Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
Agnostic Monkey
-8 Followers
bdbrFeb 24, 2012
Great, more tax cuts with associated "unspecified" spending cuts that never happen. We've already played this game - tax cuts increasing government debt, offset by record levels of money creation, causing commodity price increases that are never offset by equivalent payroll increases. Its just a less-visible form of taxing those who don't have most of their money in investments.
dsmxFeb 24, 2012
Because as we all know the people hardest hit in this recession are the top 0.1% they need a tax cut so much. They can barely make ends meet, some are even having to put their 4th home on the market and trade in their gulf stream jet and fly business class instead. Come on people they need our support, do you want the top 0.1% to be doomed to a life of only semi luxury?
ChrisHoellerFeb 24, 2012
No one is keeping me down. But the system is set up to give more advantages to the wealthiest, then the second wealthiest, then the poverty, and last middle class. Romney is only about trying to say what he think people want to hear (we all are to an extent), but some of this is simple psychology. From a strategic standpoint, right now we need to make an effort to close the income gap, (which has never been bigger) the truth is sometimes we do need to robin hood the system a bit. The wealthy can take it, they have better access to resources, and vast amounts of personal wealth. Taking money they earned? How did they earn that money? Oh yeah, from giving loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay back. By making and taking advantage of loopholes that only people who have the money to hire accountants and lawyers can take advantage of it.
treehugger87Feb 24, 2012
Why don't Republicans just come out and say that the only people who deserve to have any possessions or earn income are the people who are already the wealthiest 0.1%? That seems to be what they're working towards.
improvisedFeb 24, 2012
I agree. When I'm getting raped, I'd rather the rapist just be honest and admit that he's raping me, rather than trying to say he's "making love" to me.
MusicManGPFeb 24, 2012
Many suffer from the delusion that everyone can become as wealthy as the wealthiest 0.1%
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
Lottery tickets are available, you know. I do laugh at how many "temporarily embarrassed Billionaires" we have on digg, defending tax breaks for the wealthy. Don't they know they could be making cash somewhere with all that time they use on stupid insults?
linuxpersonFeb 25, 2012
Many suffer from the delusion that forcefully taking money from others who have rightfully earned it isn't theft.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
Taxes are simply the price of living in a great country, that allows one to make money. Seems to me, if you make a lot, you should pay them. And more than those who make far less. Why on earth is that an issue for you?
MusicManGPFeb 26, 2012
You call it theft, so for you at least, it's true. For many others it is not; we understand that there are costs associated with living in a society. Perhaps someday a willingly cooperative majority can establish an anarchy and you could somehow avoid what you're describing, but until then, your point is all but irrelevant.
ChrisHoellerFeb 24, 2012
Well, if the poor pay no taxes on what little income they have it's not fair and its socialism. If the rich game the system so they are actually making money on the poor, and keeping them down, it's capitalism
antialiasFeb 24, 2012
Who is keeping you down? Hundreds(if not thousands) of Americans every year become millionaires who started with no inheritance or family wealth. The government doesn't make you rich, or poor for that matter. Your station in life is largely due to your level of effort. Statistically of course some start off better than others but that's mostly because of their parents, not "the man" keeping you down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harleyman77Feb 24, 2012
"Hundreds(if not thousands) of Americans every year become millionaires who started with no inheritance or family wealth"
Cite please.
antialiasFeb 24, 2012
From "The millionaire next door"
"Fewer than 20 percent of millionaires inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth". According to wikipedia there were about 300,000 new millionaire households from 2009 to 2010. 20% of that would be roughly 60,000 new millionaire households a year. Even if the original quote was backwards and only 20% of millionaires are first generation, it would still be tens of thousands of people a year becoming millionaires on their own.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsFeb 25, 2012
Sounds like bulls**t. Where did your stupid book get the information?
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
The premise of the book is: the guy next door is a millionaire, he just doesn't show off. Start there, then you can really hope to be one too, like the book says. (Like all get rich quick schemes it doesn't give backup for any statement. The author doesn't know my neighbors.)
Or .... know you are doing well and be glad you can pay your bills.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
How many more investment bankers do you think we can support? They have been doing well.
Stock market went from $100 to $13,000 during that time. You would have to have 7692.23 $100 and invested perfectly to do it. I know people who have that kind of cash to risk, I am not one of them.
But the lottery is your chance!
ljseinfeldFeb 25, 2012
Got any citations from the Amway instruction manual as well?
RichysDiggNameFeb 25, 2012
Hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans every year are becoming millionaires?! Wow, and here I thought Americans were in horrible financial shape
antialiasFeb 25, 2012
According to Wikipedia(using data from the US census) from 2009 to 2010 there were over 200,000 new millionaires. And that is during an economic downturn. Keep in mind that having a net worth of a million doesn't really make you rich or appear rich to others. Most people with a million net worth are just middle class people that have been saving a long time/owned a house for a long time that has appreciated over the decades.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsFeb 25, 2012
It's like you are the king of s**tty sources.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/
Please note the median income for the USA is now $33,000 per year.
Of the top 1% 1.4 million make between $344,000 and $500,000.
You have a shot, stay off digg and work.
JLF2035Feb 25, 2012
Wikipedia is a worthless place to look for real facts.
RichysDiggNameFeb 25, 2012
1. To me, having a million makes you rich and appear rich
2. Don't say "according to wikipedia (using data from the us census)" either get the fact directly from the us census or dont use it at all cause no one's gonna take you seriously using wiki as a source
macliberalFeb 24, 2012
Does it matter what this no nothing idiot wants? This November, Pres O will whip his sorry ass.
ChrisHoellerFeb 24, 2012
What is the big scare behind giving poor people money... They just go spend it right away, boom right back into the economy. Give money to the wealthiest and they put it in foreign banks to make sure no one gets it.
MrFrogyFeb 25, 2012
Have you ever been given a job by someone making $10 an hour? I haven't, and I don't know anyone who has. All the jobs I have ever worked were given to me by companies who's owners were rich.
Why is this the case? Well, because business owners who have lots of money, and want to make more, tend to grow and expand in order to increase their income potential. When they do so, and create a ton of jobs, they are called heroes... until April 15th when they are called evil, thieving bastards for not paying more taxes. Yeah, that makes sense.
Anyone who thinks an increasingly corrupt government can spend money more wisely than a successful entrepreneur is only pissing kerosene into a firestorm. The more you give these Washington politicians the more they will spend. The difference between them and a fat-cat CEO is that the CEO can't spend without limit and still keep his job - something BOTH parties seem to think they can do, without repercussion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
starjotsFeb 25, 2012
A poor person spending his money creates jobs - jobs are created because there is a demand for services from people who actually have money. Chris is absolutely correct.
The rich fellow will only create the job if there is demand. If all the money ends up in his mattress then demand for services goes to zero and nobody works.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
Never in a mattress, but "overseas" for no taxes.
representdlvFeb 25, 2012
No. Demand does not create anything. Demand is just that, demand. It takes entrepreneurs to capitalize on that demand. People wanting smart phones did not create smart phones. Rich people recognizing that demand created smart phones. Those rich people created the jobs. Not the demand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ljseinfeldFeb 25, 2012
Demand creates a need for the entrepreneur to provide more of a product or service. This, in turn, (possibly) creates a need for said entrepreneur to hire people.
Demand can create jobs. Just letting the "Job Creators™" have more money (in the form of tax cuts for this example)... not so much.
Businesses hire people because they _have_ to, not because they want to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MrFrogyFeb 25, 2012
A rich entrepreneur is what he/she is precisely because of the profit motive. All the jobs they created, all the money their employees make, and all the money they have in their mattress all came from the desire to be rich. I have known more than one business owner who made a decent living and chose NOT to grow their business, in spite of the increased demand, because they just didn't want the hassle. Whether a business grows or not is up to the owners, not the customer's demands.
u2canfailFeb 26, 2012
While that is true, an owner can decide not to grow. That same owner won't grow at all even if he wants to, without demand for his goods or services.
