NEED HELP Pummeling this RW argument to death

[NM Independent]

I'm highly active on another board - non-political - that is predominately Republican. I have an opportinity to shed some light and alleviate some ignorance. Please help me. I need to cover this from any and all angles, including how the * administration has destroyed the economy by continuing trickle down insanity.

I will greatly appreciate any help.

Here's the nonsense that was posted:


"Most do not understand economics, so this makes the tax system rather plain so that anyone should be able to understand it


EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM 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 first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar 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 beers 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 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 pay $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 drink 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 I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh 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 nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very 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 DO get the most benefit from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest.


Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



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

I have to make them see the light. I might even be able to sway some votes. PLEASE HELP ME!!!!

[Skittles]

1. it used to be dinner

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

[Demeter]

2. Don't Argue Beer--Argue Infrastructure

Talk about the fundamentals to civilized life--health care, clean air, clean water, clean soil, education, housing, and JOBS.

That will sober them up.

[Kutjara]

3. I don't see the poor being offered free beer anywhere.

The central dishonesty of arguments like this one lie in the framing. By posing the argument in terms of "everyday" activities, the avowed purpose is to "simplify" the issue. The real goal of the "simplification," however, is to distort the topic it's supposed to be explaining, to the point it can be shoehorned into some right-wing view of how the world should work.

The tax system isn't about providing private goods like beer. It is about the equitable provision of public goods, goods that everyone needs but few would be willing to pay for voluntarily. For this reason alone, the whole "who pays for the beer" argument is meaningless.

Secondly, the explanation disingenuously assumes a "fair" tax system, where all the costs and benefits are visible to all. In reality, the rich guy will pay more for his beer, but be given all his money back under the counter by the bartender in the form of a "beer consumption development grant." The extra $10 bucks he gets will just be an additional kickback. Or he'll move his beer-drinking operations to a country where the regime pays people like him to drink beer.

Finally, the whole scene where the participants gripe and complain about the division of the discount is just a cheap straw man, aimed at making the poor look grasping and the rich look magnanimous. It assumes the conclusion it should be proving. If the situation really arose, I'm pretty sure everyone would go away satisfied at the end of the night.

Like most such "simplifications," the argument is too simplistic to have any relevance to an informed discussion of taxation. Unfortunately, just about every right-wing view of taxation is ridiculously simplistic, because the minute you start introducing reality into the equation, all the blue-sky dreams of "fairness" break down.

[lildreamer316]

4. I'd actually post this in GD..

you might get some good responses there too.
I'd love to see what comes up.

[NM Independent]

11. Wasn't sure if I could

But, I'll take your advice and do so. Thanks.

[lligrd]

5. If The Cost Were Reduced Then The Cost To Each Would

be reduced by the same tax percentage not by an equal amount. So the one that was paying $59 would reduce his amount by 59% of $20, $11.80 and would pay $47.20. Or 59% of $80 instead of $100.

[defendandprotect]

6. Your example is a poor one --- Everyone has "a beer" but that's not how our

economy nor taxes work --- supposed to be based on progressive earnings ---
the more you earn, the more you pay ---

Corporations are now often paying less in taxes than ordinary citizens ---
at times less than 8% or nothing on their earnings ---

Additionally, we need a new "Windfalls Profit Tax" on oil industry ---

Capitalism is "a ridiculous King-of-the-Hill-System" ---
and unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime ---

[Birthmark]

7. The correct response is:

"You mean those that have 95% of the wealth are whining about their taxes?! Why don't they just buy another country to live in?"

[Lasher]

8. OK try this

The first four men all shared a thimble full of beer. The fifth and sixth man split half a glass of beer between them. The seventh and eighth men split one beer. The ninth had one beer. And the tenth person drank seven glasses of beer.

No wonder they were upset, wouldn't you have been?



http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/wealth-distribution.htm

[flor de jasmim]

9. And let's face it - social reality is that they wouldn't be drinking together!

So the people who could be paying the larger portion of the bill aren't in the vicinity when the poorer guys' bill comes due. Underlying the frame of the story is the trickle-down theory of economics, which in reality does not occur.

[NM Independent]

10. WOW, that was quick

Thanks folks.

Keep it coming :D

[dbmk]

12. Nr 3 is right.

They are using assuming the point that they supposedly are proving. Its completely backwards.
That the group is not capable of splitting the windfall in the same manner as they have split the bill so far.

Or technically resplit the bill.

While reality is of course more complex, because while they may have free beer, still in the figurative sense its being used here, does not mean that they have what they need to survive in a decent manner.

Nr 10 might go home to eat steak while the four poorest might still not be able to afford any steak - even though they drank for free. So it might make sense for all involved to still chip in the same as always, but use the savings on to make sure the four poorest can have steak once in a while. Because they are friends and wants whats best for each other.

Its the last sentence that RWers have problems with. They base their entire platform on the mistrust of basically everyone else.
They see society as a tool and not as a goal in it self.

[gravity]

13. It is a straw man

The logic is correct about the tab, but it isn't how society works. There is no point debunking it.

What this argument fails to say mention is that we are all interdependent in this country, and this country of us vs them is just bullshit.

If you are rich and have a business, you depend on the roads and infrastructure for your wealth, as well as the wellbeing of workers, because it is consumer spending that drives the economy.