• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Tax System Explained in Beer

You HONESTLY think that they are rich because of hard work? This implys that EVERYONE AND ANYONE who works hard is rich.... Them being rich has nothing to do with luck? This implys that everything they work for is merely because they are a hard worker. Example would be that they willed themselves not to have clubbed feet or ADD or ADHD or Autism... You think everyone and I mean EVERYONE can achieve their goals? Point has been made I hope. So how is it fair, and I want you to grasp all three questions into this one, for someone to not be able to even afford a to live while they have a beautiful life with such a great wife while they live, merely, next door to someone who can barely afford the food on their table?

This has nothing to do with the question but, show me anyone that has paid their own way through college and Harvard and received their doctorate and I am pretty sure that is a result of their hard work. Maybe you can cry about someone who's mommy and daddy footed the bill and they just floated through, but that is not what we are talking about, and I don't know that you can even float through Harvard based on the workload I watched, maybe other disciplines are different.

Again, I ask, what did he/she do that makes them owe close to 50% of their income to the general public? Study too much? Stay out of trouble and focused? I am just trying to understand what the crap from the first comment meant. It implies that the rich in this country all made it off of other peoples backs an by raping the land or some such crap. Just explain how the pediatrician in my example owe more taxes because of the bull**** in the beginning of the comment.

Also, I don't know what the crap about club feet was? Are you saying that people that go to college and do well should get together and give people with club feet equal incomes to what they have achieved?
 
edit I'd also like to point out that dems don't have a problem with most of the bush tax cuts, just those affecting the top 10%.

this parable is about the bottom 90% beating up the top 10%. stop embarrassing yourself.
 
this parable is about the bottom 90% beating up the top 10%. stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't expect you to get the point I'm making. The augment isn't about the poor getting nothing back and everything to do with the fact that, under any political party plan, we can't afford all the bush tax cuts.
 
I don't expect you to get the point I'm making. The augment isn't about the poor getting nothing back and everything to do with the fact that, under any political party plan, we can't afford all the bush tax cuts.

this thread had noting to do with the affordability of tax cuts, it deals with how tax cuts are distributed in a progressive system of taxation, using the humor of beer sharing to make a point.
 
this thread had noting to do with the affordability of tax cuts, it deals with how tax cuts are distributed in a progressive system of taxation, using the humor of beer sharing to make a point.


I get the point of the OP, my responses have addressed other members replies dealing with party politics on why some disparage the bush tax cuts. They don't bemoan the entire bill, just the part that affects the top top earners and mainly the cuts in capital gains.
 
Last edited:
The Tax System Explained in Beer - Independent Journal Review

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

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

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

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

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

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

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Idotic post, and quite unAmerican to boot. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of progressive taxes? It's almost like you guys should just move out and start your own country somewhere, you sure don't have a clue about being an American.

Jefferson was openly pro-progressive taxation. As he said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

Thomas Paine was also a vocal advocate of the progressive income tax. The country passed a progressive estate tax in 1797, and this debate’s been settled at least since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

The Founding Fathers and Taxes: The Real Story « The Progressive Pulse
 
Idotic post, and quite unAmerican to boot. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of progressive taxes? It's almost like you guys should just move out and start your own country somewhere, you sure don't have a clue about being an American.



The Founding Fathers and Taxes: The Real Story « The Progressive Pulse
The OP doesn't oppose progressive taxes. It merely explains how it's possible for people to perceive progressive taxes as the opposite of what they really are.
 
This has nothing to do with the question but, show me anyone that has paid their own way through college and Harvard and received their doctorate and I am pretty sure that is a result of their hard work. Maybe you can cry about someone who's mommy and daddy footed the bill and they just floated through, but that is not what we are talking about, and I don't know that you can even float through Harvard based on the workload I watched, maybe other disciplines are different.

Again, I ask, what did he/she do that makes them owe close to 50% of their income to the general public? Study too much? Stay out of trouble and focused? I am just trying to understand what the crap from the first comment meant. It implies that the rich in this country all made it off of other peoples backs an by raping the land or some such crap. Just explain how the pediatrician in my example owe more taxes because of the bull**** in the beginning of the comment.

Also, I don't know what the crap about club feet was? Are you saying that people that go to college and do well should get together and give people with club feet equal incomes to what they have achieved?

So you are claiming that all us lazy Americans have to do to make millions is a matter of will? lmfao...

