Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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…
So, that’s what they decided to do.
- The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
- The fifth would pay $1
- The sixth would pay $3
- The seventh would pay $7
- The eighth would pay $12
- The ninth would pay $18
- The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $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 drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
- And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
- The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
- The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
- The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
- The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
- The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” 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 benefit 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. This new tax 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 drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers 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 government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. - International Liberty
There is a huge difference from the story and our tax status, as in the story, all the men voluntarily decided to share the bill and share it in a lopsided fashion. In the end, the richest man decided that the company was no longer worth the price and decided to no longer participate. This is not something that you can easily do with your tax bill. Instead the others, who all pay less, demand that those who earn more pay ever more to meet some mythical 'Fair Share'. You know what a fair share is? IT is where people simply pay their taxes and don't feel like they are being taken advantage of. And at that point, the desire, and incentive, to cheat on one's taxes (or simply avoid taxation) diminishes and disappears, no longer being seen as a worthwhile activity.
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are present in our society simply because the scenario above is not fair. Not at all.
This is a classic maneuver to convince the middle class to vote contrary to their own interests.
ReplyDeleteComparing the $ figure rather than looking at percentages is a false argument.
Another problem with this scenario is that it looks only at what each man pays without telling us what the income of each is. Or to match the analogy, what is left in each man's wallet?
To fit our current economic and tax policy, the 10th man has to have in his wallet as much as all the other men combined, or close to that. One can form a very different opinion on the whole question if one is told that the first 4 men each have $10 in their wallets, the 5th man has $12, etc. and the 10th man has $1,010 after the beer cost is reduced.
Or one can look at the savings the top 5 men got as percentage of income paid. Is it fair that the 6th man has to pay 33% of his income for a beer - even if it's been reduced from $3 to $2, when the 10th man only pays 16% of his income for a beer?
This "great example" should be viewed with skepticism. The red flag in this scenario is the mixing of $ with %. If you want to support your argument that our tax system is screwed up, find support materials that compare % to % instead of one that compares apples and oranges.
"Comparing the $ figure rather than looking at percentages is a false argument."
ReplyDeleteIn the example above the dollar figure reductions are percentage based, with the poorest receiving the highest percentage reductions. So how is the argument false? Everyone, other than those already paying nothing for their beer, received a deduction...
Another problem with this scenario is that it looks only at what each man pays without telling us what the income of each is. Or to match the analogy, what is left in each man's wallet?
Hmm. I am not sure what your point is here, because it is arranged in terms of least poor to richest and that the poorest suffer no out of pocket cost for the activity.
One can form a very different opinion on the whole question if one is told that the first 4 men each have $10 in their wallets, the 5th man has $12, etc. and the 10th man has $1,010 after the beer cost is reduced.
So are you suggesting that the richest man should simply pay for the other nine? How did he get to be the richest? Maybe he works 100 hour weeks? Have you ever done a 100 hour work week? I have, for weeks on end. Anyway the important issue here is that this is supposed to be a shared expense, just like the expenses of our country. Also, while everyone is so interested in what the rich guy is earning and how much of that is being paid in taxes, NOBODY seems to be interested in what the poorest are doing with their money and if they are wasting their funds or not. Because if you have just $10 in your pocket, perhaps you shouldn't be buying beer....