HOW TO EXPLAIN TAX CUTS TO A LIBERAL (Very Effective)

[trueamerica]

This has been posted before but deserves a re-post. It is from David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics 536 Brooks Hall University of Georgia.

 

Tax Cuts Explained

 

Let's put tax cuts in terms that 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.
• 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."

 

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $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, 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 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 (29% 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 $50 instead of $59 (15% 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 $9!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got nine times more than me!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $9 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!"

 

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 at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

 

DEFEAT SOCIALISM – VOTE FOR BUSH

[marvlus]

cool!

[mwyounce]

It's a good article, but it wasn't him...

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~davidk/

[The Hollywood Conservative]

This is FABULOUS!

[Docbarleypop]

Atlas shrugged?? good post

[Proud Republican 99]

GREAT ARTICLE

[Arpege92]

Wow!

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Hilarious. Bump.

[stylin19a]

as oppose to a liberal explaining funding cuts.

- President Bush requests a 100% increase in education funding.
- Congress sends him a bill that provides only a 50% increase.
- The President signs the bill
- The next day's headline reads Kerry: "Bush cuts education funding by 50%"

[texaslil]

I've heard this story before and love it, but I hope you understand liberals lack the brain cells to follow it. To wit:

#1. They believe businesses pay taxes, not that they pass it along as a cost of doing business.
#2. They believe raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the poor. Again, businesses pass that cost on to everyone, even the poor don't escape inflation.
#3. They really believe that if all the rich were relieved of ALL their money, and it was passed around, the rest of us would be affluent. Last time I saw those figures, it worked out to be about 50.00 apiece for every man, woman, and child in the US.

Liberals are about ENVY, not ECONOMICS. One thing that can be said, however, is they understand human nature and use it as the path to power.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Capt. Tom]

Liberals are about ENVY, not ECONOMICS. One thing that can be said, however, is they understand human nature and use it as the path to power.

Vote for me and I will get you someone else's money is very appealing to poor people. - Tom

[spodefly]

BTTT

[discostu]

I've got a shorter one:
The day I come into work and find some welfare mother helping do my job is the day some welfare mother will deserve part of my paycheck.

[marblehead17]

Now that's a good one. LOL

[diamond6]

bump

[IMRight]

Great example right up until the end...

they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

The problem with that theory is that the resteraunts in Europe charge more and a higher percentage of it is paid by that man. Not an attractive option.

[driftless]

Believe me, being a Democrat kool-aid drinker means believeing that the rich (which ironically includes many Dems) pay little or no taxes. One of my Dem friends stoutly believes this. When I told him one time, after he had gone off about the rich paying no taxes, that the top fifty percent pay more than 96% of all federal income taxes. He just looked at me and said "I don't believe it".

Fellow freepers what we're talking about here is monumentally ignorant people who believe in the big pile of wealth theory where the greedy Republicans got to the big pile of wealth first and took most of it. Many of these Dems also believe government bureaucrats create wealth in a secret room in the back of some gov building. My conclusion is that free-market economics should be a mandatorily taught subject as early as high school. It wouldn't help some Dems, but a lot of people would finally understand how wealth is created.

[pop-aye]

bttt

[EdReform]

Ping