Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
hmm, let's bring this analogy into parity with the economic situation in the US, shall we?
First, let's figure out how much eat person eats. If the tenth diner is representing the top decile of our economy, that would mean he would eat more than 9/10 of the food. But we'll make the math managable, and call it 90% even.
So he pays 52% of the bill. Strange, doesn't seem so fair anymore...
|
You appear to have it backwards, unless you are claiming that the top decile of our economy is the recipient of over 90% of tax receipts.
I for one do not believe that the top decile of taxpayers uses 90% of the roads, water, electricity, government-funded medical care, public schools, public transportation, clean air, military and fire protection, police, food stamps, or housing assistance, to name a few.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Story claims the diners are now $52 dollars short. Wait a minute, must be new math, because now his plate isn't being delivered...so the bill should be $52 dollars less.
|
Nope. $8 less. The other nine are still eating, and as I demonstrated, if anything, they "eat" more than the "greedy rich guy."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
None of this is offshoring, however. Offshoring would be more like he has all his food prepared somewhere else, but has it delivered to the table. He eats and drinks at the table with all the other guests, expects carte blanche service, and if he feels like it, he leaves a dollar for a tip.
I wonder how long any intelligent host would let such a parasite keep doing that to him...
|
Sounds like he's behaving like the first four men, except that they provided nothing.