How our tax system really works

This is abit old, but its a pretty good analogy.


How our tax system works…

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. “Because 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 of you 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 every body’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.

I bow before such brilliance and eloquence of thought. This should be required reading of all high school and college students. I think that if post grads don’t get it by then, they’ll never be smart enough to get it. (and will continue to vote democrat for the rest of their lives)

JJ

You missed the part where the bartender takes a loan out in the names of all ten of the patron’s children to finance the $20 he is giving back to the men.

So what country is the tenth man moving to where tax rates are so much cheaper for the wealthy? It looks like Slovakia only has a 19% tax rate, but they also have 19% VAT, not sure how that would factor in. Romania at 16% might be a good deal. Lots of countries are at 40% or higher for the top end.

Very Nice, you focus on one tree and ignore the forest.

The conclusion states that overseas is friendlier. I’m just curious where the tenth man would end up where taxes would be so low…? Serbia only has a 14% rate. Possibly he is there.

Funnily enough he could move to France.
Top tier tax payers won’t pay more than a total of 50% of income (a real bargain :-p). Seeing as this includes all taxes such as wealth taxes, property taxes etc it makes the top rate income tax much lower.

Of course his employer would be screwed due to the stupid high social taxes…

Good point. I suppose the analogy only considers income tax.

He wouldn’t have to move, he would just hide is money in off-shore accounts.

Ed

Do you really not understand or are you being obstreporous?

Just as they are not really drinking in a bar, and just as the bartender is not really the government, the rich guy really doesn’t go someplace else to drink.

The point is that the high earners, if taxed at punitive rates find things to do with their money that does not subject them to those taxes. Usually that does not translate into economically valuable conduct. But you go ahead and keep thinking the way you think … that there is nothing the “rich guy” will do but continue buying drinks for his buddy.

I get it. As a member of the 28% tax bracket, I weep for those in the 35% bracket and the inequity of our system…

Oh, I see. You were being obstreporous.

Do you really not understand or are you being obstreporous?

If yer gonna use $50 words, at least pick the right one (I don’t think you meant this one). And if yer gonna use the wrong word, at least spell it right.

Obtuse? Obstinate? Not obstreperous, but maybe you really meant that.

the 10th guy speculates in barley, hops and real estate
the 9th guy owns the brewery
the 8th guy owns the building
the 7th guy leases building, owns bar
the 6th guy manages the brewery
the 5th guy manages the bar
the 4th guy makes the damn beer
the 3rd guy serves the damn beer
the 2nd guy works two jobs, cleans bar and brewery
the 1st guy is unemployed
.

Sorry about the spelling … well, not really. But thanks for being pointing it out … well, not really. And, yes, I meant “obstreperous.” Which means stubborn in a loud or obnoxious way. “Obstinate” works well enough. “Obtuse” is not what I meant. “Obstreperous” is, I think, the best choice.

Sorry about the spelling … well, not really. But thanks for being pointing it out … well, not really. And, yes, I meant “obstreperous.” Which means stubborn in a loud or obnoxious way. “Obstinate” works well enough. “Obtuse” is not what I meant. “Obstreperous” is, I think, the best choice.

You are quite welcome…well, not really.

"Do you really not understand or are you being obstreporous? "

When you present a dichotomy such as this, one expects the two choices to be non-overlapping. It is possible to be both non-understanding and obstreperous. “Obtuse” ("lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect ") would be better, as would “obstinate” (“perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion”).

The correct spelling is “obstreperous.”

If he understood, he was being more than obstinate … he was being obstreperous. He confirmed that he understood (which is what I thought) and thus confirmed that he was being obstreperous.

The correct spelling is “obstreperous.”

If he understood, he was being more than obstinate … he was being obstreperous. He confirmed that he understood (which is what I thought) and thus confirmed that he was being obstreperous.

I know how to spell the word: the quote is of your original statement.

I do see that you’ve mastered “obstinate”, however. Well done.

Your dichotomy was a false dichotomy.

I know how to spell the word: the quote is of your original statement.


I know. I was being obstreperous.

Your dichotomy was a false dichotomy.


Most dichotomies are. But that really isn’t the problem here. You just don’t like my word choice.

Good point. I suppose the analogy only considers income tax.


Yeah, some low-income schmuk should compose an entertaining story to display how the low-income folks pay a MUCH greater percentage of their income on sales tax versus middle-class and high-income persons.

A similar discussion could arise in regards to prices of milk, gas, and other daily needs … and it could also copare the amounts used by different persons in various classes.

Income tax is a fun one to use, because educated folks can use it to show how they pay for everything, and how it’s not fair … while ignoring the amounts/percents in sales tax. The onformation is out there for those interested. There is an extensive pdf book called “Who pays?” and it breaks it down state by state.