Mon 15 Nov 2010
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, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.





November 16th, 2010 at 5:05 am
Robin,
The logical missteps here (and in much of conservative talk about taxation) are (1) the assumption that the wealth of all men are mutually independent, (2) the assumption that both poor and rich mean make equal use of public resources, (3) the assumption that by paying low taxes the poor men are the only one getting a good deal. None of this, of course, is true.
1. The rich men have become rich in part because they have talent, but also because they had access to the poor men’s labor and the middle class’ purchasing power. Likewise the poor men and middle class are poorer than the rich men because the latter tightly control their market value with economic and political means, as a mean to increase profits on their activities.
2. The rich men, by definition, make more use of public resources. Their activities require more land, more energy, more natural resources, more public infrastructure. They monopolize more government workers, require more military resources, and generate more environmental damages and so forth.
3. The poor men don’t pay taxes because they are dirt poor. All of their disposable income go towards getting a roof and feeding their family an dealing with the stress of being poor. Were they to pay more paxes they would become a burden for society which would be good for no one.
The taxation system that you are ranting against is used widely throughout the world and is built to mitigate the negative effect of factors 1, 2 and 3 on society. It has been the source of political and economic stability for decades, and has allowed the poor to survive, the middle class to thrive, and the rich to get richer.
So my point is be really careful about what you wish for because you might get it.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:06 am
You forgot to mention the 11th guy. He’s underage and not legally in the bar… he also pays nothing for his beer, but that is tacked on to the bill.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:07 am
Now compare it logically.
Compare the TAX each pays based on a percentage of their INCOME.
Suddenly I don’t feel so bad for the “rich” guy.
Also consider RICH people by and large are business people. meaning they pay ZERO taxes. Sure they file an income tax return and the IRS gets taxes but they just increase the price of their products OR cut the costs to pass those taxes onto guess who?
the 4 poor guys apparently paying nothing for their beers.
The average under $50,000 a year income person pays SIGNIFICANT LARGER a percentage of their total income to ALL TAXATION than the rich guy paying $59 for beer does.
The Lowest income bracket ends up SPENDING most of their income (living paycheck to paycheck so to speak) so they pay damned near 100% of their excess income to “taxes”
I pay over 55-60% of my income to taxes (including sales taxe head (illegal I might add) taxes property and school taxes.
hell they take over 30% right out of my paycheck. (and NO you don’t get that back no matter how little you make they split your federal taxes into 3 pieces and only ONE of those pieces is part of any refund)
so add into your equation how much each of those people 1-10 pay of their TOTAL INCOME in taxes (all taxes) and suddenly the picture is very very different indeed.
the issue overall is too much taxes (period not on rich or poor)
our government is bleeding us DRY.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:12 am
This example is fairly wrong in several ways. The reason that the rich guy pays more in taxes is because he gets far more benefit out of his tax dollars. If you run a business you are getting extensive benefits from: a legal system to back up contracts; police and fire and military protection for your building; a reliable system of unemployment insurance for your employees so you can lay them off more flippantly; public roads to ship your goods; all manner of industry specific tax breaks, tarif protection, subsidies, etc; and on and on… If you are the guy sweeping that business’s floor for minimum wage (even with your kid on free school lunch and your wife on government cheese), you are not even coming close in terms of bang for your government buck. To fix the analogy, the richer guys need to get A LOT MORE BEER than the poor guys. In fact, the riches guy get fine wine and coctails, the poorest gets half a mug of warm O’doul’s.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:12 am
This is the most rediculously non-congruent argument I’ve ever seen. Not a single bit is relevant to our tax system. Why dont you explore a relevant situation such as, if the bill costs $100 and the 10 buddies are only paying $60 (because that is what is going on at the current moment). Lets not forget that buddy number ten makes $20 million per year and through generous tax shelters and tax cuts, pays the same in federal taxes as the man making $250,000 per year. This “story” belongs on Glenn Becks chalkboard along with all the other BS.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:13 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Willie Half-Nelson, Krishna. Krishna said: It's explained in terms of beer! http://www.fortunewatch.com/the-obama-tax-system-explained-in-beer/ [...]
November 16th, 2010 at 5:17 am
The tax system is totally screwy, there are so many loopholes, caveats and who knows what else buried in the thousands of pages of tax code to really be able to boil it down to an analogy about buying beer in a bar. I mean it could of been happy hour, drink specials, imported beer night, or free beer with burger special night. We’ve all seen the famous “Warren Buffet pays the same tax rate as his secretary analogy” and the argument in this essay only refers to % points, not actual dollars.
I don’t have a solution, but I know the tax code clearly favors the rich, and if it doesn’t then you must have a bad accountant or are truly a dick. But I take solace in the fact that money (over a certain amount) doesn’t buy happiness and that we are mostly talking about rearranging deck chairs on the titanic unless we get up and do something seriously productive here in the USA soon.
So I’ve got to go back to work, and buy only American made products, and not watch TV, and get my tea filter out to block the next two years of “Tea Party” ridiculousness. But mostly I should just stop having a few beers before posting comments about things……..
November 16th, 2010 at 5:18 am
RE: Vincent
Although you see it as ranting about the tax system, I see it as ranting against those who have a problem with the “wealthy” getting the majority of tax cuts. I believe the author made the comment that all 10 men were happy with the arrangement, the problem occurred when a reduction in the bill was brought forward. Personally, I don’t have a problem with those that paid more in getting more out when a break comes along. While I disagree with the levels that everyone in our nation is now taxed, I don’t have a problem with author’s rant here.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:26 am
Vincent,
Well put. Thanks for putting that into perspective. Without a proper response to your points, the original “article” is both old and pure snark.
JT
November 16th, 2010 at 5:40 am
The first five guys drank their beer from thimbles.
The sixth guy drank his beer from a shot glass.
The seventh guy drank his beer from a high ball glass.
The eighth guy drank his beer from a pint glass.
The ninth guy drank his beer from a two liter stein.
The tenth guy drank his beer from a swimming pool.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:46 am
Obama has yet to pass a tax bill. The taxes you’re referring to are the ones we paid under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
Cute story though.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:47 am
The biggest fallacy with this whole story is that the beer they receive has no relationship to their ability to pay. The richest 5% pay about 35-40% of the taxes, but they OWN more than 80% of the wealth!!! It sounds SO unfair when you say that 5% pay 35% of the tax total, but the story completely flips when you understand that they own 4/5 of the nation’s privately held assets. Helf the story does not tell the whole truth.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:49 am
If we were going to discuss our tax system in terms of beer, the bar tab for the ten men would be $150; but they would only pay $100, and they would borrow the other fifty to settle up. They would do this every day for fifty years, until they finally owed so much on the beer loans they had taken out that there would be no hope of them paying it back – but luckily they would live in a system where the debt could be passed along to their grandkids. So drink up, everybody!
