7 ms·
Hmm. I wanted to post a link to one of the comments (currently the second-newest), but apparently his comment system doesn't have permalinks. So here's a copy-a
by m_myers 16y ago
Hmm. I wanted to post a link to one of the comments (currently the second-newest), but apparently his comment system doesn't have permalinks. So here's a copy-and-paste:
---
MikeStansky (http://dilbert.com/users/MikeStansky http://dilbert.com/users/MikeStansky)
Dec 27, 2010
I saw an amusing analogy on taxation:
Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and 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 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 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the 10 men would 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," 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 buck too. It's unfair -he got 10 times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy always win!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax 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 their 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, boys and girls, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally 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.
---
The comment id is 75340, if anyone knows how to hack the URLs.
- Daishiman 16y agoI don't buy this argument. The most prosperous nations have what might be considered "outrageously" high taxation rates on the rich, which the US used to have as well not that long ago. The countries which tax the rich to their favor are mostly tax havens and third-world economies that are plundered for their natural resources and the populance gets nothing in return. Seriously, there are forms of wealth which don't add value to societies, and if those people aren't willing to get into markets because it hurts their bottom line too much, so be it. "The Rich" are not a universally good group that adds value to all the economies where they do business; they too have their part in fucking up a huge number of locations around the world. Just as an example, Germany is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, and their economy is as socialist as it gets (in the European, modern use of the world, not the classical Marxist usage). Their labor force is highly skilled and sheltered, and its manufacturing base is strong. I don't see the same thing happening in the dirt-poor Caribbean tax havens.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoGermany's unemployment was 12.6% before Merkel took office in 2005 (http://www.icmrindia.org/Short%20Case%20Studies/Business%20Environment/CLIBE059.htm http://www.icmrindia.org/Short%20Case%20Studies/Business%20E...). That's hardly prosperous. She's done almost nothing but move the country further away from socialism and unemployment now stands at 6.7%. So I don't see your example as being very accurate.
- lkrubner 16y agoGermany has undergone a heroic transformation, absorbing East Germany and trying to modernize it. Considering that a quarter of the country was a complete basket case due to 60 years of Communist misrule, the miracle is how far Germany has managed to come in the last 18 years.
- TomOfTTB 16y agoRight but the fact that it cut it's unemployment in half in 5 years time while the rest of the world sank into a depression leads you to ask what they were doing that caused that. The fact that "what Merkel was doing" was moving the country away from Socialism contradicts the initial assertion that "Germany is a socialist as a nation comes and they're one of the most prosperous countries in the world"