Barstool 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.
 
... and don't think that won't happen.

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.
 
Does this apply to bailed out billionaire bankers? paid to fail with massive taxpayer funds?

The wealthy are not always rich by fair means, more often than not, state collusion and inside connections are involved. Swarthy practices galore. Almost always it's the case in the biggest corporations. This is something neocon style republican fascists can never seem to acknowledge.


But still, just taxing them is not the answer either. We need honest men.
 
Does this apply to bailed out billionaire bankers? paid to fail with massive taxpayer funds?
no. The bailed out bankers in this little scenario is the bartender. When he doesn't get paid because those who got paid the least spent as much as the one who got paid the most, he goes to the government for his bailout.
 
The rich should pay more then the poor.

The problem is most wealthy people don't even pay as much as the poor, percentage-wise.

Folks like to throw out the numbers showing wealthy people pay a higher percentage of income tax. A higher tax bracket. The problem lies with what's considered "income".

The average, hourly paid working stiff is taxed on every dollar they receive because the only dollars they receive are from their job. Wealthy people receive dollars from capital gains but capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate or there is a portion that is tax-free.

Wealthy people are more likely to know other wealthy people meaning they are more likely to receive inheritances. Again, tax-free money.

Rather than have a varying tax rate simply classify all money received as income because it is income. It's money coming in. Whether one worked for it, inherited it, found it, realized it through capital gains......it's money they received.

The idea is put out there that wealthy people worked for their money as if others could have done the same thing, as if everyone has the same opportunity and it's just a matter of working. That is not the case.

In many instances ones good fortune was a matter of luck and circumstance.

For example, a trial lawyer may win a class action suit or a huge jury award and become instantly wealthy. To say they worked for their money implies other less successful lawyers do not apply themselves. however, there is not an infinite number of class action suits from which to choose.

This goes all the way down the line. There are usually more applicants than there are jobs.

This idea that wealthy people worked for their money, earned their money, that their success was a matter of working harder than other people is nothing but a take on the "divine right to rule" philosophy. "I'm here so I must be special."

However, things are changing. As the world becomes one there will be less places for them to "hide".
 
The problem is most wealthy people don't even pay as much as the poor, percentage-wise.

Folks like to throw out the numbers showing wealthy people pay a higher percentage of income tax. A higher tax bracket. The problem lies with what's considered "income".

The average, hourly paid working stiff is taxed on every dollar they receive because the only dollars they receive are from their job. Wealthy people receive dollars from capital gains but capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate or there is a portion that is tax-free.

Wealthy people are more likely to know other wealthy people meaning they are more likely to receive inheritances. Again, tax-free money.

Rather than have a varying tax rate simply classify all money received as income because it is income. It's money coming in. Whether one worked for it, inherited it, found it, realized it through capital gains......it's money they received.

The idea is put out there that wealthy people worked for their money as if others could have done the same thing, as if everyone has the same opportunity and it's just a matter of working. That is not the case.

In many instances ones good fortune was a matter of luck and circumstance.

For example, a trial lawyer may win a class action suit or a huge jury award and become instantly wealthy. To say they worked for their money implies other less successful lawyers do not apply themselves. however, there is not an infinite number of class action suits from which to choose.

This goes all the way down the line. There are usually more applicants than there are jobs.

This idea that wealthy people worked for their money, earned their money, that their success was a matter of working harder than other people is nothing but a take on the "divine right to rule" philosophy. "I'm here so I must be special."

However, things are changing. As the world becomes one there will be less places for them to "hide".

Great post , wish I could rep you again
 
For the idiots:

The%20Rich%20Pay%20More.gif


Also, capital gains is an absurd tax anyway since it is taxing money that has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. The comparison is ridiculous.
 
The rich pay so much because they're making ridiculous amounts. Yeah, they're "making" more money, but where do you think they got that money from?

Because the marginal tax rate is so much lower than in the 70's, money that would have gone into improving the business or raising middle class salaries has all gone to raising rich peoples salaries, with no discernible productivity improvement as a result.

The rich do not deserve to be rich. The middle class DESERVES a decent lifestyle. The right has transferred wealth in this country from the deserving to the undeserving, and it's disgusting.
 
