A friend of mine, Sean Fielding, sent me this email awhile ago. With all the talk of how wealthy people & corporations are evil and need to have the money they've earned taken from them, I think it's very pertinent. I make nowhere near $250,000 a year (or $200,000, or $150,000 - it seams to get lower every few days) but taking money from the people who do will definitely have an impact on me & my family. Here it is:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 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, 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 beer by $20." Drinks for the ten 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 man and the sixth man 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, 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 pay $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 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 I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 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 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Amen, Sean. Amen.
8 comments:
Here's the problem. The reason that the rich guy is rich is because (a) the opportunities he got by living in our system, or (b) because he inherited it from someone else who got the opportunities of living in the system. If it's situation (a), he can't fail to "show up" at the bar, because he is beholden to the system that allowed him the chance to earn his wealth in the first place. If (b), he didn't work for his wealth at all, and should have no problem paying into a system that allowed him to be rich without working for it. Also, if the bartender was smart, he'd make the first four men clean the bar in order to get their beer. Clearly, the bartender for the past eight years has not been very smart.
a) I have no idea who you are
b) The opportunities the rich man had are just as accessible to the other nine. If they're content to stay in their situation they shouldn't hate on those who've worked their way to the top. There are plenty of people in this country who have acheived success from nothing. Giving out handouts to those who pay no taxes will not benefit our economy in any way shape or form.
c) I wonder for how long after Bush gets out you people will keep blaming everything that goes wrong on him.
d) When we're all living in concrete huts & waiting in bread lines because of the effects of socialism, will you pin that on the messiah, or find some way to blame it on W?
This is how I see the Republican Tax System:
Guy grows up in a poor neighborhood.
Gets good grades.
Gets bused across town to a magnet high school.
Qualifies for government grants for college.
Goes to a state subsidized university.
Gets state funded scholarships.
Gets government subsidized loans.
Gets good grades, gets a degree.
Goes to graduate school at a state university.
Applies for government subsidized research grants.
Invents something great.
Starts a company to manufacture the great thing using a small business loan with tax breaks from the government.
Makes millions.
Starts complaining about how much of "his" money the government is taking away in taxes.
(a) It's good that you don't know who I am, otherwise you might hold back to be polite.
(b) Do you really, truly believe that someone born in the ghetto of the south side of Chicago has the same opportunities as someone born in the upper middle class suburbs of Waukegan? That someone raised in the barrio in East L.A. has the same opportunity as someone raised in Laguna Beach? If you do, you need a reality check. Those places are thirty minutes and a world apart. People never achieve success from "nothing." Those who achieve do so because they are given educational and business opportunites from their government. Don't believe me? Go over to Nigeria or Sudan and tell me how many of those people are going to achieve success from nothing. Answer: none of them.
(c) Given his record of complete disasterous policies and out of control spending, probably a long while. Or will you tell me it's Clinton's fault that we went from a budget surplus in 2000 to the $10 TRILLION DEFICIT that our country currently enjoys?
(d) FYI, ALL graduated income tax schemes are socialistic in nature, including Reagan's, Bush's and McCains. In the late 70s and early 80s, the tax rate for the high wealth tax bracket was as high as 70%, and was 50% during most of Reagan's presidency. Obama is proposing 39% for the high bracket. Hardly socialism. And FYI, the governor of Alaska mails $1,200.00 checks each year to each of its citizens for doing ... nothing. She takes government resources and REDISTRIBUTES them to all of the citizens. Sounds a little bit like ... socialism.
On your predictions for the future, Canada's government can fairly be described as democratic socialism, and I don't see any concrete huts or bread lines to the north. These overreaching predictions are just more fearmongering from the right, unless you are suggesting that the Democrats are secret communists. If that is what you are suggesting, then you should just say so, and we can avoid discourse on the premise that we are all rational American adults.
eahotman, If you want to express your opinion on our blog that's fine. If you're going to be hostile, at least admit who you are and don't say things like "you might hold back if you knew me." Own your opinions and comments.
Plus, people really CAN achieve any level of success in this country (because of our wonderful freedom) by exercising self-control, financial responsibility, and HARD WORK. Just because someone grows up in a poor area does NOT mean they have less opportunity to elevate themselves and "change their family tree" by working hard, etc.
Also, Zach did not say anything about people from different countries achieving success. He was talking about THIS country.
Finally, let's please TRY to be civil. We all have our own opinions and the SAME freedom to express them!
Jerilyn - thank you for not hiding behind a screen name. I love you no matter how different our opinions are. My issue with that argument, however, is that the millionaire is going to pay more back in taxes than he ever received, and the money he's giving to an organization that can't spend a dollar without somehow losing 100 more is that he could create jobs for others with it. History has shown that when tax rates are cut overall government revenue goes up, but they can't seem to figure that out.
Anonymous - Yes, I do argue that those growing up in the ghetto can make something of themselves - as long as they stop listening to those that try to convince them that they can't. That's the attitude that made this country (I've said nothing about Africa) great and will keep it so.
You can't talk about Bush's "out of control spending" when your candidate is planning on increasing spending by $1 trillion. He want's to make government bigger than it ever has been. What's that going to do to the deficit?
I'm in no way in favor of a graduated tax plan - I think it should be a flat percentage across the board. But as long as we have that I don't want to hear those who pay no taxes villify those who pay a good chunk of their incomes.
Ok, I'm done. I better stop before the Obama camp starts digging up dirt on me too.
I'm glad you love me no matter what. Honestly, that made my day. As the outspoken black-hearted liberal of the family, I end up feeling lonely and misunderstood a lot of the time.
I love you both, too!
Jerilyn, you are NOT black-hearted and I love you too.
Post a Comment