If you hated Republican Tax Cuts before

I simply could not resist the urge to start a thread that started with “If you hated …”. Before you know it, it’ll be a regulation of the board. "One must start each thread with ‘If you hated …’ " wink

I always hear folks complain about rich peopple getting all the tax breaks, etc. I teach at a public school where republicans (and especially libertarians) are viewed as slightly higher than slugs with salt on them.

Anyway, here is a story that was passed onto me awhile ago that explains why the wealthy get more out of tax cuts than others. It also explains why we “need the wealty” … something that I wonder how many realise.

Enjoy. Pass it on.

------------------------------- The Wealthy and Paying Taxes

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 $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. “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!

This is why people who pay the most taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

You’re teaching our kids? Learn how to spell…

  1. There is no free lunch.

  2. Your inane little nugget of wisdom fails to mention the distribution of income in the US.

  3. The republicans are spending like drunken sailors at the federal level and the kids you’re teaching will have to pay for it.

"You’re teaching our kids? Learn how to spell… "

No oHffense but dats a purty low bloh. The biggest problem in our education system is not the teachers…

While there is an uneven distribution of wealth, the top 10% also help to create the majority of jobs for the other 90%. I have never been a big fan of trickle down economics there is some validity in it. People with the greatest wealth shouldn’t be penalized for it but rather encouraged to re-invest it. By assessing unfair taxes (not just income taxes) that often act as penalties it discourages further investing. The problem with the Bush administration is in giving tax breaks and continuing to spend like fiends.

“the distribution of income in the US.”?

What’s next? “The struggle of class against class is a political struggle” or “The workers control the means of production” or “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” or (insert you own favorite Marxist screed here).

Last I checked, in a free-market economy, income is distributed by how much sweat and brains one brings to the marketplace.

But yes, the Republicans are foolishly starting to spend money like drunken sailors, but they’re pitiful amateurs compared to the other side’s last 40 years.

In any case it’s not fair to compare them to drunken sailors. Drunken sailors spend their own money…
b

“I have never been a big fan of trickle down economics there is some validity in it. People with the greatest wealth shouldn’t be penalized for it but rather encouraged to re-invest it.”

Good point… it just that most tax payers are almost always biased toward self-centered perspectives. And, from that perspective no one can truely determine who is trickled on and who is the tricklee’. IMH, I think everyone gets splashed on no matter what your pecking order is in the economic world of trickling.

FWIW Joe Moya

You’re teaching our kids? Learn how to spell…

Spelling isn’t the problem, it’s that I’m usually typing very fast (and with a 2-year old in Batman PJ’s w/ cape climbing all over me, etc).

Suffice to say, when I am making materials for students and presentations, etc … I do spellcheck and proofread. I don’t do this on the internet b/c it’s not worth the time invested. I guess I never really figured people were making assumptions and judgements based on my spelling and typos.

Please don’t judge my teaching by my spelling and grammer on a triathlon message board.

I realize you were likely joking or poking fun … which I accept … I have it coming. I just want to point out to others that how I spell on a non-education message board is not indicitive of how I do things in a formal setting.

Also … I don’t teach history/econ/gov’t, etc … I’m a science (Physical Science & Bio) guy. We stick to the facts (not opinion) in class.

Quick note about income and taxes …

In Illinois we are learning that higher taxes and decreasing benefits for increasing income leads to a lack of interest in “moving up” on the pay scale. (i.e., encourages unemployment)

For example, I pay $125 a week for my son to go to a nice childcare provider (it’s almost like preschool from birth, etc). There are folks who pay $1 for the same care since they make less. If they got a job and moved up the income ladder, they would lose the $1 a week fee (pay $125/week … possibly lose food stamps, etc)) and actually make less net pay than if they stayed unemployed.

Those that pay for college classes (Masters, etc) to earn pay increases do so out of their own pocket. In other words, we take a monetary loss this year, so that in 10 years we make more money. Few people do this, and some simply cannot afford to do this (those that live paycheck to paycheck).

In quite a few cases, people are punished (in terms of money) for moving up the income ladder. People know this, and take advantage of being unemployed. The state has looked into limiting how long a family can receive “low income” benefits before having to try and be self-sufficient.

Obviously, those with more money pay for the unemployed to stay home and enjoy some of the same benefits (such as equal child care) for a fraction of the cost. I, personally, do not see how this is fair.


