Posts
I found an interesting new facebook group. It's called "Our country will now become Socialist...Thanks Barack. And America". It was created by a Matt Stephens. Here's the description (sic):
" Well...It might as well be written that OUR country will become a Socialist Nation while Barack Obama is in office. If you are unsure what Socialism is, let me inform you...Socialism is basically taking YOUR hard-earned money and giving it to a person that is lazy, has no job, is a bum, and could care less about themself. So my argument is this....Do you want to spend your money how you choose? Or would you rather have the Government take it and distribute it among the "none hard-workers" of America? "
It would be too easy to take potshots at the bad grammar and misspellings, so I'll just stop there and stick to the central premise, the definition of Socialism: "basically taking YOUR hard-earned money and giving it to a person that is lazy, has no job, is a bum, and could care less about themself."
How many ignorant things can a person put into a single sentence?
First, here's the real definition of Socialism, from Merriam-Webster:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
I guess Matt believes that under Barack Obama, the United States as a whole, or its government, is going to take over the production of every industry, and the distribution of everything that those industries produce. Apparently under Barack Obama, everyone is also going to willingly relinquish all of their private property to a collective whole.
Uh, Matt? Even if this was Barack Obama's agenda (which it ain't), it's never gonna happen. They're going to have to pry your iPhone, your laptop, and your wii out of your cold dead hands.
Let me take the last part of Matt's description next:
" So my argument is this....Do you want to spend your money how you choose? Or would you rather have the Government take it and distribute it among the "none hard-workers" of America? "
Matt, I hate to break it to you, but...the Unites States already works using this hateful system you describe, and it has since 1913. It's called the Federal income tax. Under this system, a portion of your money goes to the government, and they do with it as they see fit. And---horrors---some beneficiaries of this are the "none hard-workers of America" you're so riled up about. If you don't like that, you could always refuse to pay the Federal income tax, and fight it out with the IRS. Good luck with that.
Let's finish up with those "none hard-workers". I assume you mean "non-" hard-workers (sorry, I said I wasn't going to pick on the misspellings...so sue me).
Let me make some inferences. You:
1) Are concerned that you will pay higher taxes under Barack Obama.
2) Consider yourself to be a really hard-working person, and don't think the fruits of your labor should benefit those who make much less.
3) Think that those whose taxes won't be increased under Obama don't work as hard as you do.
Okay, Matt. Let me ask you a question. Do you want to have any of the following jobs? :
Construction worker (median income, $38,760)?
Miner ($44,976)?
Chambermaid ($16,956)?
Baker ($20,868)?
Bus driver ($22,776)?
Salesperson ($27,120)?
Nurse ($32,232)?
Auto Mechanic ($37,416)?
Firefighter ($41,448)?
Teacher ($63,192)?
Airline pilot ($70,608)?
No? Well, if we don't have a graduated income tax---that's where wealthier people are taxed more than the less-wealthy, so that the government can provide essential services---folks in their income brackets could quickly end up broke, out of a job, and homeless. This will make it tough on you when you want a house, electricity, a clean hotel room, bread, public transportation, help at a store, a flu shot, your car fixed, a fire put out, your kid taught, or a business flight.
And guess what, Matt? I can guarantee you that a lot of people who make far, far less than $250,000 a year work much harder than some who do. Try being a social worker in Manhattan, or a police officer in Los Angeles, or a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq.
Here's another way to look at the "plight" of those whose taxes will increase under Barack Obama. You're earning more than 98% of the U.S. population. You've probably had the benefits of an excellent college and possibly post-graduate or doctoral education---which, I don't doubt, you earned through hard work and dedication. You might own a home and have kids. Your kids probably have everything they could reasonably expect to have. You live in a country with incredible freedoms.
Unfortunately, right now your country is struggling. It's waging two astronomically expensive wars. It's dealing with its worst economic troubles since the 1930's. For the first time in 150 years, the country's future is a little uncertain.
But America has always persevered, and no doubt it will again. And through your sacrifice---a sacrifice which, because you're earning much more money than so many others, will not significantly affect your day-to-day life or rob you of any of life's niceties---you may be contributing to America's resurgence. You may be helping America in one of its darker times.
I'd like to thank you for your help, Matt. I wish I knew more about you. Let's see, let me look back at your facebook group and...
Oh. Uh...
Well, it seems that Matt, is, um...Matt is...in high school.
Well...
Maybe Matt hasn't had his economics class yet this semester.
Speech is Free...but not free from consequences.
10 years ago
5 comments:
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 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," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"
"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, boys and girls, 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, or 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.
There are two problems with this analogy. We don't pay for our beer (goods and services) the same way we pay our taxes. The same beer at the same bar costs just as much for everyone. And two, the bar never does lower the cost of the beer, does it?
The key word is "IF" - IF they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes.
Yes, Adam, I caught that. We pay our taxes the way you describe, of course. The issue is, you're trying to illustrate the "injustice" of the graduated income tax that places an "unfair" burden on the wealthy by using a word problem that inadvertently highlights the fact that everyone pays the same amount for goods and services, no matter how rich or poor. The tenth man, despite his wealth, still has far more money than everyone else, and he will always be able to afford as many goods and services as he wants. The first four men will always be struggling---with beer, rent, healthcare, everything. If you're poor, sometimes you might have to choose between rent and groceries. This is the ultimate definition of unfair, yet the nation's wealthiest people cry when their tax burden might be raised a bit? Guess what, folks? You're gonna be alright.
That is until the rich guy decides he is unwilling or unable to keep up.
Post a Comment