PDA

View Full Version : The Fairness of Tax Cuts


Radu
05-29-2006, 11:37 AM
This is an email that has been circulated in many people, and published in a few newspapers. It certainly gives you something to think about.

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, and 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 (in tax language a tax cut).

"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 $80.00.

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 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 paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth 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 their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who 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 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 he 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, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

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 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.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Here's some more info on it's authorship and accuracy: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

jamesglewisf
05-30-2006, 09:01 AM
Authorship might be in question, but the subject matter seems to have been handled correctly.

jfahler
05-31-2006, 11:54 PM
I understand the point of cutting taxes in the interest in raising capital for the economy to expand, but why now? Why during a record deficet, two wars, and some of the worst (and worst-handled) natural disasters ever...all while our infastructure is going down the drain?

Radu
06-01-2006, 12:39 AM
I believe the theory is that tax cuts are a good investment. That is, the government loses revenue at the beginning, but the stimulated economy makes up for it in the long run.

Another theory is that it's a payback to wealthy campaign contributers.

Either way, I just thought I'd post this as a defence to the argument that Bush is only favoring the rich. Whether or not tax cuts are a good idea is an entirely different issue that I'm not taking a stance on, right now.

jamesglewisf
06-01-2006, 09:06 AM
Do you really believe that Bush gives tax cuts because he is paying back wealthy campaign contributors, or is it possible that he is a Republican who believes in tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

Are the Democrats who want to eliminate the AMT only doing it to pay people back or is it because they think the AMT is unfair?

I'm tired of people accusing either party of acting solely to repay their voters. Perhaps they just agree with their voters and that is why the voters gave them the campaign contributions. The reason you give money to a candidate is because the candidate has the same position on issues that you do. It is not to force the candidate to vote a certain way. You want him to win because he agrees with you, not because he will then owe you something. You give him money because of his compatibility and so that he can win the election, not to buy his vote. You are trying to make sure that people who think like you are serving.

Alec
06-01-2006, 12:52 PM
I like the analogy.

dreuby
06-01-2006, 01:04 PM
I'm tired of people accusing either party of acting solely to repay their voters.

Isn't that what elections are about? "If you vote for us, we'll ...." So I vote for that party (or candidate) and I expect them to do whatever they promised. (Well, I don't really, I'm much too old to believe what politicians say {toothy} but that's the theory, anyway.)

Radu
06-01-2006, 02:11 PM
I'm tired of people accusing either party of acting solely to repay their voters. Perhaps they just agree with their voters and that is why the voters gave them the campaign contributions. The reason you give money to a candidate is because the candidate has the same position on issues that you do. It is not to force the candidate to vote a certain way. You want him to win because he agrees with you, not because he will then owe you something. You give him money because of his compatibility and so that he can win the election, not to buy his vote. You are trying to make sure that people who think like you are serving. Again, this is going into a different issue, but I just have to ask: How does that explain why big corporations donate money to both political parties/candidates? Like most people, congressmen want to keep their job, and that requires money for re-election campaigns. It's not so much that people donate money in return for a kickback, but rather that politicians have to agree with the contributors if they want support for the next campaign.

I've done a lot of projects on that topic, and can get into really startling examples, but we would need to start a new thread. Again, I'm not taking a position as to what Bush's motives are.

jfahler
06-02-2006, 05:36 PM
Do you really believe that Bush gives tax cuts because he is paying back wealthy campaign contributors, or is it possible that he is a Republican who believes in tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

I don't think I ever said he is. I personally see the tax cuts as a fiscally conservative method of increasing long term capital for economic growth in the hands of corporations. The theory has been used since Kennedy's time to some success and some failure. In my opinion it doesn't make sense in the midst of the conditions I mentioned earlier.

jamesglewisf
06-03-2006, 01:28 AM
I don't think I ever said he is. I personally see the tax cuts as a fiscally conservative method of increasing long term capital for economic growth in the hands of corporations. The theory has been used since Kennedy's time to some success and some failure. In my opinion it doesn't make sense in the midst of the conditions I mentioned earlier.
I was responding to Radu, not you.

jamesglewisf
06-03-2006, 01:35 AM
Again, this is going into a different issue, but I just have to ask: How does that explain why big corporations donate money to both political parties/candidates? Like most people, congressmen want to keep their job, and that requires money for re-election campaigns. It's not so much that people donate money in return for a kickback, but rather that politicians have to agree with the contributors if they want support for the next campaign.

I've done a lot of projects on that topic, and can get into really startling examples, but we would need to start a new thread. Again, I'm not taking a position as to what Bush's motives are.
My company belongs to an organization that gives money 60% to Republicans and 40% to Democrats. Why? Because that is the current split of the politicians that care about life insurance issues. We aren't buying their votes. We are helping them either get elected or stay elected because they are rational proponents of our issues. How is corporate money different than individual money other than corporate money is more practical (less likely to give to a single party). If I think Joe Schmoe is going to make a great governor and push programs I like, then I give him my personal money to help him get elected. It isn't because I am trying to bribe him. It is because I want him to win over the other guy.

You can't get elected for free. It costs money. If it weren't for campaign contributions, only wealthy politicians could get elected.

I guess one thing I would ask you is whether or not you own or manage a corporation. If you don't, how do you know how they decide to give money? I own five of them, and I know other people who own or manage corporations. We aren't all trying to bribe politicians.

TomFoolery
06-03-2006, 11:17 AM
I thought corporations were evil. If the corporations are evil, then the people who own and run them must be evil. Hence, James must be evil. {devil}

Heck, james must be quintuple evil since he owns five corporations. {devil}{devil}{devil}{devil}{devil}

Radu
06-03-2006, 01:20 PM
No, Jim, I don't own a corperation. I have no doubt that your donations are ethical. But, clearly, not everybody is as ethical as you.

If a certain candidate changed their mind, and no longer agreed with you, would you still donate to him? That's the point that I'm making: It's ussually not a case of "I'll give you money, if you do what I want". Instead, it's like you said, "If you do what I want, then I'll give you more money".

I'm not saying your motives are bad, but many's are. I'll create a new thread, sometime, and show you what I mean. Now, back to tax cuts. :)