Last statement. Maybe that is why it’s left off at times. With or without it, it always seems the analogy is often taken too literally. It’s just an analogy, so of course it’s a simplistic way of explaining things. For me, that is what is meant when the arrogant line says most people won’t understand. Most arguments against it delve into complexities of real tax laws and what the weathy “take” from both society and the poorer beer drinkers. Some Arguments even get into the weeds about where the weathy person took his business to another bar? Another country? Who is John Gault?

All things fair, the anology is doing what a good analogy does. Gets us thinking.