I'll start with this. How is it someones fault if they don't have strong willpower? As to your questions, I'm arguing that it IS NOT a matter of will it is a matter of we have a society that is set up to only allow 1% of people to gain this amount of money. Since this society is set up this way, the idea that if you work hard and make good decisions that good things will happen to you is a COMPLETE illusion.

No, but I bet you know a certain group of people that would claim that the fact that they weren't born with clubbed feet is a matter of will.
 
Yup, the rich pay more because our capitalist system has given them more, assuming they didn't inherit it all or make the money illegally/immorally. Sorry, I don't feel too bad for the guy making $10 million dollars having to fork over 3 or 4 million of it to pay for things. What things that pays for it a perfectly reasonable debate and we waste a lot of money on unnecessary crap. But you act like life is difficult at a mere $6.5 million a year. It ain't.

psychobabble

the rich aren't given more-they produce more and earn more

your nonsense about taxes only makes sense if the government actually produced all wealth and then gave it to people based on a lottery
 
Yes, the poor rich, I feel so bad for them. I have to beat them away everyday from trying to barge into my house, and trade places with me. Very very sad.

and some of the envious left chide me when I note envy and spite towards the rich motivates many of the posts on this board
 
Idotic post, and quite unAmerican to boot. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of progressive taxes? It's almost like you guys should just move out and start your own country somewhere, you sure don't have a clue about being an American.



The Founding Fathers and Taxes: The Real Story « The Progressive Pulse

I love far lefties selectively quoting the founders without explaining why the founders left the supposedly beloved progressive taxes out of the constitution? If we had the same system as when the founders ruled, only free males who owned real property would vote. In other words, the dems would be somewhere behind the libertarians and the Constitutional Parties in terms of power
 
Idotic post, and quite unAmerican to boot. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of progressive taxes? It's almost like you guys should just move out and start your own country somewhere, you sure don't have a clue about being an American.



The Founding Fathers and Taxes: The Real Story « The Progressive Pulse
Perhaps you should actually read the post in question. You're arguing with yourself, the OP was not arguing in favor of a flat tax rate, he was simply explaining why lowering rates for everyone would be perceived as a giveaway to the richest among us.
 
The primary cuts in 2001 and 2003 were to capital gains not income. So in your bar analogy, the bartender gives the top 2 guys a discount because they get paid dividends rather that earning a salary.

In any case, demonizing a particular income segment isn't helpful. Tax policy should be decided based on the overall consequences to social stability, the economy and national debt.
 
This story, while touching, fails to encompass some very key issues that help to define the American tax system.

Firstly, the tax cuts that were given under Bush and Reagan were unnecessarily beneficial to the rich. The important part here is the lowering of the capital gains tax rate, as another poster stated previously. This means that the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. In addition, the increase of state tax rates was regressive, in that the poorer people were more likely to spend a significant portion of their income on goods that came with a state sales tax. Thus, your analogy is flawed because it fails to account for the intricacies of the financial system.

Secondly, your model is also biased. Firstly, it fails to account for the true incomes of the people. Without the true figures, your story is easily perceived as "unfair" to the richest person. If you could enumerate the first six people earned less than $25,000 and the richest earned $1,000,000 or more, the story might rub people a different way.

Thirdly, the rich person is indebted to the poor people for his wealth. Without the purchases of the poor people, the rich man would have nobody to scam. In a system where the poor person "quits," the rich man also loses, which brings me to my fourth point, which is that...

We're all in this together. Our economic system requires involvement from both the rich and the poor. When the rich people are being assholes and enjoying their pina coladas in the Caribbean while the rest of us toil away at our day jobs, we have some right to be angry that the next round of tax breaks gives the rich man even more and the poor man even less. Perhaps the rich people should such up their losses and willingly contribute to help along the lives of others. It's only when the rich guy is complaining about paying too much for his beer and lobbying the bartender for a $20 reduction on his bill that the common people get angry.
 
This story, while touching, fails to encompass some very key issues that help to define the American tax system.

Firstly, the tax cuts that were given under Bush and Reagan were unnecessarily beneficial to the rich. The important part here is the lowering of the capital gains tax rate, as another poster stated previously. This means that the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. In addition, the increase of state tax rates was regressive, in that the poorer people were more likely to spend a significant portion of their income on goods that came with a state sales tax. Thus, your analogy is flawed because it fails to account for the intricacies of the financial system.

Secondly, your model is also biased. Firstly, it fails to account for the true incomes of the people. Without the true figures, your story is easily perceived as "unfair" to the richest person. If you could enumerate the first six people earned less than $25,000 and the richest earned $1,000,000 or more, the story might rub people a different way.

