Beer And Taxes

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook.  I’ve posted here before but I think every now and then it’s important to take time and understand what taxes are really meant to do:

Raise funds to pay for the proper role of government.

And. because we uses a system of taxation that is progressive, when we reduce taxes, that reduction will also reflect the nature of that progressive tax system.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
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 ball. “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 men would 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 ? 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” 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 benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax 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 their 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 government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally 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.

The “tax cut” above resulted in the rich man saving more dollars.  But he was paying more dollars to begin with.  Remember this when the left screams, “The tax cuts unfairly benefit the rich!”

4 responses to “Beer And Taxes

  1. There are both progressive and regressive aspects of the tax code. Plus many of the people who may not be paying income taxes at this moment have at other points in time. For these reasons (and more), I don’t find this a very helpful analogy

    • There are both progressive and regressive aspects of the tax code.

      Certainly true overall. Less so on the federal level; which is what we’re generally talking about this time of year.

      Plus many of the people who may not be paying income taxes at this moment have at other points in time.

      True. And no one in their sane mind thinks Romney was talking about grandma or Mr. Soldier when he mentioned the 47%. It’s a label, like the 99%.

      The larger point is this; just because a tax break saves the wealthy “more money” doesn’t mean it’s not equitable.

  2. And no one in their sane mind thinks Romney was talking about grandma or Mr. Soldier when he mentioned the 47%. It’s a label, like the 99%.

    That’s completely wrong. That number can only make sense if you are including the elderly, etc. Either he’s lying about 47% of people, or he’s including those populations. It’s not just a round number he pulled out of a hat for a speech, it’s a precise percentage that includes those populations. I don’t understand how you can delude yourself into thinking that when Romney talks about the 47% who don’t pay federal income tax, that he isn’t actually talking about the 47% who don’t pay federal income tax. It boggles the mind.

    • Either he’s lying about 47% of people

      You guys fly fast and loose with the whole liar thing. Which is ironic considering how fragile you are when it comes to an equivalent charge levied against democrats.

      That being said…

      don’t understand how you can delude yourself into thinking that when Romney talks about the 47% who don’t pay federal income tax, that he isn’t actually talking about the 47% who don’t pay federal income tax.

      So first, in your heart of hearts, do you think that he is really referring to that group of people who don’t pay income tax AND vote republican? Do you think he’s really saying that? Or is he calling upon the imagery that is invoked of the working poor who are, dependent or not, receiving money from the federal government?

      As someone form the “inside” I can tell you, there is no angst against the retired bank teller pulling social security when she doesn’t pay federal income tax. There is SIGNIFICANT push back against the single parent family with multiple children from multiple different parents receiving aid from the government and often resulting in a “net-receiver” condition.

      The number is neither round nor random, it comes from the studies reported in the news. However, he means it as literally as the occupy children meant that the 99% were somehow against the 1%.

      It’s just a number.

      And yes, that population of people who are “living on the government” are not going to vote for someone who is working to reduce the amount of their benefit. And I might add, I don’t blame them for that vote; it’s the rational choice.

Leave a Reply