First off, they keep drinking here because we’ve got the best beer on the planet. Secondly, the reason they are all drinking together in the first place is because they work together. In fact, they own the bar. The 10th man is the bar manager and he employs the other nine. The next three are the successive supervisors in the bar who are paid according to 10′s perception of their worth (i.e. shifts managed, ability to get customers to buy more beer, or maybe just because he likes one better than the other managers). The bottom 4 are the manual labor (bartenders, waiters, busboys), and the middle 2 are the manual laborers who got bonuses for productivity. (For the sake of discussion, let’s just skip the question about drinking at work and lost productivity due to hangovers)

The fact is, none of them would have any money for beer if they weren’t all working together to produce the wealth that enables them to buy the beer in the first place. Admittedly, you could probably lose one or two of the manual laborers and still have the business function but total productivity would go down as would their collective wealth.

The other aspect of this analysis is to what extent should each benefit from a reduced price of beer? The fact is, they aren’t always able to go to the bar together, at the same time. If the manager or some of the supervisors aren’t there they can’t always afford as much beer as they might want to drink. #10, the bar manager can afford all the beer he wants anyway so a price reduction won’t significantly impact his ability to satisfy his desire for beer. The 3 supervisors are probably in a similar position although it is possible that one of them might be in a position that a reduction in the price of beer would entice him to occasionally buy another one. The bottom six however can’t afford nearly as much beer as they would like. If the price was reduced they would almost always buy more beer. This would increase the profitability of the bar and ultimately make them all richer. In fact, the manager and supervisors would benefit the most since they collect a higher proportion of the profits of the bar in the first place.

In other words, if you reduce the price of beer for the bottom six, the top four get richer.

A general/political debate board.

I agree the parable is missleading in the sense that that last paragraph I think misses the point of the story. My sister is one of those people who enjoys the benifits our country provides to people, yet she complains about higher tax rates on the middle class and tax cuts for the wealthy. When I tried explaining to her that although the wealthy get tax cuts they still pay most of the tab she reacted the way alot of people do, she said well they can afford it. A tax cut does equal less government services, but a lack of tax cuts mean someone is footing most of the bill for us, and regardless of wether or not they can afford it I don’t think it’s fair for them.

“Second, and more important, if the government (the bar owner in the story) reduces tax rates (the price of beer) it usually must do one of two things to compensate for the lost revenues.”

…assumes that taxes and the economy are a zero-sum game, and that if beer prices in our parable are lowered, there’s a piper to be paid usually by cutting expenses (e.g., layoffs) or borrowing.

I respectfully disagree – lowering beer prices could just as easily result in stimulating business for the bar, creating additional revenue.

Similarly, liberals often make the bogus claim that there are more people in poverty now than ten years ago. (Even though the percentage of the population in poverty has decreased). These people do not understand basic statistics. Yes, there are 1000s of times more people in poverty now than in the 1400s, because the population has increased.

Rich people have more opportunities, granted, but if you want something work for it and get it.

If we only paid taxes on what we spend, there are a lot of “poor” people that would be paying taxes on their big screens, gaming consoles, fancy cars, and such. If they put the money they spend on these types of luxury items to better use, then they would have more.

It should not be my responsibility to pay for someone who is not willing to make an efort to make it on their own. And before you go off on me about the elderly and disabled, They CANNOT do for themselves, and I consider that a totally different matter.

Regards,

Clint

Any input on this?

Biggest raise AND biggest tax cut. And complaining about it.

That’s America’s rich for you.