November 16th, 2010 at 5:52 am
And so one night the 10th guy just didn’t show up.
“I wonder where 10 is?” asked the other nine drinking fellows.
“Haven’t you seen the papers?” asked the bar owner.
As they read in horror, the 9 realized that 10, despite being rich and smart, had chosen poorly. He left and went to another bar. It was a nice enough bar when 10 got there. He only paid for his own drinks. There were fewer rules about how many drinks he could have and of what type. 10 was happy.
Until the takeover. 10′s new hangout got new ownership. And they took all of 10′s money and locked him in a back room to die.
So you see my wealthy friends, you had best carefully consider where besides the United States you will take your wealth. I’m sure there are many countries that look perfectly safe for ex-pat Americans to gather. Today …
November 16th, 2010 at 5:54 am
Wait, back up to the first set of numbers… does this mean middle class income tax is around 3% and 7%??? Well that’s great news for me!
November 16th, 2010 at 5:59 am
I think by stating that the bill is always $100 misses a big point. They all start off having the same number of beers but eventually three of the first four poor men start to rely on the others to pay their tab. So they continue to drink more and more than the others. The tab goes up and up and costs the others more money each time. The men paying control their drinking and may even cut back to save money. They even try to help out the poor men by suggesting AA or trying to help them get a job. These three poor men turn it down or put forth a lack-luster attempt. Why? They don’t need it, their tab is paid or they do have a job but don’t tell the others so they aren’t charged with paying a portion of the tab. The first three don’t take responsibility and thus the fourth poor man who is really trying is given the same upset glares from the six men paying the tab.
In the end, it all comes down to being responsible and respectful. If someone else is paying your tab, then you should be responsible and respect them by not running up the bill. If you are paying the tab be responsible and respect those men who are trying. The ones taking advantage of you should get kicked out of the group, which lowers the tab and builds a more cohesive and united group.
November 16th, 2010 at 6:00 am
You’re also failing to recognize that when taxes are higher on the rich there is a large incentive to not withdraw money from the companies and businesses they own. Instead the incentive is to reinvest and grow the company into a larger asset (as in what happened for the 50 years prior to Reagan making a mess). Low tax rates on the wealthy is an incentive to pull money out and put it into things like stocks, derivatives etc. which creates wealth, not jobs. This is not sustainable and republicans in office know it. Their goal is to make as much as possible before it implodes, and when it does it’s the workers they screwed over that take the largest amount of damage.
November 16th, 2010 at 6:06 am
So as long as we’re reducing to absurdity, and 100 dollars is the total amount of income taxes collected (actually about 1 trillion). The total networth of the united states households is 4900 dollars. Guys 1-3 have either owe mony or have less than a dollar, guys 4-7 have 650 bucks to spare between them and guys 8 and 9 have about 900 dollars between them and guy 10 is sitting pretty at about 3400.
Here is where I would make a rebuttal of your original point if it wasn’t the oldest chain-letter on the internet reproduced verbatim without any critical thought on your part.
November 16th, 2010 at 6:07 am
The richest guy would only pay about $30 for his beer.
Assuming he was bad enough at math to take all of his compensation as income.
November 16th, 2010 at 6:13 am
I think the writer of this piece drank too many beers, then woke up, vomited, and then put his hand in the vomit, and smeared it all over the computer screen, and said, “this looks like a blogpost about economics, a subject which I have never studied, and have no business writing about, but it’s the topic du jour, and I will get hits to my crappy blog if I just shit something out. But I don’t have shit, I have vomit, but the teabaggers who read this stuff won’t know the difference. Win!”
November 16th, 2010 at 6:44 am
Wow. You make scooter-bound Teabaggers look like genuises.
Wayne +1000
The end of the story should be that the richest 2 men then go home to their 40 room mansions and sell the poorest 5 men Chinese shit made by children and then bet on the chances they’ll default on there mortgage.
“Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.” You’ve been hanging out at the bar too much… Get a clue.
November 16th, 2010 at 8:37 am
[...] was funny, it’s amazing what kind of analogies people can come up with. http://www.fortunewatch.com/the-obama-tax-system-explained-in-beer/ See this Amp at [...]
November 16th, 2010 at 8:57 am
For all those that do not seem to understand, this story not theoretical, but is based on the actual amount of federal income tax collected by the US Government. The US Government currently collects 59% of its tax revenue from the top 10% of US taxpayers, 18% of its tax revenue from those in the 10-20 percentile, etc. Over 40% of US ‘taxpayers’ pay no federal tax at all.
This is after all tax breaks, tax shelters, etc. Now, it is fair to say that the top 10% also make a lot more than 10% of the money, but it is certainly less than the 59% of the federal taxes that they pay.
It is also fair to say there are many other ways taxes are collected, with some being more regressive, and some being less progressive.
November 16th, 2010 at 9:10 am
[...] the hypothetical HERE. Posted in Feature, Politics « Accessibility is Key. Check Your E-Mail! You can leave [...]
November 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Or how about this for a little more accurate representation.
The 4 poorest men drink Schlitz at $0.40 a can. While everyone else drinks New Castle. Man #8-#10 save the receipt from drinking and each claim the cost as a business expense and bill it to their respective companies. Who then turn around and off load profits for debt to foreign subsidiaries in a move to avoid paying taxes. So men #5-#7 end up as the only ones paying out of pocket.
//Reality check.
November 16th, 2010 at 10:42 am
if that was an accurate analogy, it would be quite obvious that rich guys
where picking up the tab for everyone else. this is far from the truth,
the whole design of the tax system is created by the rich, they did not
design a system that drains their funds, and funnels that money into
the pockets of the poor (then it would be impossible to stay poor).
a country needs to pay its bills, if tax cuts create large amounts of
wealth for the government, which is said over and over, there would be no
deficit in the US.
~
November 16th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Look at our record over the past 100 some years and it will help you understand what is going wrong now. In that time, we ran huge deficits three times… two great wars and the Great Depression. Each time we paid off in full over a reasonable time those balances… how did we do it? The tax rate on the Rich was 70% or higher, why? Because the rich made money on the wars and the bad economy. They owed us for their prosperity.
November 16th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Trevor. YOUR not understanding. the guy paying $59 is not paying $59.
