General

Chat

ten men go out for a beer

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this;

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction..
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

November 20, 2012

20 Comments • Newest first

TrueAtheist

[quote=WontPostMuch]Bro, the surplus had very little to do with Clinton's economic policies (srs) It's mostly the Fed and other external factors that led to a temporary surplus.[/quote]

lol exactly, I'm just saying having a surplus and raising taxes on the rich aren't mutually exclusive things; Republicans act like it's the end of the world and the economy will recession if we raise taxes which isn't true.

Reply November 21, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=TrueAtheist]Under the Clinton Administration the top 5% in the U.S. were paying higher taxes than they are now (prior to the Bush tax cuts) and the economy boomed and we even had a surplus.

That is historical evidence that the rich don't run away to other countries if they're taxed a little more.[/quote]

Bro, the surplus had very little to do with Clinton's economic policies (srs) It's mostly the Fed and other external factors that led to a temporary surplus.

Reply November 21, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=Boss]Ugh, I hate getting into these sorts of conversations, but the poor do NOT feel exploited solely based on monetary values in their tax breaks...[/quote]

P much what my comment was gonna be. It's a good example of basic economic principles and theorems, but a piss poor way to understand the actual contentions we find in real life.

Reply November 21, 2012
onigiri123

Interesting. I'll delve further into his works.

Reply November 21, 2012
TrueAtheist

Under the Clinton Administration the top 5% in the U.S. were paying higher taxes than they are now (prior to the Bush tax cuts) and the economy boomed and we even had a surplus.

That is historical evidence that the rich don't run away to other countries if they're taxed a little more.

Reply November 21, 2012
djmaxaaron

what i don't understand.

Reply November 21, 2012
myrdrex

What an absurd, 1 sided post.

You left out an important detail- The bottom 9 people have a COMBINED net income of under 40% the top person.

And now let's replace "Beer" with the "fire and police protection, military, infrastructure, educational system, court and well enforced intellectual property system" and all the other things that enable the wealthy person to have achieved success and see just how willing they are to run and flee to 'another country'.

So yeah, him paying over half the bill isn't unfair at all.

This is as pathetic as the whiners who threatened to move to Canada when Romney lost. Yeah, go ahead and flee the US for an even more socialist state!

Reply November 21, 2012 - edited
QuackOutLoud

Thanks for making my day.

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
xRawrImScary

[quote=JelloBears1]Very understandable.

P.S. What's a Ph.D. doing here?[/quote]
i didn't write it. but i thought i'd share it.

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
LowWillpower

[quote=JelloBears1]Very understandable.

P.S. What's a Ph.D. doing here?[/quote]
Copy & paste = PhD?

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
dragon2923

Should be a fixed % for everyone. But if you have nothing , a % of nothing equals nothing actually. And by nothing I mean under 5000$ yearly income or any other fixed amount = nothing.

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
Chema

[b]Moral of the story:[/b] We need to buy more beer to save the economy

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
ValorEye

Oh firetruck. Out of all people, workofart quoted me. ~cliffdive~

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
xRawrImScary

[quote=WorkOfArt]Interesting read. @ValorEye I can see why this is too many words for a 3 year old child.[/quote]
I didn't even read the whole thing. LOL.

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
WorkOfArt

Interesting read. @ValorEye I can see why this is too many words for a 3 year old child.

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
Boss

Ugh, I hate getting into these sorts of conversations, but the poor do NOT feel exploited solely based on monetary values in their tax breaks...

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
dontran18

I see... mhm... yes... so why did you post this on Basilmarket? Out of all website, Basilmarket?

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
ZzXxskyxXzZ

You sir, are a smart one.

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited
ValorEye

Too much words. QQ

Reply November 20, 2012 - edited