s*****s
发帖数: 59 | 1 Maybe too old, but here it goes:
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 ball. “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 men would 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” 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 benefit 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. This new tax 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 their 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!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally 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 overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier. | y*****n
发帖数: 5016 | 2 a very interesting example. | d*****s
发帖数: 5610 | 3 一点没有说服力。
第一，现实生活中，不可能对最有钱的进行人生攻击。
第二，最有钱的那个人以前付59，现在付49，最有钱的人都是理性的，少付10刀还是省
了钱，即使让他现在付52，还是省了钱，他还会来。 | c****y
发帖数: 418 | 4 说得对，有钱人是理性的。
不是只有这伙人要拉那个有钱人一起喝啤酒，比如另外一伙人说有钱人只要
付45元，所以现在这伙人中间的前九个更应该想办法笼络住有钱人，至少要
match这个45元，否则大家都没啤酒喝。就要看前九个人是否理性了。
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】
: 一点没有说服力。
: 第一，现实生活中，不可能对最有钱的进行人生攻击。
: 第二，最有钱的那个人以前付59，现在付49，最有钱的人都是理性的，少付10刀还是省
: 了钱，即使让他现在付52，还是省了钱，他还会来。
| s*****s
发帖数: 59 | 5 最后两段是加入太多文学色彩了。但把最后两段去掉，该文所描述的基本上和现在的税
收政策是一致的。
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】
: 一点没有说服力。
: 第一，现实生活中，不可能对最有钱的进行人生攻击。
: 第二，最有钱的那个人以前付59，现在付49，最有钱的人都是理性的，少付10刀还是省
: 了钱，即使让他现在付52，还是省了钱，他还会来。
| f**********t
发帖数: 51 | 6 Unfortunately, food/shelter/medical care are not beer. It is life vs death
with or without. Few poor people will simply starve themself to death
without put up a fight. Any government will always need safety net and
police force to solve poverty induced problem. And this will cost money. You
cannot expect this money coming from the poor as they don’t have any. You
take $1000 from them, they will not have food for 2 weeks. This just will
not work. If the rich refuse to pay more, all the expense will fall on to
middle class. It is really simple as that.
【在 s*****s 的大作中提到】
: 最后两段是加入太多文学色彩了。但把最后两段去掉，该文所描述的基本上和现在的税
: 收政策是一致的。
|
|
