How US Taxes Work

Originally found at The Spoons Experience, who found it at American RealPolitik (and who has a quick rebuttal session with a whining lefty), who found it at Photo Matt & Insignificant Thoughts. Whew. Anyway, to the meaty goodness of a pleasant example!

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.

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, but he, pointing 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!

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!

The key in all this being one thing: those people who demand an "equal" share of a tax cut, or one that disproportionately transfers more money to those who did not contribute it in the first place. It's amazing how Democratic and leftist pundits will demand "fair" tax cuts (if the demand them at all)...when it actually is fair to cut taxes proportionately; i.e., no biases were involved in the formulation or execution of the tax cut...and a tax cut that by it's very nature ("across-the-board") does not discriminate is, by definition, "fair."

Not that the complainers care about it. All they see are Those Who Need and Those Who Have "Excess." The former, therefore, deserve to have the wealth taken away from the latter...because...uhm...they're rich and they don't need the wealth.

Imagine how deafening the uproar would be if it was deemed that we had an "excess" of art in America and therefore some arbitrary portion of it should be taken from our homes (and those who refused to allow this were arrested and jailed/fined) and given to Uganda, Bolivia, and Senegal...because...uhm...they don't have it.

Not that at least being consistent ever really bothered some people.

Posted by Drizzten at January 03, 2003 03:21 PM