I certainly was able to chuckle at the letter in the Times on Aug 25 regarding the "... little town in Ohio ... total net worth of $1,000,000," even though I am not sure what the moral or object of the story was. Here is a comparison that makes a lot more sense:
Ten very close friends would meet every Friday night for a few drinks at the local bar. The bill was always $100 and since each of the 10 had various incomes they split the bill (taxes) with one paying $40, four paying $10/each, four paying $5/each and one paying $0. One night the owner of the bar comes to the table and tells them since they are so regular and come every Friday night, their bill from now on would be $80. They were ecstatic! This, however, led to a discussion on how they would split the $20 savings (tax cut/break)! The five paying the most thought they should proportion the savings the same as the payments, i.e. the one paying $40 would save $8, the four paying $10 would each save $2, the four paying $5 would each save $1 and the one paying nothing would, of course, save nothing.
Well the bottom five didn't think that was fair. They felt they should split the savings (remember tax cut/break) equally with all 10 saving or getting $2 out of the $20. They were able to convince the four paying $10 that this was a good deal since it really didn't affect them (they would get their $2 either way) and so it was decided that this is what would be done. From now on the one paying $40 would now pay $38, the four paying $10 would now pay $8, the four paying $5 would now pay $3 and the one paying $0 would now get $2 paid to him!
Everyone went away happy that night (or so they thought), but when the next Friday came the one who had been paying $40 (which would now be $38) didn't show up. Needless to say, there were no more Friday Nights Out.
The moral of the story? If you want to give a tax break to one, you have to give it to all or the "big" payers may not show up anymore!