Bar Stool Economics

MiniGirl

DIS Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,071
An oldie but a goodie...

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. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, 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 $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!"

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 any more. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Author unknown

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
 
Obama is about to find that out, And it is America that will pay the price. Anybody seen the footage of the riots in Europe because they've been on the dole so long, they don't know how to support themselves without the Guvment?
 
Unfortunatly the the 10th guy at the bar is a CEO that walked away with 50 million dollar golden parachute and the company that he bankrupted is the one that left the first four on unemployment and a worthless 401K.;)
 

Unfortunatly the the 10th guy at the bar is a CEO that walked away with 50 million dollar golden parachute and the company that he bankrupted is the one that left the first four on unemployment and a worthless 401K.;)

Yeah, but he still got beat up.
 
Yeah, but he still got beat up.

Hey...if you met the CEO of your place of employement that walked away with a golden parachute and left you with no job and a worthless retirement, would you beat him up or give him petit fours on a doily? It would be worth the lack of beer the net day.:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:
 
Unfortunatly the the 10th guy at the bar is a CEO that walked away with 50 million dollar golden parachute and the company that he bankrupted is the one that left the first four on unemployment and a worthless 401K.;)

As reprehensible as those actions are, it doesn't change the fact that these CEOs pay the lion's share of taxes in this country.
 
As reprehensible as those actions are, it doesn't change the fact that these CEOs pay the lion's share of taxes in this country.

And they STILL have enough $$ left over after taxes to buy stuff!! Isn't that amazing?? Even with those terrible tax rates, those CEO's can still throw lavish parties, buy $1000 shower curtains and private jets!

When I see the first CEO at Walmart buying cheap shampoo I'll get out my violin. Until then, there's no sympathy here.
 
And they STILL have enough $$ left over after taxes to buy stuff!! Isn't that amazing?? Even with those terrible tax rates, those CEO's can still throw lavish parties, buy $1000 shower curtains and private jets!

A poor person has never given me a job.

What's amazing is a lot of CEO's started out at the bottom (or near enough to it) of the corporate ladder and worked their way to the top.

Why can't you?

When I see the first CEO at Walmart buying cheap shampoo I'll get out my violin. Until then, there's no sympathy here.

I don't think you'd have any anyway. ;)
 
And they STILL have enough $$ left over after taxes to buy stuff!!

You say that as if having money left over is in and of itself an evil. Dishonesty and avarice should always be punished. Simply having wealth should not. Next, it will be OK to burglarize a rich man's home provided he as things left over after you're done.
 
A poor person has never given me a job.

What's amazing is a lot of CEO's started out at the bottom (or near enough to it) of the corporate ladder and worked their way to the top.

Why can't you?



I don't think you'd have any anyway. ;)

You're throwing around a lot of accusations here without knowing me at all. You don't know my work history, you don't know what I do for a living now.

There are CEO's who put the needs of their employees at the same level as their own. I'm lucky enough to work for one. His focus is on keeping us all employed, not on getting a bigger house or a fancier car. He's lived in the same home for the 10 years he's been our President, driven the same car. Yeah, they're both nicer than mine, but that's cool with me. He's kept me and my friends employed. I have immense respect for him and CEO's like him, who understand that we all rise and fall together.

The CEO's we were discussing were these:

Unfortunatly the the 10th guy at the bar is a CEO that walked away with 50 million dollar golden parachute and the company that he bankrupted is the one that left the first four on unemployment and a worthless 401K.

Sadly, there appear to be more of them than there are guys like my boss.
 
And they STILL have enough $$ left over after taxes to buy stuff!! Isn't that amazing?? Even with those terrible tax rates, those CEO's can still throw lavish parties, buy $1000 shower curtains and private jets!

When I see the first CEO at Walmart buying cheap shampoo I'll get out my violin. Until then, there's no sympathy here.

Yes, they do, but I don't understand what that has to do with this. They are entitled to do what they want with their money. I just want to be clear on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that as long as they can afford to throw nice parties, etc, they should be taxed even more? Or the tax rates on them aren't high enough until they are brought down to the lowest common denominator (as far as after tax income goes)?
 
You say that as if having money left over is in and of itself an evil. Dishonesty and avarice should always be punished. Simply having wealth should not. Next, it will be OK to burglarize a rich man's home provided he as things left over after you're done.

No, that's not what I was saying at all. I was responding to the "poor overtaxed CEO" comment. If they were suffering so greatly, then they wouldn't be able to buy all that fancy stuff. The truth is, they're not suffering-but some of the folks that work for them (or used to) are.
 
