The Truth About How The Income Tax System Works

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
The Truth About How The Income Tax System Works

I did not write it. I wish I had. The source is T. Davies, Professor of Accounting at the University of South Dakota School of Business, who told me he got it from a student. So, the real author remains unknown. Here’s the article: “Let’s put [income] 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. “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. If they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meals.
“So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. The fifth man now paid nothing, the sixth paid $2, the seventh paid $5, the eight 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.
“However, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. ‘I only got a dollar out of the $20!’ declared the sixth man, pointing 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 (or, in the real world, he took his business out of the country), so the nine sat down and ate without him. When it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late, what was very im-portant. They were $52 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 or 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!” The end!
Now, I have a favor to ask of you: Please send a copy of this article to every politician you know who could influence income tax legislation. Make sure you include both presidential candidates.
The sad part is that we—professional tax practitioners—have not figured out how to beat the income tax. Earn and you pay; earn more and you pay more.

more…
 
Oh here we go again. Maybe the poor should be forced to pay what they don’t have.:rolleyes: If they are under the poverty level they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Can we work on less, of course we can. But let’s spend a little more at home instead of wasting it abroad.
 
BTW, I am in favor of a flat income tax on anything over the poverty level. If we start taxing the poor just to make them pay something then we should scrap the income tax altogether and find another means for the government to fund itself.
 
I think I have seen this before, and for the most part I think it is a great way to explain how income tax works…

I’d probably change a couple of things to make it a bit more realistic, though-

First, the first four men not only eat for free, but the other 6 would be required to provide their transportation to and from the restaurant.

Second, the “restaurant owner” would decide that the only reason these men have been good customers is because his restaurant is so great. He’d double the size of his menu, and take out a huge line of credit to hire a bunch of new waiters and expand the restaurant into the next building. He’d present all of this to the 10 men with a lot of fanfare to show appreciation for their customer loyalty, and then quietly raise his prices across the board.

Third, it should be noted that the wait staff, in general, are rude, bitter, and grossly inefficient- but they wouldn’t care because they work for a salary, not tips, and the owner could never fire them.
 
Oh here we go again. Maybe the poor should be forced to pay what they don’t have.:rolleyes: If they are under the poverty level they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Can we work on less, of course we can. But let’s spend a little more at home instead of wasting it abroad.
BTW, I am in favor of a flat income tax on anything over the poverty level. If we start taxing the poor just to make them pay something then we should scrap the income tax altogether and find another means for the government to fund itself.
I’m not sure how you interpreted the scenario the OP quoted as some kind of statement about making the poor pay more- that wasn’t even hinted at anywhere in it.

I think the moral of the story was that you shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you.

All of the men (including the rich guy) were very content having the rich guy paying 52% of the bill so that 4 of the men could eat for free every night- the rich guy never complained that he was paying the most, or that some were paying nothing.

Despite this, the 9 men were outraged that the rich man received 52% of the discount, which was just as much his fair share as the 52% of the bill he had been paying all along. They beat him up to take his money, and so he stopped meeting them for dinner anymore. The remaining 9 men didn’t realize until later that they couldn’t afford to eat dinner at that restaurant without the rich man there to pay 52% of their bill.
 
I think I have seen this before, and for the most part I think it is a great way to explain how income tax works…

I’d probably change a couple of things to make it a bit more realistic, though-

First, the first four men not only eat for free, but the other 6 would be required to provide their transportation to and from the restaurant.

Second, the “restaurant owner” would decide that the only reason these men have been good customers is because his restaurant is so great. He’d double the size of his menu, and take out a huge line of credit to hire a bunch of new waiters and expand the restaurant into the next building. He’d present all of this to the 10 men with a lot of fanfare to show appreciation for their customer loyalty, and then quietly raise his prices across the board.

Third, it should be noted that the wait staff, in general, are rude, bitter, and grossly inefficient- but they wouldn’t care because they work for a salary, not tips, and the owner could never fire them.
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
You did better than I. Some years ago I wrote the reported author to ripe into him about this attempt to mislead and frankly be so uninformed on the subject. His response was he never authored the story. It seems this is a tale of hate mongers who feel stealing creditability as their only option.

Actually if they paid “the way we pay our taxes” all parties would pay about 40% of their income, that is the facts pure and simple. If the hate mongers want to mislead better, they need to use the words “federal income taxes” as the federal income taxes is often used to balance other taxes as FICA, Medicare, etc.
 
BTW, I am in favor of a flat income tax on anything over the poverty level. If we start taxing the poor just to make them pay something then we should scrap the income tax altogether and find another means for the government to fund itself.
Actually I am in agreement here. A flat tax on income over 30K or so, with one interest exemption on your primary home.

