Dear Auntie Pinko,
Please help! I received a message the other day from a 'conservative' acquaintance of mine that I would like to be able to reply to in an intelligent and respectful manner. I was hoping you could help. Here is the message:
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. 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; and the tenth man, the richest would pay $59.
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 (in tax language a tax cut).
"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 $80.00.
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 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.
So the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12; leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
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, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 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 he 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, a little late what was very important.
They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the 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.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, virtually no Democrat, and most taxing authorities just don't grasp this rather straightforward logic!
I have many problems with this 'story.' I feel it is designed to make the reader look to those beneath them as the source of their problems rather than those above. If the poor are taking so much from the rich, where is it? Am I to believe, as this story puts forth, that people like Michael Eisner (who reportedly made 700 million dollars last year) and Bill Gates (who will receive 99.5 million dollars after the Microsoft stock split) are somehow cash strapped by all the taxes they pay and are in need of special tax cuts so that they can afford to feed and clothe themselves? Please, please, please help. Thanks!
Gael
Los Angeles, CA
Dear Gael,
You're correct to be suspicious of this story. What Auntie Pinko doesn't understand is why you want to answer such condescendingly disrespectful, simpleminded bait in a manner that is "intelligent and respectful." You must be a very nice person, and I'm glad we have folks like you in the Democratic Party.
Setting aside the author's tone ("and that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors,") the story itself does much to reveal both the author's rhetorical inadequacy and his inability to understand basic logic. Reasoning by analogy (I assume that is the author's intent) is always tricky, and unless you choose your analogy very carefully indeed, you can end up looking like a fool. To liken the tax system, which requires participation by law to produce results critical to the well being of all, to a self-selected group of individuals participating voluntarily in an activity that merely enhances their enjoyment (dining out,) is a shaky start.
So for starters, there is little real "analogy" here at all. Which puts the argument into one of my favorite categories of logical fallacy: The "straw man." This is a technique employed by debaters who find themselves unable to make a direct refutation of their opponent's premise or argument. Instead, they construct an argument (the straw man) from a non-representative example, shaky analogy, or inappropriate metaphor, and proceed to demolish THAT, hoping that this deception will distract their opponent and their audience from the fact that they've done nothing to actually refute the real issue.
Unfortunately, the straw man is easily detectable once your audience is alert for it. So using it is usually the trick of a debater who is inexperienced, desperate, not very bright, or has little respect for the intelligence of their audience. If this is the best your conservative acquaintance can do, you really have little to worry about, Gael.
Auntie Pinko suggests that the best counter for this folly is to point out the silliness of the analogy, the transparency of the straw man, and demand that the conservative acquaintance address the real arguments you make in your final paragraph.
However, if you feel you simply must address the discussion on your opponent's terms, you may offer an analogy of your own, and I have one to suggest. It's no sillier than any other analogy, and certainly less condescendingly nasty in tone.
Rather than comparing the issue to a group of men going out to dinner, let's compare it to a group of people who are taking care of a pear orchard that was left to them by their ancestors. They do their best to keep the orchard healthy and bearing fruit, and each of them does end up with some fruit. The first four generally manage to harvest one or two bushels a year, or so. The next one harvests six or seven bushels, the next one gets about a dozen bushels, the next one about twenty bushels or so, the next one 30-35, the next one about sixty or seventy, and the last one harvests three or four truckloads from the orchard.
One year they notice the harvest is getting a little poor, some of the trees are showing signs of disease, and they didn't buy enough netting to keep the birds from spoiling some of the fruit. So they call in an orchard consultant to ask what it will take to make the orchard healthy and bearing again. The orchardist surveys the situation, and says "Well, I can treat the orchard and bring it into shape again, and maybe even better, but you'll have to pay me ten bushels of fruit."
I think you can probably write the rest of the analogy, Gael. Good luck to you, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!
______________________________
What is the pear orchard analogy here and how does it make the 10 men analogy more fair or morally right? Not all the 10 men get the same return from the money spent on dinner.
I still don't see how the analogy was disproven.
Open invitation to pick Auntie Pinko apart.