Yes, they do, but I don't understand what that has to do with this. They are entitled to do what they want with their money. I just want to be clear on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that as long as they can afford to throw nice parties, etc, they should be taxed even more? Or the tax rates on them aren't high enough until they are brought down to the lowest common denominator (as far as after tax income goes)?

I'm saying that they have been able to achieve and receive much from this society, and there's no reason why they should not be expected to contribute to society in direct proportion to what they have received. As my income has risen, so has my tax debt. That's what a progressive tax system means. I've never thought of refusing an increase in salary because it would mean I'd pay more taxes. Would you? If someone offered me CEO level pay today, I'd take it and pay the higher taxes without a word of complaint, knowing that I'd still have plenty left over to have a wonderful lifestyle.
 
I'm saying that they have been able to achieve and receive much from this society, and there's no reason why they should not be expected to contribute to society in direct proportion to what they have received. As my income has risen, so has my tax debt. That's what a progressive tax system means. I've never thought of refusing an increase in salary because it would mean I'd pay more taxes. Would you? If someone offered me CEO level pay today, I'd take it and pay the higher taxes without a word of complaint, knowing that I'd still have plenty left over to have a wonderful lifestyle.

And they do. That is the whole point of the story. The 10th guy picked up almost 60% of the check and continued to do so even after the prices were lowered, but that wasn't enough for the other 9. Even the 5 who, after the price cut, were paying nothing felt it was unfair. I guess they felt they should get some of the $20 back eventhough they (except for the 5th guy) contributed nothing to begin with. The 5th guy received 100% of his money back, and it wasn't good enough.

And FTR, the 10th guy isn't necessarily a CEO. He simply represents someone in the highest tax bracket. He could be a hard working salesman who is very good at selling his product or a workaholic who puts in lots of overtime or an athlete or entertainer. We don't know. We do know though that the top tax bracket is not limited to CEOs.

Oh, and on taking the CEO level pay.... it would depend. Would I also get the headaches and responsibilty that come with it? I work very little now because I choose to stay home and homeschool our oldest (and next year our youngest as well). My job is one I do for fun -- just to get out of the house every now and then. So, in answer to your question, no, I wouldn't turn down CEO pay if nothing else about my job changed. However, I doubt that would be the case. I also remember my father turning down several promotions when I was a child because he didn't want the headaches and extra hours that would come with the promotion and the extra money. My dh also chooses to make less $$ because he prefers to be home more with his family, so yes there are people who choose to make less money. However, we do not begrudge those who put in the hours and sacrafices and end up with more than we do.
 
And they do. That is the whole point of the story. The 10th guy picked up almost 60% of the check and continued to do so even after the prices were lowered, but that wasn't enough for the other 9. Even the 5 who, after the price cut, were paying nothing felt it was unfair. I guess they felt they should get some of the $20 back eventhough they (except for the 5th guy) contributed nothing to begin with. The 5th guy received 100% of his money back, and it wasn't good enough.

And FTR, the 10th guy isn't necessarily a CEO. He simply represents someone in the highest tax bracket. He could be a hard working salesman who is very good at selling his product or a workaholic who puts in lots of overtime or an athlete or entertainer. We don't know. We do know though that the top tax bracket is not limited to CEOs.

Again, I was responding to this:

Unfortunatly the the 10th guy at the bar is a CEO that walked away with 50 million dollar golden parachute and the company that he bankrupted is the one that left the first four on unemployment and a worthless 401K.
 
When I see the first CEO at Walmart buying cheap shampoo I'll get out my violin. Until then, there's no sympathy here.

I bumped in Jim Goodnight, the CEO of SAS, in Sam's Club. According to Forbes, he is worth $8.7 billion and he was even pushing his own cart. Do you feel better now?
 
Yeah, me, too. :)

I thought you were discussing the joke-which is what it is. It's an exaggeration that bears little resemblance to real life. It feeds into the myth that everyone in America (except the noble Republicans who do all the work and live in God's country) is just waiting for government to come along and give them houses, cars and Disney vacations for free.
 
I bumped in Jim Goodnight, the CEO of SAS, in Sam's Club. According to Forbes, he is worth $8.7 billion and he was even pushing his own cart. Do you feel better now?

:thumbsup2 A person whose hand I'd like to shake. Same with Warren Buffet. People who understand that you can make a whole lot of money and still be a decent human being.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom