Discussion Locked

How Taxes Work

0 helpful
25 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

How Taxes Work . . .(not an origianal work, author unknown)

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!

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 for the ten only cost $80.00.

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 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 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 who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"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!"

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. They were 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!

25 replies

by jamesrl

There are rich people who pay little or no taxes. While ideally we should all be in that position, in real life that leaves the rest of us with a greater proportionate tax burden.

What I object to is the fact that the reason many rich capitalists pay no taxes is that they work very hard and finding and exploiting tax loopholes in order to avoid taxes. These loopholes are not available to every tax payer. They create tax shelters which lock in capital into often non productive uses. Any system where we encourage people to lose money (The Producers scenario) is ultimately harmful to all of us. And yes I would like to see less need for shelters in the first place.

What would be better is a tax system with fewer loopholes and a "flatter" tax. Perhaps a minimum tax as well. I do favour a progressive taxation system, but not as steep as the one we have, and one that goes farther out in terms of the positioning of the highest braket.

A simpler, flatter tax system with fewer loopholes would benefit everyone. And the elimination of silly tax shelters would mean capital would be freed up to create meaningful products which in turns creates menaingful employment.

I don't hold out too much hope. The system of loopholes and shelters has been out there for a long time and there is a whole industry based on it. From my perspective they don't contribute real net value, but they can afford lobbyists.

James

by tonythetiger

... they save via these loopholes? They're obviously not into gluttenous consumption, else they wouldn't be rich in the first place. So what happens to it? Obviously it is either saved, or invested.

People have to think! The government is NOT a sound place to invest your money. It EATS up well over half of everything it gets. So look at the alternative... giving the money to someone who has already proven they know what to do with it. Through saving (which someone else who knows what to do with money will borrow), or through direct investment, that million dollar tax break will provide 20 families with a decent living, versus the governemnt providing 20 families with welfare benefits. Which is better?

by jdclyde

and what the Democrats and poor poor don't /can't understand is that while they run around HATING the evil rich people, poor people don't hire people.

If your getting a paycheck today, it is because some rich person was hoping they would get a better return on their money invested in a company than sitting in a savings account.

The other thing that is extremely funny, is EVERY person in congress/senate are ALL RICH. They have also refused to put themselves in the same benifits package they set up for the people that are running around looking for a handout.

by jdclyde

it becomes corrupt.

I wish someone would explain why having a flat tax rate where you pay a fixed percent of your income is unfair?

If you make 10K and pay 10% and I make 100K and pay 10%, I am still paying a lot more than you are. Why is there a double punishment of also having to increase the percentage paid as well?

This year, my now ex-wife made half what I did all year, but got back TWICE what I did for a tax return. We each claim one of the twins so the only thing different is the amount of money we went out and earned last year.

A fine is a tax for doing something wrong.
A tax is a fine for doing something right.

When you punish people that actually work for a living based on tax brackets, people WILL limit their income to keep from getting pushed into that next bracket. I have seen people turn down over-time because of this.

I have also seen people get a tax return of over 1000 dollars MORE than they paid in. So they got everything they paid in PLUS 1000 dollars of someone elses money was stolen from then and given to this individual.

by faradhi

Lets say we tax everyone at 10%. Person A make $30,000. Person B makes $300,000.

Person A's standard of living is more greatly effected than Person B. When I say greatly effected, I do not mean pure percentages.

The 3000 that person a pays makes a bigger impact on the persons life than the 30000 that person B is paying. The standard of living for person B is not effected at all. [i] I am not in any way advocating that the standard of living of Person B [b]should[/b] be affected.[/i] Instead I am advocating that a standard of living for EVERYONE should NOT be effected by taxes.

Now I have not heard anyone turn down a raise because it bumps them into a higher tax bracket. I am not saying that does not happen. I have also never heard any say "Nope, pay me 50,000 instead of 100,000 because I don't want to pay those taxes."

An alternative tax would be to allow graduated taxes without out a negative net gain when moving to a new bracket. That is, if I move into a new bracket after a raise I should not be bringing home less than before the raise. A more graduated tax instead of the stepped tax that we have now. Also, you should never get anymore back than you pay in.

If fact the way I propose with a more graduated tax, a raise or overtime will always be encouraged because I would eliminate the negative net gain that occurs within the Stepped system we have now.

by briggch

That was a nice theory. The ending should have been the 10th guy paid somebody else (guy 11) to go in his place $20. Unfortunately guy 10 neglected to mention the fact that his $20 windfall to guy 11 was to become a $32 deficit. Since the 10th guy was going to have to pay something anyways (we all pay taxes don't we?) he was better off paying guy 11 $20 and not having to spend the remainder.