Or a national sales tax - easy to administer and collect, and only tax on items not deemed necessities.
 
Actually I am in agreement here. A flat tax on income over 30K or so, with one interest exemption on your primary home.

Or a national sales tax - easy to administer and collect, and only tax on items not deemed necessities.
Both have their positives and negatives. I am not sure which would be best or maybe a combination of both.
 
BTW, I am in favor of a flat income tax on anything over the poverty level. If we start taxing the poor just to make them pay something then we should scrap the income tax altogether and find another means for the government to fund itself.
Actually I am in agreement here. A flat tax on income over 30K or so, with one interest exemption on your primary home.

Or a national sales tax - easy to administer and collect, and only tax on items not deemed necessities.
You have that now
articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx
 
Actually I am in agreement here. A flat tax on income over 30K or so, with one interest exemption on your primary home.

Or a national sales tax - easy to administer and collect, and only tax on items not deemed necessities.
What about those who can’t buy a home? Shouldn’t they get some part of their rent written off to equalize things?
 
What about those who can’t buy a home? Shouldn’t they get some part of their rent written off to equalize things?
hmmm. I don’t think so. They are not risking capital as a homeowner is. I would have to think on that though. The landlord is paying taxes and interest not the renter.
 
hmmm. I don’t think so. They are not risking capital as a homeowner is. I would have to think on that though. The landlord is paying taxes and interest not the renter.
So only a risk on capital can be deducted from income? What about necessary shelter expenses?
 
What about those who can’t buy a home? Shouldn’t they get some part of their rent written off to equalize things?
Except, of course, that sometimes those who can’t afford to buy a home find a lender who will accept an inflated appraisal and allow seller “concessions” so that the buyer has nothing in the home at all. The loan gets sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and goes bad. The borrower has nothing in it and walks away. The taxpayer gets to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some of the banks who bought some of those loans go under and FDIC gets to pay the losses. FDIC raises its fees to the banks that did not go under and everybody gets to pay more interest because the banks’ overhead is now higher.

If the borrower’s income is low enough, he can get a rent subsidy from the government. He doesn’t care any more about the landlord’s property than he did about his own, so he doesn’t take care of the rental. When he moves out, the landowner has lots of renovation and repairs to make.

I’m not saying all renters or all “no equity” home buyers are the same. But there is a lot of risk in being a landlord. Get one meth cooker in your unit and there’s a high likelihood it will become so toxic it can’t be inhabited ever again. Fail to throw the meth cooker out if you find out what he’s doing (and maybe you’re afraid?) and the government will seize your rental. You’ll still have to pay the bank’s mortgage on the unit, however.

Being a landlord is far riskier than being a tenant unless, of course, the landlord is connected to the mob or some politician who can get you government subsidies. Most landlords have neither.

Frankly, if most landlords did not get to deduct some of the income to cover the risks of loss that they face, very few rentals would be available.
 
What about those who can’t buy a home? Shouldn’t they get some part of their rent written off to equalize things?
They already do it is called a standard deduction
hmmm. I don’t think so. They are not risking capital as a homeowner is. I would have to think on that though. The landlord is paying taxes and interest not the renter.
Actually the renter pays the tax, and the landlord/owner does not risk much if any capital. The capital risk is mostly on the bank which the bank compensates with interest.
So only a risk on capital can be deducted from income? What about necessary shelter expenses?
Actually ALL BUSINESS EXPENSES are deductable while no personal expenses are deducted
 
They already do it is called a standard deduction

Actually the renter pays the tax, and the landlord/owner does not risk much if any capital. The capital risk is mostly on the bank which the bank compensates with interest.

Actually ALL BUSINESS EXPENSES are deductable while no personal expenses are deducted
Then the standard deduction should be enough to cover the mortgage as well. An additional deduction should not be needed putting us back to a flat rate tax on income over the poverty level.
 
If we did have a flat tax, it should be truly flat. No deductions for mortgage interest or anything. That way, the rates can be lower and then there is less distortion in the economy.

Also, the story at the beginning of the thread forgot one thing. Not everyone at the table eats the same meal. Some, such as Bill Gates, get’s more value from government than others. So for a tax to be fair, it should be based also on the value received from the government.
 
If we did have a flat tax, it should be truly flat. No deductions for mortgage interest or anything. That way, the rates can be lower and then there is less distortion in the economy.

Also, the story at the beginning of the thread forgot one thing. Not everyone at the table eats the same meal. Some, such as Bill Gates, get’s more value from government than others. So for a tax to be fair, it should be based also on the value received from the government.
I agree with the no deductions part but income should nt be taxed below the poverty level. Can you imagine trying to pay Uncle Sam when you are having a hard enough time paying the basic bills? Taxation should start at anything above the poverty level and then be a flat rate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top