Tax cuts...

Given all the political banter on here lately, I figured I would post this story which has circulated for years now.

Tax, tax cuts and how it all works…
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!”, and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

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.

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 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, 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 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 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 at the table anymore.

thats why they should just pay what they eat.

i agree with this one hundred percent. raise the tax… and the rich guy gets screwed more. you dont penalize the rich for being rich… because if all of us could we would be makin 5+ mill a year.

flat 10% tax is where its at. but then next thing you know the rich are tax exempt and makin even more money

i wish i could be in the 40% tax bracket.

Welcome to the party
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and had grown to be in strong favor for the distribution of all wealth in America. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Mary.” She replied, “Mary is barely getting by”, she continued, “all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA” adding, “and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies.”

But to explain further she continued emotionally, “But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn’t even show up for classes because she is too hung over.”

Her father then asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only had a 2.0.” He continued, “That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter visibly shocked by the fathers suggestion angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!”

The father slowly smiled and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

the rich pay lower taxes percentage of income wise than the almost everybody but people in poverty. the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income than the rich.

The tax strucuture in this country is a “wage tax” the rich don’t earn a wage they earn their money in other ways than a paycheck they cash at the bank.

I have to go to work and earn my wage so when I get back tonight I will explain more after this thread turns into a huge disaster.

Cliffs’: Flat tax FTW, Republicans understand work = reward as Dems do not, and Libertarian complement to whitey’s post goes something like this:

Years later, when Mary is penniless and working at BK in her thirties and the young lady, who worked so hard in college, starts to think of things like family, retirement, etc. realizes that the Republican party no longer serves the needs of real people. So our damsel rethinks her Republican position and says…

You know, dad, the Republican party just isn’t what it used to be. It’s full of criminals and theives just like the Democrats who redistribute GPA’s, wealth, etc. I’d like to have people in our government taxing us fairly, at a rate at which we spend. I’d like to have a non-intrusive government so I can raise my children as I see fit.

Her father says “Defecting to the Libertarian Party, eh?”

so all of you who agree with a flat tax…also want flat raises correct???
no more 5% or 10% raise across the board

& it also would fall in line that you want flat property tax…so someone with 25 acres pays the same as someone with 1/2 acres?

i’m just trying to get a feel for were everyones view is

Flat Tax RATE…it’s the dirty little secret that Government doesn’t want you do know.

Showtime, that’s not the way it works in my mind.

A flat PERCENTAGE of tax to state, fed and local gov’t based on consumption of goods and services.

No goofy property tax (which is subject to political phenagling). No Income Tax (which is subject to phenagling as well), no other taxes. Just sales tax, and a fixed rate of it. No phenagling and everyone consumes at least the basics (food, shelter, etc.) so there will be ample room to figure out an effective tax rate that works for everyone.

The beautiful things about flat rates of taxation:

  1. It’s Inflation Adjusted
    …which means that if prices rise for us, we pay more to government and they can spend more on their projects to service our needs and pay themselves a FAIR wage for their services.

  2. It’s fair
    …which means that everyone must consume SOMETHING unless they’re Grizzly Adams. In that case, it celebrates independence of the common man who can live off the land.

  3. It reduces inefficiency in Government
    …which means that we don’t have a bunch of useless IRS agents with the ability to harass the common man over a gross violation of overly complicated tax laws.

  4. It works
    …which means that the government has a fixed ability to generate income from Americans AND non-Americans alike who are here.

Think about it: For the sake of argument and simplicity, let’s assume a Flat Tax Rate of 10%. Distribute that rate of taxation 7% fed, 2% state, and 1% Local.

A rich man eats a $100 meal. $7 to the fed, $2 to the state of PA, and $1 to the local government in which the restaurant resides in.

A slightly less well-off man eats a $10 meal. .70 to fed, .20 to state, and .10 to local government.

The consumer is taxed at a rate fair to their situation. America is a consumer driven society now, so this will work.

