Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

Submitted: Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:10
ThreadID: 26641 Views:2467 Replies:6 FollowUps:18
This Thread has been Archived
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and
it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

This is how the cookie crumbles. 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!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, 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 at the table anymore.

After all, there are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Wim (Qld) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:19

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:19
Tony.

I wait with great anticipation for the fedback you get on this.
Oh, and by the way, tax cuts have nothing to do with Economics.

All the best.
Camper setup
July 2012 - Hay River & Binns track
VKS 737 Mobile 0091
Selcall 0091

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 131172

Reply By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:44

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:44
And where may I ask is the income for those in the top tax bracket coming from ?
You don't mention the tax minimization schemes that are only availiable to the rich.
What proportion of the population with a taxable income pay of more than or less than a nominated amount pay no tax dollars ?
Hey this is harder than it looks!

It would also be interesting to find some stats.
How much of the countrys wealth is owned by what percentage of the population ?
The top income earners pay what proportion of their income in real tax dollars ?
Etc etc .

It's simple to understand our system. If I murder someone I get how many years ?
If I rob a bank or defraud the rich I get how many years?

I could go on and on....but I already have :)
AnswerID: 131175

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:52

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:52
Of course it all depends which side of the fence you're sitting on. If you have a $ then the poor are rorting the system. If you don't then the rich are rorting the system.

In the 70's I used to say
"Inside every communist there's a capitalist waiting to get out."
0
FollowupID: 385527

Follow Up By: BenSpoon - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:07

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:07
Tax minimisation schemes are not just available to the rich- They are generally only viable/profitable to the rich though. Negative gearing and Franked credits to a low tax bracket mean bugger all, but thats not to say the option is not there.

0
FollowupID: 385530

Follow Up By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:10

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:10
So then the hard bit is finding the right balance...right
0
FollowupID: 385531

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:13

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:13
Being poor isn't just a matter of dollars, its also the mindset and lifestyle that result from the lack of dollars.
Yes the schemes are availiable to the poor......in just the same manner that a Porche is availiable to us all :))
0
FollowupID: 385532

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:16

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:16
Mad Dog you have it spot on. Unfortunately human nature being what it is, once we got it right someone would invent politicians :)))
0
FollowupID: 385533

Follow Up By: Member - Gary W (VIC) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:46

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:46
"And where may I ask is the income for those in the top tax bracket coming from ?"

It comes from the lower income earners who get it from their employers who are on higher incomes (maybe not).

Death & Taxes both certain and both difficult problems to solve.

Gaz
0
FollowupID: 385537

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:54

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:54
Gaz, have to agree with you there. Ownership of capital and the means of production etc have filled libraries for a while.

Just a side point.
My friend and I have an income of $2 a week, which enables us to feed and put a roof over our heads.

I have an extended family that I can borrow from in times of crisis. My friend does not.

Which one of us is the richest ?

0
FollowupID: 385539

Follow Up By: BenSpoon - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 14:18

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 14:18
The richest.... that depends if you are talking financially or emotionally... If you reckon that one is richer, let me know and I'll sell you my car in sentimental value, then I'll be off to buy Prix D'Amour.
0
FollowupID: 385547

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 14:36

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 14:36
Yes, it depends on how you measure wealth. But since I can borrow, I can ride out life's bumpy highway a little more easily than my friend. So from that perspective I am the richer. I have the support network, something the poor usually lack.
However if my income is say $5k a week and I hit a rough spot, I can probably borrow from a mainstream lender to tide me over. Therefore I have an advantage ("richer"? ) over the poor person. I have more resources availiable to me. (like tax minimization schemes, rebates, franked dividends, offshore banking etc)
So, rich and poor aren't absolutes. And I suspect that basing a tax system on income isn't all that sound either. But it might be fairer than a wealth tax.
Whatever the answer, our tax system needs looking at so that everyone gets a fair go.
0
FollowupID: 385550

Reply By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:16

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:16
One of the great errors which makes these debates heated and often pointless is the assumption that anyone in the top tax bracket is wealthy. The overwhelming majority of people in this bracket are far from wealthy.

Yes, at the top level where there are huge assets (say $5 million plus) and large incomes (say $250K plus), tax minimisation is rife. SOME people who are in this category pay little tax, which is a blight on our system.

But masses (many hundreds of thousands) of people are in the top tax bracket, but are far from wealthy. If they are wage and salary earners, they have little chance to minimise tax and pay a 48.5% (including medicare levy) marginal rate. Plus they get none of the means tested benefits available to others.

Yes, there are probably several thousand (perhaps a couple of 10s of thousands) of people in the category of wealthy enough to 'rip off the system' and not pay their share of tax.

Just a couple of years ago, the top rate kicked in at a bit over $50,000 per year. The system is a bit fairer now, with the top rate kicking in at $95,000; but you need a lot more than that to be wealthy and enter tax avoidance schemes.

Getting the true 'wealthy' to pay a proper rate of tax is important. But it is more important for fairness and perception than it's effect on the economy. There is probably only a couple of hundred million a year to be gained; a very small amount in the context of overall tax revenue.

Even if $500 million extra was collected and redistributed to the bottom 2.5 million income earners, it woud result in less than $4.00 per week to those people. Yes, it should happen, but it won't make much difference. Just make us feel a little better.
I feel better anyway, having got that off my chest.
AnswerID: 131182

Follow Up By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:46

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:46
Norm, I'd love to be able to feel your pain. :)

There are other inconsistencies within the existing system. For example indexing the tax threshold over the last twenty years might have been a start for the little guy. Indexing the "rich" threshold might of helped, but the remuneration rates of the top CEO's rose by mouch more than any indexing scheme. (I'd use the word "obscene" here...but that might be seen as a case of envy..not so. ) Unfortunately the stats do support the old line that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer under our present system.

What is the measure of us as a nation ? Is it the way in which we treat our children, our aged, our poor and disadvantaged........or the way we treat our wealthy ?

Its a complex problem. Far too complex for myself. But I agree, we need a system that is fair to all Australians, be they rich or poor.
0
FollowupID: 385536

Follow Up By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 15:25

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 15:25
Footloose, your statement 'Norm, I'd love to be able to feel your pain. :)'
suggests you think I am in that top bracket. Far from it! Used to be, but that was three years ago.
From a personal perspective, I'm now much more interested in where the tax free threshold is!

Certainly, top CEO salaries are obscene, particularly in some of the companies where profits, dividends to shareholders and share prices have been poor. But this is a couple of hundred people at most. Once again, changes would be a benefit for fairness and 'feeling good', but in real terms wouldn't do much.

Funnily enough, some years ago the govt made it compulsory for public companies to publish the salaries of their top paid staff. This had the effect of package inflation. Joe Bloggs from ABC sees that Bill Smith from XYZ is getting paid heaps more than him, so he goes to his Board and demands a pay rise. CEO and similar packages have exploded since they were made public. Funny how outcomes are often the opposite to what was planned.
0
FollowupID: 385557

Reply By: Member - Gary W (VIC) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:48

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:48
Good one Tony! Caught enough fish yet?
AnswerID: 131186

Follow Up By: TONY N. - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 14:03

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 14:03
Not yet.

But it is interesting to see how people react to a simple story. It reminds me of the way the media "Fairly" reports storys about 4WD's.
0
FollowupID: 385545

Reply By: Jimbo - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 18:03

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 18:03
Unmitigated right wing crap.
AnswerID: 131212

Follow Up By: Member - Mungo Explorer (NSW) - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 23:49

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 23:49
Spot on, Jimbo.
0
FollowupID: 385653

Follow Up By: TONY N. - Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:45

Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:45
This type of response would seem to be from someone who still has their hand out expecting a free ride and who thinks that anyone who has gotten ahead is a crook.

Get a reality check... The ones who ern the most have worked hard for it, taken the risks and have paid a very high price personally for it.
0
FollowupID: 385665

Follow Up By: Jimbo - Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:53

Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:53
I happen to pay a lot of tax, as a I earn a high income, and am happy to do so. I've also taken the risk by putting everything I had into a business. I did 4 years of night school to get my tertiary qualifications. etc etc.

I believe in an egalitarian society where the less fortunate are given a hand. Don't judge me by your standards, and make ill-informed insults.

I believe in decency and fairness, you clearly don't.
0
FollowupID: 385666

Follow Up By: TONY N. - Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:01

Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:01
So you would be one of those tax cheats! or are you too dumb to take advantage of what you are legally entitle too.

If you believed in decency and fairness you would be advocating that the ones who ern the most get to keep the most. I am sure that you have heard of the word "Incentive".

I have come from a "less fortunate" background etc but I dont sit around making idiotic statements like "Unmitigated right wing crap." I look at the whole story and judge from there.
0
FollowupID: 385668

Follow Up By: Jimbo - Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:09

Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:09
More insults.

I'll not waste any more time with you.

May you get richer and happier if that is your source of pleasure.
0
FollowupID: 385670

Follow Up By: TONY N. - Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:11

Thursday, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:11
If you don't like the insults then don't throw them in the first place.
0
FollowupID: 385673

Reply By: Peter - Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 22:34

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2005 at 22:34
kerry packer a few years ago paid less than 5% tax. he stated many years ago to a senate inquiry that he minimises tax as much as he possibly can and any australian that doesnt is a bloody fool(or words to that effect). i would say every single tax payer when given the opportunity will minimise tax. whether its claiming as much as you can for work deductions without providing paperwork(the old upto $300 rule), asking a tradesman "how much for cash"(no gst), negative gearing to blatant tax avoidance schemes for the rich.
that being said, people wouldnt minimise tax if they werent being overtaxed in the first place(well in theory). recent research showed that if tax minimising schemes were eliminated, taxes cut and the whole system made simplier and fairer we would actually end up many many billions of dollars ahead.
here is a bit of a quirk in the system. the highest effective taxrate paid in australia is the equivalent of between 65% and 85% and at those rates their are no deductions allowed and if the people who are affected by these effective tax rates try to chance their circumstances to get a better tax rate the goverment would prosecute them and force them to have nil income.
these people are the unemployed and those on pensions. so when people on over $95,000 complain about paying 45% tax, which leaves them with around $42,000 to spend i spare a thought for the pensioners and unemployed who get around $10,000, pay tax on that, then if they try to get a job or some income are crucified. the system sucks big time. for everyone.
but the 10th bloke who doesnt turn up has gone to another restaurant, is enjoying his meal complaining about how much tax he pays while the dole bludger lives for the day he can get a job and afford to buy a slice of pizza and pay 65% effective tax.
AnswerID: 131289

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)