Saw this on another forum

>> Sometimes politicians, journalists and others 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, I
> >> hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.
> >>
> >> Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
> >>
> >> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner 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 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." Dinner 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 eat 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 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 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 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 anymore. In fact,
> >> they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
> >> friendlier.
> >>
> >> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
> >> Professor of Economics
> >> University of Georgia

 

Thats a great illustration. And, what I've never understood is why percentage should be progressive in the tax system because it already is a progressive dollar amount. I mean 10% of $100 is a lot less than 10% of $1000, yet is the person who pays 10% on 1000 getting 10x the service from his govenment? Just once I'd like those who are in favor of taxing the rich more, admit that there is no justification for it except socialism- distribution of another's wealth. BTW, I'm not completely against that to a small degree. In fact, you could justifiy the rich paying more for national defence as they have more assests that need protection, so on an so forth.

 

It's even worse than you think. The illustration omits refundable tax credits, like Earned Income Credit. A person doesn't even have to pay taxes to get refundable credits, if you qualify--that is, you're poor. You just need a wage below a given amount and some children. A refundable tax credit is blatant redistribution of wealth.

 

Worse yet. When the feds loan money to a foreign government, then latter, forgive the debt. We are taxing ourselves to support people outside the USA. Taking from the rich and giving to the foreigners is unacceptable and no one cry's about it? Makes me think too much money is collected. Yea, yea, I know better.

 

We support foreigners (illegal immigrants) inside the US with our tax dollars, too.

 

Neither are really good for you and me.