If the rich man wants to eat Mc’Ds, then he sacrifices the ability to live long to be richer for his heirs.

I don’t see what all the fuss/problem is here…simple, uncheatable math > complicated tax code any day of the week.

I’d be open to the determination of the rate necessary for government to function. I’m not going to blindly say “10%”. But sounds about right.

the posts in this thread are way too long

i understand…interesting

what i think is disgusting is that about 15-20yrs ago… CEO made 20% more then the average employee…
now CEO’s make 400% more then the average employee.
there is a huge devide that keeps getting bigger.

trickle down effect doesn’t work…it looks good on paper but doesn’t work in reality.

But what about utility bills where the less well-off man can’t choose a lower option?

I’m interested to hear about the money that rich people make from something other than wages, and how it’s taxed differently.

What do raises have to do with a flat tax? If everyone was taxed at say 10%, 10% of their raise no matter how much it was would go to tax. Raises shoudl be an incentive or rewerd, while taxes are an obligation, two completely separate things.

A flat property tax would simply tax everyone the same % as the property is worth. Someone owning a million dollar mansion would pay 10 times the amount someone owning a 100 grand house. Not exactly rocket science and not that far from how it works now.

Show, the “fair rate” would need to be researched. I agree that trickle down seems good on paper, but that’s only because of the divide that has been allowed to grow without any sort of in-check/balanced state.

Jeff, Utilities: the rich man lives in a mansion. He spends more on utilities, therefore pays more tax on the sale of natural gas, electricity, etc. The slightly less rich live in a slightly smaller abode, and therefore pay less tax dollars as a function of the fixed rate of taxation because they use less utilities. And so on…

As for wages versus investments, regular investments would be considered taxable at the proposed sales tax level when you sell your investments.

Dividends should still be taxable at that rate as well, unless located in the IRA/401K. I’d still be willing to offer retirement tax shelters because non-taxed (at the time of investment) retirement investing is beneficial to every person, not just the uber-rich.

HyComp: pretty much exactly what I was thinking, only much more eloquently stated.

i’m not talking flat tax …my bad if it sounded like that…i made a mistake

i’m talking about people who say that rich deserve a tax cut cause they pay so much…
make more…pay more…

Also, if anyone’s interested in the timliness of the CEO comment earlier:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/14/leadership-governance-boardroom-lead-ceo-cx_bh_1114termlimits.html

CEO term limits? What, like Politicians? That works really well :rolls_eyes: …

Make more, pay more (at least dollarwise) is what happens with a flat tax. If the rate is 10% everyone pays 10 cents to the government for every dollar they earn, whether it be their 1000th dollar or their 1,000,000th dollar. So those who make more money will pay more money in taxes. Less bureaucratic mess to deal with and much easier to calculate, at least in theory. Make more, pay a higher percentage out of every dollar in tax is what is a crock.

oh god, the flat 10% tax rate… good to hear the economics majors are in full force today…

I’m a Mathematics major, and I believe it is economically feasible and fair.

lol… i know.

10% wouldn’t fund dick.

Assuming that every American spends 100% of his income, a 10% flat tax would generate 490.93 billion dollars for 2006. Bush’s proposal for the FEDERAL budget ALONE for 2006 was $2.57 TRILLION DOLLARS. That EXCLUDES the spending of individual states, municipalities, and extra-budget spending, and that’s the proposal of a conservative executive, NOT the higher budget that congress wanted.

The TOTAL income of every American is estimated at $4.91 trillion dollars. Federal spending alone is over $2.57 trillion annually. We would need a well-over 50% flat tax to generate the same tax income we generate now.

That isn’t true, since we generat that much with the current tax system. What you fail to take into account is the ‘underground economy’, that does not pay any tax…however it would under a national sales tax.
One thing that is VERY clear from your number though, is that those asswipes spend WAY the fuck too much of our money