I am reasonably certain that most of you have seen this. I know you understand it or you would not be in my address book. If you think Man #10 got what he deserved---the beating---please let me know so I can do further adjustment. I DO NOT begrudge #10 his $10, but a lot of people do not look at it this way. When I was trying to run a band, I had to deal with this. I had two guys, each of whom played a half a show and one, at least expected the same amount as those who played the entire show. Isn't that what Karl Marx decided should be the case? I DO like the last statement!! For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not > understand, no explanation is possible. > Bar Stool Economics Subject: Fw: Bar Stool Economics A different way of looking at it............. ----- > > > Perhaps this will stimulate some reflection among the thinking persons who currently call themselves liberals. > > > 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 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, ladies and gentlemen, 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. chuck hemrick
|