Please help! I received a message the other day from a 'conservative' acquaintance of mine that I would like to be able to reply to in an intelligent and respectful manner. I was hoping you could help. Here is the message:
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. 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; and the tenth man, the richest would pay $59.
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 (in tax language a tax cut).
"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 $80.00.
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 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.
So the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12; leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
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, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 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 he 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, a little late what was very important.
They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the 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.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, virtually no Democrat, and most taxing authorities just don't grasp this rather straightforward logic!
I have many problems with this 'story.' I feel it is designed to make the reader look to those beneath them as the source of their problems rather than those above. If the poor are taking so much from the rich, where is it? Am I to believe, as this story puts forth, that people like Michael Eisner (who reportedly made 700 million dollars last year) and Bill Gates (who will receive 99.5 million dollars after the Microsoft stock split) are somehow cash strapped by all the taxes they pay and are in need of special tax cuts so that they can afford to feed and clothe themselves? Please, please, please help. Thanks!
Gael
Los Angeles, CA
Dear Gael,
You're correct to be suspicious of this story. What Auntie Pinko doesn't understand is why you want to answer such condescendingly disrespectful, simpleminded bait in a manner that is "intelligent and respectful." You must be a very nice person, and I'm glad we have folks like you in the Democratic Party.
Setting aside the author's tone ("and that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors,") the story itself does much to reveal both the author's rhetorical inadequacy and his inability to understand basic logic. Reasoning by analogy (I assume that is the author's intent) is always tricky, and unless you choose your analogy very carefully indeed, you can end up looking like a fool. To liken the tax system, which requires participation by law to produce results critical to the well being of all, to a self-selected group of individuals participating voluntarily in an activity that merely enhances their enjoyment (dining out,) is a shaky start.
So for starters, there is little real "analogy" here at all. Which puts the argument into one of my favorite categories of logical fallacy: The "straw man." This is a technique employed by debaters who find themselves unable to make a direct refutation of their opponent's premise or argument. Instead, they construct an argument (the straw man) from a non-representative example, shaky analogy, or inappropriate metaphor, and proceed to demolish THAT, hoping that this deception will distract their opponent and their audience from the fact that they've done nothing to actually refute the real issue.
Unfortunately, the straw man is easily detectable once your audience is alert for it. So using it is usually the trick of a debater who is inexperienced, desperate, not very bright, or has little respect for the intelligence of their audience. If this is the best your conservative acquaintance can do, you really have little to worry about, Gael.
Auntie Pinko suggests that the best counter for this folly is to point out the silliness of the analogy, the transparency of the straw man, and demand that the conservative acquaintance address the real arguments you make in your final paragraph.
However, if you feel you simply must address the discussion on your opponent's terms, you may offer an analogy of your own, and I have one to suggest. It's no sillier than any other analogy, and certainly less condescendingly nasty in tone.
Rather than comparing the issue to a group of men going out to dinner, let's compare it to a group of people who are taking care of a pear orchard that was left to them by their ancestors. They do their best to keep the orchard healthy and bearing fruit, and each of them does end up with some fruit. The first four generally manage to harvest one or two bushels a year, or so. The next one harvests six or seven bushels, the next one gets about a dozen bushels, the next one about twenty bushels or so, the next one 30-35, the next one about sixty or seventy, and the last one harvests three or four truckloads from the orchard.
One year they notice the harvest is getting a little poor, some of the trees are showing signs of disease, and they didn't buy enough netting to keep the birds from spoiling some of the fruit. So they call in an orchard consultant to ask what it will take to make the orchard healthy and bearing again. The orchardist surveys the situation, and says "Well, I can treat the orchard and bring it into shape again, and maybe even better, but you'll have to pay me ten bushels of fruit."
I think you can probably write the rest of the analogy, Gael. Good luck to you, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!
______________________________
What is the pear orchard analogy here and how does it make the 10 men analogy more fair or morally right? Not all the 10 men get the same return from the money spent on dinner.
I still don't see how the analogy was disproven.
Open invitation to pick Auntie Pinko apart.
