Daily commentary on criminal law, civil rights, and what's new and outrageous in the law.
« Islam, the Religion of Love |
Main
| Skateboarding is Not a Crime »
February 13, 2008
Our "Fair" Tax System
Mike
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 beers 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 very 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.
Not Written by: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia
February 13, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Prof. Kamerschen didn't write this. He even had to put a disclaimer on his webpage.
[Mike's note: I'm a chump. I updated my post in light of this. Thanks.]
If I understand this correctly, the argument is that 10% of 0 is less than 10% of 20, and that in turn is less than 10% of 100? That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how percentages work.
This particular forward is quite old. It was probably created to justify tax cuts based upon the budget surplus at the end of the Clinton years. It doesn't really work at all when you're dealing with budget deficits....
"The men decided, 'Hey - we'll pay 60% of the bill and finance the rest.' So the richest man paid $35.40, and the poorest man (instead of paying nothing) owed $4 to foreign investors."
It also glosses right over issues of wealth. The richest man pays capital gains tax on much of his "income", has sheltered much of his wealth from taxation, and can take advantage of tax breaks not available to the others. The man who pays $5 instead of $7 is probably putting the extra $2 toward a credit card bill.
Does your empathy truly lie with the richest man? (Warren Buffett, for example, doesn't want your sympathy.) Or is it better placed with earners 8 and 9, who haven't been earning substantial income to accumulate similar wealth but who still pay substantial taxes?
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 14, 2008 12:05:04 PM
Bullshit. Everyone pays taxes.
Posted by: SanFranciscoJim | Feb 14, 2008 11:11:10 PM
Not everybody pays "income taxes", as such. Working people pay "payroll taxes" based upon their income, but we don't call them "income taxes" (which helps the Grover Norquists of the country understate the amount of tax middle and low-wage workers pay).
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 17, 2008 6:59:05 AM
This is one of my favorite little examples to throw to liberals. They look like a deer in headlights for a few minutes then they start all of their sentences with "yeah, but..." I love it.
Posted by: Luke | Feb 23, 2008 7:34:33 AM
As usual the plebeians squabble over the amount of taxes owed but fail to realize that what they refer to as "income" is not even taxable. Yes young children "Federal Reserve Notes" are obligations of the Federal entity named the United States (Federal government) to the private Federal Reserve system. If you stop watching your American Idol long enough you can find the law stating that obligations of the United States are not taxable. If you read the Congressional Record you will find that Federal Reserve Notes are not the object of the tax, they are the yardstick or measure of the tax owed, go read it. You are not "paying taxes on your income". Mike, the owner of this site, should know the courts have ruled that congress is not free to define "income" since it appears in the Federal Constitution. As usual, they have the serfs arguing about how much they owe rather than if they owe it at all. Simply precious.
A good place to start your understanding would be with "Invisible contracts" by George Mercier.
However there is much more than that information available if you will simply put away your drool-cup and get out of your recliner long enough to use that new cognitive skill so recently developed by humans called reading.
Posted by: Nathan Rothschild | Mar 4, 2008 6:58:42 AM
Post a comment