Large Scale Central

Bar Stool Economics

This was sent to me by an un-named co-conspirator. :lol:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for Hamburgers & fries 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 ate 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 meal by $20.

Food 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 eat 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 started to 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 eat his meal. So, the 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 eat 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 his meal, so the nine sat down and had their food 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 eating 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

Dear Steve (and u.n.c.c.),

Great explanation.

Hope the good Professor has tenure.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

Quote:
... ...In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier...
You mean by exploiting things like off-shore accounts, tax shelters, and other loopholes? (To say nothing of outright tax evasion?) Nah, the wealthy would never resort to things like that... ;)

If the “wealthy” (and I use the term in quotes in a generic sense) want to move to another country and take their money with them, that’s fine. Nothing wrong with picking up your ball and moving to another playground. In the above example, the remaining nine would simply alter their menu to fit their new budget. There’s a lot of that going around right now (though not necessarily at the high levels it needs to…)

But that’s not what happens. The tenth man doesn’t stop showing up for dinner. He still eats, but only puts half of his money in his wallet, insisting that while the remaining money does exist, the group isn’t entitled to it, so he doesn’t have to count it. As a result, he’s no longer at the top of the pecking order, thus leaving someone else who can less afford it the responsibility for the larger portion of the tab.

Now, I’m not suggesting that we don’t take the tax credits and deductions that we’re entitled to, but I do draw the line at gaming the system. It’s a game the wealthy class is very adept at playing, where the working class can’t afford to buy the ball. When tax rules are said to “favor the wealthy,” it’s these loopholes which are being referred to. (I’m not implying that only the wealthy game the system, but their rewards are exponentially higher.)

That’s where the issue with taxes lie. It’s not with the base tax rate. Most everyone understands that those with more money are initially taxed at a higher rate. It’s the loopholes, exceptions, and shelters which allow those with more money to be able to protect it from being taxed in the first place which unbalance the playing field. Look at your tax returns, specifically at the difference between your base tax rate and your effective tax rate. It’s the latter number which counts.

Later,

K

Kevin Strong said:
Quote:
... ...In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier...
You mean by exploiting things like off-shore accounts, tax shelters, and other loopholes? (To say nothing of outright tax evasion?) Nah, the wealthy would never resort to things like that... ;)
I guess you are referring to the Kennedy Clan who first made their fortune when old Joe ran Rum across the river from Canada to New York during Prohibition.

I’m referring to anyone, no matter how they made their money. Rum running, no-bid contracts for rebuilding a war-torn country, oil, technology, ebay, lemonade stand, model trains (okay, maybe not…)–doesn’t matter. The desire to protect money from being taxed is universal, and not limited by income level or party affiliation. The wealthy simply have more money at stake, and better resources to play the game.

Later,

K