How taxes work...

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
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!

(Note: I didn't write this. Cut and paste is your friend - Goober)
 

Pyro

Flaming Pig :(8)~
Jan 7, 2003
455
0
0
GTA (Gash, Tits, and Ass)
A good analogy...but

It's a good analogy to a point, and if all we did each day was eat dinner, it would be a good model to use for taxes.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where not everything is paid for by the government. That's like saying that only certain items on the menu are subsidised like in the analogy.

So when the group goes to dinner, they can all have hamburger and pay for it like we pay our taxes. However, if anyone wants steak, they have to pay for it separately...and only the rich person has the money to do that. So it creates a system where only the rich can have steak!

I think you might believe that this is OK. Why should the rich be subsidising steak for the poor when they are adequately fed by hamburger?

Well, lets move away from the restaurant and replace Hamburger with (for example) a medical examination (free for everyone) and steak with perscription drugs (pay as you go). Then the system seems less fair because we have given everyone the opportunity to learn what drugs they need but not everyone has access to receive them!

The other thing to consider is that tax cuts don't come from nowhere. Usually, when the Government cuts taxes, it also cuts spending to compensate and this means that something that was subsidised in the past no longer is available to the poor.

In the restaurant analogy, this is like dropping the price of the meal, but reducing the options that are covered by the plan. Now you have to pay extra to get ketchup or mustard for your hamburger and the extra cost is not shared by the group as it was before.

So I agree that excessive taxing is bad, but you have to keep providing everyone in your public with valid services.

Pyro.
 

Quest4Less

Well-known member
May 25, 2002
1,063
27
48
Taxes...

I'm still in favour of a "flat" tax system, ie: 25%.

That way it's fair for everyone.... If you make more, you pay more. What could be more fair?
 

zog

Friendly Arrogant Bastard
Dec 25, 2002
2,021
0
0
58
Downtown TO
As long as they don't tax the good stuff

Fortunately, SPs and Strippers don't add on the PST and GST to their rates.

The best things in life may not be free...but at least they are tax-free ;)

Zog.
 

fflowley

New member
Re: A good analogy...but

Pyro said:
Well, lets move away from the restaurant and replace Hamburger with (for example) a medical examination (free for everyone) and steak with perscription drugs (pay as you go). Then the system seems less fair because we have given everyone the opportunity to learn what drugs they need but not everyone has access to receive them!



Actually this is incorrect.

In your country,as well as here in the US, everyone DOES have the opportunity to get prescrition drugs or whatever else they need or want.

The way to get it is through WORK. I know thats a four letter word that many liberals are uncomfortable with, but it can have some remarkable results.


Flooey!
 

E_B_Samaritano

New member
Aug 19, 2001
545
0
0
Silicon Valley, USA
Realities versus clever contrivances...

In reality, the rich eat for free. The secret to wealth in todays tax system is not how much you make, it's how much you keep. Any "fair" tax system should be progressive. Income tax generally follows a progressive schedule. However, given I have more disposable income after paying for lifes' necessities, I can readily divert that income into other tax shelters. I would argue that for this analogy to be "applicable" it would reflect that fact.

A good example is the effect of other taxes such as payroll tax, sales and other excise taxes on the poor. These taxes are generally unavoidable as many are placed on the poor. Even as one considers that many foodstuffs are not taxed, partially manufactured foodstuffs are taxed. For example, in the states, bread or milk may not be taxed, yet potato chips and other such fast food items indeed are. Take a look at the diet of the poor. It's often the case that their nearest availible food store is a convenience mart which specializes in junk foods.

A flat tax is a good first order remedy, but with the plethora of loopholes and shelters availible to the wealthy, that is hardly a comprehensive remedy. Every time we close one loophole, some clever lawmaker attaches another as a last minute rider to a bill that has nothing to do with taxation.

Consider that one of the first things that Clinton did was raise taxes on the top 1% of the income earners. I don't remember that causing a contraction of the economy. On top of that, there are many corporations that pay zero tax, yet they are the first at the trough for tax welfare.

EBS
 
Last edited:

Malibook

New member
Nov 16, 2001
4,613
2
0
Paradise
www.yourtraveltickets.com
I don't have a problem with the poorest paying nothing, in fact, I think the basic personal exemption is way too low.
I think it should be at least $20k.

