flipper

There is an enormous following in this country that believe that the growing disparity in wealth is destroying the tax system and that the government should tax the wealthy at a extremely higher rate in order to increase revenue and, therefore, spending on the classes that fall into the lower &/or tax free bracket.

Additionally, there is a massive lobbying movement for additional tariffs on companies that move their headquarters overseas because it is a friendlier tax environment. (Halliburton, Proctor and Gamble, etc.)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill forall 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 would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

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.
"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 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 - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They
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 drink his beer.

So, the bar 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 pay $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 of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink 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 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 than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he
get $10 back when I got only two? 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had 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, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college
professors, is how our 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 anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

EnglishPaul

While the drinking plan of the 10 men was still in its heyday, a journalist decided to take a closer look.
While it was true that the bill was always paid at the end of the night, it was a lesser known thing that the poorest men were only having a half pint of beer, whereas the richest man drank champagne.
But more interesting than this to the journalist was the chip situation. Actually, he was an English journalist and called them crisps, because to him chips were "freedom fries".
You see, the bill arrangement did not cover chips. But the ninth richest man paid for the chips of the poorest men, on the understanding that when they came in to some money by winning the slot machine in the corner, they would pay him back. In the mean time they just needed to give him a token payment. One of them chose to give him a button from his shirt, one gave a shoelace, one gave a handkerchief, and the fourth borrowed the other shoelace from his friend as times were a bit hard this week.
Well as the weeks progressed, the four poorest men had less clothes to put on their back; and the second richest man now had a useless collection of haberdashery. So in a stroke of brilliance the richest man offered to sell the second richest man's haberdashery to the third richest man, but he put it all in a pretty box and said that it would definitely make money.
Eventually the poor people stopped coming. The ninth man stopped getting stuff to put in the eighths man's box, and the eighth man began to notice that his box was not getting so heavy. It wasn't long after that the eighth man stopped coming to the pub, with a bit of a hole in his finance.
Because things were now not so rosy in the diminished group, the richest man stopped buying champagne, and the bar bill total fell to under $50. At the same time the electricity price went up for the pub, and it began to look likely that the landlord may have to sell up.
The richest man considered whether to buy the pub in these times, and concealed his smile behind a beer.

You see people, lend to those with no means to pay, and your whole world may just turn to ****.

flipper

Ah, but the beer in the case is the social services the nation is getting. So by your method you are saying that the rich get more social services from the government? Funny, never saw Bill Gates at the welfare office.

Then you break into something completely different, credit. Maybe those that cannot afford the chips should be looking for something cheaper. They should stop looking to those that have worked hard to pay for the chips and be more realistic. They should stop hoping and praying for wealth to dropped into their lap and work for it. Stop shopping for Cadillac Escalades and 5,000 square foot houses in a gated community if you have no desire to leave your McDonalds job. Learn to live within your means. Sadly, I cannot fully blame them though. After all, how common is common sense, and what may be common sense to me may not be to you. Schools don't teach people to live within their means or to budget.

And yes, I'm a firm believer in living within your means. I'm even a believer in living below your means. This way you can save up for retirement. I don't trust the government to have my best interest in mind. I'm not trying to live the movie star life on a none movie star paycheck.



And when did it become a crime to try and make money? Are you about to punish all of those that have tried to improve their living situtation for those that have done so in a unethically? And if it is so American to pay your taxes to a government that has not shown any financial responsibility from any party, will you send in some extra money to our government?

EnglishPaul

Do all taxes go on social services. I think not. So the "Beer" is government spending.
Now our friend Red may believe that all government spending is useless; but I bet that the more tax you pay, the more you demand in return. Or put another way, the poor tend to be downtrodden and uneducated and poor at lobbying for spending on their causes.
So yes, the rich do order champagne. And the poor get enough beer to still sit at the table, but only just.

And in my little story, the poorest left the table first. They did suffer for their bad loans. But so too did the lender and the idiot that bought the shiny package of haberdashery.
Everyone was telling the poor to take out loans. So they listened to advise. It will be ok said the bank manager (without qualifying that it would be more ok for him than them). So perhaps the fault lies even more with those who gave credit to people that couldn't pay.

I think living within your means is a very sound principle. And I think that saving is a very good discipline. In fact I think buying something is so much more gratifying when you've had to wait to save up for it (unless its something you need like a new boiler).