Taxes explained with beer - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Amaras · 10-07-2008, 06:00 AM

Some might think this belongs in Tilted Humour, but I wanted to see what
folks have to say about this explanation of taxes.
Mods, if I got it wrong, sorry!

Taxes explained with beer.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 1st four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The 5th would pay $1.
The 6th would pay $3.
The 7th would pay $7.
The 8th would pay $12.
The 9th would pay $18.
The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do... The ten men drank in the bar everyday and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said,

'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the 5th man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The 6th now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The 7th now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The 8th now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The 9th now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got one dollar out of the $20,' declared the 6th man.

He pointed to the 10th man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the 5th man.

'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair he got ten times more than I!

'That's true!!' shouted the 7th man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
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 9 men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night the 10th man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The richest man had been paying for more than all the rest combined.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, liberals and socialists everywhere, 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(based on an article by D. R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics University of Georgia)

skizziks · 10-07-2008, 06:15 AM

Everything is easy to understand when beer is involved. Just to show my ignorance, was a flat tax described? I'm all for a flat tax.

Amaras · 10-07-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skizziks

Everything is easy to understand when beer is involved.

That, my friend, is a universal truth.

Halx · 10-07-2008, 06:19 AM

The issue here is that the rich guy actually paid taxes.

Amaras · 10-07-2008, 06:25 AM

In Canada they do, on their salaries. Not the "extras", of course.

Halx · 10-07-2008, 06:27 AM

There are a lot of ways you can avoid paying taxes when you're rich, and they all generally make you even more rich. Spending your income on assets such as stock and real estate all reduce your taxable income while increasing your net worth. The rich understand this loophole and thus contribute less taxes than expected.

Amaras · 10-07-2008, 06:33 AM

Look, I'm not pro-rich. My Dad is rich, and when he was CEO, he used to announce his annual "contribution"
to Canadian tax coffers. Later, when he tried to screw my Mom over in the settlement, she and I did his
forensic accounting. He did pay in excess of $100,000 a year.
Mind you, he had millions in stock options, golden parachute, etc.....
Point is, I think, if you are average Joe who works hard and makes $90,000, you will HAVE to use some
of the techniques you mention or have A HUGE bite taken out.

Rekna · 10-07-2008, 06:54 AM

You forgot the part where the bottom 5 people each worked 12 hours a day for the rich guy and got paid barely enough to feed their families. Meanwhile the rich guy golfed all day and made way more than his employees.

Amaras · 10-07-2008, 07:03 AM

True. The gap is widening.
I thought this would pique a certain reaction. I am in that bottom 5, by the way. It's my father who is
at the top.
So I've seen a bit of both worlds.

mcgeedo · 10-07-2008, 07:48 AM

"You forgot the part where the bottom 5 people each worked 12 hours a day for the rich guy"

If only all five at the bottom actually worked. The reality of it is that at least one of them gets paid to sit at home in front of the TV drinking beer. Oh yeah, that soulless rich guy at the top pays most for that, too.

flstf · 10-07-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolsch

Some might think this belongs in Tilted Humour, but I wanted to see what
folks have to say about this explanation of taxes.
Mods, if I got it wrong, sorry!

Taxes explained with beer.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 1st four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The 5th would pay $1.
The 6th would pay $3.
The 7th would pay $7.
The 8th would pay $12.
The 9th would pay $18.
The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do... The ten men drank in the bar everyday and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said,

'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the 5th man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The 6th now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The 7th now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The 8th now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The 9th now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got one dollar out of the $20,' declared the 6th man.

He pointed to the 10th man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the 5th man.

'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair he got ten times more than I!

'That's true!!' shouted the 7th man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
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 9 men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night the 10th man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
The richest man had been paying for more than all the rest combined.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, liberals and socialists everywhere, 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(based on an article by D. R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics University of Georgia)

In reality the wealthy who have the power to do so would probably just raise the prices on other goods and services they control and continue to buy the house a drink since the other 9 men will wind up paying for their and his drinks anyway indirectly. Also the tenth man can reduce the amount he has to pass down to the poor and middle class to pay since he will probably write the drinks off as a business expense.

The Faba · 10-07-2008, 12:36 PM

Interestingly enough, I think the main point was to discuss how tax breaks are meant to behave... not how they are abused.

