Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Bar Stool Economics

mrplunkey

New member
Our Tax System Explained: 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 woul d 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 paid $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 bar, 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, ladies and gentlemen, 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.
 
Arabian said:
lol where in hell did you find that......frigging classic
Conservative friend of mine forwarded it to me. Interesting story -- 65 year old Ph.D. in Mathematics and Statistics who landed a job at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Rose high in the ranks but didn't like working for the government. Founded his own business about 25 years ago and it did great. So he's retired now and a do-it-yourself economist. He's always digging-up stuff like this along with some of his own messing around. He's an incredibly smart, gifted guy who keeps crunching numbers and trying to tell people we can't possibly get to where we need to be the way we are trying to do it.
 
mrplunkey said:
Conservative friend of mine forwarded it to me. Interesting story -- 65 year old Ph.D. in Mathematics and Statistics who landed a job at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Rose high in the ranks but didn't like working for the government. Founded his own business about 25 years ago and it did great. So he's retired now and a do-it-yourself economist. He's always digging-up stuff like this along with some of his own messing around. He's an incredibly smart, gifted guy who keeps crunching numbers and trying to tell people we can't possibly get to where we need to be the way we are trying to do it.
Its right on actually.... I think you,. me an CEO debate economics about once a week anyways... lololol
 
javaguru said:
They should all be poor, they could all drink for free and there wouldn't be an argument. :)
Sad thing is, they will be soon.
 
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.
 
redsamurai said:
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.
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. :) 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
 
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. :) 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
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.
 
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 amazes me the municipalities that dont even seem to understand the laffer curve
 
GoldenDelicious said:
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.
Nope. The analogy holds because the beer drinker didn't die, he simply chose not to participate in drinking anymore. There are at least a half-dozen ways one of "the rich" can legally choose not to participate anymore.
 
Top Bottom