bar stool economics

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a 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 $1.00
The sixth would pay $3.00
The seventh would pay $7.00
The eighth would pay $12.00
The ninth would pay $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00

So that's what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day
and seemed quite happy with arraignment, 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 $20.00. Drinks for the ten men now cost
just $80.00

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 their fair share?
They realized that $20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from every body'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 mans bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay!


And so:

The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of 12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man, but he got $10!

Yeah, that's right, shouted the seventh man. why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!

Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalist 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.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. Vote for Obama again.

David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

</SPAN>
 
That would be fine if the bill was only $100. But its not, the bill is in fact $300 and the bar man wants you to pay off the tab you have been running up for the last year.

Who do you think should pay the most?

The trouble is you're right, the very rich don't turn up. So its left to the rest of us who cannot run to pay.
 
I think the real trouble Jon, is that too many people want something for nothing. Bring back the good ole Soviet Socialist Republic? Look how well that worked out for the average joe.
 
I think the real trouble Jon, is that too many people want something for nothing.

You have hit the problem right on the head. We need to get a way from this sense of entitlement that some people have. The state should be there to help in extremis, not as a life style choice.

But the piper still needs paying.
 

Keith

Moderator
I think the real trouble Jon, is that too many people want something for nothing. Bring back the good ole Soviet Socialist Republic? Look how well that worked out for the average joe.

Yes but it's always your round you rich bastard..... :laugh:
 

Rick Muck- Mark IV

GT40s Sponsor
Supporter
To paraphrase an old American beer commercial "If you're only going around once, make sure someone else is buying the round..."
 
It would probably have more substance if the actual author was attributed, as opposed to falsely linking it to a PhD Economist:

David R. Kamerschen

It has also been attributed to another PhD, Thomas Davies at University of South Dakota, who also denies writing it and will not comment on its validity.

The closest anyone has gotten to determining actual original authorship is Don Dodson, who submitted it to the Letters column of the Chicago Tribune in March 2001. This hasn't been authenticated as the original though, nor has anyone established if Don Dodson is the person'real name, and what, if any, economic/business background he might have.

Ian
 
Does it matter who penned it though Ian? Who happens to be the actual author does not diminish the substance whatsoever. It is simply a shame if someone feels it needs to appear to have been written by a boffin to add credence. Self-defeating ultimately, as the focus now shifts from the message itself, to the conspiracy of authorship.
 
Does it matter who penned it though Ian? Who happens to be the actual author does not diminish the substance whatsoever. It is simply a shame if someone feels it needs to appear to have been written by a boffin to add credence. Self-defeating ultimately, as the focus now shifts from the message itself, to the conspiracy of authorship.

Yes, it matters who wrote it to some degree. If legit, and backed by others in the business and economics field, then it lends it credence. If written by some sorry sot who knows nothing of economics and business, then it is pure BS. Also, to falsely attribute it to someone whose credentials would be respected gives it an air of BS as the false credit is obviously used to lend it more credence. Better to honestly attribute it.

Ian
 
Agree on 90% of what you say Ian, but don't get all excited about that! ;)

However, if it matters that much, that good comment means more if uttered by an accepted source, then by definition, any un-educated fool such as I, may as well shut my mouth and not bother! After all. Who the hell am I!?
 

Keith

Moderator
Hang on, why does it need a "credible source" before it's acceptable?

People spout their stuff, and it either rings true or it doesn't. If reasonably educated, we can make our own value judgements whether it flies or it doesn't. Education combined with experience and gut feeling will pretty much nail it. We don't need some economic pseudo to tell us it's true or false.

This is an amusing exercise in "bar room economics" as the title says. It doesn't take an expert to understand it and it certainly doesn't take Brain of Britain to enjoy it. Who gives a fuck who wrote it? Enjoy it for what it is.

If it makes sense - it makes sense. If we followed your reasoning Ian then, every reporter/blogger should at least have a degree in economics before he is permitted to write his "opinion", we all should be banned from commenting on anything because we are just drones and know/understand nothing.

How can it be bullshit if the thing makes some kind of sense? Is this highlighting somehow the difference between US and UK approach to disseminating information?

Me don't get it.

Drone 1604, Hive 6, Sector 15, Colony - "Atlantis"

Our Motto: "Hive 6, we'll always bee here for you" :)
 
I posted it as I recieved it, my interest was in the content not the author. Does it have less meaning if Joe the plumber wrote it?
 
Back
Top