...

[PMeuph]

Funny thing, I have seen the same article used to describe the Canadian system and the British system. Surely the 3 countries don't have the same percentage of taxation....

Also...

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp" target="_blank

http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/" target="_blank

[bisontuba]

The Tax System Explained in Beer
April 2, 2012

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 ? 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 h 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, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. – Professor of Economics.

Hi-
EDITED: Whoever wrote this is a nut case. The wealthiest should pay the highest in tax--they make the most & can afford it--it is not rocket science, just common sense....AND stop giving the oil companies tax breaks, and stop companies like GE from paying $0 in taxes...

Mark

[PMeuph]

....Common Sense....

Just hear me out for a second, I get the system and understand that the example is just an example and is an approximation. However, the numbers match really well with the statistics from the province of Quebec in Canada. (Which is, by far, Canada's most "socialist" province).

It thus seems funny for me, that the exact same simplified example would used to illustrate a system that relies way less on state intervention.

[PMeuph]

No statist/collectivist is going to choose to understand the example, no matter who actually wrote it..........

Funny that you say that, this article ends similarly with:

For those who get it, no explanation is possible.... For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

It's in French....

http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/ ... calite.php" target="_blank" target="_blank

[Biggs]

Professors at state institutions are tax-subsidized, yes? Tax money is paying for people to write about misappropriated tax money?

Though, of course, this parable would have to be legitimate in order for any comments about it to be legitimate.

[iiipopes]

Because of my current income situation, I not only legitimately pay zero federal income tax, I receive $1000 from the government because of having a son.

Thank you for your tax dollars.

[ginnboonmiller]

The other day I went to a bar with my friend. We both wanted beer, and I had cash, so I bought him one. We had fun.

God Bless America.

[Donn]

You had both probably better read a couple chapters of "Atlas Shrugged", as penance.

[thezman]

If memory serves correct I believe Norm explained taxes using beer on Cheers years ago (although his explanation was far less inflammatory)

[Donn]

Or you can just cut to the chase and read the wikipedia article on it, something like a super-abridged version with annotations.

For those who are interested enough in the US tax system to wade through a real analysis by legitimate scholars who signed their own real names to it, you can check this out (a PDF), How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective, Piketty and Saez. It's a lot to read, but readable for a scholarly work. I honestly didn't read all the way through, so if you read it and get to the part where the entitled poor mug the beleaguered rich people, take all their money and leave them bleeding in the street, let us know. In the most plausible version of that story I'm acquainted with, it's a serious bloodbath. Factoid - she's supposed to have said `qu'ils mangent brioche', which was still not a very smart thing to say, but makes more sense - brioche is translated as cake, but it's really more like a soft bread.

[iiipopes]

I'm with bloke. I have the required terminal degree in my field, and I have to explain complex issues to clients. If the author is that scholarly, then he should be able to write with clarity and precision so it can be understood by any person reading it. Yes, Strunk & White are my heros for English composition.

[iiipopes]

Factoid - she's supposed to have said `qu'ils mangent brioche', which was still not a very smart thing to say, but makes more sense - brioche is translated as cake, but it's really more like a soft bread.

...made with eggs & butter, so it was considered provençal, in this connotation, farm food: not fancy, but it will feed you.

This is compounded by the fact that provençal had its own dialect, and other socioeconomic differences, so the entire area was looked down on by the Parisians as lower class.

In other words, keeping in mind the contrast between the social strata, it was more a statement of maintaining the status quo of the respective lifestyles: let the royalty have their fancy foods including fine cuts of meat, and the concerns of royalty; and let the peasants eat peasant food, fending for themselves in the field, or on the farm, or in the alley markets, or simply go to the country and away from Paris, as, from her perspective, they were used to doing anyway.

[Donn]

In other words, keeping in mind the contrast between the social strata, it was more a statement of maintaining the status quo of the respective lifestyles

Not that we actually know anyone really ever said `Qu'ils mangent de la brioche' (sorry, my French gets better when I look it up), but the quote is apparently from Rousseau who attributed it vaguely to some `princess', and apparently he took it in more or less the same spirit as we take it today, evidence of the clueless disdain of the royal upper crust for the life and death struggles of the peasants.

Very unlikely that was Marie Antoinette, as there's enough evidence that she did know what was going on and was at least able to affect some concern over it. Went to the guillotine anyway, paying the price for generations of upper crust parasites.

[TubaRay]

Of all the discussions I have seen on TubeNet, I can't remember ONE that was any simpler than this one. For that reason, I am going to exercise some restraint, and leave it at that.

[iiipopes]

Of all the discussions I have seen on TubeNet, I can't remember ONE that was any simpler than this one. For that reason, I am going to exercise some restraint, and leave it at that.

Nah, while I'm partially laid off, I need the entertainment. Please -- tell us how you really feel! I need an excuse to make up some more as I go along.