Being upset about someone abusing the tax system is completely and totally justified... But this tax cut in question is intended to return money to those who actually legitimately pay their fair amount - not the other people. This tax cut is created assuming that nobody 'cheats'... and it's a damn good thing too. A tax system derived from the concept of everyone cheating would have enormous rates, and everyone of those who were being honest would end up devastated, while the cheaters would end up fine.

So what are we to do?
Give out tax cuts to the entireity of these people - that benefits the cheaters in question.
Raise the rates on society's rich folk - that simply punishes those who are honest, not a good scheme.
Police the system more and redesign it with the intent of removing loopholes - There we go!

Quote:

Look, I'm not pro-rich

I am extremely pro-rich. I can't think of any real reason why someone wouldn't be pro-rich. What could be better than having a lot of spending cash to blow on stuff you want, and provide for your family after you're gone? Everyone who has a lot of money today has it for a reason. What I am not, is pro-theft.

Either...
They earned it, (in which case they deserve it - even if it's in some CEO job where they don't do anything, it's still a job opening with a demand for workers, it's just luckier than other jobs)
They inherited it, (In which case they deserve it - I don't see why wealthy people can't give their cash away to, say, a stupid slut of a daughter. It's their cash, they can give it to whomever they damn well please... consider it luck again. I know if I had a ton of cash I'd want my family to have it if I died)
Or, they stole it. (Not legitimate, should be returned)

mcgeedo · 10-07-2008, 12:39 PM

"some CEO job where they don't do anything"

The Faba · 10-07-2008, 01:02 PM

Hey, they exist!

I gave no numbers on the percentage of CEO jobs where this is the case...

mixedsubstance · 10-07-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Faba

So what are we to do?
Give out tax cuts to the entireity of these people - that benefits the cheaters in question.
Raise the rates on society's rich folk - that simply punishes those who are honest, not a good scheme.
Police the system more and redesign it with the intent of removing loopholes - There we go!

I honestly think that the government needs to take more responsibility in 'watching' the rich. The rich are generally people who are owners/CEO's of huge companies- and how many stories have we heard lately of fraud, infringement and other financial felonies of the heads of these huge corporations? They shouldn't be getting away with this...then they wouldn't find themselves in bankruptcy and having the government bail them out for their mistakes. That's step 1.

Step 2- "With great power comes great responsibility."- famous Spiderman quote. But it needs to be enforced in America. Which means for those with financial power- more taxes, more regulations they have to meet, less wiggle in the rope for them.

Step 3- Balance it out. There IS a way. It would not be to where the rich are getting away with paying the same, if not less. Fixed Tax is a thought- but it should be based on income. Legitimate income.

Quote:

I am extremely pro-rich. I can't think of any real reason why someone wouldn't be pro-rich. What could be better than having a lot of spending cash to blow on stuff you want, and provide for your family after you're gone? Everyone who has a lot of money today has it for a reason. What I am not, is pro-theft.

A lot of people who ARE rich are greedy and have if not are currently breaking a law because of their greed.

There is a HUGE difference in being rich and being financially secure. I would never want to be rich. It only buries what is most valuable in life and you lose sight of what's important. I just want to be financially secure and content. Being able to comfortably pay my bills on time, live in a decent, normal-sized house that I don't get lost in, and be able to support my family just fine. The main thing is to be doing a living that is something you love. And to be happy with your family. That's being rich, to me.

guy44 · 10-10-2008, 09:24 PM

Actually, here's the way it works in the U.S.:

There's a $100 bill. The poorest guys pay nothing. The middle guys pay a progressively larger amount. The richest guy's bill comes to $59. But every year, he bribes the city administrator a relatively small amount to ensure the bartender will get to keep his alcohol license, and return the richest customer doesn't have to pay the bartender his portion of the bill. But that still leaves a $41 tab. So the other 9 guys, drunk and not wanting to ruin the end of a perfectly good night, divvy that tab up amongst them.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, conservatives and supply-siders everywhere, is how our tax system works.

Xerxys · 10-12-2008, 10:25 AM

I am extremely pro-rich and I hate the way the system is designed itself, why should you be punished for having more money?? A society is not made out of equals. The gap will never be bridged, it has been like that since civilization!! If I'm smart enough to get richer progressively faster than you, who the fuck are you to come in my house and take more from me than you did the asshole sitting in his home drinking beer!!! It's not my fault he cant have what I got...............

sorry I just hate lazy assholes who hate rich people that they know little about.

filtherton · 10-12-2008, 11:19 AM

Speaking of hating people that you know little about...