Thirdly, the rich person is indebted to the poor people for his wealth. Without the purchases of the poor people, the rich man would have nobody to scam. In a system where the poor person "quits," the rich man also loses, which brings me to my fourth point, which is that...

We're all in this together. Our economic system requires involvement from both the rich and the poor. When the rich people are being assholes and enjoying their pina coladas in the Caribbean while the rest of us toil away at our day jobs, we have some right to be angry that the next round of tax breaks gives the rich man even more and the poor man even less. Perhaps the rich people should such up their losses and willingly contribute to help along the lives of others. It's only when the rich guy is complaining about paying too much for his beer and lobbying the bartender for a $20 reduction on his bill that the common people get angry.


Nonsense. rich people are generally rich because they provide much value to others
 
The primary cuts in 2001 and 2003 were to capital gains not income. So in your bar analogy, the bartender gives the top 2 guys a discount because they get paid dividends rather that earning a salary.

In any case, demonizing a particular income segment isn't helpful. Tax policy should be decided based on the overall consequences to social stability, the economy and national debt.

Nobody is demonizing anybody. What's with the emotional appeal? The Bush tax cuts reduced the long-term capital gains tax (a flat tax) from 21% to 15% (28%). They reduced effective tax rates by the following amounts:

Effective Income Tax Rates by quintile

17.5% to 13.9% (20.5%)
8.10% to 5.90% (27.1%)
5.00% to 3.00% (66.0%)
1.50% to -0.9% (160%)
-4.6% to -6.2% (34.7%)

Incorporating ALL federal taxes (including payroll, LTCG, and excise taxes: all of which are flat)

28.0% - 25.2% (10.0%)
20.5% - 17.3% (15.6%)
16.6% - 14.1% (15.0%)
13.0% - 9.90% (23.8%)
6.4% - 4.3% (32.8%)

Firstly, the tax cuts that were given under Bush and Reagan were unnecessarily beneficial to the rich. The important part here is the lowering of the capital gains tax rate, as another poster stated previously. This means that the tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich. In addition, the increase of state tax rates was regressive, in that the poorer people were more likely to spend a significant portion of their income on goods that came with a state sales tax. Thus, your analogy is flawed because it fails to account for the intricacies of the financial system.

See above.

Secondly, your model is also biased. Firstly, it fails to account for the true incomes of the people. Without the true figures, your story is easily perceived as "unfair" to the richest person. If you could enumerate the first six people earned less than $25,000 and the richest earned $1,000,000 or more, the story might rub people a different way.

It's not a model, it's an analogy. Obviously it's an oversimplification, you missed the point.

Thirdly, the rich person is indebted to the poor people for his wealth. Without the purchases of the poor people, the rich man would have nobody to scam. In a system where the poor person "quits," the rich man also loses, which brings me to my fourth point, which is that...

Moving on....

Idotic post, and quite unAmerican to boot. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of progressive taxes? It's almost like you guys should just move out and start your own country somewhere, you sure don't have a clue about being an American.

I can't decide what's more ironic: you missing the whole point of the thread or the fact that you misspelled idiotic. Moving on..

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.

1. Full of ridiculous speculation with typical classist rantings. Labor and purchasing power are voluntary, people who innovate the means to attract these factors reap the benefits of their production. Both are mutually beneficial (although I'll admit not always symmetric): people choose to trade their labor and capital for income and goods that give them sufficient utility.

2. No, not by definition. Land and energy are NOT public resources, they are private. Government workers is pure speculation (I don't even know how one comes to that conclusion), military resources I can't even understand, and environmental damage is an overly broad and vague term. If power generation is the number one culprit then everyone who utilizes electricity share responsibility. In fact if we're defining public resources as federal expenditures, the rich receive the smallest amount of return on their investment.

3. This has nothing to do with the point of this thread. The analogy is not an attack on a progressive tax system (as pointed out multiple times throughout the thread).

It also doesn't even mention issues like lobbyists or government contracts.

Right, I wonder who's doing all that lobbying.... hmmmmm...

Yup, the rich pay more because our capitalist system has given them more, assuming they didn't inherit it all or make the money illegally/immorally.

Why is it that people must insist that "the rich" are simply given what they earn? It completely undermines the notion of work ethic, talent, ingenuity, opportunity, property, individualism, ambition, etc. The people who are giving are the ones you're so quick to write off.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that people must insist that "the rich" are simply given what they earn? It completely undermines the notion of work ethic, talent, ingenuity, opportunism, property, individualism, ambition, etc. The people who are giving are the ones you're so quick to write off.

