Normally I hate spam forwards
Published on November 14, 2004 By greywar In Current Events

This was a bit of forwarded email I actually liked. Even if it had been through 6 folks who couldn't even be bothered to rewrite a damn subject line or add a comment.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they pay their bill the way we currently 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 dinner for ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we currently 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, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up 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 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 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 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 got only $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 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 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.

 

Hell of a good example. I wish I had written it.

Site Meter
Comments
on Nov 15, 2004
The author should have added, that once the Richest Guy did not come in, the other 9 sued him for the money he had been paying, and then threw his ass in jail when he refused to pay.

They still cannot eat, but at least now they feel good about going Hungry!
on Nov 15, 2004
That's a great way of explaining it!  I really have nothing more to add...
on Nov 15, 2004
I don't know the ins and outs of our tax system, but if the middle class provides most of the tax burden (a stat I hear all the time), then shouldn't the 7th and 8th guys pay 20 bucks each or so?
on Nov 15, 2004

but if the middle class provides most of the tax burden

not even close. IRS stats have the top 5-10% percent of wage earners paying 80% of tax revenue. I am middle class and I barely pay a dime after my refund is in. Add in an EIC and I either pay nothing, or (as when I was poor) the government actually pays me to breathe!.

on Nov 15, 2004
here is a link to a bit of supporting info. Googling yields even more.
on Nov 15, 2004
heh heh.....it's good to be broke......
on Nov 15, 2004
I make next to nothing as a public school teacher and I have a daughter with no child support ... I am one of those poverty-level folks. Yet I always tithe 10% of my income to my church because it is something God has asked of me and it is right. I also make offerings when I'm lead to; I support a child I know in another country to go to school, that sort of thing. Likewise, were my government to ask a flat % rate of everyone (poor to rich) I'd likewise pay that too. I don't have a problem with paying it and I don't want anything done that's unfair... I hate that being rich really screws you over. What's my incentive (in taxes) to make more than I do now?

I think paying taxes is good for people because it makes them care. I just wish it were more fair. (Read: flat tax.)
on Nov 15, 2004
I first received this email almost three years ago. It's as apropos now as it was then. Too bad some folk just don't get it - even when you spell it out for them.
on Nov 16, 2004

(Read: flat tax.)

I can certainly second that.

on Nov 17, 2004
What do y'all think of scrapping the income tax in favour of a National sales tax? I think it would be wise, in principle, to tax (punish) consumption rather than production.
on Nov 18, 2004
of course if you just stare at income tax it doesn't look fair. but you have to include all the other taxes too.

it doesn't take into account payroll taxes, which are somewhat regressive (how many millionaires you know get a paycheck? and how about the fact that the amount of payroll taxes you pay is capped?), sales tax, which is regressive (does a millionaire buy 1000 times as many gameboys for his personal use? does he buy and eat 1000 times as many groceries?) and the massive loopholes that good tax lawyers can find. don't forget property taxes.


http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html
-------------------
(2) The income tax is progressive for several reasons, the cynical one being that there are a lot more poor voters than rich ones. The practical reason is that a progressive income tax overcomes the regressivity of the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the poor, and the property tax, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels.
------------------

here i quoted a nytimes article on tax loopholes by the super rich:
http://russellmz.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=3083