Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Our Tax System

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

TEXAN AVIATOR

Bewbies
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Posts
1,132
Good read.

I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the
conversation turned to the governments recent round of tax cuts. I am
opposed to those tax cuts, the retired college instructor declared,
because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than
ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that is not fair.
But the rich pay more in the first place, I argued, so it stands to
reason that they would get more money back. I could tell that my friend
was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, lets put tax
cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill
for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the
first four men 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.
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all
such good customers, he said, I am going to reduce the cost of your daily
meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. (Tax cut) Now to
figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the six that pay for
dinner so that everyone gets his fair share back?
The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract
that from the six that paid, then the fifth man and the sixth man end up
being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it
would be most fair to reduce each mans bill by roughly the same
percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work
out the amounts each should pay. The first 4 still paid nothing, but now
the fifth man! instead of paying $1 paid nothing, the sixth pitched in
$2 instead of the $3, the seventh paid $5 instead of the $7, the eighth
paid $9 instead of the $12, the ninth paid $12 instead of the $18,
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. I only
got a dollar out of the $20, complained the sixth man (who now pays $2
instead of the $3), and pointing to the tenth man indicated he gets $7
(paying $52 instead of $59). Yeah, that's right, exclaimed the fifth
man. I only saved a dollar too (now paying nothing instead of paying
$1). 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 (now paying $5
instead of the $7)? 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 next night the tenth 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 were $52 short!

And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how the America's
tax system works
 
One big assumption

Nice analogy, but it makes one big assumption:

It assumes everyone is dining on food of equal quantity and quality. It also assumes everyone is enjoying equal service.

That is just not the case in normal society and even the typical right-winger will admit as much.

In fact, one of my favorite right-wingers proudly proclaims: Life's not fair and it's not supposed to be.

So what are you trying to prove?
 
Thats an excellent point mar!

However, to take your analasys into the alalogy you may find something you dont like.

The 1-5th men are eating steak and potatoes. The 6th-9th are eating pasta, and the 10th gets raman.

Even more accurate, wouldnt you say?
 
Oh really?

Hmm. Your powers of discernment are greater than mine.

More power to you.
 
one good flat tax would sure be nice ;)
 
Re: Oh really?

mar said:
Hmm. Your powers of discernment are greater than mine.

More power to you.

What are you saying?
 
Read my lips

You're so good at reading between the lines, YOU tell ME!!!
 
An apology to Crizz

Crizz--I'm sorry.

I went back and read your post about what the guests had for dinner and realized I jumped to a conclusion.

I thought you were reading something into the analogy that didn't exist. And you were ;) but you were trying to be sympathetic to my point.

I should've engaged my brain rather than engage you in some relexive sparring...however good natured I intended it to be I still misunderstood and that's my fault.

Peace man
 
Last edited:
No worries man...


Dont get me wrong, however. I was affirming your point was valid by pointing out the inverse relationship of benefits to taxes paid.


I dont see any CEOs on public assistance.
 
A nice, equal consumption tax.

No social engineering.

No refunds on taxes not paid.

No inscrutable regulations.

No draconian enforcement actions.

Everybody pays. No one avoids.

Too easy.
 
Timebuilder said:
A nice, equal consumption tax.

No social engineering.

No refunds on taxes not paid.

No inscrutable regulations.

No draconian enforcement actions.

Everybody pays. No one avoids.

Too easy.


Dont be silly TB, no votes will be generated this way. Pfft...:rolleyes:
 
Consumption tax? I couldn't agree more! Even with the black market sure to spring up for everything, it would still be a better deal.
 
Consumption Tax

That's one sure way to encourage not spending money, and bring about black markets.

Flat Tax, no exemptions (except for being too poor), no deductions. Everyone pays the same percentage.
 
Right now a consumption tax would probably benefit the common person as BigDuke6 pointed out. That is probably why the guberment is not in favor of it.
If we ever go to a cashless society and all transactions can be recorded and monitored, then the guberment might re-think the consumption tax.
 
The only tax politicians will consider, (particularly the sleazier ones) is one that they can manipulate to benefit a particular group of voters. Politicians have already realized that they can tax a very small percentage of citizens and then use that money to pay for the votes of those less comitted to fending for themselves. Getting them to adopt a new idea will likely not happen without something near a revolt.

Fair tax is great, but don't expect the class warlords to let it happen. It would end their rule in Washington.
 
Very true Bart! On their face, notwithstanding my previous post, I'd be in favor of either a flat tax or a consumption tax, albeit both have their flaws.

The one negative about both, to me, is that by their nature (i.e. not allowing for "deductions") these plans cannot provide any incentives for investments. For example, I own two rental houses. I don't make much money on them, but they are good tax shelters, so they make up for themselves there. These are nice houses and we rent them to people who typically have families but cannot afford to buy a house. They need to get out of their apartments and find a decent place for their kids. Good enough. They usually stay for 2-4 years until they can afford to buy, then they move out, and I'm happy for them when they go. Some liberals may refer to me as being rich.

The bottom line is I don't think average people would be willing to take the risk of buying rental houses and rent them out to people they don't know if there were not good financial reasons to do so. I certainly don't make alot on the cash flow, although I make some profit that way, so the only other incentive to do it is for a tax break. Think about the impact to society if we take away those incentives. No more houses to rent, unless you were willing to pay substantially higher prices than you're paying now.

Although we all like to rail against it, there ARE good things that come from the government's use of the tax system to direct our society. So I would be in favor of revamping our system, but how do we do it and still provide incentives in certain areas of our lives? It would be very difficult, because there are competing interests and if you allow one, then you have to allow another and on and on. That's how we got to where we are today with the current system.
 
Big Duke,

I think the beauty of the flax tax or consumption tax would be that "incentives" wouldn't be dictated according to politicians' vote-buying whim. Incentives change from time to time, and such fickleness is indicative of social engineering fads, not sound policy. Besides, do you have any idea how much time and expense goes into just paying taxes every year? Compliance itself is an enormous expense. I think the lost productivity in aggregate more than destroys the benefits of any "tax incentives" that may come up.

As usual, the free market has a solution. A flat tax or comsumption tax may in itself relieve you of the need to shelter your income. But even if it doesn't, and the properties no longer pay their way, then you can raise the rent. If rents become too high, then home ownership will rise, and you can then sell your property at a profit. Assuming of course that you've taken good care of them. The free market will determine that.

Would there be some short-term chaos if there's such a drastic paradigm shift from a progressive income tax to a flax or consumption tax? You bet, but real estate is real estate, and over time your investment should be quite safe after the market seeks its own level.

The fact that you depend on a tax shelter just to keep more of what you already own is reason enough for a change.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top