Taxes, 'Some food for thought'

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Ten men go out to dinner.


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 like this:

The first four men ( the poorest ) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
And the tenth man ( the richest ) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decide to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner through 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 men 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. But what about the other six, the paying costermers ? How would they divvy up the $20 winfall so that everyone would get their
‘ fair share ‘ ?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everbody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man 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 amount, and he procceded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so :
The fifth man like the first four , now paid nothing ( 100% savings )
The sixth man 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 men was better off than before . And the first four continued to eat for free. But once out side 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 a $10 saveing“
“ Yeah 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 only got $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks ! “
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men. “ we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”
The nine men surrounded the tenth man 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 them for even half of the bill !.

And that boys and girls, is how or 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.


Please note that this was e-mailed to me from a freind. I thought that it might be fun for some of you to also read.

John.
 
Hi Wild One...do not despair, as this is the first I have seen it, and I liked it.:D

If we all assumed everyone had the same level of knowledge as ourselves, and we had nothing more to add, we would learn nothing.

Tell me, how do they work out the tip?:p


GarryK
 
Yeah, must admit that I'd read that before here on SS, but it IS still a great way of explaining the tax system in an intuitive fashion.

You're right that we can't assume everyone here has read every old post... I'm just one of those guys that reads far too much of what is posted here. :eek: :p

Cheers,
Michael.
 
Hi all,

I can't resist this nonsense anymore.

The bill for all ten comes to $100.

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

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner,

1. In this country the top tax rate is 48.5%.(including medicare)

2. If the tenth man does not show up, then he does not make the other money that gets him to be the richest. (unless you let him have his cake and eat it to).

3.
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
You have got to be kidding!! This is not happening in the real world, closer to the other way around!!

If you want to believe in this stuff, good luck.

bye
 
Lets take this one step further Bill.

The rich man wouldn't want to be eating in the same resaurant as the poorer man. He would find a way to expense the meal by taking out business associates to a flash restaurant (the poorer men can't afford to eat in the flash restaurant). He would effectively pay $0 of his own money and his business would reap the rewards through the good will generated through the lunch
 
Bill.L and Willg. Gentlemen, of course this is nonsence. It's 100% factitious.

I read it as fun, humorous, not at all to be taken seriosly.

I thought others would find it as silly as I did, and may be get a little laugh out of it.

Didn't you ? :D
 
G'day Bill.L,

Maybe this helps to date the original story then????
1. In this country the top tax rate is 48.5%.(including medicare)
Was it in the 50's that the top Marginal Tax Rate was 60% ??? Maybe the story has been around that long?? :D To me, the tenet still holds true....

2. If the tenth man does not show up, then he does not make the other money that gets him to be the richest. (unless you let him have his cake and eat it to).
Isn't THAT the whole point behind the original story anyway? If Mr. High Tax Payer is no longer paying the high Tax, guess what happens? It falls to the rest to make up the difference. Whether or not he's now "on the dole" is to miss the point completely IMHO.

You have got to be kidding!! This is not happening in the real world, closer to the other way around!!
Bill, you must've had your eyes closed when the Govt. of the day decided to increase the 48.5% threshold (i.e. negating some of the Tax Creep that had built up....) initially to $60k (in 2000), then $70k, then $80k in 2005 (I think I recall) The howls of protest resounded over the "rich getting all the breaks". (Completely forgetting - conveniently - that the limits for 31.5% were also extended from $38k to $50k initially, then on up to $63k - meaning the "average earner" NOW pays no more than 31.5%).

And about time too - but this didn't stop the howls of derision that accompanied the similar lifting of the "richer" Marginal levels.

It's not like the Govt is GIVING the rich more money back - it's just they're not TAKING so much from us. But it's still NEARLY HALF of each extra dollar we make.

So, aren't we still "taking a beating"? (Yeah, I know, we can offset this with other ways - investments, etc. - but, when I receive a Tax Return, it's MY MONEY that is coming back to me. No other taxpayer is subsidising ME (although I am likely subsidising others).

