• Lots of naked NEW Members on the forum plz add an AVATAR we are adding them if you don't if you don't like change them.

Economics and Taxation Explained

svengali

Foundation Member
Points
3
I can't claim authorship of this article but I liked it enough to copy it and share it here:

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."

(allegedly written by a U.S. college student!) :eek:ccasion14:eek:ccasion14
 

Salvatore

Silver Member
Points
0
This is quite an old article and dates back to at least 2001 and was debunked about the same time. The counter argument pointed to the standard and cost of living and identified that the majority of revenue raised by taxes comes from the 6th-9th person with the contribution from the actual 10th person comparably very little.

In reality the $100 bill is mostly paid by the 6th-9th person with the overall contribution of the first four (and fifth) still being nil and the overall contribution roughly around $5 rather than $59 for the 10th. This of course can't be reflected in such a simplified article which is why it was so easily countered.

Additionally the overall impact of taxes was much greater on the 6th-9th individuals with even a small adjustment having a greater influence on the standard of living of those individuals than that of the rich 10th person.

Companies etc are a different kettle of fish and don't really apply in the case of this article.

It was used in my economics class to force students to think outside the box and to actually look beyond the actual $$$ value and identify the weaknesses and flaws of such arguments. Amazingly it apparently now rates as an urban legend story both because it is economically and financially wrong and the author is effectively unknown. Unfortunately it is often used by wealthy and financially comfortable individuals to support an invalid argument.

Most of my friends are comfortable middle class individuals and whilst not earning so much that would be deemed wealthy do have enough common sense to recognise the proportional changes that an adjustment to tax has and that the return from a downward adjustment is always going to benefit dollar wise someone who earns more.

Sorry, for the lecture but this little urban legend is merely meant to be entertaining but unfortunately is too often taken as gospel by those who rather than recognising the parable part explained in the last paragraph, try to use it as some factual economic argument.

It is a fun parable even though it doesn't have anything to do with taxes, economics or finance and it is always nice to remember some stories are written to make us think rather than presenting any facts.

Thanks Svengali, it's always nice to read a blast from the past.
 

Happy2

Legend Member
Points
22
It may be a parable And depending on who is reading it you will get different reactions to it Read this in the USSR of 1970 "Western Propoganda" Same article read in the Republican gentlemans club of Boston would be recieved far more favourably
"About time some one saw our point of view and the benefits of trickle down economics"
 
F

Farm Boy

It takes time but the tax man can learn, then the lesion wears off.

The Beatles fled Britain to Escape a Confiscatory Top Marginal Tax Rate of 95% along with hundreds of supertaxed people.



Individual income tax rates


Residents
These rates apply to individuals who are Australian residents for tax purposes (see Residency - what you need to know for more information).
Tax rates 2012-13
The following rates for 2012-13 apply from 1 July 2012.
Taxable income
Tax on this income
0 - $18,200
Nil
$18,201 - $37,000
19c for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 - $80,000
$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000
$17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over
$54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
The above rates do not include the Medicare levy of 1.5% (see Guide to Medicare levy for more information).
 

Happy2

Legend Member
Points
22
It takes time but the tax man can learn, then the lesion wears off.

So. Those lesions I found on my tongue after my visit to that girl in Malaysia will wear off? I just have to learn something?
Good news Farmboy Thanks
 
F

Farm Boy

It takes time but the tax man can learn, then the lesion wears off.

So. Those lesions I found on my tongue after my visit to that girl in Malaysia will wear off? I just have to learn something?
Good news Farmboy Thanks
thanks h2this spellchecker will never understand me . I must have married it.
 

homer

Doh!
Legend Member
Points
0
hmmm....looks pretty familiar to what i received years ago *cough cough*...except it was about dinner not beer. This was sent around when everyone wanted to abolish the negative gearing thingy for property investors i think...make it fairer for everyone.
 
Top