THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

The bottom line here is that none of the deals affect the real rich guy here.That is the one who owns the bar.

He is the one who has to buy the beer and keep it cold.

Has to keep the building maintained

The staff paid and the place safe.

Pay the insurance and listen to the whining and complaining.Whatever deals are made he still has to balance the books or there is no beer and sometimes he even has to help the rich guy pay his tab.

Once again:

For those who understand,no explanation is needed.

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

What is missing from the analogy:

Good math: For his generosity, the bar owner got stiffed, getting only $79 for the $80 bill.

How much does each man earn? If the rich man reaps 95% of the annual wealth, and only pays 59% of the tax, looks like a real bargain for him, as the other 9 men earn only 5% of the total wealth, but yet pay 41% of the tax. The other nine pay proportionally 13 times more tax than the rich man. How does a 20% tax reduction for him make any sense?

How did the rich man get rich? In a land that favors capitalism, and unfettered competition, the ultra-rich rarely get rich by having to compete fairly in the market. Instead, they often break the law, or rewrite the law, helping them escape from tax burdens, or open up trade barriers, reducing the cost of exporting labor to cheaper countries. This put 1 or 2 of the other men getting free beer out of work.

As for rich men leaving America, it's already happened, as many corporations set up paper headquarters in tax-free havens like the Bahamas, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, etc.

It's always been the case that those with money pay tax, whether it's property tax, wealth tax, income tax, or sales tax. It's the only thing that makes sense, to tax the money as it flows. For income tax, setting up a system with an increasing marginal rate, capped at some reasonable upper limit, and standard exclusions for everyone seems to be a pretty fair system for everyone. This allows fewer people below the poverty level, reducing the overall burden they would otherwise put onto society, while letting the rich still earn money from every dollar they make. For the rich to complain about "only" earning 60 cents on each dollar after their first half million, hardly seems to be the national priority, given problems like the employment rate, education, homelessness, hunger, etc., not to mention minimum health care.

The point the original poster made was that they equally use the facilities or reaping the benefits of the amounts paid in by the richest, in fact the poorest are taking the money paid to the bartender as income (unemployment, ssi,etc.) so indirectly the richest man is paying for the poorest to drink for free...

so instead of getting a job, or motivation to earn or do something positive for society, I think we should all just get paid to drink for free off the hardest working/ richest individuals, let them pay for our roads our homes and everything while we sit.

All things aside, this is an oversimplification of the tax system.

WWJD, he would not care about money because we have all been given different talents and for some it is sitting and drinking beer...

Corporations are not rich men. People talk about corporate profits flowing overseas (i.e. any of the talk about buying american made foreign cars versus foreign made american cars) but the profits go to shareholders. Those share holders can be anywhere.

Well my point was that that's not really a correct way of looking at it. The analogy is equating a tax burden to purchasing a commodity. Taxes have always been somewhat proportional to the wealth, or the income, or the spending of the taxpayer.Can anyone think of any example, anywhere, or anytime, where the taxpaying burden was an absolute fixed price for everyone? Has any nation, state, or city ever put a fixed price per person on the ability to receive public benefits and services provided by taxes?The hardest working are by no means the richest individuals, and vice-versa. In fact, there is probably an inverse relation. The rich get rich by finding others to do the hard work.

Nugget of wisdom wrote:

The point the original poster made was that they equally use the facilities or reaping the benefits of the amounts paid in by the richest, in fact the poorest are taking the money paid to the bartender as income (unemployment, ssi,etc.) so indirectly the richest man is paying for the poorest to drink for free...

so instead of getting a job, or motivation to earn or do something positive for society, I think we should all just get paid to drink for free off the hardest working/ richest individuals, let them pay for our roads our homes and everything while we sit.

It's more complicated than that.Corporations are like fictitious people that can claim special benefits of the laws, while escaping certain responsibilities and liabilities, and their associated costs.Corporations are legal vehicles that allow rich men (and women) to get richer, by creating special privileges, tax-rates and liabilities unique to corporations and distinct from its individual members, insulating the members from higher tax burdens, and protecting their individual assets from legal liabilities of the corporation.Forming corporations in tax-free havens is not different in effect than tax evasion.I'm not so concerned which corporate shareholders get my money when I buy a car, but more the net effect on society. For example moving manufacturing jobs to other countries, means shareholders get increased value, while domestic employees become jobless. The corporations find ways to increase their profits and shareholder value, while at the same time, placing the costs and increasing burden on society. The very least the rich could do is buy the ones they laid off, in the name of their corporate shareholders, a beer.If we want to eliminate government interference, we must also speak of dissolving government granted corporations, and eliminating government granted monopolies provided by copyrights, and patents. And we must annul any special tax, and other, incentives given in private negotiations to corporations.When it comes down to it, businesses actually prefer government interference, over genuine competition.

asdfasdfas wrote:

Corporations are not rich men. People talk about corporate profits flowing overseas (i.e. any of the talk about buying american made foreign cars versus foreign made american cars) but the profits go to shareholders. Those share holders can be anywhere.

Which goes back to my point that this is an over-simplification...

40% of the beer is paid for by selling debt instruments to the Chinese. These debts will later be refinances or perhaps partially paid back in new money that has been printed.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY EXPLAINED WITH SALTINES

the letsrunner guy wrote:

Very entertaining except nobody is going to leave the US to cry somewhere else about paying taxes. Haha I can picture it now, all the rich people moving to another country yeah right!!!! I'll continue to drink my free beer as you will, except you'll continue to bitch about legislation that doesn't even benefit you (since you're not rich)

you are flat out wrong:

"He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1968, thus avoiding U.S. income taxes.[12] He had dual naturalized Bahamian and British citizenship and lived in the Bahamas."

