- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tax Cuts - The Lunch Analogy
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:06 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:06 am
Heard this analogy for the tax cut debate and it really puts it into perspective.
10 people from work go to lunch one day.
4 of those 10 people are sorta broke so the remaining 6 people agree to pick up the check for them.
The lunch comes to $100 total and the 6 people chip in varying amounts to cover the bill.
Everyone is sitting at the table and a few minutes later the manager comes out and tells the table there was a recently change in policy and the lunch bill is actually $90, as such a $10 refund is coming their way.
The waiter comes out and puts $10 on the table.
As the 6 people who paid start deciding how the $10 refund will be divided up between them, the 4 remaining people start getting angry.
"This is crap, we don't get anything out of this deal."
"This refund is unfair, those rich guys get all the breaks."
"We always get screwed over, we should get some of that money."
10 people from work go to lunch one day.
4 of those 10 people are sorta broke so the remaining 6 people agree to pick up the check for them.
The lunch comes to $100 total and the 6 people chip in varying amounts to cover the bill.
Everyone is sitting at the table and a few minutes later the manager comes out and tells the table there was a recently change in policy and the lunch bill is actually $90, as such a $10 refund is coming their way.
The waiter comes out and puts $10 on the table.
As the 6 people who paid start deciding how the $10 refund will be divided up between them, the 4 remaining people start getting angry.
"This is crap, we don't get anything out of this deal."
"This refund is unfair, those rich guys get all the breaks."
"We always get screwed over, we should get some of that money."
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 10:24 am
5
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:14 am to IAmReality
quote:
the remaining 6 people agree
The whole thing falls apart right here.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:31 am to IAmReality
If those ten people who work together represent the American public, then one of the them is a CEO, others are managers and supervisors, a few more are low level associates, and the bottom four vacuum the floors, deliver the coffee to the office, etc.
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.
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.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 10:35 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:41 am to cahoots
quote:
The CEO's entree represents the majority of the bill
You think that CEO's (the wealthy in this analogy) are really what's driving the spending in our country???
They get the same medicare and social security as everyone else. And they don't even use Medicaid.
How is it the rich are spending more? If ANYTHING the poor cost the government more in spending (which is how it should be). Your analogy is exactly reversed. The 6 broke dudes ordered the steak and are upset the CEO will be paying less.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:45 am to IAmReality
All tax schemes besides the flat tax have at their core "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means."
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:48 am to cahoots
quote:
The CEO's entree represents the majority of the bill and the appetizer is only a fraction.
Someone doesn't understand how the analogy works
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:51 am to BigJim
quote:
You think that CEO's (the wealthy in this analogy) are really what's driving the spending in our country???
I was going more for what a cross section of Americans would theoretically be able to afford to eat rather than a macro economic spending profile.
The whole analogy is flawed to begin with because you're trying to relate tax cuts (on income) to discounts (on spending), which are entirely different.
I'm starting with a flawed analogy here man, so don't hold me accountable when it doesn't really make sense...
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 10:53 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:54 am to cahoots
quote:
I'm starting with a flawed analogy here man, so don't hold me accountable when it doesn't really make sense...
No, you just aren't understanding the analogy if you think that the $100 bill is representative of each person's earnings.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:54 am to cahoots
It doesn't matter who orders what.
At the end of the day 4 people are having their lunch paid for by others, whatever they ordered. They contribute nothing to the bill so they really should have no say in anything regarding the refund.
At the end of the day 4 people are having their lunch paid for by others, whatever they ordered. They contribute nothing to the bill so they really should have no say in anything regarding the refund.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:02 am to cahoots
quote:
I was going more for what a cross section of Americans would theoretically be able to afford to eat rather than a macro economic spending profile.
The whole analogy is flawed to begin with because you're trying to relate tax cuts (on income) to discounts (on spending), which are entirely different.
I'm starting with a flawed analogy here man, so don't hold me accountable when it doesn't really make sense...
Cognitive dissonance...look it up
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:06 am to cahoots
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.
quote:
. The $10 discount goes into the CEOs pocket
Only in the mind of the progressive left does it make sense that the folks WHO ARE EATING FOR FREE get to dictate what they and the paying customers are eating, as well as claim a share of a refund on a bill they contributed exactly $0 in paying.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:26 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
No, you just aren't understanding the analogy if you think that the $100 bill is representative of each person's earnings.
Uh it's representative of tax burden, which is mostly proportional to earning, not spending
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:32 am to cahoots
quote:
Uh it's representative of tax burden, which is mostly proportional to earning, not spending
Uh, it is representative of the cost of goods & services provided to us by the gov't (aka restaurant). The portion each person is responsible for that bill in this scenario would be based on income levels (since that is how they decided the 4 wouldn't pay). So, if you had said the CEO paid 80% of the $100 bill, then you would be understanding the analogy. The amount each used of that $100 bill has no bearing on their share of the bill. The CEO making hypothetically 3x more than the next highest person does not necessarily mean he uses 3x more of the government's services. It is an income tax analogy.
Sorry you don't understand that.
Also, what wan't mentioned is that the 4 that paid nothing, got access to complimentary bread and salad that the other 6 were not allowed to have.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:47 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Uh, it is representative of the cost of goods & services provided to us by the gov't (aka restaurant). The portion each person is responsible for that bill in this scenario would be based on income levels (since that is how they decided the 4 wouldn't pay). So, if you had said the CEO paid 80% of the $100 bill, then you would be understanding the analogy. The amount each used of that $100 bill has no bearing on their share of the bill. It is an income tax analogy.
Except I did understand that. In my analogy, the CEO pockets the discount because he paid the bill (he treated his employees to lunch). 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). Also, the $10 he pocketed didn't "trickle down" to the four others (a claim often made in favor of tax cuts) because he spent it under the table on Russian women (a reference to the Russia controversy and the sexual allegations controversies, just thrown in for fun).
Sorry that you didn't understand that my post was clearly a critique of trickle down economics and not commentary on welfare.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 11:48 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:53 am to cahoots
quote:
Except I did understand that. In my analogy, the CEO pockets the discount because he paid the bill (he treated his employees to lunch). 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). Also, the $10 he pocketed didn't "trickle down" to the four others (a claim often made in favor of tax cuts) because he spent it under the table on Russian women (a reference to the Russia controversy and the sexual allegations controversies, just thrown in for fun).
Sorry that you didn't understand that my post was clearly a critique of trickle down economics and not commentary on welfare.
Sigh. It is hilarious how you just assume the CEO uses the government's services more, based solely on him having a higher income. That alone shows me you don't understand the analogy.
Then you compound this by completely lacking any understanding of what "trickle down economics" is or how it is supposed to work.
Quit while you're behind.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:59 am to IAmReality
That’s just complete bullshite. I could make up a story on the spot to suit my narrative too.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:13 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Sigh. It is hilarious how you just assume the CEO uses the government's services more, based solely on him having a higher income. That alone shows me you don't understand the analogy.
Well, let's say that these guys work for a major US automaker/bank circa 2008. Or maybe it's the CEO of a Hollywood production company (dem tax credits). Or maybe it's Elon Musk. Buy maybe you're right and rich people never benefit from government the way that poor food stamp recipients do.
quote:
Then you compound this by completely lacking any understanding of what "trickle down economics" is or how it is supposed to work.
Sigh. It's pretty difficult to integrate a comprehensive trickle down analogy into a story about 10 people getting lunch. I'm working with what I've got.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:13 pm to Bison
quote:
That’s just complete bullshite. I could make up a story on the spot to suit my narrative too.
So, go ahead.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:18 pm to cahoots
quote:
Well, let's say that these guys work for a major US automaker/bank circa 2008. Or maybe it's the CEO of a Hollywood production company (dem tax credits). Or maybe it's Elon Musk. Buy maybe you're right and rich people never benefit from government the way that poor food stamp recipients do.
Okay? You're still making baseless assumptions that have nothing to do with the analogy.
quote:
Sigh. It's pretty difficult to integrate a comprehensive trickle down analogy into a story about 10 people getting lunch. I'm working with what I've got.
It really isn't that difficult. Nothing about trickle down economics has anything to do with the CEO in this scenario just giving the savings to everyone else. You're trying to show your intelligence by trying to elaborate the analogy to fit your warped view of our current model, yet fail to actually understand how things do and/or should work to be able to attack the point you want to attack.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:24 pm to cahoots
quote:
Sigh. It's pretty difficult to integrate a comprehensive trickle down analogy into a story about 10 people getting lunch. I'm working with what I've got.
Because the story isn't predicated on "trickle down economics." It's illustrating why the ol' liberal saw horse that these tax cuts will "benefit the rich" is nonsense because the rich will see more of a benefit in almost any tax cut scenario BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES!!!!
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News