As to why a non-linear pattern in tax liability, the more you earn, the less the percentage means. $1 from $10, or $100,000 from $1,000,000. They are the exact same percentage, but who do you think will miss their percentage more? Why do you think 20% of people control 80% of the money, while 80% only control 20%? Because they are re-investing their earnings into the economy to grow the economy? NO, they are keeping their earning and doing nothing but fattening their net value. Look at ANY billionaire and tell me that is not the case. Yes they do good, but the good they do is not proportionate with what they get in return.

Agree or disagree, just my .02 worth.

by ciderick

Ok, this is going to get some flamers but here goes...

American Taxes are the most stupid & ludicrus taxes I have ever had the woe of dealing with. Firstly, just bloody downright ridiculous & wordy tax laws that noone understands & secondly - e-filing. Whilst I like the idea of e-file I actually work in a different state to the one I live in, because of the aforementioned bloody stupid tax laws over here, I can only e-file for one of those states. Another thing, in the UK I used to do my own taxes - over here that is an impossibility because of (here it comes again...) the bloody stupid, moronic, idiotic ambiguous wording of the tax laws, therefore, I have to pay an accountant to do it. Each city & state has it's own tax laws (& of course the federal tax on top of that), each different set of taxes has a lawbook the size of the bible & none of them make any sense.

Whilst I like America & love the american people (who I find to be incredibly polite & welcoming as opposed to pushy rude Londoners) these ridiculous laws DO need a reform or I will be forced to reevaluate my position over here.

P.S. If the tax laws are reformed, lets hope Georgie boy isn't the one to do it - they'd end up worse.

OK, flame away people... ;o)

by too old for it

The other problem with taxes is that it penalizes productivity and encourages sloth.

You work hard, you produce something, you get fined (taxes more). You sit on your fat ass and eat bon bons, you pay less.

by jdclyde

If you pay 10% of your income and this is a big hit, then you need to do something to increase YOUR income. Increase your skills, get a better job, get a second job, lower your cost of living.

Who cares who will "miss it more"? If YOU work hard and someone else doesn't, why are YOU responsible for paying for the person that does not carry their own weight?

Sure, there should be a cut-off, like there is now. I don't have a problem with a family of four making 24K not paying taxes, but I sure as heck have a problem with them getting other peoples tax money.

There are so many people living substandard lives because they have been allowed to.

Safety nets are for short term needs, of MAYBE a year.

There is NEVER a reason someone should be on the safety net for a lifetime.

Can't support that family?
Stop having more kids.
Get rid of the second car.
Get rid of the big screen TV.
Get rid of the cell phone and cable TV.
Stop feeding the rent-to-own places.

If someone were to become a billionaire, it is not for anyone else to cry about how it "isn't fair" that someone else doesn't have much.

I read and article before that equated welfare to the "do not feed the animial" signs, and it is right on. The people that build and maintain the current social programs are intentionally creating and maintaining a peasent class. Handouts in exchange for political power.

THAT and class warfare are the reasons the number of "poor" people is going up instead of down dispite all the money feel gooders have wasted on these people.

keep the change.

by jdclyde

person A needs to work harder to make more. land OF the free, remember, not land FOR free.

I personally went from a family of four making about 19K a year, to middle class. How? by busting my a$$. I have no sympathy for the people that don't put forward the same effort.

by faradhi

People have to work harder to make more. I don't see a problem with that.

I also have no sympathy for people who (assuming no tax shelters) that make $1,000,000 and pay 250,000 - 500,000 in taxes. (Whatever that tax rate is.)
They take no hit in standard of living. I am not saying rich people are evil. I just don't have much sympathy when it comes to taxes.

by jdclyde

if someone that is too lazy to advance will come along and steal the fruits of THEIR labor?

Redistribution of wealth is crimial.

Robbin Hood mentality is criminal.

Everyone should do their share, not someone elses share.

Taking that kind of money from someone else because you don't see their standard of living taking a hit is crimial. Who are you to decide what someone that works hard can do with their standard of living?

your ideal would and does penalize the people that actually DO something.

Keep in mind, if you steal a huge portion of the money through taxes, how much is left over to pay wages for the poor? Better lay off a few more people.

by jdclyde

:D

In starting this discussion, I guess [b]I[/b] did! ;\

as long as we continue to run the country assuming that the people that live here are too dumb, stupid and lazy to make it on their own, I don't see this getting better soon.

Because anytime there is talk about reform or tax breaks, it right away is "a tax break for the rich". translation, the welfare and MAJORITY of the Democratic party don't get much of a tax break because they don't pay much tax to get a break on.

edit: I forgot, bloody foreiners....... :0 :D

by tonythetiger

to a "standard of living"! If you want a certain standard, work for it!