Persons 1-5 are paying the $59 as guy $10 raises the prices on his products so he can GET the $59 beer and guess who pays the higher prices?
1-5 (you get the idea)
The top 10% if they have half a brain DO NOT PAY TAXES.
YOU PAY THEM FOR THEM.
this is what your not understanding. You see the people at the top PASS THE TAXES DOWN TO YOU. thats how they own 80% of everything.
Who do YOU pass it down to? there is no one “left” below us. so WE pay it all.
why do you think interest rates on mortgages are 85 to 140% (do the math on what the ACTUAL interest rate is on a 6% APR) get ready for a shocker.
November 16th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Great analogy, except that the guy saving ten dollars actually drank a team pitcher while the rest had shot glasses.
Nice try though.
November 16th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
The 10th guy should be buying the drinks, he’s rich! What skin is it off of his back to buy some drinks for people? After the beers he still gets to drive his luxury car home to his mansion and have sex with his hot wife while the other nine guys have to go back to their crappy lives.
November 16th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Seems like they already “drink their beer” overseas. They make a lot of their money by hiring cheap foreign labor, they set up their corporations in such a way as to avoid paying taxes here in America. But let’s weep for the poor rich people. Why, without another tax cut, they won’t be able to afford their second gold-covered Hummer, or another spare yacht! Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the poor oppressed rich people?
November 16th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Whats the matter? Wont approve my post because you are to scared to let everyone here know where the origin of your story came from?
November 16th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I think most people are missing the point of this parable. It isn’t that the poor have it to good or the rich have it too rough; it’s that the rich and poor are both part of an interdependent system, and soaking the rich as a form of punishment instead of simple revenue collection is shooting ourselves in the foot. Even when they had enough to cover the tab, the first nine people were angry that the tenth still had more than them left over, which is just simple envy any way you slice it.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Nerys (#28) – Sorry you are incorrect. These statistics come directly from the federal government. Anyone can objectively look them up. The percentages represent only federal, personal income tax. There are many other ways people can be taxed, and some are more regressive, and will tend to hit poor people harder.
There is a strong misconception that the rich do not pay taxes. This is not true, and the rich do pay most of the taxes when looking at the dollar amount they pay, even after taking into account their tax shelters, and other ways the rich have to avoid taxes. The rich have so much money that even though they pay a lot, it does not have any effect on their lifestyles. The poor and middle class have a lot less money. An arguement could be made that taxes are more of burden on the middle class if you look at how the tax burden can and does effect their lifestyle and amount of disposable income.
Reasonable people can argue and will disagree over what should be someones ‘fair share’ of taxes, and that the rich should or should not be paying more. The arguement that the rich as a group don’t pay taxes is demonstrably false. The total dollar amount paid is far higher, and this information is easy for anyone to look up and verify.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:40 am
This is just lazy and weak.
By using “beer” instead of something everyone needs (like food, water, shelter, etc) it makes it easy to overlook that at least a few of these cats (statistically speaking) are either incapable of affording a beer (sick, mentally ill, handicapped, etc), or have been laid off by the dudes at the upper end of the specturm.
Also, the idea that they will take their business elswehere is bass ackwards. What’s happened in the US is the top two earners took their business elsewhere and *then* started complaining about the poor guys at the other end. Jobs have been sent overseas not because of an unfair tax burden, but because it’s cheaper to pay brown-skinned people in other countries a fraction of what Americans would earn for the same work.
November 17th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Chris Taylor:
your quote “Also consider RICH people by and large are business people. meaning they pay ZERO taxes.” is factually incorrect. Rich people do pay taxes. The top 10% contribute to 60% of the federal tax revenue. Again, a well documented fact. Lets also consider your “business people” assumption. You are probably correct. Where do you think jobs come from….rich business people of course. Bill gates is extremely wealthy but founded a company that now employs nearly 90,000 people. So, Bill pays taxes directly via income and capital gains tax, and indirectly via corporate income tax, employer contributed social security tax and income tax from his 90k employees.
November 17th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Dessy – That’s precisely what’s happening. The 10th guy paid for 60% of the tab while 4 guys paid nothing. Should number 10 pay all of the taxes while the rest of us pay none?
December 11th, 2010 at 8:36 am
The story should include description of the trickle down theory: the rich guy drinks all the beer, then the others are charged for glasses of his piss.
December 14th, 2010 at 5:54 am
The difference is really none at all. Both the rich and the poor came into this world without a penny and both will leave the same way! What if we all gave 10% to the government and 10% to God and kept 80% for ourselves. Both the government and the church would have enough to take care of the poor and the working folks would have plenty as well!
March 4th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
The current distribution of wealth in the US in beer is shown below (use the google, do your own research).
10 guys, 10 beers.
1 and 2 get 8.6 beers, 8-10 each get .2 beers.
The rich have most of the money… of course they currently pay most of the taxes.
Bring back the middle class and the tax distribution will change.
March 4th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
oops… 8-10 get .175 beers, not .2.
March 5th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Love it! As a business owner it is so annoying to have more taxes to have to pay. It means less benefits for my employees and if it keeps up then less employees.
Just remember that every job that anyone has is provided by a “rich” person which is usually the business owner or the investors that funded the business. To raise their taxes is to decrease the amount of money they have to create more jobs, give more benefits, give raises, and stay in business.
April 15th, 2011 at 2:20 am
To me, the point of the story is not all the tax details and who owns what or benefits from what. Dollars are dollars. If everyone attacks the rich guy and he leaves, his dollars leave too. That’s the point.
April 18th, 2011 at 7:37 am
You’re missing part of the story. You see, because they were drinking buddies the rich man wanted to help the poor men. So he decided to give them some advice on finances. “You have to learn how to leverage your money! Look at me. I’ve cornered the widget business, I can charge anything I want for widgets!”
But 3 of the 4 poor men were working in the rich man’s factories for minimum wage, and they answered “But we have no money to leverage. We spend all of our money on food!”
“That’s your problem then,” concluded the rich man “I only spend 1% of my income on food.”
April 21st, 2011 at 10:38 am
@MessengerBoy
Where is he leaving to? The only reason the rich guy has all his wealth is because of the government that allows him to maintain it via the various infrastructure in place, including a legal system and means of enforcing it.
The rich disproportionately benefit from the government.
In contrast to the chain mail post above, I’m going to post another chain mail type of story.
“A plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. “You better watch him,” the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.”"
