Adam

Clearly the metaphor is directly correlated to income tax, so lets take a look. First of all, are 40% of Americans not paying any income tax (note that the story says “the poorest”, not “the poor class”. It’s simply a relative term stating that those four men are the poorest out of the ten)? The answer: Yes. According to TaxFoundation.org, 44% of the U.S. population does not pay income taxes. 75% of this section of the population earns under $20K a year, and 97% earns less than $40K. Fewer than 1% of those who pay no taxes earn more than $75K a year. So four out of the ten men not paying anything is a fair claim.

What about the rich? Is the richest man really shouldering 59% of the total bill? Yes. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top five percentage (wealthiest) taxpayers in America pay about 59.2% of all the income tax. Since we can’t have half a person, we round the five percent to ten (one out of ten men) for the sake of preserving the ratio in blocks of ten. So the rich man supporting as much of the bill as he does is also a fair claim.

What about the nine other men ganging up on the tenth man? Well, as we can tell by several of the postings here as well as how the public’s general opinion on the tax system is “pass the rates on up!”, we can safely say, yes.

Would the tenth man really leave? Well, the tenth man may not physically leave, but his money will. The tenth man can easily invest overseas if he feels a better, less hostile opportunity to make more money awaits (see RacerX’s post, perfect example). Why do you think there’s been so much outsourcing to China? You can argue ethics and greed all day, but the simple fact is the rich will invest overseas if they see it as more profitable. Thats how America got started (foreign investors clamoring to give money to people like Carnegie and Rockefeller as they started up industries in steel and oil, and the influx of cash promoted cash flow and grew the economy, as well as gave America a chance to rapidly expand and industrialize), so why muck it all up by throwing even MORE taxes towards the rich?

Mr. AverageAmerican did bring up a good point in the first half of his spiel about factoring in things like Social Security and sales tax. But thats just it. In ratio to income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, and sales tax are all much smaller. Thusly, if the large burden of income tax is released off of these “poorer” men, they should be more than able to pay their SS, Medicare, and sales taxes comfortably without taking a significant blow to their budget (unless they’re burning money on booze, cigarettes, and lotto tickets now, are they?). As far as the random nonsequitorial garble about Limited Liability Companies and a low-rent apartment that the rich man is graciously letting the poor men stay in, it is not only utter bull but also completely irrelevant to the metaphor.

Overall, this metaphor is a pretty accurate representation of the federal tax system. Remember, kids, that our tax system is progressive, meaning the more you make, the higher percentage you pay. Naturally, those who pay a higher rate are entitled to more “breaks” because they’re paying a higher tax percentage than you are. If we had a flat tax rate *cough* fair *cough*, where everyone paid the same percentage of their income, regardless of amount of income, then of course this would be outrageous. But since they’re paying a higher percentage, its only fair that they have more opportunities for said “breaks”. Besides, the poor have it pretty well off as far as income tax goes (40% don’t pay taxes, remember, and 97% of the zero-tax filers are making under $40K a year, many also receiving tax credits).

Aside from all of this logic, I think that Ron brought up an excellent point (and Level Headed certainly lived up to his name). Just because someone has more than you doesn’t give you a right to take from him because of it. A man is entitled to the sweat of his back. Thats what America was founded on, opportunity. Now, I know Anonymous said something earlier to the effect of “if I were that rich, I wouldn’t mind paying 30 something percent of my earning to the government.” Well of course you wouldn’t, because thats all based on perception. Walk in the shoes of someone who is truly poor, who struggles each day to make ends meet and keep food on the table. He is sitting there thinking “If only I had YOUR income, I wouldn’t mind having to pay income tax then, because I’d be able to feed myself and not struggle to pay my bills as I do now.” Everyone will always want what they don’t have, and take for granted that which they do. That poor man wouldn’t mind paying the tax bracket you’re in if he could have your lifestyle, just like you wouldn’t mind paying the rich tax bracket if you had their lifestyle. But does that mean that because YOU wouldn’t mind means they should receive more taxes? Of course not. They are entitled to have what they have made, just as you are entitled to have what you have made.

It’s scary when I read over these posts, seeing so many condemning the rich and wanting to make them pay more and more into the system. Wanting to take from someone because they have more than you is walking a dangerous line. Taking what you have and giving you what you “need” is socialism/communism (the idea that looks great on paper but ends up degrading the standard of living tremendously when put into practice (*ahem* China, Cuba)), and that’s not the principle America was founded on. What you “need” is determined solely by the controlling government, as well as how your “needs” are provided for. If you prefer a society where the rich have much more taken from them to the point where everyone is left with the same amount of money, and that collected money is turned around to provide what you “need”, go grab yourself a dinghy or a door and start paddling to Cuba, because that’s not how America runs. Thusly, trying to take more and more from the rich to disperse among the people is leaning dangerously close to a socialistic attitude, which will not give people the opportunities they have with our current system of government and tax law.

I hope this clarified the metaphor and helped recognize its validity as well as answer some of the questions and comments put forth in previous postings. Feel free to look into some of the sites and organizations I referenced, learning about the tax structure and who pays what is rather interesting once you start getting into it (hence I was able to interject when I stumbled upon this clever metaphor).

-Incognito

Due to the mass circulation of this email, the Professor, Dr. Kamerschen, has denied having anything to do with it. I can only assume that is due to its simplicity. If you google his name, that is the first thing that pops up.

