Tax System Explained in Beer

BusaWhipped

Donating Member
Registered
I don't post up much in the way of political statements. But for those folks who think socialism and spreading the wealth is a good thing, here's something to think about.

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 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, 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 in other countries 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
 
that puts it clear enough that even a drunk should be able to understand!
 
In fact, they might start drinking in other countries where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

This applies to everyone, doesn't it? I'm sure the common opinion here would be "Let the middle class leave; it's the wealthy that invest in the stock market that keep the economy going". Dr Kamershen's version of the tax structure is accurate, although as a big fan of literature, the deux ex machina of the nine guys jumping the 10th strikes me as an awkward stretch. Let me tell my story. In the last 20 years, I've been fortunate enough to jump several tax brackets. I accepted each jump as a responsible American and gladly pay my part. If my luck continues, I will encounter more tax liability and I don't expect any breaks. Why should I? Why does making $300K a year entitle me to a softer tax curve than when I went from the 40K bracket to the 50K? Anybody familiar with the current structure understands that the curve is progressive (decreasing radius, for us motorcyclists). Progressive, that is, until the higher levels. Then, "magically", then curve flattens out. I have not been hurt by the increasing percentage of tax, as my income provides enough comfort for me do proudly do my part. The accomplishment of financial success is rewarded (ironically) by tax breaks, or even more money. The snowball effect begins here and the masses, people making less than the $250K a year income range, become a distant image in the rear view.

Some of the rich may move, but with millions of Americans with their daily needs here, the assumption that commerce as we know it would dwindle makes little sense when one puts a pencil to it. Companies will see the opportunity available, and take advantage of any vacancies left by the "take my beer and leave crying" people we mentioned earlier. Through competition, consumption, everyone getting back to business as usual, the economy will recover and flourish once more, and most importantly, the national debt will begin to recover, through tax revenue, with the most important effect of this being the recovery of the value of our beloved American dollar.

I'll be glad when my dollar starts buying more beer too :).
 
Repost. Also, check snopes not written by the author credited. Still a great post.
 
This applies to everyone, doesn't it? I'm sure the common opinion here would be "Let the middle class leave; it's the wealthy that invest in the stock market that keep the economy going". Dr Kamershen's version of the tax structure is accurate, although as a big fan of literature, the deux ex machina of the nine guys jumping the 10th strikes me as an awkward stretch. Let me tell my story. In the last 20 years, I've been fortunate enough to jump several tax brackets. I accepted each jump as a responsible American and gladly pay my part. If my luck continues, I will encounter more tax liability and I don't expect any breaks. Why should I? Why does making $300K a year entitle me to a softer tax curve than when I went from the 40K bracket to the 50K? Anybody familiar with the current structure understands that the curve is progressive (decreasing radius, for us motorcyclists). Progressive, that is, until the higher levels. Then, "magically", then curve flattens out. I have not been hurt by the increasing percentage of tax, as my income provides enough comfort for me do proudly do my part. The accomplishment of financial success is rewarded (ironically) by tax breaks, or even more money. The snowball effect begins here and the masses, people making less than the $250K a year income range, become a distant image in the rear view.

Some of the rich may move, but with millions of Americans with their daily needs here, the assumption that commerce as we know it would dwindle makes little sense when one puts a pencil to it. Companies will see the opportunity available, and take advantage of any vacancies left by the "take my beer and leave crying" people we mentioned earlier. Through competition, consumption, everyone getting back to business as usual, the economy will recover and flourish once more, and most importantly, the national debt will begin to recover, through tax revenue, with the most important effect of this being the recovery of the value of our beloved American dollar.

I'll be glad when my dollar starts buying more beer too :).


Good God Man! If you inject any more rationalism you will cause heads to explode. Please keep intelligent comments to yourself.
 
Good God Man! If you inject any more rationalism you will cause heads to explode. Please keep intelligent comments to yourself.

Red05 is one of my favorite people in the world to hang out with...he and i don't always see things the same way but at least he thinks for himself and doesn't just spout the same old rhetoric :beerchug:
 
This applies to everyone, doesn't it? I'm sure the common opinion here would be "Let the middle class leave; it's the wealthy that invest in the stock market that keep the economy going". Dr Kamershen's version of the tax structure is accurate, although as a big fan of literature, the deux ex machina of the nine guys jumping the 10th strikes me as an awkward stretch. Let me tell my story. In the last 20 years, I've been fortunate enough to jump several tax brackets. I accepted each jump as a responsible American and gladly pay my part. If my luck continues, I will encounter more tax liability and I don't expect any breaks. Why should I? Why does making $300K a year entitle me to a softer tax curve than when I went from the 40K bracket to the 50K? Anybody familiar with the current structure understands that the curve is progressive (decreasing radius, for us motorcyclists). Progressive, that is, until the higher levels. Then, "magically", then curve flattens out. I have not been hurt by the increasing percentage of tax, as my income provides enough comfort for me do proudly do my part. The accomplishment of financial success is rewarded (ironically) by tax breaks, or even more money. The snowball effect begins here and the masses, people making less than the $250K a year income range, become a distant image in the rear view.

Some of the rich may move, but with millions of Americans with their daily needs here, the assumption that commerce as we know it would dwindle makes little sense when one puts a pencil to it. Companies will see the opportunity available, and take advantage of any vacancies left by the "take my beer and leave crying" people we mentioned earlier. Through competition, consumption, everyone getting back to business as usual, the economy will recover and flourish once more, and most importantly, the national debt will begin to recover, through tax revenue, with the most important effect of this being the recovery of the value of our beloved American dollar.

I'll be glad when my dollar starts buying more beer too :).

I'm not complaining about having to pay taxes. It takes money to run a military, enforce our borders, maintain transportation systems, etc. What does bother me is the people who contribute little to nothing to this society complaining that they aren't getting enough benefits and I need to keep paying more so they can get more benefits. I have charities that I contribute to because I believe in their cause. I should be forced to support ones that I don't because the government has decided that they should manage the charity.

I also get tired of hearing about how wealthy I am because I've made sacrafices and have taken risks to get to a position where I have an above average income. Tax increased hurt now the same as they did when I was at the average income level working my way up. The feeling that my family should benefit less from my hard work and the benefit given to someone else so they don't have to work as hard really irritates me. And in the long run, the handouts hurt the recipient more than they hurt the givers.

The American dream - on hold - (1) - FORTUNE
 
Red05 is one of my favorite people in the world to hang out with...he and i don't always see things the same way but at least he thinks for himself and doesn't just spout the same old rhetoric :beerchug:

I was being sarcastic....I thought is comment was fantastic.

Sorry if it came off any other way.
 
I was being sarcastic....I thought is comment was fantastic.

Sorry if it came off any other way.

no issues from me bro...i agree with you

i understand where he and BusaWhipped are both coming from and am somewhere between them...i personally don't think either political party is right or has our best interest at heart...generally speaking, extremes on either end tend to be about what's in the best interest for the political party...i wish we could get a person in office who could get both sides to come a little closer to the middle and start working out these problems so everyone could benefit (including the children of those presently on government aid who need to learn how to go out and find work)
 
I'm not complaining about having to pay taxes. It takes money to run a military, enforce our borders, maintain transportation systems, etc. What does bother me is the people who contribute little to nothing to this society complaining that they aren't getting enough benefits and I need to keep paying more so they can get more benefits. I have charities that I contribute to because I believe in their cause. I should be forced to support ones that I don't because the government has decided that they should manage the charity.

I also get tired of hearing about how wealthy I am because I've made sacrafices and have taken risks to get to a position where I have an above average income. Tax increased hurt now the same as they did when I was at the average income level working my way up. The feeling that my family should benefit less from my hard work and the benefit given to someone else so they don't have to work as hard really irritates me. And in the long run, the handouts hurt the recipient more than they hurt the givers.

The American dream - on hold - (1) - FORTUNE

Dennis, I agree with you on the "free ride" thing. I see abuses of the welfare system all the time. I think, and Senator Obama agrees, that the welfare system needs an overhaul, with line by line analyzation. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of your post, but it seemed to imply that the tax charts are unfair in being weighted towards those that earn more. This has been in effect for quite a while, but the flat spots at the top are the only unfair area I see.

Red05 is one of my favorite people in the world to hang out with...he and i don't always see things the same way but at least he thinks for himself and doesn't just spout the same old rhetoric

I feel the same about you, Semi. You have a great easy way about you and your willingness to help others is unbelievable. Are you sure you're not a Democrat? :lol:

We've never discussed politics or money, but I think we've mentioned beer a time or two :beerchug:
 
To get the total stellar population in the Milky Way, we must take the
number of luminous stars that we can see at large distances and assume
that we know how many fainter stars go along with them. Recent numbers
give about 400,000,000,000 (400 billion) stars, but a 50% error either
way is quite plausible. That woud be some where between 200 Billion and 600 billion.

How much was that bail out plan?
 
To get the total stellar population in the Milky Way, we must take the
number of luminous stars that we can see at large distances and assume
that we know how many fainter stars go along with them. Recent numbers
give about 400,000,000,000 (400 billion) stars, but a 50% error either
way is quite plausible. That woud be some where between 200 Billion and 600 billion.

How much was that bail out plan?

uh...what?



:lol:
 
Dennis, ...Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of your post, but it seemed to imply that the tax charts are unfair in being weighted towards those that earn more. This has been in effect for quite a while, but the flat spots at the top are the only unfair area I see.

I'm not sure what flat spots at the top you are referring to. The tax brackets if you are filing jointly for 2008 are:

Taxable income between.......Tax bracket
.......0 and 16,050................10%
16,050 and 65,100................15%
65,100 and 131,450...............25%
131,450 and 200,300...............28%
200,300 and 357,700...............33%
357,700 and over....................35%

So if my taxable earnings are.....My tax liability is...............% of income
10,000...................................1,000................................10.0
20,000...................................1,000 + 1,500 = 2,500..........12.5
75,000...................................2,500 + 13,750 = 16,250.......21.6
150,000.................................16,250 + 21,000 = 37,250......24.8
300,000.................................37,250 + 49,400 = 86,750......28.9
600,000.................................86,750 + 105,000 = 191,750...31.9

From there is gets closer and closer to 35% of the taxable income. I know there are numerous loopholes and such to hide money from being considered taxable income, but my take is the tax rate is 35% and you get bigger discounts the less you earn.


We can do the same excersize for the year 1992

Taxable income between.....Tax bracket
0 and 65,100........................15%
65,100 and 131,450...............28%
131,450 and over....................31%

So if my taxable earnings are.....My tax liability is.............% of income
10,000..................................1,500................................15.0
20,000..................................1,500 + 1,500 = 3,000..........15.0
75,000..................................3,000 + 15,400 = 18,400.......24.5
150,000................................18,400 + 21,000 = 39,400......26.2
300,000................................39,400 + 46,500 = 85,900......28.6
600,000................................85,900 + 93,000 = 178,900.....29.8

From there is gets closer and closer to 31% of the taxable income. Lower incomes paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes and the higher incomes paid less. During the Clinton administration, they raised the taxes on everyone making over 200,000 by 5-9%, but did nothing to reduce the tax burdon on anyone making less than 200,000. During the Bush administration, the tax increase on the 200,000+ earners was reduced by 3-4%, for 130,000 to 200,000 by 3%, and the tax rate for people making 10,000 or less was reduced by 5%.

You can spout all of the rhetoric and listen to all the smooth speaches, but the numbers don't seem to support the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy bull.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top