You may think it’s unfair that the rich pay X% of the taxes. Until you realize they control 4X% of the wealth. And while some people are still naive enough to believe in trickle down economics, though it hasn’t worked AT ALL since Reagan introduced them (and mind you, the tax rate was far higher under Reagan than it is now), what incentive is there to put your money at risk or work if taxes are low? With no estate tax, no real taxes on rich people (or corporations: GE made 11.2 billion dollars profit or some such number and paid 0% taxes last year) there is zero incentive to work or do more with it.
It’s a baseless claim that taxes disincentive work. It is quite the opposite. A person will work harder when the return on their work is taxed higher. Greed runs the US and that is the impetus behind tax cuts, because it makes it easier to actualize greed. But greed won’t go away just because taxes are higher. It’ll just make people work harder to continue accumulating wealth. Wealth mind you, that they’ve made by ripping off the poor and the middle class.
If you read a few books about investment banking, especially in the 1980′s (Liar’s Poker is an excellent memoir on the matter), you’ll notice just how little actual work is done and how little utility is provided by those stockpiling wealth.
July 14th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Poor- another word for lazy – welfare class – Rich – those who work their asses off to actually have something and then have to lie and cheat (on income taxes) to keep from giving it to the “lazy welfare class.” I’m sick of the whining and bellyaching people! My parents both came from “poor” families. There were lots of kids, illegal activites and very little real “work.” But they dug themselves out of it and have worked hard to actually have something – and they are accused of being “rich.” My dad can’t keep employees at his business and my mom can’t keep servers in her restaurant because no one wants to DO anything…except whine. THEY are the recipients of those tax cuts for the “wealthy.” Those sorry a_ _ , lazy low lifes who work long enough to buy a case of beer and collect unemployment are the so called “poor.” Give me a break! It’s a simple equation – REAL work = money! NO MOTIVATION = poor house!
July 14th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
and by the way DKJ, 1 and 2 are paying for their own beer, the beers of 8, 9 and 10 (and still making other charitable donations so they can at least choose who gets some of their money) while 3, 4, 5, and 6 are buying their own beer – contributing to the purchase of beer for the street drunks and receiving NO recipriocol benefits whatsoever.
August 16th, 2011 at 5:01 am
Some of these comments aren’t exactly accurate. I’m guessing the authors of them weren’t part of the top 5%?
My parents were also dirt-poor and had to support their entire family in a small apartment in Canada. They’ve worked and taken risks with investments in businesses, constantly aware of the dynamic economy. It’s sad to see people rant about their situation without explaining what they have done to change it.
They’ve come a long long way through hard work and-rather than spend on themselves-they choose to make donations to charity. I know for a fact that we contribute more than $25,000/year. So please don’t insult them for their hard-earned situation in life.
If you really want to make a difference, change your situation yourself.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:51 am
The rich guy is a co-owner of the bar and writes off his beer expense as a business exspence, so he actually drank for free.
lol
September 24th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I am sorry but that is not how our tax systems work. Because you don’t take into the account where the tax is being spent on. The fact is that the 10th man receives a big chunk of all taxes paid by the working lower, middle class(man number 2-9). Your story assumes(what most people assume) that all the taxes are going back into the society…But the truth is(and the media won’t tell you that, because the media is owned by the 10th man…) that the 10th man gets a nice big chunk of the taxes, because it’s the 10th man who sponsors politicians to get them elected and it’s him who then ORDERS the elected politicians to transfer government taxes into his accounts…………….
September 26th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
This is nuts! I don’t claim to be a finance person but I do have personal experience. When I met my husband I was in debt. We both worked to pay the rent. We started saving for our future right away instead of expecting the government to take care of use when we were old. We drove old cars, we ate potatoes for dinner(no pizza or movies), and my husband worked 12+ hours a day. We bought no fancy cars, rims, no cable TV, no stereo systems! We scrimped and saved in order to invest in a new company. Now after unlimited hours, the company has grown to employ over 2500 workers in at least six states at very fair wages and compensation packages. The workers quit their jobs to keep their section 8 housing or ask for pay advances to pay for car accessories. What? I still shop the clearance racks but am able to pay for a nice car now and help pay for our daughter’s college with two more to go. Why don’t I deserve something nice after all the hard work and doing without when the lower class does not take personal responsibility and now expects me to give them what I have. Why did we work so hard if we can’t keep it? Maybe we should start over and spend all the money we made and not have created jobs or paid taxes to help the lower class? I am not selfish but I do believe that hard work should pay off. Even if you work fast food, hard work and a good attitude can pay off. I have seen it with a seventeen year old just out of high school.
September 29th, 2011 at 12:17 am
Looking at the amount of the tax in dollars and not in percentages is wrong. It is what helps fuel class warfare.
DO AWAY WITH TAXING INCOME!
Tax spending instead.
DO NOT tax both income and spending.
Part of the problem is in the definition of what is taxable income.
Scrap the byzantine tax code and replace it with a tax on spending. Everybody would pay the same “PERCENTAGE”. The rich, having more money, would be buying more things and more expensive things. They will be contributing more money.
October 5th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Well I have told my wife many times 2 people don’t pay taxes big business and poor people. If you raise taxes close loopholes on big business. See Debit card fee from BoA. They just raise fee’s prices so that the consumers (middle america)pay the taxes.
October 9th, 2011 at 10:55 am
DenIron this is not correct
the correct way to look at taxes is HOW MUCH do you pay as a “percentage” of your total income.
When I made less than $30k a year I paid over 60% of my income to direct taxation. not even counting indirect taxation.
SO those “poor” people may not be paying much in “total” tax dollars each but THEY ARE in fact paying (typically) over 50% of their total income in direct taxation.
What percentage of income is the rich people paying?
when you look at it as a percentage of ones income suddenly the tax environment looks VERY VERY different.
unless your homeless living on the street OR Living under someone elses roof for free you pay an extraordinary amount of your income to taxes even if you don’t realize it.
October 13th, 2011 at 1:46 am
This analogy ignores one crucial point: if the beer represents taxable income, the tenth drinker (representing the top 10% of earners) would be DRINKING roughly two thirds of everybody’s beer.
Considering that makes it a slightly less effective parable about “attacking the wealthy”.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:44 am
@ Andrew, No, actually if the beer represents income, congress is drinking it, along with the beer its taking free from the bar owner so he can keep his liquor licence.
November 28th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
@Andrew I believe the analogy of beer drinking really entails two (with a bonus third) major points.
However, it should be noted that the beer being drank, if only by the very nature of it being consumed and not given… is not in any way an analogy of income.
Given that…
1) Nitpicking aside, this refers to consumption of resources which are not ever free to anyone.