Overall, it sounds good. I would say the alluring part of, “Hey that makes sense”, is that you can’t argue with the math (fractions) incorporated in the analogy. What you can argue with – is the analogy though and how the numbers are applied.
I have my reservations on this analogy for one major reason, the fact that it simplifies the entire social economic makeup of the country by trying to suggest it with percentages of tenths and placing the super rich with the poorest of poor at the same bar drinking the same beer.
For example, the email labels the country makeup into basically 7 classes – which is close to what most people would use. Most people look at it this way: you can break the US into 6 classes – Upper Class (Rich) 1%, Upper Middle Class 15%, Lower Middle Class 30%, Lower Working Class 30%, Lower Working Poor 30% and the Underclass (Poor) 12%. Now the email’s analogy tries to throw 10% of the population as the rich people paying all these taxes and unfairly treated by tax returns and that 40% are ungrateful no good rift raft, who doesn’t work or pay their share, but gets to enjoy the beer. Is that accurate? If you divided the country up per 10 people in the bar, it would be 0.1 persons being the rich guy and 1.2 persons being the destitute poor – with the working and paying stiffs in middle being 8.8 people.
The email leaves out what percentage (%) of the rich guy’s total yearly income he is paying towards taxes though, as compared to the rest.
I have a question; does the entire 12% of the population in the destitute class get everything free? And with that said, are they drinking the same beer as the rest of us, or even the upper 1%. I think the upper 1% is drinking something a little bit different than those 4 guys or actually 1.2 guys on the bottom.
If you look at unemployment rates, it would be something like 0.5 people not able to contribute to paying for the beer. If I keep defending the super poor point, I might start sounding like Mother Teresa…
Let’s look at the middle. While researching, I was a little annoyed to find myself not as well off as I might think. Most people I know think that the tax cuts for the rich include them. The upper middle class is described as white collar with graduate degrees, middle and upper management, with $100,000 income. The lower middle class is the bachelor degrees white collars and specialty trade college or high school educated making up to $75k. The Lower classes of the working class and working poor, key word “working”, are those in the blue collar world, repetitive manufacturing positions or service industry making $20k to $40k (hell that even sounds like the teachers of our children). The underclass, or the destitute, of coarse make something around 0 to I think $12k (that makes up some 37 million people – lazy bastards – all of them)….I guess I am lower middle class after all.
The upper class, comprising of 3 million folks out of 304 Million, make $350,000 per year or more. Most of them are executives of companies, inheritance winners, or specialty rich (sports, entertainment etc.) I would like to see what percentage of those people started out in the lower or upper middle class and worked hard and smart to get to the upper class. I fear that the number isn’t too high and the odds might be stacked against me…but I will dream and I will try. But if I do make it there, I doubt I will be complaining about paying 30 something percent of my earnings to the government. I think right now it is less than that.
I think that most societies of the past worked well with having a happy middle and not too big of a poor class. Once you get too much descent with the masses (301 million people compared to the 3 million that the below email is scared of), you can have chaos and rebellion.
Would all 3 million of the super rich leave us and go to other foreign countries to spend their money? Is this really a good analogy to use? Some may say that most of the 3 million wouldn’t be where they are without the spending and working power of the middle class (you and me). The beer/bar analogy is making it sound otherwise…”If it wasn’t for the rich, I guess there wouldn’t be an America.” I thought if it wasn’t for the great middle class there wouldn’t be an America…that is what built this country, right.
Let’s not confuse a rich person with corporations, even though they are considered the same under the law in regards to rights. Corporations move their money overseas, not people.
So, is the tax analogy correct or is it actually paying the correct picture? Were the numbers used describing reality? Do you and I pay the same percentage of our yearly wage the same as those fortunate enough to have so much wealth?
If you were so filthy rich, would you mind paying for a poor man’s beer? Are other country’s better at treating their rich, or do they just have too many poor people and not enough middle class to support the prospect of becoming rich? I would think that more baseball stars would live over-seas. Why hasn’t Bill Gates moved to…”insert country’s name who tax their rich less than the US”.
Darn those politicians trying to give those lower middle class people less burden. They must know there are 182 million people in the low mid to working classes who vote.
Finally, a word from the great Lady of Liberty herself, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door” -from “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus (on pedestal of statue).

My ten cents or sixteen.

I realize as a country people will never be in agreement as to what confiscatory taxes should be spent on but in our 200+ year history when did it become okay to take more from your neighbor because you don’t have as much as he? And on top of that berate him for having some left over?

Some of the commenters here have provided the same tired comments on many other sites. They’re trolls. But for the others who honestly feel that it’s okay, by threat of force, to take money from one American and give it to another I have to ask…how is that fair?

Ron

The rich man, having been badly beaten, decides “I don’t need anybody else. My riches are sufficient, and all these poor people are living off my sweat and hard work! I’ll form my own society, where these types are not invited!”

The rich man forms his own society where he can enjoy the fruits of his labor. However, he quickly discovers that no one takes this strange foreign currency, “US Dollars”. Additionally, his new society doesn’t seem to value his ability to sell real estate over the internet, or collect rent from his income-producing properties. “Why can’t you make us a shoe, or build a house?” they ask him.

Now desperately poor and alone, the formerly rich man wishes he could pay his taxes and thus retain his feeling of superiority over his former friends.

How did Ireland right itself? It lowered taxes to bring jobs in.

Beating the rich will get you elected and empty the coffers!

On a similar note, how much would any of you be willing to pay at birth to have been born in the good ole USofA? I know I would certainly pay a lot and so would many other people. Now, flip that around a little, if you manage to become wealthy during your lifetime how much would you be willing to pay to have been born in the USA (meaning someone would go back in time and make you be born in a random other country if you don’t pay up). I’d pay almost everything to ensure I (and my children, and so on) to ensure the freedom and opportunities that being here gave me.

Now that everyone is thinking on the right page, we can talk about income and estate taxes. Besides, going to an unfamiliar bar to drink by yourself is pretty lame.

So how does the richer on the people pay more? I think this is true for quite a lot of people.