"What’s next? “The struggle of class against class is a political struggle” or “The workers control the means of production” or “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” or (insert you own favorite Marxist screed here). "

Damn, bobo. You beat me to it.

“There is no free lunch.”

I forgot that Welfare was reserved for the hard working segment of our society.

“The republicans are spending like drunken sailors at the federal level and the kids you’re teaching will have to pay for it.”

Come to California, Einstein. (Yes, I know you wrote “federal level”) I’ll never understand any of you people who point fingers at the “Republicans” or the “Democrats” as the source of the problem. You’re completely f-ing blind if you don’t see that they’re all the f-ing same self-serving bunch of shit. WHY IS EVERYONE SO WILLING TO THROW AWAY INDEPENDENT THOUGHT IN FAVOR OF TOWING SOME ABSURD PARTY LINE?? Sorry, gotta go, the shepard is calling…

“There is no free lunch”

Unfortunately this is not a true statement BECAUSE of our current tax system. Tell me why I would work my ass off to make say $75,000, when after taxes, I’m going to net the same amount of money as someone making $60,000? Where is the incentive to excel? The person making $60,000 is getting a $15,000 free lunch all else being equal.

i teach at a school where 50% of the students get free lunch and free breakfeast, and, they all have 60.00/month cell phone plans. the taxes from their cell phones pay for the free food…there is no such thing as a free lunch!

“Last I checked, in a free-market economy, income is distributed by how much sweat and brains one brings to the marketplace.”

Yeah right - the vast majority of the wealth (and, by default, income) in this society is inherited not earned outright by ‘sweat and brains.’ So bobo, you’re right. As much as you and your conservative fellow travelers hate to admit it, we do have a stratified class system in this country.

Some individuals do indeed create new wealth through innovation and hard work but others use their smarts to game the system like the boys of Enron, etc. Are you willing to make this distinction or is either wealth creation strategy equally valid since ‘sweat and brains’ were involved?

Tinman

Even if the majority of wealth is inherited today, SOMEBODY worked to create that wealth. And that person probably paid more taxes than what we pay today while they were living. Oh, and then they paid taxes again on that same “after-tax” money when they left it to the kids. It was probably all the taxes that killed the person…

Yeah right - the vast majority of the wealth (and, by default, income) in this society is inherited not earned outright by ‘sweat and brains.’

What in the world is your basis for this claim? This statement is patently false. Consider the number of people in the U.S. who have a net worth of more than 1 million dollars compared to the number of millionaires twenty years ago. There are vastly more of them than you’d probably guess, and they are not always who you expect. They are for the most part, conservative (lifestyle, not politics) people who have worked hard, saved diligently, and invested wisely. I challenge you to show any evidence to support your claim (and Paris Hilton does not represent the ‘vast majority’ :slight_smile: ).

On the other hand, if you want to consider some of the richest Americans, let’s do that.

  1. Bill Gates: college dropout, built Microsoft from the ground up; didn’t inherit anything, but has created an enormous amount of wealth for himself and many others.

  2. Warren Buffet: Berkshire Hathaway used his investment skills to build his fortune.

  3. The Walton family: Yes this money is inherited. From their father, who built what I would argue is one of the most successful and innovative businesses in history - Wal Mart. The families are involved in business in one form or another, and are also HUGE philanthropists. Among other things, they gave the U. of Arkansas $300 million!

  4. Larry Ellison: founder of Oracle.

  5. Michael Dell: Started this company in a dorm room.

I have to go swim, or I’d sit here all day and give you examples of ‘sweat and brains’. One last thought, if what you say is true, explain to me how it is possible for our economy to grow at the rate it has? If we’re essentially recycling wealth, where is there room for growth? IMHO ‘sweat and brains’ is what built this country, and continues to make it great!

Chris

the dinner story is great.

Andy,

I read your post and not sure how you come up with a person making $75k having the same after tax amount as a person that make $60k. Since the tax rates are graduated the person making $75k will have more after tax dollars in his/her pocket. The additional $15k may be taxed at a higher rate but it is not taxed at 100%.

I have been doing taxes for 10 years now and it really bugs me when people say the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes.

