The parable in the OP is B.S.
The restaurant analogy is bogus - it assumes that all of the diners have the same meal. When compared to tax policy, this makes no sense. It would make more sense if the guys at the bottom have bread and water (@ sub $20K earners), while the guy at the top is having twin lobsters, filet, and a Margaux ($10MM+ earner). Regardless of the accuracy of the analogy, it makes no sense for people who don't pay taxes to get "refunds".
Just wanted to point out that the analogy is simplistic bull****, not that it matters to anyone here.
cbc812 wrote: