Happy Tax Day Bitches.

Apr 18, 2017 1:06 PM

ImgursLibertarian

Views

6422

Likes

257

Dislikes

105

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

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 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 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 the 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 of 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.

You dont say something is explained in beer, and then make me read.

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 1

hmmm

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Except that what actually happens is that the tenth man pays $20 less and has half his expenses covered by the bar because he co-owns it.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

How to become a fiscal conservative and hate the tax system: be productive enough in society to actually make money.

9 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 21

OR just be good at math, and read the rules.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 29

Barstool economics

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is a piss poor analogy.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

And thats why i dont go to bars and just have Bbq and beers at home

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

This is literally too flawed to refute. What is the beer in this analogy? Government services? How can that be reduced to a single (1)

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

number with any shred of accuracy? The answer of course is that it can't and this analogy is bogus. The moral of this story is that (2)

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

in the history of the universe, no wisdom has ever come in the form of a chain email. You're best served to delete them and move on. (3)

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

TIL I need rich friends who want to drink and pay the bill based on progressive income tax theory

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

For everyone griping, the beer represents citizenship and federal services which we all get, not private expenditures. - 1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Also it is true that this does not include tax breaks for the rich or the poor. Try to approach it without any personal biases and anger...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Do Randroids dream of Objective sheep? No, they just repost nonsensical analogies apparently.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

How can I make an extremely complicated system fit my narrative? Ahh, tax system explained with beer.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Oh yeah, I was supposed to file an extension. Oh well. I'll wait till the IRS calls me. Let them do some legwork for once.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I feel like a more accurate representation would involve how much beer each man recieved. The beer would be wages 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And how much paid by each would be taxes. The argument makes it seem like everyone has equal stabding at the table 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think that would equal out to the 10th guy paying 49% of the bill but drinking upwards of 90% of the beer.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's assuming the simplistic view that they all make their money taxed as regular wages. Now account for their money making their money.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW:

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

Repost actually. It's a classic. It's like singing christmas songs.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 15

you get downvoted a lot quite unfairly

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Meh. Fake internet points. Still almost at 100k. I make sense alot. Just sometimes say unpopular stuff. Its all good.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

TOO LONG; GOT DRUNK

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

And that ladies and gentleman is why we should legalize cannabis. /s

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

False analogy. That tenth man already has control of 90% of the nations beer, too.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I've had some excellent cheap beer offshore

9 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 1

I bought a $12 half gallon of rum in the Bahamas.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

@botdrawa chalupa filled with gravy covered imitation krab

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

@ImgursLibertarian Here's your drawing of a "chalupa filled with gravy covered imitation krab"

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

@ImgursLibertarian Here's your drawing of a "chalupa filled with gravy covered imitation krab"

1 year ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

@ImgursLibertarian Here's your (experimental extra) drawing of a "chalupa filled with gravy covered imitation krab, in a field of sunflowers"

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

@ImgursLibertarian Here's your (experimental extra) drawing of a "chalupa filled with gravy covered imitation krab, carved from amber"

1 year ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well will people learn that hard numbers mean squat, percentages are the only things to trust

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

And context of those percentages. Alot of people on this post are commenting and thinking that the 59% is their income tax %.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

So taxation eventually makes everyone poor?

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

... Not everyone. But when you have dependency, it breeds high risks of being poor.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 20

What about scandinavia? Heard they are heavily taxed and so fucking poor. No wait. Theyre not.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

UBI.... government dependence

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Modern society is way too specialized not to be dependant on a gvmnt. I'd rather admit it than livr in a fantasy world on my own

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I would rather depend on the government as little as possible.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except that the tenth man makes 95% of the groups money and owns the bar they drink at.

9 years ago | Likes 65 Dislikes 13

Without the bar and the beer no drinking happens, a sad day for all 10 men

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This doesn't make a point. He already cvers 59% of it initially. You mean he's doing his friends a favour subsidizing his own product 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 11

but somehow still ripping them off because he makes 95% of their 41$ contribution and still has to buy product and pay his workers? Wrong2/2

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 10

Cheers!

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

If the agreement is to split the bill according to each persons ability to pay, each should pay in proportion to their income/groups total.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

And behind their backs ripping them of and paying them crap wages at the factories he also owns because hes a master at fucking people over.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 6

Being rich/=/ fucking people over. If I developed a new efficient breaking system and sold it to everyone. Who did I fuck over? Did I 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

But I agree being rich does not equal being an asshole. But I suspect having money sometimes warp your sense of fairness.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Force people to buy my product making me rich?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Depends on what you where charging for it. or if you are using lobbyist to change the rules in your favor. There are many dirty tricks......