2) The bill must be paid!!! The joke/analogy spoke of an agreement… a contract if you will. The top ‘receivers’ are actually paying the tab for the others… note how those who pay nothing up to little are still consuming the same amount.
Now for the bonus: (this really only applies to those that are nitpicking and introducing their own hateful agenda into the simple wisdom here)
3) This is about beer… if all were smart then they would avoid the bar and beer. (‘smart’ is something I don’t claim to be that, I have a weakness for good beer… but I pay my own way and if I don’t have the money then I don’t go out)
In other words… this is a luxury, not a necessity.
People, you can all take your own sides and throw rocks all you want… but the fact remains that this system referred to here has been proven through history to not work. By ‘work’ I mean in lowering the burden in order to allow for opportunity to potentially produce prosperity.
What is gained by hating others… so you make more/less than someone else, fine. Hating and demonizing them is not solving anything except clamping those slave shackles tighter.
Please, spare us all your ‘one in a million’ and thus completely skewed from reality, stories… both ‘sides’ need to understand this.
My dad… I remember him working 2 jobs (on average, although often it was 3) just to provide for his family. He was never doing what he wanted to… not ‘living his dreams’ and did not have the luxury of picking and choosing… he did his duty… that word has so been bastardized today it makes me want to vomit.
My family of 5 is fighting hard to keep our home and I tire of the rhetoric of those who feel they are entitled and ‘deserve’ this or that… yet obviously see me as a threat. Someone who has always given above and beyond their ‘call of duty’… and yet by merit of effort and results, was still passed on by due to the fact that today we live in a polar opposite of anything resembling a meritocracy. While folks like me do their job and do it damn good even if we hate it… others spend their time (on the clock) to focus on climbing that ladder.
Well, that works today!
Ben Franklin… I wonder what he would say about today’s business employer and employee situations… especially considering how both of these run to Big Brother to ‘make it all right’.
Pathetic!
This system we have now has been proven to only hurt the poorest up to the richest… elitism like this leads to a system where the poor are poorer, waiting in lines for toilet paper… whilst the richest ‘well placed’ are crying over how they have to find another spot to expand their multi-car garage for those Lamborghinis they just purchased (with the tax of the poor btw).
Please folks… spare everyone your borg drone BS… this used to be the land of opportunity but is becoming only a wasteland of decay and yet decadence… by ALL.
BTW, for those like @pungomom you should remember that if you achieve worldly success for your (noble I should add) sacrifices and efforts… try and not snub those who didn’t make it because your divination tells you those folks didn’t try as hard or more hard than you… that is just how ‘life rolls’. Stop patting yourself on the back with one hand while beating others with another, please.
I have found that this is the one of the most destructive concepts… ‘deserve’. In this age though, folks will try to redefine that word as if somehow the universe will ratify their hate into a new reality. Nope… change the word’s definition but the concept remains.
Think people… THINK!!!
December 16th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
If there wasnt the rich buisness men. You wouldnt have a job. The rich get punished because they are smart. Most buisness men started out making a hourly wage just like the rest of us. But they were smart enough to make something better of themselves instead of trashing on the other people that made something of there life. We all have the same opportunities to do the same. Quit complaining about them and become one. O wait you just want to complain.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:00 am
A fantastic story or byline for a comedy movie. What a stupid argument!
December 19th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
@Vincent:
Typical liberal rant. You call the original story illogical, then chock you own response full of beliefs, assumptions, and non sequiturs.
1. Fallacy: ecoconomics and wealth are a zero sum game. You incorrectly assume others wealth comes at the expense of someone else when in fact everyone can be the arbitrar of their own wages. Don’t like the deal? Create a business or work for someone else.
2. “Rich men by definition use more public resources”. Flagrant series of assumptions supported only by your own world view.
3. The market basket of poor is often very different than your assumption with no essentials.
(4). “tax system widely used” – sure, let’s be lemmings.
Finally, you haven’t refuted the natural inclination of the wealthiest to avoid taxes… Which is demonstrated well by liberal politicians and appointees… And has the ultimate impact.
December 27th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Wow, amazing weblog format! How lengthy have you been running a blog for? you make running a blog look easy. The whole look of your web site is fantastic, as smartly as the content material!
January 13th, 2012 at 5:51 am
I don’t drink beer. Why the HECK am I being taxed on it?!?
January 13th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
So Matt I guess its safe to say your one of the first four guys hahaha
January 17th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Just for clarification, I am guy number 8 or 9. I will be guy number 10 within the next decade, and if this country continues to try to squeeze more out of us then I will leave. This story is not too far off from reality.
For those of you who still insist on wealthy paying more, please try to broaden your thinking. They are not the villians, they are the job creators. Read works by Peter Drucker if you disagree.
January 18th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Wow, what a wonderful echo chamber. No wonder useful idiots populate the internet. You all agree with each other. You have no discourse. Just repetition of stale ideas. I weep for America. We are the new failed France.
January 28th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
>1. The rich men have become rich in part because they have talent, but also because they had access to the poor men’s labor and the middle class’ purchasing power. Likewise the poor men and middle class are poorer than the rich men because the latter tightly control their market value with economic and political means, as a mean to increase profits on their activities.
There are a lot of formerly rich men who would like to know the secret of controlling “their market value.” Idiot.
I’m not rich. I’m not in the top 5%. But I am an entrepreneur, and as such, I can say that you’re full of it.
The poor men are compensated for what their labor is worth. There is actually a pretty major segment of the population that NEVER makes a business person money. They are, frankly, bad bets. It costs money to make new hires. It costs more money to train the. It costs overhead to put them in the system. If they do a bad job, they can cost the company many times their value. And if they quit after a short while, they never make up the cost of hiring and training. I’d say at least 10% of the population are such bad employees that they are worth negative money. (It takes 2-3 years for MOST new hires in ANY job to break even in terms of the value they bring to the company versus what they cost.) When I have to hire low-skill employees, which as a small manufacturer I will, I will give preference to people who have low skills because they aren’t able to do better–immigrants whose lack of English language skills keep them from moving up and the intellectually disabled. I’d rather have 1 high-functioning MR employee to do my shipping than 3 people too lazy to bother getting any job skills. If I can manage to not hire layabouts, I’ll be able to pay my employees 120%-150% the prevailing wages for their jobs because I won’t be paying deadweight that is living of the labor of the few.
I don’t OWE the middle class anything for their “purchasing power,” either. I give a few of them jobs with wages based on their value-creation ability. The rest pay me money for a good, which I provide to them. I owe them the good, not a freaking refund.
