Here's the thing: just re-write the end of the story, and it makes the exact opposite point. -- But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their sav

Here's the thing: just re-write the end of the story, and it makes the exact opposite point. -- But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only saved 16% out of the 20% reduction," declared the tenth man. He pointed to the sixth man, "But he saved 100%" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the ninth man. "I only saved 22%. It's unfair -he got much more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the eighth man. "Why should he get 100% back, when I got only 25%? The poor always win!" The eighth, ninth, and tenth men got together and talked to the bartender, who (because their money was keeping him in business) agreed to no longer serve the group unless they adopted a less progressive schedule. And that, boys and girls, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest tax rate will naturally get the least benefit from a tax reduction, but they have the most power to explicitly direct a reduction to themselves. -- Note that however it may seem, I don't mean to argue a particular position by this. I'm only pointing out how changing a little piece at the end completely changes the message of the parable. It's a complete hypothetical either way. I've been calling this the "Fallacy of the Parable": using a parable in place of a reasoned argument.