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nobody's advocating for cronyism, your obfuscating the discussion

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Now explain the same thing, but include how wealthy each person is.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 6

Now explain how you set limits on how much money a person Should have and why it's morally ok to take it if you Think it's too much

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

Well how much money someone should have is enough to feed their family, have a home, get an education and be healthy. 1/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Morally it's acceptable to tax those earning the most more because they can afford to contribute more.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Why do you think you are obligated to the money a man makes by selling a new engine? Why should he even bother making a new engine 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

If under you system he should have the same amount as the guy who will build his engine?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In 140 characters or less? This is not the medium for such discussions.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Studies have shown that the highest marginal tax rate that works well is 70%. That was the top rate through most of the 20th century.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

There is no incentive to work at 50% tax rate.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

Funny, my effective tax rate is around 50%, and yet I work hard.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

(So take your Voodoo Reaganomics and stuff them up your regressive tax hole.)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I knew this was going to be a shitty "the rich are the victims" condescending misrepresentation. Also this isn't even accurate.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 9

For one, it paints everyone having equal outcome. "Everyone get one beer". Second, it doesn't have the 10th filing exceptions and paying

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

0 or less than many others like our corporate tax system allows for 'job creating' corporations that don't pay a living wage

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

100% accurate. The rich are not the victims, they are also NOT the villains either. It's not US vs THEM. Its just You and Me as individuals.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 16

That works up until the rich start manipulating the political system. Then it is us vs them. Also, they never didn't manipulate the system.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

The problem is the system. The problem is the government. Its supposed to be LIMITED. then the rich don't matter. They get treated the same.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 13

But the issue is that 'you and me ad individuals' doesn't recognise the differences. Beer's a bad metaphor because it's a luxury item 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

It doesn't consider that you already have healthcare and money to feed your kids, or that there's 1000 to 1 of person 1 to person 10.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Found ayn rand

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

Who is John Galt?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

A pointless foot note in literary history

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I am.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

She's the reason I am a scientist and engineer!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 9

I ... don't see how those are connected.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

They aren't. Some of us become engineers without the inspiration of adolescent greed fetish economic theory.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Exactly.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

You've never read her work. She idolizes those who create. Atlas shrugged is about an engineer, a metalurgist, and several entrepreneurs.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I have read her work and it's more about how all of the above are fucked if rich people don't feel like paying them anymore.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I can see how you can come to that conclusion on Atlas Shrugged, but thats not the theme of either of her other two novels.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The Fountainhead is about an Architect. Anthem is even better. A Creator in a distopian world that shuns creativity and free thought.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

*dystopian

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Except the tenth man paid some politicians so that he only have to pay 10 dollars

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

The top 1% pays 50% of the taxes.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 9

You say this like it means anything. How much of their *disposable income* does the top 1% pay vs the bottom whatever %?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The problem is that this people get an incredible amount of wealth, you can tax everyone 10%. But because they own a lot of wealth they will

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Pay more. Who will pay more on paper the guy winning 10 bucks or the guy making 1,000? Offcourse the 1,000 guy pays more In taxes, he's

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Paying his share. Offcourse they will pay more, they have more money.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

How do you jump from a 18% tax rate to a 59% rate. Also, if the bill drops to 80$, they'd each pay 80% of the previous amounts.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

It's not a sales tax, it's a income tax.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Tax rates are teh rates of income. The top 1% pay half of the income taxes.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

*Your

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Your brackets are way off and do not take into consideration tax credits. You're analogy is flawed.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

Top 1% pays 50% of the income taxes. The analogy is not flawed.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Also your argument that we're driving businesses away is poor. Multi-nationals already share their profits between countries for tax purpose

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

Where did I make that argument?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It is flawed. Not everyone gets the same beer, same amount of beer, or can afford to buy a Porsche after they bought majority of the beer

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

I agree. I think everyone should pay the same price for the same beer. But that is called a "regressive tax".

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

Ah good ole trickle down economics scare tactics.

9 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 19

Ahh good ol socialist response

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

It really sucks that most people on imgur are going to upvote this comment even though you are completely incorrect....

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Trickle down references subsidization of the bar owner. This is just about tax returns of individuals.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 10

The metaphor still makes no sense. If the bar (government) is spending more than it is making it has no business giving ANY of its 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Customers money back. It either needs to reduce operating costs or charge more money for beer. The bar in this scenario is losing 2/3

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Money each quarter and it has a ton of debt to pay off. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Except that the government (Or bar) can create its own currency and at least at a federal level does not need other peoples money.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The purposes of tax in this modern era (since it is no longer backed by gold or anything else) is to alleviate pressure on the system...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

by removing excess currency from the system. The federal government of a sovereign currency issuer does not need other peoples money...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

if they do not tax then you end up with massive inflation. The beer example is incorrect because it assumes trickle down economics thinking.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0