>2. The rich men, by definition, make more use of public resources. Their activities require more land,
Which I pay property taxes on, separate from income tax. My land is PRIVATE, not a public resource.
>more energy,
Which I also pay taxes on, separate from income tax. Also not a public resource.
>more natural resources,
Not from the government, unless you count the fact that I use the USPS in my business some of the time, and it’s losing money hand-over-fist. I pay for the resources I use. And they aren’t public, or did you not get the memo about deregulation?
>more public infrastructure.
Paid for by my the gas taxes. Also, all the costs incurred in shipping end up coming back to me. (That which the USPS doesn’t eat, at least, but I don’t set those rates, I just pay them. And I mostly use UPS and freight shipping, anyhow.)
> They monopolize more government workers,
No.
> require more military resources,
What? No.
>and generate more environmental damages and so forth.
Which I pay for–and taxes don’t cover that, unless you mean my home trash pick up, in which case I generate less waste than most families.
Your entire argument is beyond idiotic. You’re trying to argue “share of resources,” but you are ridiculously math impaired. I would have to use infinitely more resources than the guy paying nothing for the distribution to be fair at all. In fact, the answer is undefined because I would be DIVIDING BY 0.
First, my business profits are taxed. Many of the things I buy for it are taxes when I purchase them and again every year, if they are assets. My business property is taxed. The profits that I end up taking home are also taxed–at a rate of 55.3% on the last dollar earned.
>3. The poor men don’t pay taxes because they are dirt poor.
No, you moron, the “dirt” poor get a subsidy from the government to the tune of $10,000 and more each. That is including ALL taxes.
The regular less-than-average people end up paying a little bit into social programs that will end up cheating them of their money in the end.
>All of their disposable income go towards getting a roof and feeding their family an dealing with the stress of being poor. Were they to pay more paxes they would become a burden for society which would be good for no one.
Again, no. Other people’s money pays toward the roof over the heads of the bottom 20%, except for those who are temporarily unemployed who use their own savings (which is about a fourth).
January 28th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
>Also consider RICH people by and large are business people. meaning they pay ZERO taxes. Sure they file an income tax return and the IRS gets taxes but they just increase the price of their products OR cut the costs to pass those taxes onto guess who?
Wow. It really doesn’t work like that. I can’t raise prices because I want to make more money. What I charge is set by the market. You failed remedial economics.
>The average under $50,000 a year income person pays SIGNIFICANT LARGER a percentage of their total income to ALL TAXATION than the rich guy paying $59 for beer does.
Nope, again.
The rich guy pays FICA only for the first $100-something thousand that he and his wife make–close to $225k combined. So he has $155k he isn’t paying FICA on. (1% is $380k.) EXCEPT that he’s a businessman. That means that he pays DOUBLE FICA on his share. Depending on how he’s set up his business, he’s either paying that out-of-pocket, or it’s coming out of the company’s profits. Either way, he’s paying way more than you.
It gets worse, though. He has employees, and he pays employment tax on each of them. (He also pays for their healthcare and their retirement account benefits, btw.) So not only does your employer have to pay his own FICA, but he has to pay half of yours, too.
If you make $50k a year as a household, you’re getting most of your taxes back in a big fat check if you are married and have kids. You may end up paying 5% at the end of the day. Add in state, and you may hit 2%. All your consumer spending, adding in the sales tax–I’ll grant you 10%. FICA’s 7.65%, bringing you to 17.65%. If you own a home, you’ll be paying maaaaaybe $2k in taxes, in a state with income taxes. That brings you to 21.65%, if you didn’t donate to charity, or maybe 22% with gas taxes.
Whoop-de-do.
Now Mr. Moneybags paid 9% of his income to FICA, and a mere 30% to income tax because he gave a greater percentage of his income to charity. (Rich people do, you know.) But then he also had to pay 4% of his income to property taxes, and 4% to, after deductions, state taxes. And he spent more than you on taxable purchases, but they were a smaller chunk of his income, so only 2% went to sales taxes. Now, he drove more than you did, but not enough to be worth half a percent of his income. So that’s 49% of his income right there–and that’s not counting that he paid half your FICA, too, and a bunch of other business related taxes.
Want to know who this rich businessman is? He owns the franchises of 2-3 McDonalds. Or a couple of local laundromats. He’s worked and slaved his whole life for the life he’s made, and now you spit at him and say he hasn’t paid his share. He’s paid it–in blood.
What have you done?
January 28th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
>a legal system to back up contracts;
Which everyone has. The poor are much more expensive to our legal system because they are much more criminal. $50 BILLION goes to incarceration of criminals alone. Sorry, corporations, much less wealthy individuals, don’t cost the court system anything like that.
>police and fire and military protection for your building;
The police protection is necessary because of the poor criminals. That cost, too, is correctly applied to the poor as it is a cost they incur on society.
We project our military power abroad. We do not defend at home. This assertion makes no sense.
The rich pay for fire protection–and that of other people’s–through the substantial local property taxes they pay. What fire protection does the poor renter pay for? None at all. Who’s building is more likely to burn down? In fact, in losses per person, who has the highest dollar-value fire loss per year–a rich corporation or the poor? It’s actually the poor. The buildings of the rich are larger, but they’re less likely to burn as they don’t fall asleep drunk with a lit cigarette and burn down the entire apartment block.
>a reliable system of unemployment insurance for your employees so you can lay them off more flippantly;
“Flippantly” doesn’t mean what you think it does. But you fail to understand. Layoff are a loss of a human asset. It devalues a company. Firing people at all is expensive–new employees are horrifically expensive, and employee retention is one of the best profit-boosting moves a company can make. If a company is firing just to increase profits, they’ve got a losing strategy and won’t be doing it all that much longer. Half of all companies who have layoffs for any reason are still losing value 5 years later.
>public roads to ship your goods;
Supported in a good part by taxes on vehicles and by taxes on gasoline.
>all manner of industry specific tax breaks,
I’m eligible for…. Oh, yeah, like 99% of business people, NONE.
> tarif protection,
Ahahaha!
>subsidies
NONE. Don’t exist for my industry. At all. Don’t exist for most industries.
>If you are the guy sweeping that business’s floor for minimum wage (even with your kid on free school lunch and your wife on government cheese), you are not even coming close in terms of bang for your government buck.
