Thursday, November 11, 2010

Bar Stool Economics

I've seen this sent via email several times over the past few years. I decided to save it here so it will be saved somewhere public.

A couple things first, however, before you read on:

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 and 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." So 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 pays $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 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, 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.

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


I'm Karl
I wish I were bright enough to have thought of this. I wasn't very good at story problems in math either.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

World View Of The Progressive

I hear all the time how there's no Hell, or no God; man evolved from lower life forms; science will eventually solve all our ills; government is for the purpose of protecting us, but more, the government has the responsibility of protecting us from ourselves, thus seat belt laws, smoking laws, laws to control what we eat, and the list goes on.

I'm sure some who read this will say, "but I agree with seatbelt laws!" as though somehow, letting the government tell us that IS for our own good. But is it? I mean honestly, where DO you draw the line? The seatbelt laws are the camel's nose in the tent. The government must be held accountible and be taken out of our lives.

So, again I ask, "where do you draw the line?"

The line should have been drawn during President Wilson's regime where he preached the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" and destroyed Divine Providence. This single-handedly changed us from a religious society into a secular society. The use of propaganda became an art form, thus spending large amounts of money to re-educate Christians and Jews alike into turning from God for help, and turning to the government for solutions.

One huge result of this paradigm shift is the 'opening' of the minds of the people so they could accept the anti-Christ theory of evolution which is a mainstay of secularism.

A quote I came across demonstrates clearly how hamstrung the populace has been made by removing God. Though the quote isn't specific to this discussion, it nonetheless shows the principle, which is this: If you don't know enough, or are unwilling to consider opposite views from your own, or if you refuse to believe in divinity, you are closing your mind to consideration of all possibilities, thus making your declarations sound as ridiculous as this quote:

The astronomer Francesco Sizi, a contemporary of Galileo, argues that Jupiter can have no satellites:
There are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two ears, two eyes, and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena of nature such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven. [...]

Moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist.
That last line envelopes the logic of the progressive world view. That world view is currently in power everywhere, including the United States. It will destroy personal liberty and has as its primary goal the destruction of The Kingdom of God. Who's on the Lord's side?

I am.

And I'm Karl