Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bar Stool Economics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Bar Stool Economics

    I copied this from another site.



    Bar Stool Economics

    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. '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 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 realized 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 roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

    And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

    'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'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 than I!'

    'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

    'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The 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 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 college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes 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, University of Georgia

    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
    __________________
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

    #2
    BarRoom Slang

    Oleander, this guy really hit the nail on the head.

    Next time one of my low-income taxpayers complain about the tax breaks for the rich, I'll think I'll tell this story.

    Comment


      #3
      White Oleander

      This was great! I copied it and sent it to several friends.

      Thanks for sharing it.

      Comment


        #4
        The only part not addressed is that guys 1-4 not only didn't pay for their beer, they walked out with money put into their pockets.

        After all, they actually worked a job that day and should be rewarded for doing so.
        You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

        Comment


          #5
          Is that

          like E.I.B.C.?

          Earned Income Beer Credit
          Last edited by veritas; 10-13-2008, 11:50 PM.

          Comment


            #6
            Why our tax code is so complex

            I think I have figured out why our tax code is so complex. There is disagreement not only about what the government should be doing for the public and how much that should cost, there is also disagreement as to how the burden of paying for government should be shared. There is no way to get through Congress and signed by the President a budget and a tax plan that are internally consistent based on any one pair of answers to those questions because everyone who had a different answer would be opposed to them.

            I personally think that there is nothing wrong with taking half of the total income of anyone whose income is at or above the 80th percentile. If they chose to take their money and their lives and go elsewhere let it be at the cost of their citizenship and the right to ever return to the US even for purposes of a stopover flight. But then I think payments a business makes to foreign entities of any kind should not be deductible for tax purposes and for 25 years after a company closes a plant in the US without simultaneously opening another one with an equally large payroll in the US its entire revenue should be taxable at 85%. But other people who are at least as intelligent and informed as I am hold other opinions on these questions and this being a democratic republic the government must try to find compromises that most of us can live with..

            Comment


              #7
              Erchess, please say it ain't so...

              Originally posted by erchess View Post
              I personally think that there is nothing wrong with taking half of the total income of anyone whose income is at or above the 80th percentile. If they chose to take their money and their lives and go elsewhere let it be at the cost of their citizenship and the right to ever return to the US even for purposes of a stopover flight.
              Are you telling me that if the gov't took 50% or more of your income you would like it and thank them for opportunity of handing it over because you are a citizen of the US? And, don't worry about them spending it wisely. No need to account for it, feel free to squander it as they see fit. Surely not!

              I am not that "patriotic".

              Comment


                #8
                Ha ha

                Originally posted by DTS View Post
                Are you telling me that if the gov't took 50% or more of your income you would like it and thank them for opportunity of handing it over because you are a citizen of the US? And, don't worry about them spending it wisely. No need to account for it, feel free to squander it as they see fit. Surely not!

                I am not that "patriotic".
                My income is not and never wil be at or above the level I specified but it it ever was then I would gladly hand half of it over.

                They already have to account to the voters for how they spend our money. No one seems to pay attention but the information is there.

                As for their spending it wisely there is no consensus among the public as to what would constitute wise spending of our money. Just to name one example I believe that a good many on this board oppose the EIC while I view it as the best idea the Republican Party ever had even though I wish it were not administered by the IRS but by the social welfare people.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by erchess View Post
                  My income is not and never wil be at or above the level I specified but it it ever was then I would gladly hand half of it over.

                  They already have to account to the voters for how they spend our money. No one seems to pay attention but the information is there.

                  As for their spending it wisely there is no consensus among the public as to what would constitute wise spending of our money. Just to name one example I believe that a good many on this board oppose the EIC while I view it as the best idea the Republican Party ever had even though I wish it were not administered by the IRS but by the social welfare people.
                  Honestly, you are a better person than I am!

                  I would resent paying this over because I disagree with you that they tell you they are duty-bound to the taxpayer of our country, but in reality, could care less and they think our treasury is their own personal feeding trough.

                  As to how to spend our money, I think if you and I sat down over coffee and needed to figure out finances, the first thing you and I would agree on would be to balance our monthly expenses. In doing this, there would be some room for give and take on each of our parts on what extra monies would be spent on.

