how taxes work--probably a repost

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
101
got this from a friend in an email..

A straightforward look at taxes from a Professor at South Dakota University



How Taxes Work....



Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. 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 $7;

The eighth $12;

The ninth $18;

and the tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

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 (in tax language, a Tax Cut). Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now, dinner will only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six-the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man (who was paying $1) and the sixth man (who was paying $3) would 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 percentage amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man now paid nothing;

The sixth pitched in $2;

The seventh paid $5;

The eighth paid $9;

The ninth paid $12

Leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

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, but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7.00.

Yeah, that's right, exclaimed the fifth man, I only saved a dollar, too,

........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!

That's true! Shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? 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!

So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he 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, a little late, what was very important. The bill for dinner was still $80.00 and they were now FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the 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 at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!


 

ScoobMaster

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2001
2,528
10
81
Precisely why I always argue for a FLAT PERCENTAGE RATE tax!

I have extended family members that routinely pay $0 in taxes yet get a $2000-$4000 "Tax Refund" check

Refund???? That is no refund! It is a welfare handout!
 

Richdog

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2003
1,658
0
0
Originally posted by: slag

And that, boys and girls, journalists, college instructors, and all-round boring b*stards, is how the 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 at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
OK
The falacy of this argument and has always been that there is only ONE taxing authority .
Since people are exposed to different levels of taxation Federal State Municiple the rich do indeed find loopholes from exposure that exempt them from taxes others can't avoid. This argument is way too simplistic for real world actualities.
If there were no other taxes a flat tax could work or look into simply a sales tax on everything with no taxes on anything else, there are some interesting pros there!
I'm not so concerned about an individuals wealth but you look at the stuff corporations which under law, are citizens , get away with something needs to be fixed there.
 

Rapidskies

Golden Member
May 27, 2003
1,165
0
0
The first four men (the poorest) are currently unemployeed software programmers from Inatech and are homeless.

The fifth is living out of his car but collects enough bottles a day to chip in $1.

The sixth works at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage.

The seventh has a $10 dollar an hour job and has to support a family on $20k a year.

The eighth went to college for programming and is currently employeed by Inatech, though his 4 buddies jobs were outsourced to India recently and he is training their replacements.

The ninth pursued the path of a Doctor and makes a good living, though insurance rates for malpractice are sky high and he is debating whether or not his chosen profession is worth it any more. Maybe he will go back to school for programming, he always liked that.

and the tenth man (the richest) owns a software programming company called Inatech which is making more money now than ever due to his India connections.
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
The poor require a much higher percentage of their income to live. Taking 7% from someone that makes 15k a year is going to hurt a hell of a lot more than taking 7% from someone that makes 100k a year. The same goes for the national sales tax concept... the poor spend a much larger percentage of their income on day to day living, thus they would be taxed at a much higher rate (per percentage) than a wealthier person.
 

ScoobMaster

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2001
2,528
10
81
Originally posted by: desy
........or look into simply a sales tax on everything with no taxes on anything else
.........

This is called a CONSUMPTION TAX and I agree it would be a good idea (and much better than the current bloated mess of a tax system we have now).

 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
Phase one: take half a citizen's paycheck.
Phase two: collect underpants.
Phase three: profit.
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126
"I have extended family members that routinely pay $0 in taxes yet get a $2000-$4000 "Tax Refund" check"

Huh? If you can describe how this works, I would be interested to know.
I think they are doing their taxes wrong. You can't go into negative taxes and then get money you never paid. Thats why its a refund, not a payment plan. Maybe you should let the IRS know. ;)
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Its called the progressive tax system. It is a freaking ripoff to anyone who is wealthy or anyone who aspires to have wealth.
 

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0
Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
Precisely why I always argue for a FLAT PERCENTAGE RATE tax!

I have extended family members that routinely pay $0 in taxes yet get a $2000-$4000 "Tax Refund" check

Refund???? That is no refund! It is a welfare handout!

By $0 taxes do you mean they don't have a job with a W2?
B/c lots of people do that. It's despicable b/c the government has managed to convince ordinary people to give it a zero interest loan every year and that they should be happy to get back the money they loaned.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,187
4,853
126
Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
Originally posted by: desy
........or look into simply a sales tax on everything with no taxes on anything else
.........
This is called a CONSUMPTION TAX and I agree it would be a good idea (and much better than the current bloated mess of a tax system we have now).
The biggest problem with that tax is that not every local in the world has it. So the most wealthy can earn their money in a location without income taxes (but consumption taxes), and then since they are wealthy they can purchase their goods in a location which doesn't have a consumption tax or who's consumption tax is quite low. Essentially if you are wealthy enough to do that, you'll pay 0% tax on everything - no income tax (since it doesn't exist at your home), no property tax (since it doesn't exist at your home), and no sales tax (since you buy your goods elsewhere). The poor who cannot afford to travel and purchase things abroad will be forced to pay taxes on everything.

Or for another look at it: the rich would save their money or invest it - and never ever pay taxes on the vast majority of their income. The poor who cannot save or invest pay taxes on 100% of their income.

Either way you are shifting the tax from being a burden on the rich to the poor. It will never succeed in the long run.
 

shenaniganz

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,019
0
71
Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
Originally posted by: desy
........or look into simply a sales tax on everything with no taxes on anything else
.........

This is called a CONSUMPTION TAX and I agree it would be a good idea (and much better than the current bloated mess of a tax system we have now).

I like this idea too. The problem is that too many people would lose their jobs--tax lawyers, CPA's, etc... We screwed the system up to begin with now we're stuck with it.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
Precisely why I always argue for a FLAT PERCENTAGE RATE tax!

I have extended family members that routinely pay $0 in taxes yet get a $2000-$4000 "Tax Refund" check

Refund???? That is no refund! It is a welfare handout!

By $0 taxes do you mean they don't have a job with a W2?
B/c lots of people do that. It's despicable b/c the government has managed to convince ordinary people to give it a zero interest loan every year and that they should be happy to get back the money they loaned.

That's just the beginning. Ordinary people also pay a hidden tax every year called the inflation tax. 1-2% of their earnings are sucked right out from underneath their noses. This is the most clever tax of all as not 1 person in 1000 can figure it out.
 

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,020
156
106
Originally posted by: KB
Huh? If you can describe how this works, I would be interested to know.
I think they are doing their taxes wrong. You can't go into negative taxes and then get money you never paid. Thats why its a refund, not a payment plan. Maybe you should let the IRS know. ;)

The most common explanation for this is the Earned Income Tax credit. If you work, you don't earn much, and have dependents, you can qualify for the EIT credit. Being as it's a tax credit (and not a deduction) you can end up with a refund for money you never paid.

Example: wages $12,000, tax owed $0, EIT credit $1500 = refund of $1500
 

astroview

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,907
0
0
Originally posted by: KB
"I have extended family members that routinely pay $0 in taxes yet get a $2000-$4000 "Tax Refund" check"

Huh? If you can describe how this works, I would be interested to know.
I think they are doing their taxes wrong. You can't go into negative taxes and then get money you never paid. Thats why its a refund, not a payment plan. Maybe you should let the IRS know. ;)

It works pretty simply, if you're poor and have kids you do get welfare benefits administered through the IRS. It is commonly known as the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is possible that poster's family meets the standard for the EITC. I believe there are other credits like the Child Tax Credit that can give extra money beyond what was paid as well.

As for the First post that started this thread, he assumes the richest taxpayer can leave the system. Easier said than done. In addition what about the fact that the richest people have complicated tax evasion schemes, just look at the headlines about the major accounting and law firms in the country facing civil suits and criminal prosecution for illegal tax evasion through complicated trusts, off shore accounts, etc.... The first post is disingenuous.

 

shenaniganz

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,019
0
71
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: KB
Huh? If you can describe how this works, I would be interested to know.
I think they are doing their taxes wrong. You can't go into negative taxes and then get money you never paid. Thats why its a refund, not a payment plan. Maybe you should let the IRS know. ;)

The most common explanation for this is the Earned Income Tax credit. If you work, you don't earn much, and have dependents, you can qualify for the EIT credit. Being as it's a tax credit (and not a deduction) you can end up with a refund for money you never paid.

Example: wages $12,000, tax owed $0, EIT credit $1500 = refund of $1500

Just being a devils advocate here. If people pay no taxes should they be allowed to vote. We have no taxation without representation, should there be no representation without taxation?

