the tax system explained in beer

I copied this from another forum and thought you might enjoy…
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 ? 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, as many are considering where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Always liked this analogy but I’m sure that some of the financial guys on here can pick it apart some. Either way the message is clear.

Older than the internet. And the biggest hole in it is the rich guy can’t just disappear, unless he wants to move himself and his business to Somalia or somewhere with no taxes, or stop making money.

At least it’s old enough that it goes back to a time when it actually made sense in the US. Taxes now are the lowest and most regressive that they’ve been in centuries.

I like it.

mmmmmmmmmm beer.

You mean like how Tom Golisano just got fed up with NY and it’s taxes and moved to Florida?

Wasn’t there a major business in WNY that relcoated to Florida and ended up saving millions in taxes every year?

I swear this wasn’t that long ago… Either it actually happened or the point was made by a guy who owned a company and could do this.

I assumed this was from a federal perspective. And if Tommy wants to make money in NY he still has to pay tax on it regardless of where he lives.

Good read…thanks for sharing.

So you’re saying he has no choice but to keep showing up, getting beat up, and paying. :smiley:

haha, or give his money away and then he can get free beer too.

I thought I heard something about Wegman’s moving some operations to VA to save on taxes. Not sure where I heard that, or how true.

City Mattress relocated two years ago from NY to Florida, building a whole gigantic and new building/facility down there instead of NY. The owners have a house in FL and one in NY… but they told me “We couldn’t build in NY… so, we opened up operations in FL just to co-exist”

That’s the only large company owner that I know of… but I’m sure that’s a common story.

NY = the suck