Fw: Bush Tax Cuts Explained in Beer

ect: Bush Tax Cuts Explained in Beer

Seems whenever the politicians get the bill for their wild-ass spending (buying votes) they start this class warfare argument that the "rich" need to pay for what they have spent.  When I hear this "logic" repeated in the local saloon, by people that really buy into this notion that the government needs to be Robin Hood and take away all the money from these evil rich folks, it makes me ill.  The top 10% of wage earners already pay 80% of all the income tax collected.  How much more do you want them to do?  Maybe this will explain to them exactly what the old Bush Tax cuts did ....

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 unaffect ed. 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 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 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 t he 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 o f 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,  as many are considering, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible


katz said...

*Sigh.* Bad analogies, is there anything they can't prove?

Anonymous said...

Paid for by the rich for the rich.

Love the threat: : "they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is friendlier."
As if you assholes already aren't doing that. FUCK YOU.

Do you want to help the US economy or do you want slave labor? Which is it, you evil fucks?

Anonymous said...

In real life:

The richest guy whines about having to pay for a few dollars worth of "beer" (a.k.a., basic social services), even though he's a billionaire thanks to having inherited several breweries from Daddy. The guys drinking for "free" on his tab lost their jobs when he outsourced the brewing to 3rd-world slave labour, and can't afford to buy food and shelter - er, I mean, "beer". Buying "beer" for 10 people doesn't even register as pocket change in the billionaire's world....but he is SO VERY PERSECUTED, you see!

Valeyard said...

Snopes didn't bother addressing the points in this mail, so here are a few study questions:

• Is beer as essential to daily life as roads, police, the fire department, health and safety, or defense?
• If this is a metaphor for federal taxes, which country would you move to that has a similar standard of living and lower taxes for the wealthy?
• If this is a metaphor for state taxes, how many of these men would be able to find a new job and move to a new state in a day?
• Explain how an increase in taxes on the last man (making roughly $90,000 or more) is the same as beating him up for not handing out money to his friends.
• Explain why the ninth man, who makes $56,000 a year, can't pick up the tab.
• The nine men, combined, have only 7% of the wealth in their group, while the tenth has 93%. Does it make sense for the ninth man to pay 18%, while the tenth man only pays 59%?
• Since capital gains tax is typically 15%, while income tax on $90,000 is around 10-18%, how are the numbers in this e-mail possible?

Valeyard said...

Odd, my comment seems to have disappeared.

Snopes didn't tackle the content of this forward, so here are a few study questions:

• Is $100 of beer with your buddies every night as important as roads/police/firefighters/defense?
• Why can't the ninth man, who makes about $56,000, pick up the tab?
• How is lowering existing taxes on people making over $300,000 a year like beating up your buddy for not handing out extra cash beyond your beer tab?
• Nine of the men hold 7% of the wealth in the U.S., while the last man holds 93%. Is it fair that he pays only 59% of the bill, while the ninth man pays 18%?
• If this is a metaphor for federal taxes, which country should the rich man move to that has a similar standard of living and lower taxes?
• If this is a metaphor for state taxes, how many of the other men could move to a different state and find a new job in a day?
• Since the tax rate on capital gains is 15%, and you need to make at least $10 million in income to pay 35% tax, how filthy rich is our rich man?

Bebe 99 said...

The rich use more public resources than other people. They own more homes, vehicles, businesses, and purchase more goods, import more goods which necessitates more roads, more power lines, more utility services, banking, police, fire, airports, regulatory agencies. If they own a business this "overuse" increases dramatically. The tax rate may be higher for the rich, but after they've taken all of their write-offs, and taken most of their income as capital gains then take another look at their effective tax rate. They aren't paying enough. We need a better tax system that takes out the loopholes and taxes these people for their overuse of public resources. Finally, rich people, if you take home 80% of the money, use 80% of the public resources, then you should pay 80% of the taxes duh.

Anonymous said...

This same story came up in another group in 2008 I liked this response at that time
In real life, Warren Buffett offered a $1,000,000 bet (proceeds to the winner’s charity) to any member of the Forbes 400, if their effective tax rate was higher than their personal secretary’s effective tax rate. And he was kind, counting only payroll and income taxes, ignoring regressive taxes like sales tax.

This "parable" is just more propaganda.

ferschitz said...

Prior comments have done an excellent job of debunking this propoganda, which is no doubt hacked out by well-paid shills working for rightwing thinktanks.

Demonstrates how willingly conservatives are to be fooled all of the time. Cry me a river for the wealthy elites... the upper 2% owns the vast majority of the wealth in this nation, and as Bebe aptly demonstrates, they use more of the resources and services. Let them pay their *fair share.*

No one is suggesting "ripping off the wealthy," other then the wealthy who use that meme to fool the rightwing sheeples into voting against their own interests.

Lost Sage said...

You're missing part of the story. You see, because they were drinking buddies the rich man wanted to help the poor men. So he decided to give them some advice on finances. "You have to learn how to leverage your money! Look at me. I've cornered the widget business, I can charge anything I want for widgets!"

But 3 of the 4 poor men were working in the rich man's factories for minimum wage, and they answered "But we have no money to leverage. We spend all of our money on food!"

"That's your problem then," concluded the rich man "I only spend 1% of my income on food."

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.