Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Bar Stool Economics
- Thread starter mrplunkey
- Start date
redsamurai
Banned
It's not inacurate "technically".......but it is a quaint and trite explanation using beer, of all things. In reality, the 4 poorest men are getting what it takes to live, not just some stupid liquid. Maybe "water" would have been a better explanation?.......yeah right, the person who wrote that meant to portray the poorest men as freeloading beer slobs.
But the analogy is nonetheless fairly accurate. But there have been times that only people of a certain income bracket that have gotten tax breaks.........and that naturally doesn't sit too well with most folks. If you're going to give people a tax break, make it all the way down the line. Or how about just tax 25% of ALL people's income and just use the money for infrastructure........yes, military spending will dwindle.........big fucking deal. Maybe then we won't even have the ability to piss around in some country's business on the other side of the planet............now that I like the sound of.
But the analogy is nonetheless fairly accurate. But there have been times that only people of a certain income bracket that have gotten tax breaks.........and that naturally doesn't sit too well with most folks. If you're going to give people a tax break, make it all the way down the line. Or how about just tax 25% of ALL people's income and just use the money for infrastructure........yes, military spending will dwindle.........big fucking deal. Maybe then we won't even have the ability to piss around in some country's business on the other side of the planet............now that I like the sound of.
javaguru
Banned
When I took personal income tax in law school the professor answered the question of astudent about a flat tax Vs the progressive system by saying, "We could start with a flat tax and over time it would become a progressive tax like we have today." For all the Reagan Republicans, it's a trickle down theory. If the poor fuckers are spending all their money on taxes they aren't buying consumer goods from the rich bastards that pay the higher taxes and the rich bastards need the poor bastards spending their scratch to stay rich.redsamurai said:
The moral of the story, it's better to be paying 40% taxes on your million dollar income than nothing on your 25k income. Who would you rather be? :0
mrplunkey
New member
I'm willing to take-on the risk. Go-ahead and subject me to a flat 10% tax and we'll test the prof's theory.javaguru said:When I took personal income tax in law school the professor answered the question of astudent about a flat tax Vs the progressive system by saying, "We could start with a flat tax and over time it would become a progressive tax like we have today." For all the Reagan Republicans, it's a trickle down theory. If the poor fuckers are spending all their money on taxes they aren't buying consumer goods from the rich bastards that pay the higher taxes and the rich bastards need the poor bastards spending their scratch to stay rich.
GoldenDelicious
New member
the article is flawed because it neglects the idea that if the rich person didnt exist (or got beat to death instead of just beat up) then the remainder of the beerdrinkers at the table would have access to a greater proportion of the economy/market, make more money, pay more tax themselves, and thereby be able to afford their own damn beer.
it doesnt matter who owns the economy - it only matters that the economy produces goods and services.
it doesnt matter who owns the economy - it only matters that the economy produces goods and services.
Similar threads
