re: Tax Cuts - The Lunch Analogy

quote:

---

Okay? You're still making baseless assumptions that have nothing to do with the analogy.

---

By using real life examples of top CEOs that benefit tremendously from government? How is that baseless?

quote:

---

Nothing about trickle down economics has anything to do with the CEO in this scenario just giving the savings to everyone else

---

It's an analogy dude. The idea is that the $10 does not lead to actions that necessarily benefit society as a whole and thus the fortunes of the lower level employees.

quote:

---

By using real life examples of top CEOs that benefit tremendously from government? How is that baseless?

---

Sigh. Because it has no bearing on the analogy at hand. How is this so hard for you?

quote:

---

It's an analogy dude.

---

Yes, you made a really, really poor analogy.

quote:

---

The idea is that the $10 does not lead to actions that necessarily benefit society as a whole and thus the fortunes of the lower level employees.

---

I just showed above that he did though.

quote:

---

The CEO orders surf and turf, the supervisors order rib eyes, the associates get burgers, and the remaining four eat a large serving of complimentary bread and split an appetizer amongst themselves.

The CEO's entree represents the majority of the bill and the appetizer is only a fraction. The $10 discount goes into the CEOs pocket and that amount never trickles down into the pockets of anyone else because the CEO decided he wants some bread pudding after all.

However the bread pudding is served to him on the house. The $10 stays tucked away in his coat pocket. It will come in handy months later when he needs to tip the Russian girl he invited to his hotel while vacationing in Europe.

---

You been following me baw?

And she was Ukrainian, you big dummy.

quote:

---

The CEO orders surf and turf, the supervisors order rib eyes, the associates get burgers, and the remaining four eat a large serving of complimentary bread and split an appetizer amongst themselves.

---

Not only did you misunderstand the analogy, you got the logic of it backwards.
Extending the analogy, the paying six have more and better food and drink at home, so they don't eat as much at the restaurant.
The 4 non-payers not only don't have the quantity and quality of food at home, they know that the bill won't be itemized so nobody will know how much each of the 4 individually ordered. No accountability, so they go nuts and order however much of anything they want on the menu.
THEN they bitch because they didn't get any of the $10 refund.

quote:

---

Kicker: The restaurant bill actually exceeds $100, but the table agrees to only pay a portion of it now and the rest later. It is now 11PM and the restaurant is closing soon. They convince the restaurant to give them $10 back after drunkenly hatching a payback plan on a napkin.

---

Now at least this isn't a terrible line of reasoning.

quote:

---

. He paid for the appetizer that the four people shared (a modest meal), but it didn't prevent him from ordering the surf and turf (an extravagant meal).

---

So now you're upset about someone chooses to spend their own money?

wtf is wrong with you?