Because that ignores social power structures that prevent actual equality of opportunity
 
The Tax System Explained in Beer - Independent Journal Review

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

...


Excellent Post and Analogy!

But what I want to know, what happens Next.... and Next..... and Next!



Look at the popular movie Avatar. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, and understand the director's sentiment, but its a classic Liberal Fantasy!

In the final scene we see the allied "Good Liberal" Humans standing shoulder to shoulder with the noble and galant Navi as the "Evil Miner Conservatives" are packed back onto their starship and sent back to the dying Earth.

Raaaiiiiiight!, and what happens Next,... and Next... and Next?

Seems to me a few years later a new starship arrives with around 400 Nuclear tipped missiles and the sacred tree and every Navi village gets nuked from orbit. The mining resumes with miners still in breather masks kicking aside the desiccated corpses of remaining Navi who fell to the genetically engineered Pox...






I'll guarantee the Lefties see a way in which the total economic collapse of America can be abused to further their goals.

It is not enough to say that we're driving our wealth and prosperity generating citizen's out of the country, what is the plan to attract them back, and then make America Great Again?

Beyond throwing the lefties out of power, what happens Next and Next and Next to make America what it was before it got parasite and traitor over-ridden?
 
Last edited:
Because that ignores social power structures that prevent actual equality of opportunity

Inequality of opportunity is inherent in human society, people reap the benefits sown by their ancestors before them. Just as us Americans reap the benefits sown by the work of our countrymen before us. There is nothing immoral about contributing to the success of your offspring. In fact, it’s natural and moral to do so. The benefits you reap from the financial and social success of your parents is no morally different than the benefits you receive from them nurturing and raising you as a child. The only immoral inequities of opportunity are those that are systematic in government through legislation and coercion
 
I love far lefties selectively quoting the founders without explaining why the founders left the supposedly beloved progressive taxes out of the constitution? If we had the same system as when the founders ruled, only free males who owned real property would vote. In other words, the dems would be somewhere behind the libertarians and the Constitutional Parties in terms of power

Like I said you don't know what being an American is. The Founders rebelled against the tyranny of the land that they hated about European nations. They would never tolerate the tyranny of the rich that has become the emblem of the new Republican party either. You are like a fish out of water with your views, I'm afraid. The backlash has only begun.
Much was left out of the Constitution it was written in amother world from ours, but the intent of our founders is clear. FDR and others that have followed have given their vision life. Your side lost the war in 1776, but you still keep tryig to defeat us. Others have tried......
 
Last edited:
Like I said you don't know what being an American is. The Founders rebelled against the tyranny of the land that they hated about European nations. They would never tolerate the tyranny of the rich that has become the emblem of the new Republican party either. You are like a fish out of water with your views, I'm afraid. The backlash has only begun.
Much was left out of the Constitution it was written in amother world from ours, but the intent of our founders is clear. FDR and others that have followed have given their vision life. Your side lost the war in 1776, but you still keep tryig to defeat us. Others have tried......

class envy is a poisonous affliction. My side was the one against a centralized dictatorial government that imposed unfair taxes. In other words we opposed what you want. Your side is that of the parasites and the elites who get their power pandering to them based on the mistaken belief that big government fat cats actually want to help their minions rather than keeping them dependent and stupid
 
Inequality of opportunity is inherent in human society, people reap the benefits sown by their ancestors before them. Just as us Americans reap the benefits sown by the work of our countrymen before us. There is nothing immoral about contributing to the success of your offspring. In fact, it’s natural and moral to do so. The benefits you reap from the financial and social success of your parents is no morally different than the benefits you receive from them nurturing and raising you as a child. The only immoral inequities of opportunity are those that are systematic in government through legislation and coercion

so society has no moral obligation to ensure that the luck of being born to well to do parents (in any aspect) has almost no bearing on a child's eventually place in society? We should do noting to ensue that the best of society is able too succeeded regardless of initial social standing? I'm sorry, but if the answer is no then you simply perpetuate the injustices of the past, whether carried out by the government or pyruvate individuals.
 
Last edited:
class envy is a poisonous affliction. My side was the one against a centralized dictatorial government that imposed unfair taxes. In other words we opposed what you want. Your side is that of the parasites and the elites who get their power pandering to them based on the mistaken belief that big government fat cats actually want to help their minions rather than keeping them dependent and stupid

Givne the stress skinflints like you are going to go through in the coming decade, I really wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Just keep remembering you are still rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom