SeanRenaud's tags:
SeanRenaud reads (4):
BAR STOOL 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.


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • uniquely-ironic said on Jul 15, 2008....
    Nice analogy.  Something I've known for years but that I'm often scoffed at for discussing.
  • Lucytorial said on Jul 15, 2008....
    Well said SR - very good.  Its the same here and I've known this like Uni for a while but never really thought to worry or fret about it.
  • monkeyboyx said on Jul 15, 2008....
    Alright....Wanna beer?
  • earnmoneyfree said on Jul 15, 2008....
    So true!
  • hugecock! said on Jul 15, 2008....
    The tax man owns us.Pot would be legal if they could find a way to tax what you might grow. Making beer is allot of trouble.The wealthy always pay for the little guy.
  • TinSoldier said on Jul 15, 2008....
    That's a pretty good analogy you got there, SeanRenaud! Thanks for sharing it.

    It's not perfect, mind you, but still it's pretty good.
  • catch22 said on Jul 15, 2008....
    Very good.Can I be the 5th guy?
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2008....
    They could tax pot, same way they tax tobbaco.  Pot's illegal because we have too many hardcore conservatives, not because they haven't figure out how to tax it. 
  • GrapeKoolaid said on Jul 15, 2008....
    What if you don't drink?  Do you still expect that person to chip in for the tab?
  • Lucytorial said on Jul 15, 2008....

    Depends if you're eating the complimentary peanuts grape! te he he

    SR ~ Conservatives ruin all our fun including the best pain releif drug for people on serious medication and premenstral female pains...

  • ALIENated said on Jul 15, 2008....
    
    Watch out, Sean. If you get too much truth in you, you might become a
    Republican.
    
    The real kicker is that Democrats are taking that proverbial $59 and buying 
    the votes of the other nine guys by giving them handouts. Listen to Borax.
    That is exactly what he is proposing. But, as you said, that is exactly why
    socialism/communism does not work. The hard-working, high achievers stop
    because they are being taken advantage of, and soon, you have a whole
    nation like the "first four men". Lazy, do-nothings, living off the state.
    
    Pot is OK, but it tends to turn you into one of those first four guys as well.
    Trying to justify one drug because another drug is legal makes not sense.
    Of course, if I had to pick, I would say legalize pot and make alcohol illegal.
    I have to say, if I had hit someone while I was smoking pot, it would probably
    have been about 10 miles an hour. However, that was far from the case when
    I was drinking alcohol.
    
    
  • brit said on Jul 15, 2008....
    Sean, our tax system is whack. Isn't there a better way? It's been a while since I took an Econ class.
  • queenparanoia said on Jul 15, 2008....
    wow this really make sense to me... =)
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2008....
    The flat tax is arguably better.  It would eliminate income tax of all kinds and increase sales tax.  Those against it argue that it would increase the burden on the middle class but the fact is that the middle class is still a larger % than the upper class so a minor increase on them would be a big deal over all.
     
    I've long been a supporter of the legalization fo all drugs. 
  • husbandhater said on Jul 16, 2008....
    Haha Sean you never cease to amaze me.
  • FutureGoddess said on Jul 16, 2008....
    Extremely Astute Sean - and a really cool analogy!
  • madstorm said on Jul 16, 2008....

    Sorry Sean... your 'Barstool Economics' analogy is totally false... economics text books & College lecturers teach that crap but the truth is the rich hide their money in off-shore companies & banks accounts in tax havens across the world. The rich employ accountants & lawyers to avoid paying tax. It's the ordinary American that gets screwed by the tax system.

  • bloc said on Jul 16, 2008....
    @sean
    what do you mean by flat tax? I've never understood it to mean the elimination of hte income tax. 

    flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant rate.[1] Usually this would refer to household income, and possibly corporate profits as well, being taxed at one marginal rate.

    There are a few problems with the flat tax. The main one is this. No matter what tax system we use we have to generate X amount of tax revenue to pay for the government. If we switch to a flat tax and are honest we have to figure out what tax rate will get us to X. To do this we'd have to raise the tax rate of the middle class to make up for the revenue lost from the super rich. 

    In your analogy you leave out the point that person 10 was born with $1,000,000,000 in a trust fund. And madstorm points out the real truth. The super wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income than you or I. Just ask warren buffet.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 16, 2008....
    Does the tenth man having acquired his money via inheritance make it any more justifiable for the nine others to gang up on him, beat him up and take his money?
     
    Suppose the tenth man acquired all his money via the seat of his brow? Shall the nine others still be justified in beating the tenth man up?
     
    What gives the four who pay nothing the right to cry foul when they're getting free beer? Their NEED? Do we not give a crap about the tenth man's needs because hey, he's only one-tenth of the total population?
     
    This analogy might have it's limitations, but the ethics of progressive taxation really need to be critically examined.
  • destinydiva said on Jul 16, 2008....
    excellent analogy!!!!!  :-) xx
  • RollingC said on Jul 16, 2008....
    My comment just disappeared into the void.... comment later...
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2008....
    @Mad:  Yeah the rich hide their money so they pay less taxes.  Despite this the upper 1% stil pay 40% of taxes in this country and the top 50% still pay 90% of taxes.  So who cares that they could be paying more if they were stupid?  The fact is their money is still effectively making the world go round. 
     
    What's more is the dangerous fact that we are wholly dependent on them.  If they decided for whatever reason to remove themselves from the system the middle class is both unused to and unable to pay taxes sufficient to run the nation (as it currently is, you can debate all you want about cutting x,y,z or improving how he money is spent.  Or at least that is the perception, there are a whole lot more middle class folk so a .01% raise on the tens of millions in the middle class would likely generate more cash than a 1% raise on the few thousand super rich.
     
    @ Bloc:  The way I've understood it is that a flat tax would either work as you've described it, or would be a tax on consumables.  So the rich would again pay more taxes via purchasing things, we would also manage to tax a portion of the black market because not all drug money goes back into drugs, some goes into cars, houses, and big screen tvs.  In addition i would render the IRS moot because we would be collecting taxes via purchases insted of writing checks once a year.
     
    I have to say I don't care how much man ten was born with it's really not important.  Again even with all the money they manage to hide they are still paying the vast majority of the bill on their own.
  • madstorm said on Jul 16, 2008....

    Nobody really knows how much the super-rich have because they are outside the tax paper-trail. Which like you say Sean, leaves the upper 1% who are not ruthless enough to hide their income, they pay the most taxes. Anyway... taxes are levied to pay the interest loaned to governments from central banks. The Federal Reserve is a private bank that loans money to the government... it's all a big scam...

    Anyone interested should take two hours out from working like a slave & watch 'The Money Masters' .... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

    Those with less time can watch 'Money As Debt' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

    You are all being Royally screwed...

  • madstorm said on Jul 16, 2008....

    "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled" - John Kenneth Galbraith - Economist.

    "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws" - Mayer Anselm Rothschild - Banker

    "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson, US President 1801-9

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2008....
    I don't suppose you can summarize the two videos.  John Galbraith was an interesting person though and was right about a lot of things.  I wonder if he could manage the balancing act he proposed of basically sin taxing everything.
  • madstorm said on Jul 16, 2008....

    I wonder is you ever considered why I don't work Sean... I wonder if just for a minute you can step over your reactions and think... people can call me 'lazy scum' until the end of time... I don't care because I know the truth... not because I say it is the truth but because the truth is out there waiting for people to read it and weep...

    I summarised the two videos months ago in my blog 'Money - The Greatest Magicians Trick In History' and nobody read it... but that doesn't matter... you see, people don't want to know the truth... they don't want to know they are working like slaves for nothing... they don't want to know their love-ones died in vain in wars created by the military-Industrial-complex...

    I understand you are an ex-soldier Sean... read 'War Is A Racket' by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler... he was America's most decorated marine in history... here are some quotes... http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

    Don't believe me... I'm just scum remember...

  • bloc said on Jul 16, 2008....
    @sean
    you didn't respond to my central point which also applies to the consumables tax.

    "or would be a tax on consumables.  So the rich would again pay more taxes via purchasing things"

    A tax on consumables would mean that the super rich would pay a LOWER percentage of their income in taxes than you and I. This is already the case, but it's worse for a consumption tax because it's not limited to the super wealthy. Higher income people in general would pay a lower tax simply because they spend less of their total income than people with less money.

    So here is my main problem again. If we have to bring in the same amount of tax revenue, and we do, then lowering the rate on people with more money would mean an increase on the middle class in order to balance the loss. 

    Can anyone tell me why an increase in taxes on the middle class, in order to lower the taxes on the wealthy, is a good idea?


  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2008....
    @ Madstorm:  I'm a Marine, not an ex Marine, Former Marine is close enough to accurate as I'm not actively in the service.  I was never ever a soldier.  Marine is to capitlized at all times.  You're also mistaken that he was the most decorated Marine in history.  That honor goes to Chesty Puller.  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chesty_Puller Smedley Butler is one of the most highly decorated and one of a handful (Seven I think) Marines who've received two Medals of Honor.  But hey you weren't 100% wrong so it seems I'm educating you bit by bit.
     
    @bloc:  I do believe that the overall goal should be to shift the burden to the Middle Class as the Middle class should make up the majority and thus be a more stable tax base.  As it stands we are very dependent on that top 1%.
     
    I'm not where you're logic comes from that a consumables tax would be worse since obviously taxes on more expensive items and services could be higher, not to mention they simply cost more. 
     
    So the question becomes (IMO) how high a tax would we need to put on say anything non essential.  So no (or minimal) taxes on food, shelter clothing *I'm willing to debate any of these three once they wander into extravagance rather than necessicity but that's a long drawn out debate for another day) but taxes on video games movies, jewelry, etc etc etc.  How high does it have to be to make up for not collecting taxes and accounting for like I said, the fact that we would now be collecting taxes from criminals who normally exist outside the system.
     
    Just glossing over the quotes seems that Butler had
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2008....
    @Mad, uh did you delete your blog cus nobody read it?
  • TinSoldier said on Jul 16, 2008....
    I've always understood a "flat tax" to be a flat income tax, not a consumption, VAT, or other kind of sales tax.

    In my perfectly simple tax world, income taxes would work like this (there would still be other taxes such as sales taxes, gas taxes, other kinds of use taxes):

    For individuals: All income regardless of source is taxed at a single rate, with a single deduction based on either median individual or median household income. Most people under the median would pay very little or no taxes. For the so-called super-rich, the deduction would be practically meaningless anyway.

    For businesses: All income (not just profits!) is taxed at single rate with a deduction based on the median amount of wages they pay to their workers times the number of workers employed. No deductions for capital, depreciation, losses, or any thing else.

    Businesses or farms smaller than a certain size may get a waiver, and their owners may only have to pay the personal income tax instead.

    Every year the Congress creates a budget, determines how much money they need -- including any planned deficits or surpluses -- and sets the tax rates for that year accordingly.
  • bloc said on Jul 16, 2008....
    @sean
    "the fact that we would now be collecting taxes from criminals who normally exist outside the system."

    You assume that people won't be able to get around the consumption tax, but they would. 
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2008....
    How?  Not saying its completely impossible but I don't see how you'd get around it?  I suppose they could do the same thing with all goods that is done with drugs currently and was done with alcohol but it seems unlikely that your average drug dealer (not to mention millions upon millions of illegal aliens) would have the savvy and desire to go outside the system. 
  • D6fer said on Jul 16, 2008....
    I have always kinda been a consumption tax only kind of guy....but the debate has got me thinking a bit differently.....I am quite sure that it would be completely fair, but I am not too sure that it would be feasible....I have used a similar analogy in a post many months ago......it is a very good way of explaining our current system.

    It would be interesting to know just how much  money the super wealthy spend annually, and how a consumption tax would effect them.

    I think one thing that is overlooked is the gross mismanagement of revenue currently collected.......our government is so bloated and inefficient......there are way too many people on the books, and they simply do not work hard enough.
    On every level....city...county...state...and federal......people standing around watching others work......spending money so they wont lose the budget, not because they need it.......waaaayyyy too much waste. 
  • RollingC said on Jul 17, 2008....
    Smaller countries (that don't have expensive programs going like NASA or a war) get by without income tax for they tax everything else.  In this country I know that people pay two (or more) taxes.  Income tax is one and the other is sales tax, not to mention property tax.
    I don't know how this country can take out income tax without more drastic cuts on services and increasing all other forms of taxation.
    But then again I'm not as well informed so I can't give a proper opinion.
    Rc
  • madstorm said on Jul 17, 2008....

    Let's not play with words Sean... I said Smedley Butler "was America's most decorated marine in history" not is ... I also said that nobody reading my blogs "doesn't matter" because "people don't want to know the truth..." and they don't. All that I have said is out there in the public domain...

    The truth about money is really quite astonishing... money is created out of debt owed by the government to the Federal Reserve, which is a private unregulated Bank, they charge interest on every dollar & you people are the ones picking up the bill to make the bankers stupendously rich... ha! it's laughable...

    And you call me an idiot... well, carry on my friend because you are not thinking for yourself... don't take my word for it... one of America's Hero's said...

    "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." - Major General Smedley Darlington Butler

  • ALIENated said on Jul 17, 2008....
    
    Smedley sounds like a moron. I was in the military and I had plenty of 
    thoughts on my own. Soldiers are not robots. They are just people whose
    job is to be soldiers. No matter what your job, you have to be able to take
    direction or the job will never get done.
    
    Anyway, Madstorm did say something pretty intelligent ...
    
        "It's the ordinary American that gets screwed by the tax system."
    
    That is what people fail to understand about Democrats. When they talk
    about raising taxes, it is the middle class, the regular people who go out and
    work every day, that pay all the taxes. The Democrats then use that money
    to buy votes that will keep them in office so they can raise more taxes. Bush
    is spending money like a drunken sailor and still cutting taxes, which would
    be working if we were not throwing money down the rathole called Iraq.
    
    And you seem to be confusing the flat tax with a national sales tax. I dare
    say both should happen, but neither will ever happen. Taxes are used
    by the Democrats, and the Republicans to some extent, for social engineering.
    If we do this, we get a tax break. If we do that, we get a tax break. If we do
    that, we have to pay an unfair amount. Consequently, people with
    lots of money hide from taxes as someone mentioned above. As I always say,
    the rich did not get rich by paying taxes. Ask Ted Kennedy and other rich
    Democrats.
    
    If we had a flat tax rate, say 10 percent as the Bible suggests for our tithe,
    we would probably collect more tax dollars because it would be cheaper to
    pay it than spend so much hiding it. Plus, people would have more to give their
    charities and churches, who could then do some of the humanitarian work that
    the government so miserably fails to do with our money. (Great things are
    rarely done by committees or governments.) Just a penny per dollar national
    sales tax would generate some cash as well. Either people (including drug
    dealers) would pay a little tax on every dollar or people would save their
    money, which is also a good thing. However, can you imagine how many tax
    preparers, tax lawyers, and IRS agents that would put on the streets? Even
    they would have to get a more productive job, which would be a good thing.
    
    
  • bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....
    @d6
    "I am quite sure that it would be completely fair,"

    If by fair you mean taxing the middle class at a higher rate than the wealthy :/
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 17, 2008....
    I thought we were supposed to all be equal under the law, not "you pay more because you have more than everyone else", and "you pay nothing because you have need".
     
    Russia and Ukraine, I believe, moved to a flat-tax system some years ago and have seen government revenues increase. not decrease. Even under a flat tax system the super rich would still foot most of the bill for taxes paid in this country.
     
    The amount of money the government "needs" is not constant. If anything, it is constantly increasing. Under a progressive system, we need to create more super-rich people in order to maintain the increasing level of taxation, because they make up the richest source of government revenue. This means increasing the so-called wealth gap, not decreasing it.
  • bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....
    "you pay more because you have more than everyone else"

    The person that pays more usually gets more as well. The super rich get more from our infrastructure like roads (which their businesses use heavily), or military (which protects their factories in other countries), our court system (which is used heavily by businesses), our fire departments (again, they have more buildings to protect form fires), etc, etc

    I've talked about my personal situations before. I grew up lower middle class and I've found myself in the upper middle class. I would not be where I am today if I didn't get an education paid for by the government. I pay a ridiculous amounts of taxes (last year it was almost as much as the average american makes) so the tax money invested in me has paid dividends for our country. I've paid more in taxes than the government gave me to go to college and we are all better off for it.
  • TinSoldier said on Jul 17, 2008....
    I used to look at it the same way, that progressive taxation was inherently unfair, until I learned to look at it a little differently:

    The tax rate is x% of your income. If you make less than $y per year, then you get a discount.

    Think top down instead of bottom up.

    I still think that progressive tax rates are a little unfair, though, when they reach beyond a certain point.

    Oh, and I'm in the income bracket that, not counting payroll taxes, I pay almost nothing in federal income tax.
  • bloc said on Jul 17, 2008....
    "I still think that progressive tax rates are a little unfair, though, when they reach beyond a certain point."

    I totally agree, and they were once far too high in this country. I believe that the stated rates (which aren't what people really pay) are about right. A difference between the middle class and the super wealthy is maybe 6% or less. I don't believe the tax rate on the super rich should go above 35%, but I'd be really happy if they simply paid the same percent as me, warren buffet paid roughly 17% because of the loopholes that benefit the super rich. Most of us pain in the high twenties percent.
  • D6fer said on Jul 17, 2008....
    bloc.....taxing everyone at the same rate is 100% fair.....like I said it wouldn't be feasible, but it would be fair.

    Lets say I make $50,000 a year and I spend $40,000 of it on taxable goods, and Bill Gates spends about the same....we both pay the same taxes....he doesn't get any real benefit from all that money sitting there.....why should anyone else?

    I realize we can't all do exactly what BG has done, but that doesn't mean the opportunity does not exist......it doesn't require any more than drive and determination.....those that do get there have more than the rest of us.....some are born into it, but that usually comes at a steep price......most of those people are worthless, couldn't make it on their own if they went into the real world, and often lose everything their folks built for them.

Comment on "Barstool Economics"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

If free, unregulated, markets are so great why do they need to be bailed out so often?...
As if there weren't enough bad news out there.......
I just can't go 65! I love speed. I'm the only one on the road when I get behind the wheel of a car! I have a need for speed. Put your seat belts on and get ready for the time of your life. Girls will love my back seat! I plan to drive from coast to coa...
the Fed keeps buying out failing private companies. Thoughts?...
Here are two great reads....

Subscribe to the SoulCast Newsletter To Receive the Best Uncensored Blogs About Love, Sex, Relationships, God, Politics, and More.


Ever wonder what people really think and how they really live?

Read about the real lives of regular people like you whose powerful moving blogs will make you smile, cry, emotional, and warm inside.

Your FREE SoulCast newsletter is just moments away. Receive your first feel-good blog by entering your email address below.

First Name:
Your Email:


You can unsubscribe at any time with one click. We NEVER sell or share your email address with anyone. Period. close