Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

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 h ad 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.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

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

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D is a real guy, who says he has no idea who wrote this--he didn't! Just another effort to use a real person to fit someone else's agenda. What I don't get is why people who make these things up don't simply use their own names? Why go to the trouble of stealing someone else's identity? Anyway, the real Dr Kamreschen thinks this is a simplistic view of a more complicated system, as do I. Let's start with this: how much did the gov't subsidize the farmers who grew the grains that were sent to the beer distillery, where more government tax incentives facilitated the development of a glass bottle to hold the beer which was then shipped on government roads to the bar, where the wealthy guy whose family owns the land that gets the government tax breaks spends the money the gov't gave . . . oh, you get the idea. Everyone rips on taxes unless the services that they hold dear are eliminated. I wonder how much money we would save if we eliminated school sports teams? Or stopped paying for the school bus? Or just eliminate paying for schools altogether?

Final Frontier

Anonymous said...

Regardless, I love the moral of the story. As for eliminating school taxes, bring it on. I think there's a lot to be said for pay as you go. More so, if I'm paying you can be sure I'll be getting my moneys worth.

Anonymous said...

You can afford to pay for school for your kid? Congratulations. But most families could not afford to drop $5-10,000 per kid (and that is a conservative estimate of what it would cost). Just scroll down to look at the discussion of those making $28,000 a year. If they had 2 kids, more than half of their income would go to paying for school, leaving very little for things like vegetables. The solution? They would not send their kids to school, and the kids would be doomed to a life of poverty. Sure there is a lot of government waste (let's start with billions on a bad war), but these simplistic anti-tax solutions (like Huckabee's nonsensical "fair" tax) won't help.

Gotta go file my taxes . . .
Final Frontier

Anonymous said...

Absolutely critical point. If you're family is making less that $100k and you have a kid or two in the public school system, and you're whining about "taxes", you're an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't help but reply to this:

"Just scroll down to look at the discussion of those making $28,000 a year. If they had 2 kids, more than half of their income would go to paying for school, leaving very little for things like vegetables. The solution?"

Why do these people make only $28,000 per year? What did they do earlier in their lives to prepare themselves for their future? If they grew up poor they should have used the Pell grant system or Stafford Loans like I did to go to college because my Dad literally only made $12-15,000 per year. But I managed to obtain a Bachelors Degree (although not from some ivy league school) based on my loans and GI Bill from the Marine Corps Reserve.

I now make $180,000 per year. Not rich, according to Obama, but I'm doing okay.

Thing is, I did something to make myself better. How many people who complain about taxes didn't?

What I see in Obama's tax plan is incentive, or disincentive, to be propserous... or you'll pay a disproprotionate amount of taxes based on your success to help support some guy who failed to prepare himself for the future.

Poor planning on their part shouldn't constitute a tax hike for those who did have a plan or were successful.

Masterlin said...

Rod, I used to think exactly along your lines. Felt like I was being punished for making good decisions and others were rewarded for their poor decisions. The one thing that made me change my opinion is that I now believe not all men are created equal, in the sense that some humans can not make good decisions, plan for their future and/or have enough discipline to succeed. This is actually a limitation they have so we (successful people) need to subsidize their lifestyle. How much subsidy should it be? Let me ask you, if there was a pill that could turn you into an idiot, how much money would I have to give you to make you take the pill? I am guessing that it is a lot more than the excess taxes that you pay! Stay successful my brother.