Mareseatoatsanddoeseatoatsbutlittlelambseativy.

Thursday, April 15, 2004

God Save The Rich!

The way it works - US Tax system
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Economics, U of Georgia (...Does this guy really exist?)

Sometimes politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Economics;
536 Brooks Hall, University of Georgia. This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

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.
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 of $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 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 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!

And that, boys and girls, 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 at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

Thanks David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Economics, U of Georgia

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I bet you $1000.00 that David R. Kamerschen, PhD Professor of Economics University of Georgia Did not write this!
Any takers?

Consumer Product Jedi said...

Wow, that was lame. Good, let them go somewhere else to eat then. Then someone else will take their place making all that money. First of all, no one who buys anything gets a "free ride." You pay taxes every time you go to the store or fill your car up with gas. Second, it makes sense that those who have the nicest life, thanks to living in this country, pay higher taxes. People act as if all the rich people have to collect soda cans from dumbster to make ends meet.

I have a new example for you.

If someone makes 1,000,000 a year, and they pay 35%, they still have 650,000 a year. If someone makes 40,000 a year, and they pay 25% then they have about 30,000 left after taxes. I realize that was way more confusing than your dinner example (sarcasm)

More, the idea that people who work harder make more money, and people who make less money are just lazy, is completely false. Go try being a housekeeper making 9.50 an hour. Tell me they don't work just as hard as any CEO. I'm not suggesting socialism by any means, but it is so irritating when people use that completely bogus arguement. Almost always people are rich because they were born that way, and people are poor because they were born that way. CEOs almost always have a father, or some relative who was CEO before them, their friends are CEOs, etc.

Finally, at some point, if the rich keep getting richer on the backs of the poor, and keep crying like little cheerleaders on the rag about taxes, people like myself are just going to start stealin from them. And not feel the least bit bad about it either.

Cap'n Rusty said...

iam_davidh:
I am going to ask you to assume that we are talking about a free market economy. That is, one in which all financial transactions take place between a willing buyer and a willing seller, or a willing employee and a willing employer. That is, in all cases where money changes hands, both parties are satisfied with the deal.
The CEO who gets a million bucks is hired by the shareholders who own a company that can pay that much. Those shareholders aren't going to hire someone and pay them that much unless they feel that he/she can run the company well. So they try to find someone who has a lot of skill, even if he/she might not be physically able to do the manual labor of housekeeping. After all, it's their money.
Meanwhile, the housekeeper who take the job for 9.50 an hour may not have the skill to be a million-dollar CEO. Even though the work he/she does is physically demanding, lots of other people are willing to do that same work for that wage, so he/she can't demand any more than the market will pay.
Now, Dave, you are certainly free to hire a housekeeper and pay him/her a hundred bucks an hour if you want to. And I'm sure you'll get a of applicants for the job. And you'll be able to claim that you are morally superior to all the rest of us -- at least until your money runs out. But you'll probably have a really, really clean house.

Anonymous said...

Bar Stool Economics EXACTLY!  Consider this perspective!  
The 10th guy says, “to start with I’m paying 59% of the bill and getting only 10% of the benefit” which pisses off the other 9 guys. The next night the 10th guy shows up alone and figures that instead of just drinking his $49 beer he'd just as much fork over another $31 and drink all the rest of the beers for himself.  By the time he's finished with the 6th beer he falls off the stool cracking his head on the floor nearly killing himself!  The four poorest blokes soon showed up to claim the 4 free beers they couldn't bear to pass up and instead have to revive him!  
Oh you know what? Sounds a little like our current crisis eh?