For the idiots:

The%20Rich%20Pay%20More.gif


Also, capital gains is an absurd tax anyway since it is taxing money that has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. The comparison is ridiculous.

Your post is absurd. How can the money already be taxed if it hasn't been received?

If I purchase a building for $100,000 and sell it for $300,000 I make $200,000 in capital gains. Sure I was taxed on the original $100,000 I used to buy the building but I haven't been taxed on the additional $200,000 I receive when I sell. After the sale, when completing my income tax, I owe tax on $200,000 or a portion of it depending on current laws.

And so I should. It is money I received. It is money coming in. Income. Why should I not be taxed on it?
 
The rich pay so much because they're making ridiculous amounts. Yeah, they're "making" more money, but where do you think they got that money from?

Because the marginal tax rate is so much lower than in the 70's, money that would have gone into improving the business or raising middle class salaries has all gone to raising rich peoples salaries, with no discernible productivity improvement as a result.

The rich do not deserve to be rich. The middle class DESERVES a decent lifestyle. The right has transferred wealth in this country from the deserving to the undeserving, and it's disgusting.

In most cases, absolutely! Just like that bullsh!t argument about the trickle down effect. After the banquet is over the poor will get the table scraps.
 
Your post is absurd. How can the money already be taxed if it hasn't been received?

If I purchase a building for $100,000 and sell it for $300,000 I make $200,000 in capital gains. Sure I was taxed on the original $100,000 I used to buy the building but I haven't been taxed on the additional $200,000 I receive when I sell. After the sale, when completing my income tax, I owe tax on $200,000 or a portion of it depending on current laws.

And so I should. It is money I received. It is money coming in. Income. Why should I not be taxed on it?

Double taxation.
 
Double taxation.

Double on what money?

In the example I gave the $100,000 was mine. I had paid tax on it. I use it to buy a building.

I sell the building for $300,000. I made $200,000 and pay tax on $200,000. I never paid tax on it before. That is the first time I pay tax on the $200,000 so where does the "double" taxation enter into it?

EDIT: You're confusing paying tax on the entire selling price which does not happen. If I buy a building for $100,000 and sell it for $100,000 I don't pay any tax as I didn't gain anything. We're talking capital GAINS tax.
 
Last edited:
And I second that.

Thanks Evince and Christie.

The worst part about people complaining about paying capital gains tax is they seldom worked for it or didn't put in anywhere near the effort in comparison to the gains.

When I had my buildings, sure, I collected the rents and interviewed tenants and drove into town to do minor maintenance/repairs. I sure as hell didn't do work worth anywhere near the gains I received. And even if the compensation was commensurate with the work it would be no different than money I earned at my regular job.

There was an article in the local paper a few years ago bemoaning rent controls and how the "poor" landlords were suffering. So, being me:D, I wrote the local paper with a detailed breakdown of one of my buildings. (The information is all public anyway as far as what I paid and the price I sold for.)

The paper phoned me and told me they wouldn't print my letter. Of course not. It was a conservative paper owned by non other than Conrad Black whom, I believe, is currently a guest of the Illinois government regarding his attempted money grab selling newspapers and I'm not talking a door-to-door paper route. :rofl:

Listening to some of these people here one would think the government is taking food off their table. Their greed truly knows no bounds.
 
Double on what money?

In the example I gave the $100,000 was mine. I had paid tax on it. I use it to buy a building.

I sell the building for $300,000. I made $200,000 and pay tax on $200,000. I never paid tax on it before. That is the first time I pay tax on the $200,000 so where does the "double" taxation enter into it?

EDIT: You're confusing paying tax on the entire selling price which does not happen. If I buy a building for $100,000 and sell it for $100,000 I don't pay any tax as I didn't gain anything. We're talking capital GAINS tax.

No I'm really not confusing anything. It appears to be you who are confused. Taxing money twice (once as income, then that same money again as "capital gains") is double taxation.

Of course this is really all irrelevant because what is driving your position on this issue is not the fact that you don't believe capital gains to be double taxation, but rather your oft-stated belief that the rich have too much money and that other people are entitled to some of it.
 
Back
Top