For example, one of the clients I used to work for built up his engineering company to the point that his taxable income year in and year out was around $30,000,000. He had to pay $1,000,000 per month to the IRS. This is one person who drives one car at a time on the public highways, eats the same amount of food as one person, etc, etc, etc. That is $12,000,000 a year in federal taxes and he is not going to be using any of the public services that he is supporting. He is not going on welfare, or food stamps or unemployment. He is paying more in taxes each month then most people will earn in thier lifetime. Yet he is still only one person.

Plus he is responsible for the employment of hundreds of high paid jobs who are paying taxes as well.

Anyone who says wealthy people are not paying their fair share of taxes is just wrong. They are subsidising all of the folks who are paying little to no taxes.

Just because they have millions left over after taxes does not mean they are not paying their share.

The above example may be the extreme but most everyone I did taxes for paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.

Willy in Pacifica, CPA

Glad to see you called tinman on this out and out lie. Also, tinman says that welath and income are tied together–that is not necessarily true. Many older, retired people are wealthy, that is their net worth (assets minus liabilities) is high. However, their income may be relatively low because they are retired. Conversely, many young, upwardly mobile people have high incomes, but no wealth. They are spending everything they make on cars, mortgages, childrens’ educations, etc. They may actually have negative net worths. My parents worked as civil servants their whole lives. They never had large incomes, and they didn’t inherit a dime. Both of their fathers died while they were young. They raised four children, all of whom needed braces, bought new cars only every 7-8 years, didn’t get a color TV until 1973, took peanut butter sandwiches to work every day for lunch, couldn’t qualify for government loans for our education because thay had too much income, and lived in the same house for 48 years now. They are now millionaires.

Willy,

You and I are on the same side. The example I used was admittedly poor in terms of accuracy, but I was trying to make the point that the graduated tax scale takes away incentive to be more productive.

That evil person you had as a client probably never gave a cent to charity or did a thing to help those disgusting poor/less fortunate people.

Andy,

"That evil person you had as a client probably never gave a cent to charity or did a thing to help those disgusting poor/less fortunate people.

That “evil person” gave $12,000,000 to help the poor and less fortunate people. As a matter of fact, most all of my clients would have us do calculations in December to estimate how much of thier income they could give to charity to maximize the 50% charitable deduction. Then they would indeed give millions away. Most had very low basis stock from stock options that they could give away and get the FMV as a deduction. This benefited both them and the charities they either gave to or had set up themselves.

BTW, how much did you give to charity last year? Notice that I did not just come out and say you “probably never gave a cent to charity or did a thing to help those disgusting poor/less fortunate people.”

Willy in Pacifica

Willy,

I hope you know I was being sarcastic with the charity comment. My point being, charities survive on the donations from highly taxed corporations and wealthy individuals. Your clients are the perfect examples of the good things that wealthy people can do with their funds. Imagine how much more your clients would give if only they didn’t pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. I guess I should have put a ; ) at the end of my statement…

Andy

We have folks that DO NOT WORK (i.e. zero income) that receive money from the government to eat, pay rent (or have the rent paid for them), cheap child care, etc. In other words our government (really rich and middle class folks) PAY SOME POOR PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE. And then people will complain about how cushy “government jobs” are.


  • Sarcasm On* Gates, Walton, Dell, etc … were all born smarter than I am and everything came easy for them. They never had to work really hard a day in their life. My father didn’t hug me enough, I am ADD, my grades were bad because the teachers didn’t like me, I would have played pro sports but the coaches didn’t like me. I refuse to work at a gas station because that is “beneath me” and besides the boss there is an asshole. So, you’re damn right the rich need to pay. Tell Gates to cut out the middle man and send the money directly to me. He’s got a bunch of money he won’t miss it. Sarcasm Off

Having the rich pay more doesn’t bother me as much as the government “paying the poor to be poor”. If they stop being poor, there situation (financially) will actually be worse than it already is. So, rather than take the money away, we’ll blame education, the work force, etc.

Through action the government actually encourages the people to “be poor”. Some could say this is by accident, others would say it is by design. Whatever the case may be, I am against people being dependent on the government in a free country.

The poorer you are, the easier the governent makes it to “move up”. If you are from a family in poverty … you will never have to pay a cent for a college education. All you have to do is attend HS and get decent grades that will be accepted in, at least a junior college. The government (i.e. people that pay taxes) will foot the bill.