Money help: Bar Stool Economics - Help.com

Bar Stool Economics

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 paid $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 a
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, boys and girls, 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.

***********************

Practical Application of Obama’s Tax Plan

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read ” Vote Obama, I need the money .” I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a ” Obama 08 ” tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference — just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server, and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need — the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

This open post was written 1 year ago | V/U/S: 300, 15, 4 | Edit Post | Leave a reply | Report Post


Reciprocity (0) Reciprocation Failure -- The poster has NOT helped anyone else yet!

Since writing this post Fizz may have helped people, but has not within the last 4 days. Fizz is a verified member, has been around for 2 years, 7 months and has 100 posts and 5,009 replies to their name.

Post Tags (10)

Replies (15)

Where were you?

Click and drag to move the map around. FAQ: How we place people on this map »
You can also watch events on Help.com as they happen
Mouse over the map for 2 seconds to see an expanded, interactive view

closed offline Verified User (1 year, 1 month) Long Term User Shouts: 53 #
An Undisclosed Location | 1 year ago (6 minutes after post)

if part 2 is actually what happened to you, then I can only say one thing:

…and then there are the smug ones…..

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Godfather offline Verified User (1 year, 5 months) Long Term User Shouts: 11 #
An Unknown Location | 1 year ago (2 hours, 1 minute after post)

At first when I read these stories, I thought to myself:

Godfather wrote:
If this person thinks they can explain the vast complexities of the American economy with two cute stories than I really have no point in responding. This person is just like anyone else who feels the need to hammer away at the candidates economic plans. They just don’t get it; this is much more than a one page problem.

One of them is going to be President, and they will be faced with problems who’s answers are very rarely black and white; and the ones that almost always include a body count. There is never a definite right answer when it comes to a economic crisis that is far too complex for any one candidate to fix. So the question is, when the first plan fails, which candidate do you trust to change direction?

And than I realized, these stories aren’t about the economy. They are a testament to the selfish mind that says “This is mine, I worked for it and I’m not letting it go, no matter who I’m helping”.

I come from a wealthy family, and I understand the frustration that comes with higher taxes. But I always understand, that it is my duty as an American to allow others to have the same basic freedom I have: to hope.

Fizz offline Verified User (2 years, 7 months) Long Term User Shouts: 2 #
An Undisclosed Location | 1 year ago (2 hours, 16 minutes after post)

It’s not selfish to choose the charity of your choice rather than have it Government mandated.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: Amazing!
mikem7 offline Verified User (1 year) Long Term User Shouts: 9 #
An Unknown Location | 1 year ago (3 hours, 16 minutes after post)

I’ve heard that before. Glad to see it on here haha. Can’t wait to see how people try to argue it. So true.

Yes, I like giving to my OWN charities, too. Not just having the Government take my donations for me.

True, it is more that a one-page problem. But this is such a large, basic part of it that so few people understand.

We need to do SOMETHING as a nation to fight poverty, but I’ll be damned if it involves the government TAKING more money from its citizens than it already does and just shuffling it around and giving people hand outs. Hand outs on a large scale don’t help, they patronize.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Godfather offline Verified User (1 year, 5 months) Long Term User Shouts: 11 #
An Unknown Location | 1 year ago (3 hours, 24 minutes after post)

#1, there is nothing to argue, he made no economic points that don’t include the selfishness of the individual.

#2, EVERYONE understands this problem, because it is a basic human desire to say “This is mine, and I won’t sacrifice it for anyone.”

#3, Charities give hand outs. They take your money, and than redistribute it to whomever they support. But the federal government, redistributes it to programs that will create jobs, create education which will give a person more means to earn money, and use it to fix basic civil issues that cause disruption in the economy.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Anonymous #
1 year ago (3 hours, 41 minutes after post)

Kool, Fizz!!!!!!!!!!

I love it! So true!!!!

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
yourabi offline Verified User (1 year, 9 months) Admin Help.com Volunteer Moderator Long Term User Shouts: 5 #
San Francisco, CA, US | 1 year ago (1 day, 21 hours after post)

I’m really glad to see you taking an interest in the Economic policies of our potential candidates.

I thought you would be interested in this report from both FOX News, and the Associated Press about Palin’s ’sharing the wealth’ and wealth redistribution while Governor of Alaska:

“We share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs,” she was quoted as saying in a recent New Yorker article. “It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hg…

Also since you obviously have such a firm grasp of the economic matters you might want to write a letter to Dr Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel prize in economics, and has endorsed Barack Obama.

Obviously you must know something he doesn’t, and you should consider sharing your insight with him.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: New Admin
Fizz offline Verified User (2 years, 7 months) Long Term User Shouts: 2 #
An Undisclosed Location | 1 year ago (1 day, 22 hours after post)

I never clamed to be a PHD, but I do have a little common sense and know a little bit about balancing a budget and I don’t do that by taking money that my family hasn’t earned.

Regarding Palin, she did her job and looked after her her State, she also balanced the Alaskan budget.

McCain has been endorsed by many educated people, but it seems that gets left out of the “news”, more importantly than that it is my belief that McCain will be able to work with bi-partisan council to acheive a balanced economy.

My little bit of common sense told me when you came onto this site that you seemed like a fair person and I thought people should step off your back a bit and I haven’t talked to you a great deal, but I think for the most part I’ve tried to be supportive of your efforts here, but now I just have to say.

I know you are the Admin here and you could ban me without explanation, but I am bothered by the tone of your comments, forgive me if I took them wrong, but it appears that you are insulting me personally.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: Amazing!
yourabi offline Verified User (1 year, 9 months) Admin Help.com Volunteer Moderator Long Term User Shouts: 5 #
San Francisco, CA, US | 1 year ago (1 day, 23 hours after post)

I apologize if I insulted you since that wasn’t my intention. Which part of my comment insulted you specifically?