                  I think you and I could do a better job of this than our politicians, but maybe not.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Dts

                    Probably any randomly chosen two to five members of this board could arrive at a budget and a tax system that all of them preferred to what we have now. I question whether even most of the rest of the members here much less society as a whole would concur. I further suggest that even in the case of the budget worked out among members of this board the agreed upon solution would include logically inconsistent elements. This is because before you can decide what the national budget and tax system should look like there is a logical need to decide the answers to two questions on which there is no general agreement. The questions are 1. What expenses should be paid for out of taxes and how much should be paid for each expense? 2. How should the burden of paying these expenses should be shared? I would simply claim that the range of possible answers to these questions makes it impossible for a large democratic republic such as ours to have a budget and a tax system that are based on internally consistent answers to these questions.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I think you are noble in your willingness to hand over a large percentage of your income to others if you earned above a certain threshold. It would be nice to be in that situation and have the freedom to do so.

                      However, for the government to arbitrarily set that threshold and then confiscate money from one group of people and hand it to another is nothing more than legalized theft, no matter how noble the cause. It is using the power of the state to steal from one "undeserving" person and give to another "deserving" person, with those definitions being set by people who depend upon the votes of the "deserving" persons to stay in office. It always feels good to help the disadvantaged when you can use other people's money to do it, and get the added benefit of buying their votes.

                      Or as a well-known politician recently stated, "I want to spread the wealth around" a little. (Even though he hasn't bothered to spread much of his own wealth around, as is evidenced by his latest financial filings).
                      Last edited by JohnH; 10-14-2008, 04:34 PM.
                      "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectful" - John Kenneth Galbraith

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by JohnH View Post
                        I think you are noble in your willingness to hand over a large percentage of your income to others if you earned above a certain threshold. It would be nice to be in that situation and have the freedom to do so.

                        However, for the government to arbitrarily set that threshold and then confiscate money from one group of people and hand it to another is nothing more than legalized theft, no matter how noble the cause. It is using the power of the state to steal from one "undeserving" person and give to another "deserving" person, with those definitions being set by people who depend upon the votes of the "deserving" persons to stay in office. It always feels good to help the disadvantaged when you can use other people's money to do it, and get the added benefit of buying their votes.

                        Or as a well-known politician recently stated, "I want to spread the wealth around" a little. (Even though he hasn't bothered to spread much of his own wealth around, as is evidenced by his latest financial filings).
                        I believe they call this progressive taxation, not "stealing" but we're all entitled to our own opinion. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates subscribe to progressive taxation, and it benefits all of us.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Whose Income is it really?

                          There is a spectrum of possible answers running from "It belongs to society and society may use it for whatever ends society chooses because society set up the situation in which the individual was able to obtain it." all the way to "It belongs to the person who receives it unless said person has broken the rules in the process of obtaining it.". Most of us fall somewhere on that spectrum and few of us are going to be driven from our respective stands. If you are somewhere near the first option I mentioned, then it is obvious to you that the richer you are the proportionately greater your tax burden should be. If you are somewhere near the second option then it is obvious to you that tax rates should be flat and you may even lean toward the idea of making everyone who pays tax at all pay the same amount. We are in the realm of BELIEF otherwise known as VALUES because logical argument will not drive very many people away from their positions.
                          Last edited by erchess; 10-14-2008, 04:54 PM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by JCH View Post
                            I believe they call this progressive taxation, not "stealing" but we're all entitled to our own opinion. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates subscribe to progressive taxation, and it benefits all of us.
                            JCH you do realize that the only ones stopping Bill and Warren from paying more is themselves. IF they feel so strongly about the rich paying more taxes than why don't they both hand more money over? The US Treasury will accept more if the taxpayer so chooses to support the govt above and beyond there legal duty.

                            50% please!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by sea-tax View Post
                              ...The US Treasury will accept more if the taxpayer so chooses to support the govt above and beyond there legal duty.

                              50% please!
                              Between those two, that just might take care of our current problems, so, I vote "yes" to that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X