If you’re not married and supporting 2 kids on minimum wage, the government’s giving you more than $20,000, free and clear. State, federal, and local tax burden already taken into account. In addition, he’s getting about $24,000 in free education for his kids, unless they’re in HeadStart, in which case it’s closer to $60,000 EVER YEAR. And that’s also without going into your idiot line of reasoning–the overhead for the social programs, the overhead for the schools trying to educate his ill-prepared children and all the special ed resources they take up…. Medicare for the kids alone comes to $2,000 more a year. (His company provides insurance, but he’s opted out because why pay for what you can get for free?) Then there’s the cost of the police, as you say, and the cost of social workers, and the cost of the foster system, and on, and on.
You’re delusional if you think the rich guy is taking more government resources than the poor one, on average. Not even close. In fact, the poor guy’s beer should be at least twice the size of the guy paying $1. I’d believe that the rich guy’s is about 25% bigger than the guy paying a dollar, but that’s it.
January 28th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
>This is the most rediculously non-congruent argument I’ve ever seen. Not a single bit is relevant to our tax system. Why dont you explore a relevant situation such as, if the bill costs $100 and the 10 buddies are only paying $60 (because that is what is going on at the current moment). Lets not forget that buddy number ten makes $20 million per year and through generous tax shelters and tax cuts, pays the same in federal taxes as the man making $250,000 per year. This “story” belongs on Glenn Becks chalkboard along with all the other BS.
Matt, he pays the same amount as a PERCENT OF HIS INCOME. But if he’s a business owner, not a CEO or a high-value employee married to another high-value employee, he’s not only paying WAY more in actual dollars but there are also a lot of hidden costs (like self-employment tax and the employer’s tax of ALL his employees) that make his percentage as well as his bill in dollars higher.
And we’re talking the top 10% here, not the top 1%. The top 10% pays ore in percent than any other group.
January 28th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
>You’re also failing to recognize that when taxes are higher on the rich there is a large incentive to not withdraw money from the companies and businesses they own. Instead the incentive is to reinvest and grow the company into a larger asset (as in what happened for the 50 years prior to Reagan making a mess).
No. You still have to pay the taxes at your rate if you are an LLC or an S Corp. You have to pay corporate taxes if you’re a C Corp–and unless you’re GE, you can’t make this bill go away. But most in C Corps, you wouldn’t have the option of taking it out anyway because you’re a CEO, not a sole proprietor. If you do happen to be the rare bird of a C Corp president who owns all the shares, you’ll first pay the 15% when you keep the profits in the company, and then you’ll pay another 15% if you take them in dividends until the end of this year. After that, you’ll be taxes again at your full rate, so the money will be double taxed.
Also, issuing stocks is an important way for companies to raise money to expand. That very much creates jobs.
In addition, what do you think the companies DO with their corporate profits? Corporations invest in stocks, too!
January 28th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Blargh: That’s not how the math works, and if you do that, the IRS domes knocking.
>So as long as we’re reducing to absurdity, and 100 dollars is the total amount of income taxes collected (actually about 1 trillion). The total networth of the united states households is 4900 dollars. Guys 1-3 have either owe mony or have less than a dollar, guys 4-7 have 650 bucks to spare between them and guys 8 and 9 have about 900 dollars between them and guy 10 is sitting pretty at about 3400.
Annnnnnd….yet they all three get the same beer, and the first four feel like they deserve free beer and, in fact, they should get more beer that the rich guy because he’s rich.
And the poorest three made money, but they already spent it before they got to the bar.
Also, the poorest three are the youngest three, the poorest one the youngest of all, and they get older as they get wealthier.
January 28th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
>if that was an accurate analogy, it would be quite obvious that rich guys
where picking up the tab for everyone else. this is far from the truth,
the whole design of the tax system is created by the rich, they did not
design a system that drains their funds, and funnels that money into
the pockets of the poor (then it would be impossible to stay poor).
Don’t be an idiot. Our poor are only poor on paper. The benefits they get from the government are not counted as part of their income. In reality, a single mother of 3 would have to make $20/hr AND pay no taxes before she’d be able to equal her total compensation on minimum wage.
That’s why you notice that people with the very lower-wage jobs are often dressed better, have nicer phone, have nicer purses, etc., than people one step up. Sure, they have more credit card debit–but they also really and truly have more MONEY.
January 28th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
There are American-made products. If you want them, buy them. But you don’t because foreign-made products are cheaper. And with cheaper good, you can buy more–more food, for instance.
People have been moaning recently about how the middle class is being destroyed. That’s not true. Not at all. The average person has benefited enormously over the past 50 years.
WHAT WE SPENT OR INCOME ON:
1950 2002-03
Food* 29.7% 13.1%
Alcohol 1.7% .9%
Housing* 27.2% 32.8%
Apparel&scvs 11.5% 4.2
Transporation* 13.4% 19.1%
Healthcare* 5.2% 5.9%
Entertainment 4.4% 5.1%
Education* 1.4% 2.2%
Personal care 2.2% 1.3%
Tobacco 1.5% .7%
Misc 1.4% 1.7%
Cash Contributions 3.2%
Insurance & retirement 9.8%
(There wasn’t percent data for the last 2 for 1950).
The 1950 data encompasses 90% of average income, while only 80% was spent on these categories in 2003.
Restaurant usage has increase more than 3-fold.
Median home is 170% larger for only 5.6% more income.
But we now have twice as many cars per household.
2000s healthcare is not 1950s, either.
Tuition isn’t included in education. It’s part of the untracked money.
So, you may note that the person in 2003 spends a greater percent of their money on several “necessities,” but that’s because the “necessities” are far, far nicer than what a family of the same class would have in 1950.
Not all segments of the population are growing at the same rate because improvement in productivity is lopsided. In fact, the top 20% of the population is underpaid, as they account for 80% of US productivity. There have been very few innovations since 1950 to make the average janitor more productive, for example, but even the average secretary is many times more effective than she was–never mind the average accountant. As the productivity gaps widens–and it will, even as more an more low-skill jobs are taken over by automation–the pay difference will widen, but at a slower rate. That doesn’t mean the people at the bottom are losing. On the contrary, their lives are improving steadily–but they’re winning more slowly!
Janitors ARE getting paid more because accountants are more efficient because the janitor’s company is spending less on the accountant and so has a higher profit and so wages rise. They just rise faster for the accountant than the janitor. And that’s as it should be–the janitor is adding no value and is getting a free ride up the income ladder anyway.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:17 am
This thread is getting silly. Everyone is just trotting out facts that ‘prove’ their case.
Well, this is a very complex issue and for complex issues you can always find facts on one side and facts on another. Otherwise they would not be complex issues would they?
To the people who argue the rich pay too many taxes I ask: Is the purpose of government to improve society? Or is to provide a playing field with rules so that it’s not the person with the biggest sword that rules, but the person with the best business sense?
To the people that argue the rich don’t pay enough I ask: How do you know that a person (rich or poor) is really slaving away or are they just getting a free ride? And are they really just out for themselves or is there something else going on?
You have tools and resources to understand motivation and conditioning. Are you going to use them or paint everyone with the same brush based on income?
Measured against a number of other countries people in the US are not doing as well as they used to. Can we look for solutions with an open mind rather then just defending our dogma?
February 20th, 2012 at 10:26 am
To the many different posts calling the rich job creators. Please explain this in more detail. Since when have the rich actually created a job. I have several businesses myself and yet have never created one single job.
I have spent time looking at certain areas as to where I should invest my money or create new businesses but not once did I ever create a job. (Most others havent either) The demand in an area (middle class or poor with extra money from tax breaks)is what created the job. It created it by providing an opportunity for someone with capital to invest (to make more money). The investment only happened because the investor or just business owner thought they could make money in that area (or thought the labor was so cheap (horrible) that they could make a product and sell it (to the country that made them wealthy in the first place) Hows that for helping the ones that helped you(the rich seem to conveniently forget who made them rich in the first place).
So the bottom line is that what created the job is the fact that the business saw extra money within the middle class.
In cases where it is just a business that is created solely to beat out other businesses. (not judging) there is no job creation. One would be killed where another job is gained.
Only extra income creates jobs. Not the rich. The government can force extra income through capital improvement or drops in taxes in the middle class but this should be made up for by raising the taxes on the rich. Their businesses will make more more money in these times because of the lower taxes on the poor or the extra money of the middle classes from the capital improvement projects, hence they should pay for the extra taxes out of the extra profits that were created by the government.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:44 am
Some interesting points reallyseriously. I also own a business and I have ‘supplied’ jobs by hiring people that are already working and ‘made money’ by selling the service to companies that would have bought it elsewhere anyway. I just do it better then my competitors in the space I work in. Speaking simply, to maximize my income I just need to (a) pay people as little as possible (b) pay as little tax as possible, and (c) charge as much as possible.
But for me that’s not the entire picture. I don’t want to live with that as my sole goal in life. In the end you die and your bank balance doesn’t matter. So there are other priorities that should be balanced. One of them is the well-being of the people around me including my employees, and including employees of others that are my friends. It goes further out to the parents of my children’s friends who influence the children my children hang out with. Etc. etc.
As you can see, my priorities are (1) putting food on the table (which does not include high priced gadgets that other companies tell me I need), and (2) living a good life with good people. Somehow, the second priority has gotten lost. You can argue all you want about what ‘system’ is fair and what is not, but when I look around and 6 out of 10 people I see on the street are not getting their basic needs met in a country that produces more per capita then any country in history, there is something wrong.
September 15th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
My take is that the bar owner, being an intelligent small business person, determined that by reducing his beer prices by 20%, his lower income put him into a lower tax bracket (22% savings). This increased his realized profit by 2% thanks to a graduated tax code.
September 27th, 2012 at 11:52 am
There will always be leaders and there will always be followers. Most extraordinary leaders sacrifice a great deal to get where they are and we have choices of the paths we take. It amazes me how many will take advantage of a free deal and yet complain. It really isn’t about poor or rich, it is more about the educated and the uneducated. Those that don’t get the math won’t get the logic of how it really works. I know educated folks that don’t really care about making a lot of money, they get the math and so they do not hate the wealthy because they “get it” and know it is a choice they made.
October 3rd, 2012 at 8:14 am
[...] at them. That's welfare. Tax breaks don't fit the description. This bears repeating too: The Tax System Explained in Beer Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100… If [...]
October 4th, 2012 at 12:57 am
Envy destroys man and civility.
Incessant appealing to envy and special interest will divide our society.
Who should own the fruits of their labor?
Those who say all the top one or two only got where they are by fraudulent or crooked means says more about you than reality. Just about all of the “wealthy” people I know are law abiding, highly productive, service oriented, and hard working people. Why do you feel you are a victim or loser in this free market system? If you think it is right to control or take something that belongs to someone else, you must then believe it is right for someone else to take from you and control what should be rightfully yours or is the results of your productive efforts.
What is fair?
People need to be responsible and accountable. Charity and love of neighbor is a foundational tenant of an effective and productive free market capitalistic system. A system that has produced the most wealth and freedom in the history of man.
Government as a charity is a very inefficient distribution system of your resources($) and generates significant distortions that are ripe for fraud and abuse. Mission oriented charities turn a donated dime far more effectively and efficiently than government layers of bureaucracy do.
How much should the government take of your production? How much should you contribute to run government?
When politicians are able to “bribe” the public with the public’s own money (or by force take someone else’s money), then we as a society are moving towards the destruction of free market democracy. (Tocqueville)
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”― Alexis de Tocqueville
Freedom of the individual means that individuals are left to make the decisions that they deem best for them and their family. No doubt individuals will make poor decisions and suffer consequences for these. Financial and otherwise. Is your ego or need for power such that you need to control others and/or to keep them from making their own decisions and furthermore experiencing the results of their decisions? Is that fair and charitable? Does that contribute to the progression of man and the maturity of man and society?
The alternative to you not owning the fruits of your labor and not being free to use the resources you produce is not free market capitalism, but is something else and that has proven throughout history to fail in generating wealth and freedom for the individual.
October 9th, 2012 at 3:40 am
@reallyseriously: You have “several businesses but have not created a single job”. Soo… what you’re saying is, you’re a rich person, with multiple successful businesses in which you are everything from CEO to janitor? I could see having “several” businesses if they’re all on paper and don’t actually produce much of anything, but do tell me, do you honestly think for example, Zuckerberg is running Facebook by himself – do you think he codes all of the webpages? Are all of the oil companies you libs hate so much ran by JR Ewing – and he’s the fat cat CEO half the day, and greasing pump jacks the other half? Did Henry Ford just clone himself to run the factories?
Please, stop comparing your paper businesses to actual wealth producing businesses.
October 25th, 2012 at 7:22 am
Where if Romney took ten guys out for a beer he would charge them all ten bucks a piece and sneak out of the bar leaving the bill unpaid. Everyone goes broke and he runs off like the sleazy bastard thief that he is.
November 7th, 2012 at 3:36 am
Its all a good reason a flat tax is needed.
December 3rd, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Wow. This is what happens when you get a retard a degree.
December 16th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
It’s a joke people! GET A GRIP!!