You did post two stories back to back in the post educating help.com users on economics, more specifically how Obama’s policies were inferior to McCain’s — was it wrong to assume you knew something about economics?

Your reply just reinforced my interpretation of your posts and comments (”I do have a little common sense and know a little bit about balancing a budget and I don’t do that by taking money that my family hasn’t earned”) —

Since, by your own claim you know a bit about balancing a budget — I was merely pointing out that your opinions are in direct contradiction with someone who does have a PHD in Economics, is a professor of Economics and just won the Nobel prize in Economics.

Since you two are in direct disagreement — Logically at least one the two opposing views is wrong. Is that an unfair assessment?

On the subject of balanced budgets: Who was the last president who balanced a budget?

Who were the last three presidents to submit balanced budgets? You should read this article Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_d…

Forbes is a conservative publication, so you can’t claim is part of the ‘Pro-Obama, Liberal, Socialist’ media Republicans love doing, and as you have in previous posts (in reference to MSNBC)

And why do you think McCain will be *able* to work across party lines after his campaign has implied that Barak Obama (and by extension) all Democrats are un-American socialist/communist. Implying that by not voting Republican is equal to not putting your country first?

Is that the behavior of someone (or party) who is setting himself for political re-unification or working across party lines.

Regarding Palin — yes she did take care of her state, by lobbying Washington for pork-barrel money, and redistributing profit from oil revenue taxes. I don’t begrudge her either of these — If I was a resident of Alaska I would expect — demand even — that my representatives fought for the economic well-being of my state.

However it is deeply hypocritical for Palin (and McCain) to turn around and back away from her pork-barrel requests, go one step further and say she fought them (which is provably wrong, since she fought them only after accepting them), and then accuse Obama of being a socialist when in fact (as reported by Fox and the AP) her policies were very similar.

This type of political sloganeering is why our political system is so broken — this type of sloganeering is what you have been promoting in all of your recent posts.

I believe you should be able to express your views freely — But that means I should be able to express my views as well — in the same way you do. Don’t you agree?

I’m not sure what the tail-end of your comment is referring to. Are you saying that pointing out provable facts makes me unfair? Sorry.

…Or are you saying that I shouldn’t even express my opinion? …Or that because you were friendly when I was new (which you were) means I should agree with whatever you say? I disagree.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: New Admin
Fizz offline Verified User (2 years, 7 months) Long Term User Shouts: 2 #
An Undisclosed Location | 1 year ago (1 day, 23 hours after post)

I was just about to get offline, so I really don’t have time to reply in detail, I will reply farther later.

I do want to say that of course I think that everyone has a right to state their opinion and I enjoy having conversations with others that can bring different perspectives, that is one of the things that makes our Country great.

I felt that your last line in your previous comment was a sarcastic way of insulting my intelligence, I apologize if I misuderstood.

I didn’t personally write either of the stories I posted and of course you are aware that David R. Kamerschen PHD wrote “Bar Stool Economcis, but I did think that the simplistic tone of them would get my point across.

Regardless, I really need to get going and will reply to your last comments if possible before the election.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: Amazing!
Anonymous #
1 year ago (1 day, 23 hours after post)

Hey Yourabi! A PHD isn’t everything! Sometimes it gets in the way of common sense!

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
yourabi offline Verified User (1 year, 9 months) Admin Help.com Volunteer Moderator Long Term User Shouts: 5 #
San Francisco, CA, US | 1 year ago (2 days after post)

Regarding: ‘A PHD gets in the way of common sense’ — lot’s of things get in the way of common sense.

That’s why it is best to look back at provable facts from different sources.

Like the Forbes article I pointed out shows that in recent history the top three presidents in terms of economic health and growth were all Democrats (Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy) — not Republican.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: New Admin
yourabi offline Verified User (1 year, 9 months) Admin Help.com Volunteer Moderator Long Term User Shouts: 5 #
San Francisco, CA, US | 1 year ago (2 days after post)

Fizz wrote:
I felt that your last line in your previous comment was a sarcastic way of insulting my intelligence, I apologize if I misuderstood.

I certainly did not intend to insult your intelligence — I was in fact being serious.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: New Admin
yourabi offline Verified User (1 year, 9 months) Admin Help.com Volunteer Moderator Long Term User Shouts: 5 #
San Francisco, CA, US | 1 year ago (2 days after post)

Another article just published today: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10…

I realize that it’s not a reason to pick a president, but if you care about your stock portfolio, you’d be better off with a Democratic president. How so? Peter Siris of Guerrilla Capital has run some numbers — comparing an investment of $10,000 in the S&P 500 under Republican administrations to the same investment under Democratic ones.

Since 1929 both parties have controlled the White House for 40 years and Siris estimates that the $10,000 would be worth $11,733 under Republican administrations and $300,671 under Democratic ones. According to Siris, “for whatever reason, Republicans have been in office during the three worst stock market declines: The Great Depression, the early to mid-1970s, and the current market.”

That may sound interesting but what about recent presidents? Under the Clinton administration, the S&P 500 rose the most in the last 60 years — up an average of 17.4% per year. The only president who posted a negative performance is a familiar name — George W. Bush — under his administration, the S&P 500 has fallen 27% from 1,342 to 979. It’s an exceptional record and one that I hope will never recur.

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: New Admin
yourabi offline Verified User (1 year, 9 months) Admin Help.com Volunteer Moderator Long Term User Shouts: 5 #
San Francisco, CA, US | 1 year ago (2 days after post)

I also thought this was particularly relevant to this thread — Fox News take on McCain’s economic policies

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/…

Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators
Help me with: New Admin

Invite Others to Help

A logged in and verified Help.com member has the ability to setup a Friends List and invite others to help with posts.