I do have a problem with the underground economy.
There is a price to be paid to live in this wonderful country and everybody should willingly pay their fair share.
The extra cash could offset the elimination of the GST, lower the PST, and make significant progress on reducing the outrageous burden of the massive provincial and federal debts, thus starting a positive snowballing effect.
The amount of money that is recovered from tax evaders is a drop in the bucket and costs alot to recover.

The Finns sure make the wealthy pay their fair share.
http://etheridge.ca/articles/finland-traffic-fines.html
 
Last edited:

Bobzilla

Buy-sexual
Oct 26, 2002
1,957
177
63
59
Re: Taxes...

Quest4Less said:
I'm still in favour of a "flat" tax system, ie: 25%.

That way it's fair for everyone.... If you make more, you pay more. What could be more fair?
Fair? Your reward for ambition/excellence is more tax money to pay, while loafers get rewarded for squat?

There's something wrong when people who have the drive to do more to stimulate the economy are punished for the sake of supporting those who don't!

Just my 2 cents.

Bobzilla
 

Big Daddy

New member
Sep 1, 2001
296
0
0
Gobber,

I think you gave a very good and easy to understand example, but you have to realize that "rich" are minority. The media and politicians will always side the "majority". So I am not surprised to see arguments that tax cuts benefits rich. It is sad, but I don't expect things to change.
 

Shallow Throat

What, Me Worry?
Aug 18, 2001
1,121
47
48
Bobzilla,

Why don't you consider a flat tax fair ?
True, the rich pay more, but not proportionally.
(The current system penalizes you for making more.)
I guess your solution would be a head tax which would say that everyone pays the same amount. In principal, it sounds fair, but the poor couldn't pay it and the middle class would take the largest burden, because it wouldn't hurt the rich at all (sounds much like our current system again doesn't it).
 

penguin_jf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
127
0
0
Zihuatanejo
Yeah, except.

The notion that the more aquisitive amongst us are going to stop doing what they're doing is just as naive as thinking that everyone is going to be 'personally responsible'. In a (mostly) capitalist system, there will always be those that want to acquire as much as they can. Why NOT tax them more??
 

Quest4Less

Well-known member
May 25, 2002
1,063
27
48
Re: Re: Taxes...

Bobzilla said:


Fair? Your reward for ambition/excellence is more tax money to pay, while loafers get rewarded for squat?

There's something wrong when people who have the drive to do more to stimulate the economy are punished for the sake of supporting those who don't!

Just my 2 cents.

Bobzilla
I am not at all in favour of a "free" ride for anyone. However, we all can't be doctors or lawyers making 100K or more a year. A flat tax makes sense if you use the following: The first 20K (give or take) is free, after that you pay a percent (ie: 25%) on ALL income, NO EXEMTIONS (except maybe charities). That way it is fair for all. As I said if you make more, you pay more. Note that if you make more you also are keeping more. I don't think this is "punishing" you for making more money, you are just paying your fair share. Only a rich A**hole who thinks he is better than us poor working slobs could argue that he shouldn't pay taxes.
 

Tyler1

New member
Dec 13, 2002
547
0
0
Mississauga
"Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. "

We have to show up at the table or we get thrown in jail.
 

Major Major

New member
Dec 15, 2002
734
0
0
62
Toronto
I think this dinner analogy stinks.

Lets put it this way, without government, there would be anarchy - every man for himself, and the rule of law would be replaced by the rule of force... like Afghanistan and other places where warlords rule and farmers and other people who own property suffer because their rights are not protected... or Russia where criminals have taken control of so much of the economy.

In a world without government, the 4 poor guys would beat up the rich guy and take all his money before they even got to the restaurant... there would be no law or courts to punish them...

Ah, but you say that the rich guy could hire security guards to protect himself, but there would be nothing to provent the security guards from also turning on the rich guy!

To be less controversial, the idea of taxes is to share the burden fairly for the cost of the benefits we receive by giving up our right to use physical force and to become a member of society.

Progressive taxes are levied on the idea equal pain, so to speak. The poor guys have no money - for them to have to pay 1 cent would be a burden, and they would go hungry and die... for the rich guy, the $59 dollars might equal the amount of money he earns in one minute - for the guy in the middle who pays $5, that might take him an hour to earn... one of the flaws of economics and much theory is the assumption that $1 has equal value to everyone - if Bill Gates was walking down the street and saw a $20 bill on the sidewalk, he would keep walking - the poor guys would be so desperate that they would beat each other silly for it!

Find a new analogy, please!
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts