How Taxes Work...

junkerman123

Golden Member
Jul 4, 2003
1,935
0
0
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!

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!

-Unknown author
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back, directly, or through increased interest rates on their homes and student loans.

interest the rich don't have to pay, btw.

 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,334
1,210
126
Except the 9 go home and do nothing because they have no money and the 10th guy is still able to do/buy whatever he wants because the 9 work for him and he doesn't like to give them a raise.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Nice analogy in a restaurant where the rich get a choice as to eat or not eat. If you want to make that work in the tax system, the rich would have to liquidate, take the one time hit and then leave the country without making another dime on US soil.

If that is what you are advocating.......

When people are complaining about taxes, they are usually complaining about it as a ratio to their income....not the dollar amount itself.

Well, there are talking heads on both sides that use the dollar amount (both, tax dollars paid to make the point that they are paying their "fair share" and tax dollars returned to show they are getting a lot more back) to make hyperbole about the unfairness. That is what this author is doing.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Plus the rich guy starts a fight with another group at the restaurant, and then sticks everyone's kids with paying to clean up the mess too.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Plus the rich guy starts a fight with another group at the restaurant, and then sticks everyone's kids with paying to clean up the mess too.

Hey I am pretty sure social programs that benefit the poor more than the rich account for a large % of our federal budget. These programs are obviously not paid for in full or wont be in the future. Exactly who is sticking who with a bill again?

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.

Your little snippet also fits into the hyperbole category that I explained above.

The rich are not paying 53% of their total income in taxes even though they may be paying that of the total taxes taken in.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.

Your little snippet also fits into the hyperbole category that I explained above.

The rich are not paying 53% of their total income in taxes even though they may be paying that of the total taxes taken in.

Which is what this example illustrates.


 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.
Typical fallacious arguement from the right. Completely ignores the taxes the poor pay and only concentrates on income taxes to make it look like the rich are overburdened.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.


That isn't my point. My point is we are borrowing the money for what are called tax cuts, which means they are really handouts, not tax cuts. The taxes are just being deferred.

and the way it is done is more or less just like I said. The higher a person's income is, the bigger the handout they recieve, and what used to be their tax burden has been redistributed downward to those who can least afford it.


 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
My biweekly paychecks average $5500. I usually pay around $1100 in taxes (not including SS, etc.). This is more money I pay than my wife makes. However, we both benefit from the government etc. the same amount.

Flat tax FTW. We all use the same services, we should all pay the same amount.

EDIT: More money than my wife takes home, I should say. I guess she makes around 40K a year.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.

Your little snippet also fits into the hyperbole category that I explained above.

The rich are not paying 53% of their total income in taxes even though they may be paying that of the total taxes taken in.

Which is what this example illustrates.

This example doesn't illustrate a thing. It doesn't give you enough information to come to any realistic conclusion other than the author has an agenda. He wants to abolish the tax code.

If it were truly trying to illustrate the "fairness" of the tax code, he would have listed the income/worth of the diners instead of just putting them into undefined categories.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If it were truly trying to illustrate the "fairness" of the tax code, he would have listed the income/worth of the diners instead of just putting them into undefined categories.

What does it matter how much they make? They are all eating the same meal. When my friends and I go out to dinner, I don't pay more of the bill because I make more money. We pay equal (or split the check.)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.
Typical fallacious arguement from the right. Completely ignores the taxes the poor pay and only concentrates on income taxes to make it look like the rich are overburdened.

Is it false? They pay medicare and SS taxes, taxes that are already ear-marked for accounts that will soon be running deficits.

Income taxes pay for alost the programs in this country. If we erased federal income taxes tomorrow what would the govt look like?

and the way it is done is more or less just like I said. The higher a person's income is, the bigger the handout they recieve, and what used to be their tax burden has been reditributed downward to those who can least afford it.

Guess we see Taxes in a different light. I fail to see how a govt body taking a portion of my income, then giving it back is a "handout". If a robber steals money from your piggy bank, then gives you some back, is it a handout?

I agree on the deficit spending, however nobody ever wants to address the root cause of the problem. Which isnt people paying this so called "fair" share. But politicians overspending, using money they dont have, and borrowing to cover the difference.

God forbid we saw the govt cease to grow in a single year. If we did, then the elderly are being tossed out on the street, the poor cant eat, the kids wont be able to get good jobs.


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tom
More realistic would be the dinner goes up to $150, so the men decide to borrow $100 and use $50 of the borrowed money to reduce the rich guys taxes to $9.

And all ten mens' children, even the poor ones, get to pay the $100 loan back.

Top 5% of this country pays 53% of the taxes.
Not quite how you are making it sound.

The bottom 50% pays 6%, poor pay little to no federal income tax in this country.

Your little snippet also fits into the hyperbole category that I explained above.

The rich are not paying 53% of their total income in taxes even though they may be paying that of the total taxes taken in.

Which is what this example illustrates.

This example doesn't illustrate a thing. It doesn't give you enough information to come to any realistic conclusion other than the author has an agenda. He wants to abolish the tax code.

If it were truly trying to illustrate the "fairness" of the tax code, he would have listed the income/worth of the diners instead of just putting them into undefined categories.

It works fine, take the red colored glasses off.

It is a simple illustration of how the tax revenue stream is funded. The income\tax ratio is irrelevant for this example as it is showing you the "rich" guy which represents the top 10% of our country is paying a lot of the bill. The bill represents our federal budget.

"fair" is a subjective term. I dont consider it fair taxing people who make x amount of money 36% of this income because they were sucessful. Fair it isnt, and is a terrible behavioral control by punishing somebody for their sucess. Lucikly it isnt as bad as it has been, but I still dont think it is "fair".

Where as somebody like you doesnt think it is fair they only pay 36% of their income and should pay more.





 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I don't think that it is "fair" that someone gets to pay less on money that they don't need than someone else has to pay on money that is necessary for their survival. And you make yet another fallacious argument. They actually get a tax break on SS taxes as well since they are capped at a certain income amount.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I don't think that it is "fair" that someone gets to pay less on money that they don't need than someone else has to pay on money that is necessary for their survival. And you make yet another fallacious argument. They actually get a tax break on SS taxes as well since they are capped at a certain income amount.

Dont need? Based on what criteria?
What a break, they dont have to pay into SS after 90,000 dollars. A real humanitarian gesture indeed.

Nevermind these so called rich will have little need for the SS they are funding, many times at 3x the rate of the people who will use it.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
To make it more clear..

A tax cut is not analagous to reducing the cost of the meal.

A tax cut would be analagous to changing what the men pay, which has nothing to do with what the meal costs.


Since there is no free lunch, the only way to reduce what the men pay is to borrow the money, which means someone would still have to pay for it someday, but now they would also have to pay interest on the money they borrowed.

By borrowing money for this purpose, the men have reduced the amount of money that can be borrowed for other purposes. This means if the men want to borrow money for a house, they will pay higher interest rates.

How does this affect the men ?

1. the rich man got the largest benefit from the borrowed money, his "taxes" were reduced the most.

2. the richer you are, the less the higher interest rate will cost you, as a percentage of your income. If you're really rich, it won't cost you anything directly.

3. the higher interest rate will make lots of things cost more, eventually leading to inflation. Agin, the less money you have, the more this affects you.

4. if you are rich enough, you actually profit from higher interest rates, completely the opposite of what happens if you are poor or middle class.

5. The scheme used to eventually pay off the borrowed money, which is higher than the original cost of the dinner because of the interest, provides another opportunity to reward the rich. In real life, this debt is financed by Social Security taxes, which guess what ? Only apply to the first 100k or so of earned income. Doesn't apply to other forms of income at all. A computer programmer making $100k pays the exact same amount as Lebron James pays on his $20 million a year, or Bill Gates pays on his $2 billion.(guess)

So if the rich succeed in their effort to never have Social Security paid back, they will have paid much much smaller percentage of their income in taxes, than working people.


 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Oh, the poooor pooor rich! They have it so hard! Man, I NEVER want to become rich, even though my income after taxes is still more than ten times that of the average American (disregarding enhanced investment possibilities and usage of tax shelters outside the country), I STILL have to pay more in taxes than those lucky poor people! No matter that since I'm the CEO of a company, all my wealth is helped immensely from the extra 'services' the government provides (such as roads and international military and diplomatic protection), I shouldn't have to pay more taxes than Joe Schmoe, who has driven on one road for 20 years, and isn't affected at all by any kind of trivial military or diplomatic issues 3000 miles away.

Man, the life of a rich man is rough. :roll:
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I don't think that it is "fair" that someone gets to pay less on money that they don't need than someone else has to pay on money that is necessary for their survival. And you make yet another fallacious argument. They actually get a tax break on SS taxes as well since they are capped at a certain income amount.

I need all the money I have, thank you very much. If you have any extra money lying around, PM me.

Everyone is afforded similar opportunities. Almost everyone I see that is broke has 4 kids, no job, a cell phone, credit card debt, a big screen TV, eats out at restaurants all the time and drives a late model vehicle. I should know; I used to own a 9-plex that catered to low income individuals.

I have since sold and am now building a house I will get taxed on. Yay for me.
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
Someone, please explain to me what is wrong with flat tax? It is like a concert admission: you want in, pay this much. If everyone in America paid $5000/year to live here, we would all be happy. If you can't afford to live here with our nice roads and freedoms, then move somewhere else.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |