Wherein the Author Gets to Rant and Rave about Issues Relating to Taxes, Community, and Stupid Libertarian Memes

I got the best birthday present today, an opportunity to bitch and complain about politics. I got an email this morning from my dear cousin Jean, who was unfortunate enough to receive this nonsense:

From: Murphy, Jean
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:18 PM
To: Joanne Warren; Erica Warren
Subject: FW: Bar Stool Economics 101

I would love a rebuttal from our New York City big whig

>> >> 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 beer 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 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where t he atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

And, dear Readers, my chance to shine:

Haha. Well, since you asked, whenever people throw out that thoughtless and selfish idea that taxes are inherently wrong and that a) tax breaks are inherently good and b) rich people deserve them more, I point out two things:

1.) If you don’t like paying taxes, then stop using the roads, schools, police, social security, public universities, medicine (which is regulated by the FDA), using the public airwaves (television and radio), having your trash removed from your yard, or calling the police or fire department in time of emergency.

2.) The idea that paying taxes requires that people get the same thing back from their contribution commits a fundamental error in the understanding of democracy: it posits that we are consumers buying something rather than citizens combining our wealth to create something that is greater than the sum of our parts. If you personally feel that you as an individual are more important than your neighbor than yes, I can see how it would suck that you have to pay a few bucks extra so her kids can learn to read in a public school. However, if you have any amount of humanity, then you would realize that when we all contribute what we can afford (which is not necessarily the same amount, mind you) then we all benefit. You benefit when your neighbor’s kids get an education—not only because educating kids is a good thing, but who knows if he’ll be the next Einstein? This is how we create a meritocracy rather than a feudal kingdom where rich people get all of the benefits and less rich people have absolutely no chance of bettering themselves. Isn’t that—creating a meritocracy, a city on a hill—what the idea of “America” is supposed to be about? (And don’t even get me started on how we’d all benefit if everyone had comprehensive healthcare, unless you want a lecture about epidemics and how inhuman you have to be to admit that it’s ok if poor people just die. I have no patience for people who claim to be moral or religious yet are ok claiming that rich people are just, well, more deserving of vaccines and things.)

And that is not even addressing the fact that the “example” below is ridiculous not only because of the above examples, but also because in using the example of beer it really trivializes how money is actually spent. It assumes that all those guys have their basic needs met and actually have some extra money for drinks. When a more realistic example would be that you have $1000 that you pay to each of those 10 men, and tax the amounts listed. Because the guy who pays $59 in taxes earns $800 of the total amount, and therefore can still afford to, say, feed his family after he pays the taxes. Perhaps he can even still buy a flatscreen tv. Whereas the guys at the bottom, who don’t pay any taxes, can’t afford fresh vegetables for his kids because he’s paying $3.50 a gallon for gas for his old car that he can’t afford to replace so he can drive a hour a day to his job with no benefits three towns away that pays half as much as the old job that got downsized. Oh, but at least he doesn’t have to pay TAXES BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!! Please.

What is more frustrating about the argument below is that it is most often used by selfish, wealthy right-wingers who want to not contribute their share and fuck over their neighbors, because poor and middle-class people aren’t real people, but they know that wouldn’t go over well so they appeal to our innate sense of individuality and claim that taxes are inherently bad because then OH NO someone else might get some help. But tell anyone who complains about paying taxes that they are more than welcome to quit their job and go work at Wal-Mart for $7/hr, and they won’t have to pay taxes either, and see what they say.

See, Jean, what happens when you get me started?

Since I am pretty sure I am preaching to the choir on this one, feel free to contribute additional ammunition for Jean to use with her fine North Carolinean colleagues.