"Now I have not heard anyone turn down a raise because it bumps them into a higher tax bracket."

Not that I turned it down, but a step raise once did that to me. I actually took home less after an 11 cent an hour raise!

by jamesrl

I thought the US was like Canada, in using Marginal rates. In other words, my first dollar (above the basic exemption) is taxed at the same rate as the guy making minimum wage. My last dollar is taxed at the highest marginal bracket I am in. Just pulling numbers out of the air - my first dollar is assessed at say 5% tax, my last 42% tax. In Canada the highest bracket (IIRC) is $65000, so every dollar I earn above that is taxed at the same rate.

James

by faradhi

here we have a stepped approach. For example, (these figures are not accurate I do not have the tax rates in front of me) you make 20 - 30,000 you pay 10% 30 - 40,000 you pay 15%, etc.

Therefore, if you jump from 29,000 to 31,000 you could actually see a negative net income increase.

by faradhi

I in no way insuinated that anyone is entitled to anything. I stated that the standard of living that person is CURRENTLY (worked for) Should not be affected by taxes.

Further, I stated that the tax system should be modified to prevent just what you described.

by tonythetiger

money that isn't "doing something" isn't worth anything.

What do you think Oprah, and Bill, and Ted all stuff their money into matresses or bury it in coffee cans in their back yards?

by jamesrl

One of the big tax loopholes are writeoffs. Some people put their money in ventures sure to lose money so that they can write it off in their taxes. Like I mentioned, its the plot of the producers.

The problem with those money losing ventures is that the are artificial creations and they don't produce real value. Sure some people get paid, but to claim the loss the company has to close its doors, so even the salaries don't go far. They don't produce something of value like investing in equities or real estate would.

If Oprah wants to invest in a money losing movie to lower her tax bill, its a waste because the money could go into something with more economic value. Of course there are no guarentees with invetsments, but those "loss providing" investments suck up capital that could be used for better things.

James

by tonythetiger

It may lose (I assume you mean make less money than it cost to produce). But the money still did something. It paid the actors, people who build sets, etc., who will then use that money for their purposes.

"... suck up capital that could be used for better things."

Pardon me, but who made you supreme arbiter over defining "better things" when it concerns money that someone else earned?

by faradhi

That is just a fact of life.

I did not advocate taking that much. I just stated that I have no sympathy for them.

I do not think the flat tax is right. Because of the effect it has on those HARD working people who make very little. These are not all lazy people.

I have never heard anyone say. Nope I am not trying to make more because I will have to pay more taxes. I know that I didn't when I moved from a $20,000 job to now. I didn't say, "Whow, I don't want to get training an make more money because I will have to pay more taxes."

I make a good living and pay more taxes now than I ever had before. I don't try less because of it. That argument is ludicrous.

by jdclyde

is something I have seen first hand, at more than one employer as I clearly stated earlier. I didn't say everyone does this, but that I HAVE seen it done.

Not getting ahead. What do these "hard working" people do to advance their situation? Clock their time at one job day in and day out is NOT working to improve their situation.

How did I make it? I worked 45 to 55 hours a week in a shop. I worked another 8 on Sat at another job. I went to school at night, three nights a week.

No training, no skills, no future? No one to blame but themselves.

No prospects in the region? Move to where the jobs are. People CAN improve their situation, or they can cry that life isn't fair. I improved my situation, as did everyone else here.

by faradhi

I did the same to advance my position. A lot of people do the same thing. I and they did it in spite of knowing I will be paying more taxes. That fact is counter to your argument that people will not try to improve themselves because the will pay more in taxes. If the graduated tax is such a disincentive, then why do people still try to improve themselves?

As for the OT, I have seen that as well. That is why in my first post I specifically states that I advocate a graduated tax that DOES NOT cause the net income (income after taxes) to be less than it was prior to the increase.

by jamesrl

Is that providing that incentive to lose costs you and me and all other tax payers. Thats why I express an opinion on it.

I have no problems with people who claim loses because they honestly tried a new venture and it failed. What I have a problem with is the money losing ventures. Don't you think those actors etc would rather work on good productions that are trying to make money?

Let me be clear I am talking about intentional loses here.

James

by tonythetiger

that I can think of no situation where a deliberate loss would be profitable. You pay a percentage of your capital gains as tax. You would have to spend an equal or greater amount on the loss to cancel it out. If you know someone willing to do that, tell them I have a collection of $5 bills that I'll part with for only $9 apeice :)

This discussion is closed to new replies.