PDA

View Full Version : Bar Stool Economics



Gerry Clinchy
02-21-2011, 02:54 PM
You've probably seen this one before:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If, instead of each man paying for the beer he drinks, 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 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 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 got."

"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

dnf777
02-21-2011, 05:11 PM
Gerry,
The problem is they are ALREADY having their drinks overseas. China, Tiawan, Indonesia, Vietnam....

Corporate taxes are at an all-time historic low, with roughly half of Fortune 500 companies not paying any corporate tax! Yet the jobs have still fled overseas to cheaper labor markets. This has more to do with NAFTA and tax breaks encouraging outsourcing, than high taxes on the rich.

Look at GM. We just heard folks here rightfully berate them for making cars in Mexico, after us taxpayers handed them billions of our tax money! You can't get any more charitable than THAT, and they STILL move to cheap labor. You can't stop greed.

That's a nice allegory, except lacking somewhat in reality. The truth is, that tenth guy is probably a lobbyist, and wouldn't be caught dead drinking with working folks anyway. He's probably dining at a Congressional favorite, picking up the tab on $400 bottles of wine with his buddies planning the next corporate give away.

sandyg
02-21-2011, 06:01 PM
DNF, you better stick to a$$holes and elbows, because you don't know $hit about economics...

dnf777
02-21-2011, 06:05 PM
DNF, you better stick to a$$holes and elbows, because you don't know $hit about economics...

Ok, what do you want to discuss?

huntinman
02-21-2011, 06:11 PM
DNF, you better stick to a$$holes and elbows, because you don't know $hit about economics...

better leave the elbows alone too!

sandyg
02-21-2011, 06:12 PM
Ok, what do you want to discuss?

Nothing with you. You're the master debater on POTUS. Right or wrong, you'll bob and weave and have the last word come hell or high water.

And of course, you'll respond, because you have to have the last word.

BrianW
02-21-2011, 07:43 PM
DNF has been studying, ref. the 38 arguments. ;)

Buzz
02-21-2011, 07:54 PM
DNF, you better stick to a$$holes and elbows, because you don't know $hit about economics...


What a priĘk.

JDogger
02-21-2011, 08:14 PM
What a priĘk.

I think the operative word may be drawn from the OP.

Barstool.

I confess to making replies from that location. Will sandyg admit to that as well?

If not. Then I concur with Buzz. JD

M&K's Retrievers
02-21-2011, 08:25 PM
I think the operative word may be drawn from the OP.

Barstool.

I confess to making replies from that location. Will sandyg admit to that as well?

If not. Then I concur with Buzz. JD

Aren't Wi-Fi and lap tops great? :D

M&K's Retrievers
02-21-2011, 08:28 PM
What a priĘk.

Whom are you referring?

BrianW
02-22-2011, 07:45 AM
Aren't Wi-Fi and lap tops great? :D
They're great in that I can sit by the wood stove here at home and research/post but I can't afford $3+ a beer to do it from a bar. :(

dnf, this professor's treatise was totally about individuals yet you turn reflexively to rail about corporate taxes. :confused: Then close by denying the whole premise.
Was that #3 or #18? Or maybe #29?

dnf777
02-22-2011, 08:57 AM
They're great in that I can sit by the wood stove here at home and research/post but I can't afford $3+ a beer to do it from a bar. :(

dnf, this professor's treatise was totally about individuals yet you turn reflexively to rail about corporate taxes. :confused: Then close by denying the whole premise.
Was that #3 or #18? Or maybe #29?

The allegory implied that taxing the rich will force them to move overseas. I just pointed out that corporate taxes (ie "the rich", since now we may consider corporations as individuals, according to the SCOTUS, remember?)
are already at historic lows, and yet the exodus continues!! That IS the premise in question.

I have no idea what numbers your referring to.

M&K's Retrievers
02-22-2011, 09:25 AM
....
I have no idea what numbers your referring to.

Really? Really? :rolleyes:

dnf777
02-22-2011, 09:43 AM
Really? Really? :rolleyes:

Oh, Hoosier's list. Yes, I PM'd him and thanked him for that.
Except the part about personal insults, which are not a legitimate debate tactic, those were good guidelines and probably familiar, at least in usage, to most who engage in constructive debate or argumentation.

If more would read and follow those, we'd have better discussions here! :D
I see many here know and practice the evasion and diversion tactics very well! :D

M&K's Retrievers
02-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Oh, Hoosier's list. Yes, I PM'd him and thanked him for that.
Except the part about personal insults, which are not a legitimate debate tactic, those were good guidelines and probably familiar, at least in usage, to most who engage in constructive debate or argumentation.

If more would read and follow those, we'd have better discussions here! :D
I see many here know and practice the evasion and diversion tactics very well! :D

Whatever. You be sure and let know what your rules are.

dnf's rules of order regards,

dnf777
02-22-2011, 10:38 AM
Whatever. You be sure and let know what your rules are.

dnf's rules of order regards,

How about we agree on ONE rule, and that is no more BS meaningless posts like this one? We can exchange childish jabs and insults, but each post must at least attempt to address the substance of the topic?

Whadya say?

M&K's Retrievers
02-22-2011, 10:49 AM
How about we agree on ONE rule, and that is no more BS meaningless posts like this one? We can exchange childish jabs and insults, but each post must at least attempt to address the substance of the topic?

Whadya say?

Whatever you say.

You da man, regards

ducknwork
02-22-2011, 10:58 AM
How about we agree on ONE rule, and that is no more BS meaningless posts like this one? We can exchange childish jabs and insults, but each post must at least attempt to address the substance of the topic?

Whadya say?

I'd put this in my sig line, but I'd probably be asked to remove that too...:D;):cool::D

Oh, and just so I address something related to the topic: I like beer. Good enough?:D