A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

Imagine the following:

Ten good friends go out for dinner at a restaurant every night. The combined bill for the ten totals $200. Since they all make differing amounts of money they decide that they divide the payment as follows:

The four first - the poorest of the lot - don't pay at all.
The fifth pays $2.
The sixth pays $6.
The seventh pays $14.
The eigth pays $24.
The ninth pays $36.
The tenth and the richest pays $118.

They were all pretty content with this way of splitting the bill and they went out to eat together every day. One day, however, the restaurant's owner decided he'd give them a discount.

"Since you're such good customers", he said, "I'll give you a discount of $40." The ten's dinner would then cost $160. The group of friends decided they still wanted to keep splitting the check in the same fashion as previously. Therefore, the four first - whom paid nothing - were not affected and could keep eating for free. But how would the remaining six - those who were paying - divide the cost amongst them? How were they to split the value of the discount so that everyone got their fair share? The six realized that $40 divided by six equals $6.66. However, if they subtracted that amount from each person's share - the fifth and the sixth persons would get paid to go out and eat (by paying a negative amount).

The restaurant owner suggested that it'd be fair to reduce each person's share roughly proportionally and he crunched the numbers to calculate the amount each person was to pay. He came to the conclusion that the fifth person too could eat free - just like the 1st through 4th did originally -, the sixth was to pay $4, the seventh $10, the eigth $18, the ninth $24 and the tenth $104 in contrast to his previous $118.

As a result, ALL SIX paid a lower price than before and the four who paid nothing originally kept paying nothing.

But one night after finishing their dinner, they all started comparing what they had saved. "I only saved $2 of the discount's total value of $40", said the sixth person. Then he turned and pointed to the tenth person who still paid the lion's share and said "But he saved $14!". "That's right", concurred the fifth person and added "I too only saved $2! It's unfair he saved seven times the amount I did". "That's right!", the seventh person yelled. "Why should he save $14 when I only saved $4? The rich always get the unfair advantage!". Then the four first - who never payed a penny - cried "Wait a minute! We didn't save anything at all from the discount! This system exploits and takes advantage of the poor!".

The first nine persons then jumped the tenth and beat him up. The following night, he didn't show up for dinner - causing the other nine to sit down and eat without him. When the check arrived they realized a little something. They were $104 short to pay for dinner.
Why Rick Santorum Should Be President

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

a better analogy would be this: 1000 people attend a catering event. 6 of them are rich beyond your wildest dreams, they are richer than more than the bottom 800 or so attendees combined. the other 994 people range from dirt poor to pretty fucking rich. to pay for the event, which includes unlimited opportunity for good food, the filthy rich are charged $13 dollars to enter while the rest are charged anywhere from $35 for the well off, $30 for the not so well off but still getting by, $15 for the next to broke, $5 for the poverty folks, and $0 for the few truly poor.

.

Yeah, but the ultra rich in this scenario can still say "I don't think it's worth it" and leave without paying.

This scenario in the REAL WORLD:
The "event organizer" would come over and say, "Stay, leave, who gives a fuck.....You've already been charged for the event!"