TheNasty · 10-12-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Actually, here's the way it works in the U.S.:

There's a $100 bill. The poorest guys pay nothing. The middle guys pay a progressively larger amount. The richest guy's bill comes to $59. But every year, he bribes the city administrator a relatively small amount to ensure the bartender will get to keep his alcohol license, and return the richest customer doesn't have to pay the bartender his portion of the bill. But that still leaves a $41 tab. So the other 9 guys, drunk and not wanting to ruin the end of a perfectly good night, divvy that tab up amongst them.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, conservatives and supply-siders everywhere, is how our tax system works.

While the scenario of a rich guy playing the system does without a doubt happen, it certainly doesn't happen enough to make it an overlying principle of how our tax system works.

% of money paid by taxes is by definition a function of money actually received. Of the money that the government receives, the lion share of it comes from the pocket books of the wealthy.

Try to divert attention all you want, the beer analogy describes exactly what is happening.

mcgeedo · 10-12-2008, 03:55 PM

It's funny that the Liberal approach is to both condemn the wealthy and live off them. One of these days you're going to tax the well-to-do out of existence and then what will you do? If there is no wealth to re-distribute, won't your dependent class have to then support themselves?

I've got an idea: How about training and motivating the dependent class to take care of themselves? Just think of the vastly larger tax base you'll have available to confiscate!

Jozrael · 10-12-2008, 04:02 PM

The numbers.

It's noteworthy that the amount of the total tax brought in by the ultra rich is still increasing (their total wealth is increasing as well).

The top 5% of taxpayers pay about 60% of the bill, likely a bit more now.

It states that it is the super-rich that seem to be evading their taxes or using their money wisely (where it is taxed only 15%), something we now seem to be labeling as a crime. Tax evasion = illegal, but wise placement of it...where do you draw the line?

mcgeedo · 10-12-2008, 05:35 PM

Avoiding taxes by legal means is, well..... legal. Don't like it? Lobby your representative.

genuinegirly · 10-12-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedsubstance

I honestly think that the government needs to take more responsibility in 'watching' the rich.

When did this shift from the job of muckracking journalists to a job for the government?

If I had my way, the poor would accept no assistance, and the wealthy would gladly redistribute wealth on their own.

MoonDog · 10-12-2008, 07:45 PM

I read this while drinking Oktoberfest microbrew (yay Ellicottville Brew Pub!).

I myself have never understood the need to attack that segment of the population that is paying the most in taxes. My question is, if taxes on the rich are instituted, who gets to determine what "rich" is? Also, what is a legitimate use for the proceeds of such a tax? Education, welfare, universal healthcare?

I can almost buy into an effort to limit the salaries and other soft payments received by top level corporate executives, but in my mind it has to be based on a need to protect shareholders from over-generous contracts in times of economic trouble.

Oh, and the guys who weren't paying anything for their beers wouldn't have gone outside to discuss that they hadn't received anything because, if they were like me, free beer = unconcious MoonDog :-)

10-07-2008, 06:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Taxes explained with beer Some might think this belongs in Tilted Humour, but I wanted to see what folks have to say about this explanation of taxes. Mods, if I got it wrong, sorry! Taxes explained with beer. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 1st four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The 5th would pay $1. The 6th would pay $3. The 7th would pay $7. The 8th would pay $12. The 9th would pay $18. The 10th man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do... The ten men drank in the bar everyday and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They 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 each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the 5th man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The 6th now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The 7th now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The 8th now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The 9th now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got one dollar out of the $20,' declared the 6th man. He pointed to the 10th man,' but he got $10! ''Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the 5th man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair he got ten times more than I! 'That's true!!' shouted the 7th man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 9 men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night the 10th man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! The richest man had been paying for more than all the rest combined. And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, liberals and socialists everywhere, 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. (based on an article by D. R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics University of Georgia) __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-07-2008, 06:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
skizziks Insane Location: out west	Everything is easy to understand when beer is involved. Just to show my ignorance, was a flat tax described? I'm all for a flat tax. Last edited by skizziks; 10-07-2008 at 06:18 AM..

