the wealthiest two.(the bottom two perhaps as busboys).
The wealthiest two have 50+% of the national income.

2001 Figures , worse today

WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 06:11 pm

WOOF said, The bottom four get paid so they won’t
eat the tenth man.

So in other words: it’s pay-off money so the innocent man doesn’t get hurt.

Nice ideology. Where did you get it from? The mafia?

Didn’t your mother teach you that criminal intimidation and thievery was wrong? What the hell is wrong with you?

likwidshoe on February 28, 2007 at 06:34 pm
Avatar for HG

The straw in the restaurant argument is taxes. The poor don’t pay income tax, they do pay payroll taxes.

Your funny Woof.  The only payroll taxes the poor pay are social security taxes.  Then, they only pay 1/2 of that.  The employer has to kick down the other 1/2. So the poor employee gets the full benefit (if you can call it that) of social security at 1/2 price.  Looks like the employee is the only one who can claim a decent return on his investment into social security—that is if the dems don’t raise the retirement age again and he actually survives socialized medicine to live long enough to collect it.  Oh ya, and if he dies before realizing the full benefit of his socialized retirement account, well, the government gets to keep the balance, not his posterity.

HG on February 28, 2007 at 06:48 pm
Avatar for HG

Woof,

On top of that, tax credits offset the poor employee’s ss tax and there are often enough tax credits left over to actually provide the poor employee who pays no taxes with a healthy tax return.

HG on February 28, 2007 at 06:51 pm

Didn’t your mother teach you that criminal intimidation and thievery was wrong?

Didn’t your mother mention Luis XVI,
Marie Antoinette Czar Nicholas, The French and Russian Revolutions.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Perhaps a sense of history?
WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 07:09 pm

Then, they only pay 1/2 of that.  The employer has to kick down the other 1/2.

They pay for both halves and more with their labor.

WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 07:12 pm

if he dies before realizing the full benefit of his socialized retirement account, well, the government gets to keep the balance, not his posterity.

Actually his minor children and widow would benefit.

WOOF on February 28, 2007 at 07:14 pm
Avatar for Seth Williams

How many 60+ year olds have minor children? I’d dare say, not that many.

Seth Williams on February 28, 2007 at 07:17 pm
Avatar for HG

They pay for both halves and more with their labor.

Woof your typically hopeless.

I suppose you’d prefer government determine what a job is worth.  But then who determines what the employees effort is worth?  Ah, yes, we simply lower the work expected to the least common denominator that way everyone does the same amount of work for the same price—right? 

The employee is worth what the employer is willing to pay (based on profitability) and the employee is willing to work for.  That’s free market economics Woof.

HG on February 28, 2007 at 07:17 pm
Avatar for HG

Actually his minor children and widow would benefit.

If the the spouse is living she recieves a reduced benefit.  In my grandmothers case, about 40% reduced.  When she is gone, any remaining benefit is the governments.

HG on February 28, 2007 at 07:20 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Actually his minor children and widow would benefit.

Not as much as they would were it a private account, and the kids wouldn’t get anything if they were adults.

If a person had a private account he/she could pass on all of the money they paid in to their survivors.

Why do you have a problem with that woofie?


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 28, 2007 at 07:32 pm

They pay for both halves and more with their labor.

WOOF,

So do the rest of us.  Is there a point to your comments here?

Incidentally, its a good thing that you can acknowledge that businesses don’t pay taxes… individuals do.  Congratulations!  That’s progress.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 28, 2007 at 07:52 pm

Rob, great post.  I hope that anyone that doesn’t see and understand the message is giving half of their net paycheck to people with less money than they have.

Paulie B on February 28, 2007 at 10:19 pm

WOOF said, Didn’t your mother mention Luis XVI,
Marie Antoinette Czar Nicholas, The French and Russian Revolutions.

No, she didn’t make erroneous comparisons.

It didn’t go unnoticed that you wiggled out of answering for the mafia tactics you endorse. The tactic of “pay up or we’ll kill you” is a grand political ideology you hold there WOOF. Really classy in an evil underworld type of way, ya know?

Perhaps a sense of history?

