February 08, 2008
Bill sends an oldie that's worth a reprise. In his message, it was attributed to David Kamerschen, PhD, at the University of Georgia. When I checked to see if there was such a person, I found Mr. Kamerschen's page at the UGa site. It contained this amusing disclaimer at the top of the page:
Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it.But it's a good tale even if it wasn't written by a PhD economist. And particularly timely, given the 'tax rebate' nonsense being debated in DC.
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 US federal 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.
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 $1 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 $2? 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!"
Then 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.
Posted by joke du jour at February 8, 2008 06:17 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
To make this a little more accurate we'd have to figure out an anology for how the owner actually spent $120 to get them their $100 worth of beer and the customers children would get the bill for the difference (with interest).
Posted by: Lou at February 9, 2008 07:50 AM
Good to hear from you again (and know you're still reading).
I think another analogy would be if the bartender let the nine guys drink without paying the full bill and then charged the shortfall (with interest, as you say) to their children.
Eat the Rich, as P.J. says.
Posted by: JdJ at February 9, 2008 01:08 PM