March 22, 2003
Tax Cuts demonstrated into a way you'll understand!
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive; they owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register to pay the bill. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling a little put out, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12, and $18 respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59 (59%). He realized he was paying for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men.
The ten men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80.
This clearly would not affect the first four men; they still ate for free. The fifth man announced he would now pay nothing either. The sixth man lowered his contribution by 1/3 and paid only $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid only $5. The eighth man paid $9 instead of his usual $12. The ninth man paid $12, $6 less than before. This left the last man with a bill of $52.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled: "I got only $1 out of the $20 in cost reduction, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in:"Yeah! I only saved $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a reduction of $7 when I only got $2?"
The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "Even though we weren't paying anything in the first place, we didn't get any of the $20 reduction in cost; where is our share?"
The nine angry men then carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him.
The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. When the bill came, there was no one to pay it.
If you think the Bush tax cut plan is unfair, consider the following (the ratios are pretty accurate):
10% of the taxpayers pay 60% of the taxes; 30% pay 37%, and 60% collectively pay only 4%
The ten men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80.
This clearly would not affect the first four men; they still ate for free. The fifth man announced he would now pay nothing either. The sixth man lowered his contribution by 1/3 and paid only $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid only $5. The eighth man paid $9 instead of his usual $12. The ninth man paid $12, $6 less than before. This left the last man with a bill of $52.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled: "I got only $1 out of the $20 in cost reduction, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in:"Yeah! I only saved $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a reduction of $7 when I only got $2?"
The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "Even though we weren't paying anything in the first place, we didn't get any of the $20 reduction in cost; where is our share?"
The nine angry men then carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him.
The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. When the bill came, there was no one to pay it.
If you think the Bush tax cut plan is unfair, consider the following (the ratios are pretty accurate):
10% of the taxpayers pay 60% of the taxes; 30% pay 37%, and 60% collectively pay only 4%
Posted by roy on March 22, 2003 at 01:09 PM | 2 Comments
Comment with Facebook
Want to comment with Tabulas?. Please login.
yuhoo7
I think this posting makes some interesting points, although much of it I do not agree with. First of all, I don't really understand what is meant by (1), does this mean that we must take out every facet of the current Iraqi power structure and insert new people in every position? As to point two, I don't think that the reason we're not going after North Korea is because it is "beyond (our) scope of handling." In fact, I think just the opposite, that this "war" on Iraq may just be the beginning of a long campaign of "wars" against any country Bush and Company have a problem with. This war absolutely is not justified. If you wanna talk about broken UN resolutions, look at how many resolutions dealing with Israel that the US has blatantly violated. It is simply illegal for the US to take military action in Iraq, it is a violation of the United Nations Charter, to which the US is a signatory. I think this breach of international law far outweighs any other violations of resolutions. I really have trouble believing that Iraq is a threat to world peace, it is a country that has been severely weakened by twelve years of sanctions. I think it is important to remember that the United States supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, in fact, that was when we gave him WMD. As for the "gassing of the Kurds," there was a very interesting op-ed in the NY Times about a month ago by someone who used to work for the CIA, saying that there was not very strong evidence linking Iraq to that attack, that in fact Iran used that type of gas regularly. If you're interested in reading that, let me know. Finally, as far as protesting goes, I think it's more important now than ever to protest, it is so important to show the world that there is a strong segment of the American population that is against this "war." Along these lines, it is important to realize that one can support the troops while at the same time criticizing the policies of the leaders. In fact, I feel we support the troops more than the leaders who put them in harm's way, we are saying we don't want them over there in the first place.
Ed