You’re comparing those in the past to those in the present. Unfortunately for you and your addled comparison, you’ve got it completely backwards. Here’s how: those in the past were the ones who were dispensing the taxes and living off of the largess of the population. On the converse, those in the present are the ones who are taxed, and everybody else lives off of their largess.

likwidshoe on February 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm

HG:

The only payroll taxes the poor pay are social security taxes. 

And assuming that they actually ever get anything back from the SS system (something WOOF is a firm believer in), then SS is really a mandatory retirement system for goof balls that can’t trusted with managing their own retirement funds.  So it isn’t a tax in that view, it’s a deferred benefit.

I suppose, in WOOFs utopian world, the restaurant owner would be responsible for 100% of the bottom four’s retirement, in addition to paying for the up keep of the restaurant, providing the bottom four with free food, and don’t forget a little extra spending cash to boot…

Carrick on March 1, 2007 at 07:20 am

WOOF:

They pay for both halves and more with their labor.

You don’t pay for things with labor.  You get compensated for your labor.  That’s a huge distinction.  The company pays for both parts with their monetary assets.

I’d rather have $1,000,000 in cash, than have the capacity to work for $1,000,000 in cash.

Carrick on March 1, 2007 at 07:34 am

Both halves are part of labors compensation.

WOOF on March 1, 2007 at 08:10 am
Avatar for HG

Woof,

Amazing!  You admit that the cost of labor goes well beyond the wage.  Both halves are part of the cost of employment, but only one half is deducted from the employees wages.

HG on March 1, 2007 at 08:20 am

the cost of labor goes well beyond the wage.

Labors value generally exceeds its wage and its cost.
That is one way of making profit.

WOOF on March 1, 2007 at 08:34 am
Avatar for HG

Woof,

And if a company is profitable, then the employee will continue to have a job.

HG on March 1, 2007 at 09:03 am

The tenth man (the richest), owns the restaurant.

So, WOOF, what’s stopping you from becoming the “richest man”?
First, you can pay rent or interest payments on the building loan. You can renovate and decorate the place (new carpet, paint, paneling, etc.), pay the insurance, purchase the linens, the flatware, the dishes, the appliances, the furniture, pay the utilities, the property tax, hire the staff, pay the payroll taxes, install phones, purchase the food, arrange for a cleaning staff, have the menus printed, purchase signage, pay for a business license, and probably dozens of other things that did not occur to me off the top of my head, and you can do all this before you collect a single nickle, on the speculation that you might make a profit!

Knock yourself out, Woofie!

When you say:

The straw in the restaurant argument is taxes.

Are you talking about straw as in

“straw man: WOOF’s phony argument easily knocked down”

or are you reffering to a soda straw as in

“WOOF’s brain in a soda straw looked like a BB rolling down the Holland Tunnel”?

I’m thinking soda straw, because I can’t read one of your comments without thinking that something is sucking…



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on March 1, 2007 at 09:44 am
Avatar for HG

So it isn’t a tax in that view, it’s a deferred benefit.

Quite correct Carrick. 

It’s only a tax when it suits a liberal’s argument.  Kind of like employee taxes paid by the employer are only employment costs when trying to argue that the employee pays both halves of the SS “tax”. 

SS however, is the worst retirement benefit money can buy.  Where else can you put away your own money, get less than 1% return on your investment (if collected in full), and have it magically become government property the moment you die? SS is a total money grab.  It is a total scam.  Funny how gov’t workers don’t have to participate in the SS program.  They can actually opt out and into another retirement package that they actually own.  I know 2 public school teachers who have done just that.  I wonder how many politicians do the same?—most I bet.

HG on March 1, 2007 at 11:08 am

The bottom four don’t eat in the restaurant , they get leftovers at the kitchen door in the alley.

The bottom four get paid so they won’t
eat the tenth man.

When the restaurant is threatened the bottom four get uniforms and a rifle.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I seen in a long time. Yep lets just redistribute that wealth so all can eat. Give me a break. I am sick and tired of having my pay check stolen from me week after week, with the promise that I can pay more to do my part. Its sickening.


check out Goon’s World

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

http://redneckndgoon.blogspot.com/

goon on March 1, 2007 at 01:49 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.