Quantcast

How Tax Cuts Work...

powderboy

Monkey
Jan 16, 2002
258
0
See Dar Hills, OOTah
I got this from a friend of mine... lengthy, but very true:

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES
By Anonymous

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.

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.

The first four men were unaffected. They still would 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 their "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 end up being "paid" to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth man pitched in $2, the seventh man paid $5, the eighth man paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

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 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 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 were $52 short.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how
the tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefits from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show at the table anymore.

Unfortunately, Too many Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

PS If you make more than $30,000/year, you are considered wealthy by the IRS.

---------------

Well, I couldn't agree more... Why is everyone freaking out that the rich get the biggest tax break. It's only logical that even if the % tax cut is lower for higher brackets that the benefits will be greater simply because there's so much more money to be taxed, or un-taxed in this case.

Regardless, this country needs a good shot in the A$$ and someone's got to do it. At least Bush has thought this through, unlike everyone out there who's just crying because they didn't get as big of a tax break as the "rich," which, according to the IRS is probably most of us. ;)
 

Lucee

govenor
Jan 16, 2002
284
0
nor cal
Such is the life of a society with both capitalistic and socialist leanings. Can anyone point me in the direction of a government without inherent flaws that is still serving its constituents?
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
Yup. I don't envy or despise the rich. I will work hard and get what I need out of life. And regardless of how much richer some will be, I will still enjoy a standard of living higher than anywhere else in the world.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Ouch, math hurts.

All I know is I like less taxes.


The only smart thing I have ever heard Jerry Brown (former Gov. of CA, former Democratic candidate for Pres. current mayor of Oakland) say is his suggestion of a flat sales tax.
No more property, gas, income or other taxes, just sales tax. Everyone buys stuff. Regardless if you are working for the minimum wage, or you are the CEO of GM you buy stuff. You buy stuff comensurate to what you earn. If you buy a $100,000 house (not in CA of course) you pay the same percentage of tax as someone who buys a $1,000,000 house.
If you buy a $12,000 Hyundai you pay the same percentage of tax as someone who buys a $90,000 Porsche.

Nothing could be more fair, especially if it were applied to corporations as well as individuals. Think of how much steel, rubber, plastic etc GM buys every year. Think of that quantity of stuff being taxed at the same rate as your annual purchases.

I'm no economist, and there may be a fault in this that I can't see. But it sure sounds good to me.
 

powderboy

Monkey
Jan 16, 2002
258
0
See Dar Hills, OOTah
Nobody likes huge sales taxes because they are constantly reminded of it every time they purchase something.

The nice thing about income taxes is that you really only worry about them once a year. When you start increasing sales taxes, everyone sees "Tax 9.45% - $x.xx" on every receipt, every day.

I think that would have more of a negative effect on everyone's psyche every day as opposed to once a year. IMHO
 

D_D

Monkey
Dec 16, 2001
392
0
UK
Originally posted by powderboy
Nobody likes huge sales taxes because they are constantly reminded of it every time they purchase something.

The nice thing about income taxes is that you really only worry about them once a year. When you start increasing sales taxes, everyone sees "Tax 9.45% - $x.xx" on every receipt, every day.

I think that would have more of a negative effect on everyone's psyche every day as opposed to once a year. IMHO
Just don't put the tax on the recipt.
The big problem is that it would be easy for the average person to calculate how much tax they where paying for each £1 they earnt. The average may be 0.50 per pound but if people found out they might not like paying so much.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Obdviously certain things should not be taxed under the above mentioned idea. Staple foods being foremost among these.

However, regardless if you are making minnimum wage or you are a bazillionaire you spend money commensurate with that which you make. Of course you could choose to spend less and get taxed less.

If your annual income was $30,000 and you spent 60% of that during the year you would be taxed on that 60% which you spent.
Also if you made $3,000,000 a year and spent 60% of that during the year you would be taxed on that 60% which you spent

So the math works out like so. Assuming a 20% tax for easy math......

In the first instance the person who makes $30,000 and spends 60% spends $18,000 of their income on taxable items or services. Therefore their annual tax paid would be $3600, or 12% of their total income.

In the second instance the person who makes $3,000,000 and spends 60% spends $1,800,000 of their income on taxable items or services. Therfore their annual tax paid would be $360,000 or %12 of their total income.

Seems fair to me.

The question remaining is to decide what tax percentage would meet the needs of both State and Federal revenue requirements and to decide what is and isn't a taxable item or service. I would think that mortgage and rent payments, non staple food (candy ice cream) utilities and any consumer item or raw material should be taxed. Other stuff, not taxed.
 

patconnole

Monkey
Jun 4, 2002
396
0
bellingham WA
I lean more towards the socialist end..... Flat-tax type folks sometimes say "we don't believe wealthy folks should be punished for being wealthy" or something like that..... But the way I look at it, poorer folks shouldn't be punished for being poor..... and they're in a much easier position to be hurt. The capitalist/competitive side is appealing though.... why should more successful folks be punished? IMO, when people work, we all expend energy, we all work, roughly within the same scale. However, our incomes don't reflect that... You can work 40 hours a week and make 200 bucks, or 2000, or 20000 and up..... But the person making 10 or 100 times what you're making has NOT worked 10 or 100 times harder than you. You can bring in the "well, he went to school though and learned a trade" etc, etc arguments, but that's no reason the person working 40 hrs and making $200 should live a survival oriented lifestyle.