The only item all economists agree on is: US economy is consumer driven.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
No, but most of my employers were not wealthy, not millionaires at all.
MrFrogyFeb 25, 2012
And when a small business owner has been successful, grown a business out of nothing, and now makes $400k/yr then he is suddenly an evil bastard on April 15th. He has done more for his employees than the government ever could - all because of his "evil" profit motive.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
Only when he doesn't pay the percentage, of those who make far less. Why does Romney with $$millions in income pay at the same rate as a person on salary making just $34,500? To me it is nonsense, it is legal today, but should not be.
Same for BIG BUSINESS, we have long lists of companies making huge funds, not paying any income taxes, the GOP cites GE all the time. As a small business start up, the rate is 25%. Go figure? We should be supporting small business more than huge conglomerates. They create jobs in your neighborhood.
EVIL is when they are buying such favors through campaign donations, sir.
MrFrogyFeb 26, 2012
I do not disagree that the AGI (not rates) should be the same for businesses both large and small. As for Romney, his AGI in 2009 (as was well publicized) was around 14%, but what was NOT publicized was that the AGI of someone making $35k/yr was around 11%. This is not my opinion, that is hard data directly from the IRS.
Everyone wants to talk about RATES, but we all know, by common sense, that rates mean nothing - it's all about what was ACTUALLY paid after deductions. From that perspective Romney paid a higher AGI - not the same, and not a lower percentage, as some propagandists would like us to believe.
u2canfailFeb 26, 2012
Being me, I did not have 7 children, because I could not afford them. The tax rate is where we start.
u2canfailFeb 26, 2012
I disagree. The percentage "rate" on income is relevant, before deductions. Because many have no deductions other than for themselves. If they were not relevant, we would not have a table from the IRS.
MrFrogyFeb 26, 2012
You don't pay the "rate" - nobody does. What matters is what we PAY, which is AGI. We can complain about this person has a lower rate than that person, but in the end all that matters is WHAT WE ACTUALLY PAID. According to the IRS Romney paid a higher percentage than the middle class - PAID, not would have, or should have, or was supposed to... PAID a higher percentage. Not my opinion, but hard data directly from the IRS.
The "rate" debate is a straw man argument designed for the purposes of propaganda during an election cycle. Why don't you see news articles about the AGI? Because it overshadows the propaganda.
u2canfailFeb 26, 2012
Romney had income of $21.6 million he paid, 14%
A person who made $35k paid 11%
I do know both are legal that isn't the issue. What percentage more money did Romney make, is it 3% more cash? 3% more of $35k is $36,050 not $21.6 million.
garblFeb 24, 2012
Garofalo writes: "Romney’s new tax cut may reduce all tax rates by the same amount, but it gives most of its benefits to the already wealthy. The Tax Policy Center had modeled a 20 percent reduction in all income tax rates, and as this table shows [on the Web page], nearly half the benefit of such a cut would go to the richest 5 percent of Americans, with more than 25 percent of the benefit going to the richest 1 percent, compared with current policy."
auditortuxFeb 24, 2012
If you give an across the board rate cut, math doesn't lie. If I pay more, I will save more. People act like somehow we can do something as simple as this yet violate simple math.
dustbunny52Feb 25, 2012
All it takes is simple math to game a system. One person's tax relief will get him and his family a couple of dinners during the year. The other person's tax relief allows him to buy a nice lake house for a summer residence. These are not quite the same perks.
Just as a flat tax is regressive, a flat tax reduction is also regressive.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
The problem we will always have with taxation is that some amount of it will always be regressive - its basically unavoidable. Perhaps not in math (you can game that) but in effect. Having the poorest taxed at 10% would have a huge impact on them, even if the richest are taxed at 50%.
There are ways around it, but it means little social engineering and vote-buying by politicians. It'd also mean doing away with the entire tax-prep industry for personal taxes - simply have a flat tax with one deduction per adult, one per child.
For example, the tax is 10%, with a $10k deduction per adult, $5 per child. Make 40k? Your tax is $1k or 2.5%. Make $400k, your tax is 37k or 9.2% Its progressive in effect, make under $30k and you have no taxes. Maybe that's too high, but the point remains. And its easy to calculate so long as you have a... what, 5th grade understanding of math?
Now, if we bitch about changes being regressive or giving the rich a huge break, we'll never get to a good system. The real problem with tax debates is its impossible to really calculate what the effects will be with as many loopholes and special allowances as we have.
dustbunny52Feb 25, 2012
I can more or less agree your last post. Unfortunately, that is not what Romney seems to be proposing. What I see him proposing is a simple tax cut which leaves all the ridiculous loop-holes for private jets, low tax rates for capital gains, etc. This seems to be a proposal to increase the gaming of the system with the purpose of keeping the wealthy wealthy.
auditortuxFeb 25, 2012
I agree - but no one will propose something that simple, as I said because it leaves insufficient opportunities for graft.
And anyone who supports Obama cannot complain about the loophole for private jets - that was your man's doing by allowing corporations to write off new assets entirely rather than depreciating them.
As for low rates on capital gains, there is a logic for that. Dividends (which most people bitch about) are taxed twice. And like capital gains, that money was invested after being earned... and taxed.
For someone to invest that dollar, he paid taxes on it already. Then it brings back a return... and he pays taxes again.
Honestly, I'd love to see our taxation system, in its entirety, ripped down and rebuilt. Go through your day and try to find a single place where you do something that is not taxed by some level of government.
bigother1Feb 24, 2012
Whoa!
upnorthgirlFeb 24, 2012
Let's see that's about 5 times the average salary of normal folks. I want what they're getting
irvman21Feb 24, 2012
49.5% of this country already pays nothing in federal income taxes. What more can they get than already not paying a cent?
u2canfailFeb 24, 2012
24% of those are under age 18, and most of them, do not work
13% of those are over 65, some living on only Social Security at poverty level
Just elimination of those 2 groups and you have reduced the number to 12% pay no taxes.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
Then that remaining 12% must be the working poor who still pay payroll taxes. That is quite a big chunk of taxes too. 40% of the federal income actually.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
u2canfailFeb 24, 2012
Some over 65 pay income taxes, I was showing how foul the 49% figure actually is, when you look at population.
bdbrFeb 24, 2012
Yet despite your corrections, there is a 99.98% probability that the "49.5% pay no taxes" misrepresentation will be posted on Digg sometime soon. (assuming a 0.02% chance that hell freezes over)
irvman21Feb 24, 2012
Your attempt to explain the statistic is adorable, but completely inaccurate. The 49.5% statistic refers to HOUSEHOLDS, so that 24% you are trying to write off as kids under 18 are completely irrelevant, unless you are claiming that 24% of the country if made of up kids under 18 who are living on their own. You need to come to terms with the fact that a s**tload of this country pays no federal income tax and are supported by the rest of us who do.
Here is a link to a bunny dressed as a cat, I didn't want to be left out of posting links (like yours to the census) that have absolutely no relevance on taxes:
http://www.catnkitten.com/cat-pictures/funny-cat-pictures/sweet-bunny-cat/
ect5150Feb 24, 2012
irvman21 is right here. Roughly 50% of households pay no federal income tax (you can't say pay no taxes at all though, there are more than just income taxes).
u2canfail's reference doesn't even contain any tax information in it. After visually scanning it, open it up and search for the work "tax"... no hits.
u2canfailFeb 25, 2012
It was just statistics on US population, from the census.
If the median income is $33,000 average family is 2.8, and at $34,500 taxed at 15% less deductions. 1 out of 6 seniors live in poverty. One can see how many do not pay taxes they make far to little! All from census numbers.
benjie25Feb 24, 2012
I pay in taxes and I don't make crap for money, living paycheck to paycheck. If someone is making less than me, then they are probably on welfare.
WTF kind of idiot would raise taxes on people on welfare?
How long did you piss on the toilet seat before someone told you to lift it up? Lacking some common sense are we?
irvman21Feb 24, 2012
What is your tax liability going to be this year?
harleyman77Feb 24, 2012
"WTF kind of idiot would raise taxes on people on welfare?"
Even most smart "conservatives" understand that we will have to raise taxes as part of the solution to our "debt crisis." It's just waaay easier to advocate raising taxes on the poor, elderly, sick and vulnerable (those who have little to no voice in our corrupt political system). Not to mention so brave!! /s
No, they are not idiots. Just greedy, cowardly and cruel.
mandrakelordFeb 25, 2012
New World Order scum! People like you have no place on my planet anymore. Please leave now!
Kthxbai
Closed AccountFeb 25, 2012
Imagine that...
I wonder which team he is playing for
u2canfailFeb 24, 2012
Romney is wanting more tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens, like himself? I do wonder why? Best guess, his vacation home is running over budget.
Mark_LincolnFeb 25, 2012
Every Republican Knows.
Only the low-life 99% should pay taxes.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."
– Leona "first lady of republicans' Helmsely.
mtnxfreeriderFeb 25, 2012
I bet you the richest .1% pay a lot more than 250K in taxes each year... this is probably a tiny reduction percentage-wise compared with the reductions in middle class he has proposed.
ghengiskhan1Feb 24, 2012
Sweet!
Hey, politics is just about what ever you can get for yourself right? I mean, the poor want freebies so they elect people that promise them freebies right?
So if Mitt Romney will promise to let me keep more of my money then he will have my vote (I realize I have said things in the past that contradict that statement, but Im making a point).
I am going to vote for the guy that will give me stuff! Just like the rest of you blood sucking parasites out there! See, we are the same!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
Well said.
u2canfailFeb 24, 2012
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/extreme-poverty-increase/53227386/1
Obiviously, these folks should live well on $1 per day.
miklkitFeb 24, 2012
That does seem to be the plan.
laurahoustonFeb 24, 2012
marginal
magghuindiaFeb 25, 2012
Nice Post
http://sarkaaree-naukri.blogspot.in/
myarmsFeb 25, 2012
Romney is a republican and therefore this should be expected. They will do and say ANYTHING to get your vote.
ObaAdeleMar 1, 2012
He is going to cut taxes and balance budget as well as have the strongest army as if we already don't have. A business man indeed, haven't we seen or heard that before, remember W, he has MBA too! Fuzzy business men and they never make great presidents anyway!!
nixxedFeb 25, 2012
Four years after the mother of all financial crises and the American people are poised to elect a former venture capitalist vulture millionaire c**k head who doesn't give a f**k about them. These people do not care. Get it? They do not give one flying f**karoo about any of you. Like the late Carlin said, "it's a big club, and you're not in it!"
profmnaimFeb 25, 2012
Undue monetary aid of the president hopeful for his affiliate rich corporate at the cost of the poor and deprived in USA deserving meals to work for Super Power America.
dmcaudioFeb 25, 2012
every year I end up paying less than 3% tax, on a salary of 50k. I give a modest amount of my income to charity (about 15%), get educational credits for my wife's college education, and take advantage of child credits for my 3 kids. I also am sure to deduct every possible thing. Paying low taxes isn't rocket science, it's simply being smart enough to use the system and having the patience (a whopping 2 nights in my case) to do things properly.
symphonyinmyheadFeb 25, 2012
Why not? That .1% included him too.
notsosof1Feb 25, 2012
Exactly why RON PAUL should be President
extremephobiaFeb 25, 2012
Romney just told me that he doesn't want my vote. I don't want a 20% tax cut. I want a tax increase. and I want spending cut.