Why do you think the Caymans, Bahamas, Switzerland are so popular for the rich. Our overly complex and insane tax code punishes the rich.

Google only paid an effective rate of 2% last year. why? they moved outside of the US.

It happens all the time. Millionaires are moving away from New York City to ease the tax burden. Retirees move to florida, not just for the sandy beaches and warm climate, but for the tax breaks.

Remember the basics of taxes: flight, fight or fraud.

Almost all (probably all but I am sure there is one exception) of those offshore corporate tricks are designed to avoid Corporate taxes not personal income taxes. The only big tax break a corp gives to rich people is they get paid as capital gains (i.e. 15%) instead of ordinary income (35%). As far as liablity limitations, without it would you invest in any company? How would you like to have put 10k in enron and not only lost all of that money but gotten a bill for another 5k?As far as getting rid of copyrights and patents, you would destroy our economy. No new drugs. No new movies (i.e. you can't spend 100 million making something and sell one copy). No software industry. And so on. All because you want to steal music and disney cartoons.

But they don't all get equal benefits. The poor guy gets 10k a year out of the system. The rich guy gets 10 million.

Nugget of wisdom wrote:

The point the original poster made was that they equally use the facilities or reaping the benefits of the amounts paid in by the richest, in fact the poorest are taking the money paid to the bartender as income (unemployment, ssi,etc.) so indirectly the richest man is paying for the poorest to drink for free...

so instead of getting a job, or motivation to earn or do something positive for society, I think we should all just get paid to drink for free off the hardest working/ richest individuals, let them pay for our roads our homes and everything while we sit.

Can we get the same analogy, only, using antidepresants instead? That would be more accurate of the majority of Americans.

which brings us back to the fact that this is an OVER-SIMPLIFICATION OF THE TAX SYSTEM!

Everyone has equal access to roads, parks, schools, public restrooms, public drinking fountains, etc. Provided by government tax dollars... name a place where people don't have equal access to such things.

Where do these things come from (tax dollars and not nearly enough tax dollars to fund them) They come from a national debt that has a small payment from the richest individuals. Obviously there is more involved than individiuals. There are corporations, non-proftis, city government, state government, international trades/relations and so on that make the analogy too simple to describe a true picture of our nations tax system...

Which brings me to my next point: Don't smoke rocks and post on lets run!

Just so everyone understands that these ten men aren't drinking beer because they like the flavor, it just isn't possible.

I didn't advocate eliminating copyrights and patents, but just wanted to point out how much businesses are founded on government granted and enforced monopolies. Many people talk about free competition and reducing government interference, yet they don't realize without it, our economy would be destroyed, as you rightfully say.And technically speaking, infringement of a right is not stealing. Stealing is a crime, while infringement may or may not be.Replacing income tax with corporate tax and capital gains tax is a huge benefit. Yet for some greedy few, it's not enough, and they must evade corporate tax too.Interesting you bring up the example of Enron. Enron used their political connections to pass a special law about how to value energy trading derivatives, that pretty much only applied to Enron. Basically they were free to make up any number they wanted. Somehow the liability was passed from a few greedy executives, who were able to keep their mansions in Florida, onto unsuspecting shareholders and employees. Limited liability protected some primary "inside" shareholders, but many others had to "pick up the beer tab" for these rich guys. Think of Portland Gas and Electric company employees, who worked like state employees, thinking their future was guaranteed, after a lifelong service, who not only lost their jobs, but their pensions too, through no direct fault of their own. Then someone will have the nerve to say that these lazy welfare bums should get off their butts, stop taking handouts from the state, and get back to work. Shouldn't the ones who had the responsibility somehow be more liable?Funny you also mention Disney. They basically owe their whole existence, using the copyrighted works of others.Judging by the number of "new drug" commercials these days, the "new drug" situation seems far from ideal too. I can see how it works for pharmaceutical companies, but wonder if the people are better or worse off today? We don't seem to be healthier.Their seems to be a healthy economy built around GPL software, which undermines the very tenets that traditional copyright owners deem sacred. Granted, GPL only works when copyright law is enforced, but it's not clear whether copyrights have helped or hindered the software industry, with respect to innovation for the consumer.

asdfasdfas wrote:

Almost all (probably all but I am sure there is one exception) of those offshore corporate tricks are designed to avoid Corporate taxes not personal income taxes. The only big tax break a corp gives to rich people is they get paid as capital gains (i.e. 15%) instead of ordinary income (35%). As far as liablity limitations, without it would you invest in any company? How would you like to have put 10k in enron and not only lost all of that money but gotten a bill for another 5k?

As far as getting rid of copyrights and patents, you would destroy our economy. No new drugs. No new movies (i.e. you can't spend 100 million making something and sell one copy). No software industry. And so on. All because you want to steal music and disney cartoons.

Agreed. Glad I could help.

Nugget of wisdom wrote:

Which goes back to my point that this is an over-simplification...

rekrunner wrote:

As for rich men leaving America, it's already happened, as many corporations set up paper headquarters in tax-free havens like the Bahamas, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, etc.

Good point. Google is now infamous for the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich" tax avoidance strategies.

Googles shifty CEO is a close advisor to Obama. Obama being a good lib wants to raise our taxes.

The poor seem to get a break, the rich def get a break, the middle get screwed.