Now, back to it - who is "beating up" whom ??????? :D

Regards,
 
Les said:
you must've had your eyes closed when the Govt. of the day decided to increase the 48.5% threshold (i.e. negating some of the Tax Creep that had built up....) initially to $60k (in 2000), then $70k, then $80k in 2005 (I think I recall) The howls of protest resounded over the "rich getting all the breaks".

Yep, remember that distinctly - "the lower income earners are only getting enough back to buy a milkshake a week :eek: Might as well not bother" - I would think that if you're not paying too much in tax to begin with (add in the benefits), then you can't expect to get 1000's back in tax.

As an exercise I would like to see a chart of take-home income, including benefits, for (say) a nuclear family from $0 earnings all the way through to (say) $150K earnings - I think that it would be interesting reading. On that note I notice Mr Costello stated yesterday that the issue in low-income arena that makes it less appealing to go from welfare to work is not so much any failures of the tax system, but more issues in the welfare system.

I don't wish to sound like I'm some sort of heartless bastard here - I haven't gone through my whole thinking on the issue and those who know me will agree (I hope) that I am very empathetic. To date I've not done anything to avoid or even reduce my taxes (does that make me stupid or just some high income earning exception that just must prove the rule that all of the rich are bastards? :rolleyes: ) I do however see what many of our forumites have achieved on quite low incomes (even sub-average) without complaining that somebody has to look after them and make their decisions for them. Between that knowledge and seeing some real poverty in the sub-continent and elsewhere, you do realise just how "lucky" we are in Australia and how much we do complain about low-incomes and welfare. I don't think that we have a reason for most "stable" people to ever be living in poverty with our welfare system behind them - unless we are truthful to ourselves that our definition of poverty is very different to that in other parts of the world.

Cheers, Barracuda
 
G'day Barra,

Now ain't THAT the truth!!
On that note I notice Mr Costello stated yesterday that the issue in low-income arena that makes it less appealing to go from welfare to work is not so much any failures of the tax system, but more issues in the welfare system.
I've heard it can be a HUGE step from welfare to working because of the losses of benefits once you start working again !!! Who set THIS up????

Back in the 60's (I think) was the start - when the dole was introduced. Previously, widow's could get a pension, and invalids (were there any others?). Then, all of a sudden, ANYONE could get money for doing nothing - and just look where it's led us? We're now in a "skills shortage" situation - where the retirement age is being ramped upward to prevent the onset of "not enough workers to run the country".

Hmmmm! Someone was responsible for such a stupid move all those decades ago - and look at the legacy of it.... We'll get it right again one day, but there may well be a few tears between now and then :(

Personally, I relate to the comment "he who will not work, let him not eat" - now that would sort out a few troublemakers wouldn't it? ;) (of course, invalids and the like rely on our assistance - not thinking of foregoing that - but the able-bodied SHOULD be contributing, shouldn't they?)

Regards,
 
Les said:
G'day Barra,

Now ain't THAT the truth!!

I've heard it can be a HUGE step from welfare to working because of the losses of benefits once you start working again !!! Who set THIS up????

Howard was talking about this the other day. He said the only way to solve this problem would be to give the welfare benefits to everyone, without a means test. Now there's a thought!
 
Personally, I'd rather see job seach allowance replaced with what it once was- jobs in the public service.

When you condition a whole generation or 4 to getting money for nothing, then you are asking for trouble. If the able bodied were employed, then there'd be more resources available for those who needed it most.

The one thing I firmly believe, is that "the devil provides work for idle hands (and minds)"
 
Hi all,

Les, I seem to have struck a nerve! didn't mean to.

However the debate should really be about who does pay the highest rates of tax. In the example above it is implied that the rich man pays the highest rate for the meal, but is this reality??

The Kerry packers and Rupert Murdochs of the world pay very little tax, especially as a percentage of their assets.

I've just been watching the NAB address from the National Press Club that featured Geoff Carmody from Access Economics about tax reform. He raised some interesting concepts and had some interesting stats on whom pays the most, especially when looking at EMTR (effective marginal tax rates).

Apparently there is a window of tax payers between $15900 and $17200 who pay higher EMTR than those who earn more up to $63000, all because of the way the medicare levy cuts in, nothing to do with any other 'benefits'.

Then there is also the EMTR on those who go from benefits to the workforce, and can greatly effect families, where the current EMTR is 75%,and yet this is on lower income earners sub $35,000(can't remember the exact income level, so many numbers in such a short time).

So in our example of the highest contributor not turning up for dinner the following night, we could find that the cost of the dinner is left to the packers and murdocks of the world who had not really contributed that much (to the dinner) in the past.

We need to be careful about average incomes as well. $63,000 maybe 'average' but it is certainly not median. The last round of tax cuts was of most benefit to those on over $100,000, which happens to be only 4% of the workforce according to something I read the other day. As this income group is already involved in the most tax minimization from legal loopholes/structures/companies etc, isn't the richest man already chipping away at his own restaurant bill?? (like most of us here)

I'll stick to my case that this little simplistic parable is nonsense, as are most simplistic explanations for events. I'll put it in the same category as shares always go up, you always get what you pay for, and money doesn't grow on trees.

bye
 
Bill.L said:
I've just been watching the NAB address from the National Press Club that featured Geoff Carmody from Access Economics about tax reform. He raised some interesting concepts and had some interesting stats on whom pays the most, especially when looking at EMTR (effective marginal tax rates).

This is true. Other things that affect EMTR include family benefits, the low income tax rebate, private health insurance subsidies, HECS, maintenance payments, Austudy for offspring and more.

These mostly affect people in the lower-middle to middle income range, ie millions of Australians. The interactions between and within unemployment/welfare/work and tax/welfare/super systems are particularly interesting.

Policy makers have the choice between:

Targeted (means-tested) welfare, high EMTRs, 'poverty traps', 'user pays' and lower taxes generally (as a percentage of GDP, not necessarily marginal rates)

or

Non-targeted 'middle class welfare' (ie no means tests), less 'user pays', low EMTRs and higher taxes generally (as a percentage of GDP)

Generally Australia has gone for the former, whereas European social democracies (where government (and tax) is as much as 50% of the GDP) prefer the latter.

Peter
 
G'day Bill,
Les, I seem to have struck a nerve! didn't mean to.
Not a problem, Bill - it's a catalyst - no objection to that....

However the debate should really be about who does pay the highest rates of tax.
Should it really? I don't think it's any secret that some of the highest earners pay Millions to save tens of millions ...... But is that the point? Personally, I don't see myself in those rarified atmospheres - EVER !!!

In the example above it is implied that the rich man pays the highest rate for the meal, but is this reality??
P'raps relating to the previous point, but, SOMEONE is paying more than the rest - is it important to put names to "who is the richest"? Perhaps it is the "rich" man, but NOT necessarily the "richest"

The Kerry packers and Rupert Murdochs of the world pay very little tax
For the moment, it IS VALID that SOME pay more Tax than others. If it's NOT Kerry Packer, or Rupert Murdoch, does it really matter?

In short SOME PEOPLE are paying MORE in Tax than the "average" person earns. Maybe these "rich" are "learners" that are trying to provide for their futures, but haven't yet learned how best to do this. Or maybe they ACCEPT that there are others not so well off who NEED the input from others Whatever, the story rings true to ME !!!

Can't see how all of that changes the story, or it's message, Bill. But then, I could be wrong.......

Regards,
 
Bill.L said:
Hi all,



The Kerry packers and Rupert Murdochs of the world pay very little tax, especially as a percentage of their assets.

I hope you don't advocate a 'wealth tax'. Paying tax on income is bad enough, let alone on your assets as well.
 
Back
Top