10-07-2008, 06:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	The issue here is that the rich guy actually paid taxes. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-07-2008, 06:25 AM	#5 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	In Canada they do, on their salaries. Not the "extras", of course. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-07-2008, 06:27 AM	#6 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	There are a lot of ways you can avoid paying taxes when you're rich, and they all generally make you even more rich. Spending your income on assets such as stock and real estate all reduce your taxable income while increasing your net worth. The rich understand this loophole and thus contribute less taxes than expected. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-07-2008, 06:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Look, I'm not pro-rich. My Dad is rich, and when he was CEO, he used to announce his annual "contribution" to Canadian tax coffers. Later, when he tried to screw my Mom over in the settlement, she and I did his forensic accounting. He did pay in excess of $100,000 a year. Mind you, he had millions in stock options, golden parachute, etc..... Point is, I think, if you are average Joe who works hard and makes $90,000, you will HAVE to use some of the techniques you mention or have A HUGE bite taken out. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-07-2008, 06:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	You forgot the part where the bottom 5 people each worked 12 hours a day for the rich guy and got paid barely enough to feed their families. Meanwhile the rich guy golfed all day and made way more than his employees.

10-07-2008, 07:03 AM	#9 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	True. The gap is widening. I thought this would pique a certain reaction. I am in that bottom 5, by the way. It's my father who is at the top. So I've seen a bit of both worlds. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-07-2008, 07:48 AM	#10 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	"You forgot the part where the bottom 5 people each worked 12 hours a day for the rich guy" If only all five at the bottom actually worked. The reality of it is that at least one of them gets paid to sit at home in front of the TV drinking beer. Oh yeah, that soulless rich guy at the top pays most for that, too.

10-07-2008, 12:39 PM	#13 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	"some CEO job where they don't do anything"

10-07-2008, 01:02 PM	#14 (permalink)
The Faba Crazy	Hey, they exist! I gave no numbers on the percentage of CEO jobs where this is the case...

10-10-2008, 09:24 PM	#16 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Actually, here's the way it works in the U.S.: There's a $100 bill. The poorest guys pay nothing. The middle guys pay a progressively larger amount. The richest guy's bill comes to $59. But every year, he bribes the city administrator a relatively small amount to ensure the bartender will get to keep his alcohol license, and return the richest customer doesn't have to pay the bartender his portion of the bill. But that still leaves a $41 tab. So the other 9 guys, drunk and not wanting to ruin the end of a perfectly good night, divvy that tab up amongst them. And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, conservatives and supply-siders everywhere, is how our tax system works. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

10-12-2008, 10:25 AM	#17 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	I am extremely pro-rich and I hate the way the system is designed itself, why should you be punished for having more money?? A society is not made out of equals. The gap will never be bridged, it has been like that since civilization!! If I'm smart enough to get richer progressively faster than you, who the fuck are you to come in my house and take more from me than you did the asshole sitting in his home drinking beer!!! It's not my fault he cant have what I got............... sorry I just hate lazy assholes who hate rich people that they know little about.

10-12-2008, 11:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Speaking of hating people that you know little about...

10-12-2008, 03:55 PM	#20 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	It's funny that the Liberal approach is to both condemn the wealthy and live off them. One of these days you're going to tax the well-to-do out of existence and then what will you do? If there is no wealth to re-distribute, won't your dependent class have to then support themselves? I've got an idea: How about training and motivating the dependent class to take care of themselves? Just think of the vastly larger tax base you'll have available to confiscate!

10-12-2008, 04:02 PM	#21 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	The numbers. It's noteworthy that the amount of the total tax brought in by the ultra rich is still increasing (their total wealth is increasing as well). The top 5% of taxpayers pay about 60% of the bill, likely a bit more now. It states that it is the super-rich that seem to be evading their taxes or using their money wisely (where it is taxed only 15%), something we now seem to be labeling as a crime. Tax evasion = illegal, but wise placement of it...where do you draw the line?

10-12-2008, 05:35 PM	#22 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	Avoiding taxes by legal means is, well..... legal. Don't like it? Lobby your representative.

10-12-2008, 07:45 PM	#24 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	I read this while drinking Oktoberfest microbrew (yay Ellicottville Brew Pub!). I myself have never understood the need to attack that segment of the population that is paying the most in taxes. My question is, if taxes on the rich are instituted, who gets to determine what "rich" is? Also, what is a legitimate use for the proceeds of such a tax? Education, welfare, universal healthcare? I can almost buy into an effort to limit the salaries and other soft payments received by top level corporate executives, but in my mind it has to be based on a need to protect shareholders from over-generous contracts in times of economic trouble. Oh, and the guys who weren't paying anything for their beers wouldn't have gone outside to discuss that they hadn't received anything because, if they were like me, free beer = unconcious MoonDog :-)