 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
if you really think this is how the tax system works, I pity you. If you think you can simplify the IRS code into such a compact summary, I'm sure they'd love to have you on board.

Truth is the Bush tax cuts have done nothing good for this economy. Companies are making profits and not hiring more people nor are they increasing wages.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,187
4,853
126
Back on topic: yes this is a repost of a repost of a repost.

There are two major flaws in the logic used here. Flaw #1: "But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man (who was paying $1) and the sixth man (who was paying $3) would end up being PAID to eat their meal." No tax CUT ever works that way (there are other programs which do this, but tax cuts don't). If this was truely a tax cut by diving up the same amount, then everyone would pay $4 less and if they started with less than $4 they pay $0. This leaves:
Men 1-6 pay $0,
#7 pays $3,
#8 pays $8,
#9 pays $14,
#10 pays $55.
That would be a tax cut where everyone is cut by the same total amount. This type of tax cut is very rare, but can occur. Just cut the bottom tax rung only and you will get this type of tax cut. I'm just pointing out that the $3.33 number is incorrect for a tax cut.

There is a second flaw in the logic as well. The second flaw is in the statement, "reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage amount". Here is the percentage cut used in your numbers:
Men 1-4: No cut of course since they paid no tax,
#5 got a 100% cut,
#6 got a 33.3% cut,
#7 got a 28.6% cut,
#8 got a 25.0% cut,
#9 got a 33.3% cut,
#10 got a 11.9% cut.
Notice how this is not even close to "everyone reduced by the same percentage amount".

I'm not arguing the merrits of either cut, but that the numbers used are all wrong.

The final minor flaw in the logic is the amount the nine men must pay. Why would a restaurant charge $80 for ten people and $80 for nine people? I would think it should be slightly less now that the tenth man didn't eat. Then of course, in reality,does the tenth man have a choice not to pay eat (ie can he just choose not to pay taxes since he was beaten up?) I cannot think of many situations where a man can legally just choose not to pay his taxes.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,187
4,853
126
Originally posted by: kranky
The most common explanation for this is the Earned Income Tax credit. If you work, you don't earn much, and have dependents, you can qualify for the EIT credit. Being as it's a tax credit (and not a deduction) you can end up with a refund for money you never paid.

Example: wages $12,000, tax owed $0, EIT credit $1500 = refund of $1500
That would possibly work for man #1 or #2, but men #5 and #6 do not qualify for the EITC in this example (they are at or above the average income level). So in this example, the EITC isn't important and won't affect the results, men #5 and #6 won't get money back for eating.

Yes Scoobmaster, that is what EITC is: one form of welfare.
 

ScoobMaster

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2001
2,528
10
81
Originally posted by: beer
if you really think this is how the tax system works, I pity you. If you think you can simplify the IRS code into such a compact summary, I'm sure they'd love to have you on board.

Truth is the Bush tax cuts have done nothing good for this economy. Companies are making profits and not hiring more people nor are they increasing wages.


I like the idea of keeping more of MY EARNED money instead of giving a huge chunk to the government to spend.

Please explain to me how money spent (and therefore put into circulation in our capatalistic economy) by the federal, state, and local governments is better than money spent by individuals?
 

ScoobMaster

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2001
2,528
10
81
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: kranky
The most common explanation for this is the Earned Income Tax credit. If you work, you don't earn much, and have dependents, you can qualify for the EIT credit. Being as it's a tax credit (and not a deduction) you can end up with a refund for money you never paid.

Example: wages $12,000, tax owed $0, EIT credit $1500 = refund of $1500
That would possibly work for man #1 or #2, but men #5 and #6 do not qualify for the EITC in this example (they are at or above the average income level). So in this example, the EITC isn't important and won't affect the results, men #5 and #6 won't get money back for eating.

Yes Scoobmaster, that is what EITC is: one form of welfare.

The EITC is *PRECISELY* the mechanism that enables this redistribution of wealth disguised as a "refund" to occur. (I would elaborate, but other posters have already done a good job of it ;) )

 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
Scoob Are you spending your money on national security? Law, crime and punishment and on and on and on?
Or just purely shelfish things?
IF you live in a society, there are things that need to be done and its easier and more cost effective to have one governing body to do the work.
Now if you want to argue percentages thats different but you can't deny there is a place for gov't and money has to come from somewhere. . .