Tax cuts explained?

[Badcat]

TAXES
Lets put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten people 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 (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 (the richest) would pay $59.
So, thats what they decided to do.
They ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a problem. "Since you are all such good customers," the owner 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 were unaffected, they would still eat for free.
What about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their fair share?
The six paying customers realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. If they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth and the sixth would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each persons bill by roughly the same amount, and proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth, 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. The first four continued to eat for free. Once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth, pointing to the tenth diner "but they got $10!"
"Yeah, thats right," exclaimed the fifth. "I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that they got ten times more than me!"
"Thats true!!" shouted the seventh. "Why should they get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four in unison. "We didnt get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine surrounded and beat up the tenth diner.
The next night the tenth diner didnt show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without number ten. When it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didnt have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
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 any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

[Skyryder]

The analogy between Tax Cuts and group eating out at their favourite reaturant does not work on the following basis

1 Every one pays tax. Even the first four.
2 While the richest pay the most, they also have the most tax breaks.
3 As a result of 2 they actually pay the least and in some cases even less than the first four.
4 The reason the 10 (richest) don't turn up to the diner has nothing to do with the cost of the food but the labour that produces it.

Conclusion. The G8 will still be talking about third world poverty at their next conference because it's in the western's buisness interests to keep it that way.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The analogy between Tax Cuts and group eating out at their favourite reaturant does not work on the following basis

1 Every one pays tax. Even the first four.
2 While the richest pay the most, they also have the most tax breaks.
3 As a result of 2 they actually pay the least and in some cases even less than the first four.
4 The reason the 10 (richest) don't turn up to the diner has nothing to do with the cost of the food but the labour that produces it.

Conclusion. The G8 will still be talking about third world poverty at their next conference because it's in the western's buisness interests to keep it that way.


Skyryder

PS I forgot about

# 5 If Brash gets in those of us who are not part of the group dinner (#11 out) will be paying more because the Resturant owner will be wanting to make up the difference for the discount he has given to the 10 customers.

His operating costs will be going up along with ours.

Skyryder

[DingDong]

Lets say, there are only 100 people who dont pay to eat in NZ...I kick four dole-bludgers arses (because they attack me for not paying enough tax) and I'll end up paying 4% less tax...

Answer me this... would communisium (sp) be better?

[TwoSeven]

TAXES
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 were unaffected, they would still eat for free.
What about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their fair share?
The six paying customers realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. If they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth and the sixth would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

This calculation is wrong.

Their meal has been discounted by 20%. So each persons new fee is 20% less than it was.

1 = 0.80
2 = 2.40
3 = 5.60
4 = 9.60
5 = 14.40
6 = 47.20

The first 4 have nothing to do with the equation, since they originally paid nothing and are not part of the economic equation.

If this were correctly done as tax cuts, then it would be the same as giving every tax band a 20% reduction of its original amount.

The old tax rate was:

00,000 - 38,000 = 19.5%
38,001 - 60,000 = 33%
60,001 - upwards = 39%

The new tax rate would be.

00,000 - 38,000 = 15.6%
38,001 - 60,000 = 26.4%
60,000 - upwards = 31.2%

According to These figures the average single person working in new zealand is paying the lowest tax rate.

[Badcat]

i was sent it.
maybe it's US tax rates.
i thought it was thought provoking...
that proves it - i AM full of shit..
k

[ajturbo]

T There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

found a couple a great ones in Key West also

[TwoSeven]

i was sent it.
maybe it's US tax rates.
i thought it was thought provoking...
that proves it - i AM full of shit..
k

No.

Wouldnt it just mean we really dont want to live in the US

[Ixion]

Lets say, there are only 100 people who dont pay to eat in NZ...I kick four dole-bludgers arses (because they attack me for not paying enough tax) and I'll end up paying 4% less tax...

Answer me this... would communisium (sp) be better?

Of course it would! I'm a communist y'know.That speaks for itself.

[Big Dave]

I'm a communist y'know.That speaks for itself.

No - it only speaks for the state. You're not allowed to speak for yourself.

[Devil]

2 While the richest pay the most, they also have the most tax breaks.

Explain please.

[bane]

apologise if all done b4... Note: the info contained within is not necessarily the view of the poster

You've heard the cry in the last couple of weeks: "It's just a tax cut
for the rich!"

But what does that statement really mean? The following
explanation may help. (or more likely just piss people off )

Suppose that every night, ten men go out for dinner. The
bill for all ten comes to $100. They decide to pay their
bill the way we pay our taxes, and it goes like this:

The first four men (lowest income) paid nothing
The fifth paid $1
The sixth $3
The seventh $7
The eighth $12
The ninth $18
The tenth man (highest earner) paid $59


All 10 are used to the arrangement, until one day, the
owner says: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to
reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now their dinner for ten only costs $80. The group still decides
to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men are
unaffected. They will still eat for free.

But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realise that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtract
that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each
end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggests reducing each
man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
The fifth man pays nothing (like the first four),instead of $1(100%saving)
The sixth pays $2 instead of $3 (33% saving)
The seventh pays $5 instead of $7 (28% saving)
The eighth pays $9 instead of $12 (25% saving)
The ninth pays $14 instead of $18 (22% saving)
The tenth pays $49 instead of $59 (16% saving)

Each of the six are better off, and the first four continue to eat
for free, as now does the fifth - but 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!"

" 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 $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 then surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat
down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they
discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to
meet even half of the bill!

Moral? Tax people too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

[idb]

apologise if all done b4... Note: the info contained within is not necessarily the view of the poster

You've heard the cry in the last couple of weeks: "It's just a tax cut
for the rich!"

But what does that statement really mean? The following
explanation may help. (or more likely just piss people off )

Suppose that every night, ten men go out for dinner. The
bill for all ten comes to $100. They decide to pay their
bill the way we pay our taxes, and it goes like this:

The first four men (lowest income) paid nothing
The fifth paid $1
The sixth $3
The seventh $7
The eighth $12
The ninth $18
The tenth man (highest earner) paid $59


All 10 are used to the arrangement, until one day, the
owner says: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to
reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now their dinner for ten only costs $80. The group still decides
to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men are
unaffected. They will still eat for free.

But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realise that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtract
that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each
end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggests reducing each
man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
The fifth man pays nothing (like the first four),instead of $1(100%saving)
The sixth pays $2 instead of $3 (33% saving)
The seventh pays $5 instead of $7 (28% saving)
The eighth pays $9 instead of $12 (25% saving)
The ninth pays $14 instead of $18 (22% saving)
The tenth pays $49 instead of $59 (16% saving)

Each of the six are better off, and the first four continue to eat
for free, as now does the fifth - but 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!"

" 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 $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 then surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat
down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they
discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to
meet even half of the bill!

Moral? Tax people too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Thank you.
Now hopefully I'll stop being beaten up at restaurants.

[Jantar]

Even without the reduction, the 10th man eventually gets pissed off and goes to eat at a different restaurant. Maybe one that's in Australia.

Tax cuts are the fairest means of ensuring that everyone shares the nation's prosperity.

[Coyote]

I can tell it's right wing propaganda, but somehow I agree with it