• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Tax system explained in beer

Nucking Futs

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Location
Lafayette
Moto(s)
.
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER -

Suppose that once a week, 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 4 men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The 5th would pay $1.

The 6th would pay $3.

The 7th would pay $7.

The 8th would pay $12.

The 9th would pay $18.

And the 10th man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly 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 realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifthand sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided 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 (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid $50 instead of $59 (a 15% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.



But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got $1 out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $9"

"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved $1 too. It's unfair that he got nine times more benefit than me"

"That's true" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $9 back, when I only got $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 week 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 to pay 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 might 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.
 
3732768+_3af82752f6304ffdda12fa02fd01e629.jpg
 
The wealthy in this country pay a smaller percentage of their gross income in taxes than the working poor, so I'd say this lengthy analogy doesn't really hold up in this day and age.
 
Except they pay most of the taxes.
 
So Mitt paying 13% of millions is more than Joe Schmo paying 20% of a pittance and you think Mr. Schmo is getting a good deal?

Does Mitt cheats or follows the law? You do know the difference in tax rates on capital gain (investments and risks associated with it) and Joe Schmoe's paycheck tax rate(paycheck that is guaranteed unless he fired). What do you do for a living? :laughing
 
Does Mitt cheats or follows the law? You do know the difference in tax rates on capital gain (investments and risks associated with it) and Joe Schmoe's paycheck tax rate(paycheck that is guaranteed unless he fired). What do you do for a living? :laughing

Here I was thinking making millions in capital gains was easy street when you come along and let me know about this whole "guaranteed paycheck" thing. Sign me up!

(I didn't say anyone was breaking any laws)

(My work is irrelevant, but I don't see many millionaires giving it all up for the "security" of wage slavery)
 
Investment is risk. Risk should be rewarded.
 
Investment is risk. Risk should be rewarded.

To be fair investment at the Mitt Romney level is only for the rich. It's not like you can just do the VC or private equity thing on a whim.
 
Well, then, I'm confused. Weren't the banks' risks properly rewarded?

I think you confused. Or trolling. Or stupid.

What I meant as a "reward" is a tax incentive, tax break. Not a bullshit bailout. For that we can thank both sides of the isle. Reps and Dems. Both sides are assholes. They both bought and paid for.
 
if only tax breaks were as simple as the beer example

But not protected

+1

the risk is mitigated two-fold, both with the lower tax rate on gains and the deduction for losses. IMO, one extra incentive to invest is enough, two is foolish and costly.
 
Investment is risk. Risk should be rewarded.

Not necessarily. A lot of investments produce nothing for anyone but the person willing to take the risk. And he is rewarded with more money. Why do they need a reward from society?
 
Back
Top