[mburbank]

This analogy has several holes:

the 10'th man, the 'most wealthy' man:

A.) is already eating several of his meals at ofeshore resteraunts or in secluded dining shelters only his expensive meal planner has access to.

B.) Often gets other people to pay his share of the meal by lying to them about what the returns on such an investment might be

C.) Can pay his share of the meal with the loose change found between the cushions in the back seat of the limo which takes him to the restaurant while the four non paying people have to walk from work to there and back again since they can't afford the bus.

D.) Has never, ever in the course of American history been beaten up by anyone, let allone his dinner companions, but spends each and every meal complaining about the possability so loudly no one else can hear themselves think.

E.) When was the last time a rich man who was not related to you by blood bought you a dinner mint, let alone a dinner? If this meal plan was not required by the government the rich man would eat alone every night, or in the company of his peers.


BEWARE ANALOGIES! They are a SHITTY tool for understanding things and no one ever comes up with an analogy prior to coming conclusion. Analogies which by design can't ever be truly analagous (The only absolute paralell with our tax system would be another tax system that was identical, not some sort of restaurant tab) are designed to suppport pre existing arguments. They also insult the intellligence, as if to say I know you can't und3erstand our tax code like I do, so let me dumb it down to something your tiny little mind can accomodate, like dinner.

D.) Comparing the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts is deeply disingenous, as one was supply side and the other was not. This reveals just what I said about Analogy. The author already knows what he intends his analogy to support and crafted it speciffically for that purpose.