But by saying that he wants to cut taxes 20% across the board he has single handedly shown that he doesn't understand how things work. It is the exact opposite of what needs to happen.
devkhambraFeb 25, 2012
nice job....
kislingFeb 25, 2012
Tone deafness. I am encouraged.
connormatthews2222Feb 25, 2012
All Politicans Are f**ked up
captswuitsFeb 24, 2012
He would never tax himself that much. I call B.S. and it all sounds nice for elections.
songsquery2Feb 25, 2012
http://digg.com/news/entertainment/dil_mera_muft_ka_full_video_song_hd_agent_vinod_ft_kareena_songsquery_com
ageofknowledge2012Feb 25, 2012
Red Flavor-Aid - The Problem with Republican Economics
http://helpfixamericafirst.blogspot.com/2012/02/red-flavor-aid.html
neondistractionFeb 25, 2012
Didn't you learn not to spam your blog the last time you got banned?
ageofknowledge2012Feb 25, 2012
I wrote that article and the points are important. Take the ad hominem elsewhere.
neondistractionFeb 26, 2012
It doesn't matter who wrote the article. Digg's comments don't exist for you to promote your blog.
atomheartmotherFeb 24, 2012
I read somewhere that he's proposing an across-the-board 20% cut.
Of course I didn't read it on thinkprogress, so it's highly suspect, right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 24, 2012Submitter
You should read what you comment about. Yes he said that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZSV3Az25M&feature=player_embedded
"For the high-income folks, we’re going to cut back on that, so that we make sure that the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more."
According to Center for American Progress Tax and Budget Policy Director Michael Linden, Romney’s tax plan contains budget-busting tax breaks for the richest Americans in the form of a permanent 20 percent across-the-board cut to marginal rates and a repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which prohibits the wealthy from artificially lowering their tax rates. “The enormity of these tax cuts is mind-boggling,” Linden said. “Even more unbelievable is how skewed they are to those the very top of the income ladder.”
atomheartmotherFeb 26, 2012
Well, "According to Center for American Progress" Romney's also proposing resurrection of public floggings, a ban on caffeinated drinks and the death penalty for parking tickets.
Cite something halfway credible.
anomaly100Feb 26, 2012Submitter
Well that's just wrong! I need my coffee! Grrr! Romney is truly the Devil.
papavgneveFeb 25, 2012
http://buxify-v2.com/?r=papavgneve
papavgneveFeb 25, 2012
Daily Sharing Dividends and other Commissions
Date Amount Payment Email Description
2012-02-18 7.539 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-19 6.884 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-20 8.111 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-21 9.032 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-22 13.632 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-23 14.549 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-24 14.567 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing Dividend
2012-02-25 18.74 papavgneve@gmail.com Daily Sharing DividendComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallFeb 24, 2012
Your stupid class warfare rhetoric will only get you love on Digg... in reality most people know the only way to do taxes fairly is when everyone pays the same rate.
Yes that means rich people pay less than poor people, and when taxes go down they save more... but again a simple percentage for everyone is the way to go.
It's not like the tax cuts do not ALSO benefit lower income people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
you're a moron of epic proportions.
caramba421Feb 25, 2012
I pay 30% in taxes. Romney pays 15%. f**k him.
davidnivenFeb 24, 2012
So what? The richest 0.1% pay something on the order of 75% (?) or more of ALL income taxes. Of course they're going to get a cut when you cut across the board.
Geez, you idiots at Thinkprogress really are communist fools.
Hey! Check this out. Maybe this will open your eyes:
-----------------------------------
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.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, 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. "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. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each 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, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now 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 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. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"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 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 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 all of them for even half of the bill!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 24, 2012
Oligarchist.