I once worked in a factory that was a union shop. The factory workers ranged from unskilled workers to highly skilled workers i.e tool and die makers. We had union negotiations with the company for new contracts every two years. Every contract time there was disagreement between the unskilled workers and the skilled workers. The unskilled workers wanted an across the board pay raise and the skilled workers wanted a percentage pay raise. The unskilled workers thought a percentage raise favored the skilled workers because 2% of tool and die maker wage was more than 2% of unskilled workers wage. The skilled workers knew that multiple years of across the board raises would close the gap between unskilled wages and skilled wages. The unskilled workers believed it was greed for skilled workers to receive a larger pay increase by using a percentage raise while the skilled workers believed it was greed on the unskilled workers to receive a larger pay increase by giving everyone an across the board pay increase. Even though a percentage raise benefited everyone, the unskilled workers just couldn't stand to see the skilled workers receive a larger pay raise by using percentage. So two year contracts usually offered one year of across the board raises followed by the second year receiving percentage raise. Crazy.
Pretty good analogy, TC. The transfer of student loan debt to taxpayers, sometimes mislabeled "student loan forgiveness" falls into the same category of thought-- socialism.
This should be revised to show that many persons who pay no taxes get "refunds" via credts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.
Ye this actually happens in actual tax terms tho. They actually ask to be paid for things that others have to pay for just because they don’t have the money
Yeah, for example when they are poor and have so many children, and then the government generously helps them... Just one example that I could think of
Bryan Lee, the video misses a very key point. The 1st 4 men must share 1 beer in 4 cups between them (their combined wealth(gross assets)=1 beer,) even though it is FREE. The 6th man gets 1 beer and must share his 1 beer by pouring a shot of beer into a cup for the 5th man. When the $20 tax cut comes in the 6th man must give the 5th a larger portion. The 7th man gets 6 beers but must give 1 to the 1st 4 (his workforce) and 1 to his management team (men 6 and 5). The 8th man gets 2 cases of beer, but must give a 6 pack to the 7th. The 9th man gets 1,000 warehouses of beer, but must give 2 cases to the 8th. The 10th man owns all the beer made by Budweiser, miller coors combined. He owns ALL of the beer an infinite amount, but only pays tax on the 2 cases paid out by level 8 and below. As his WEALTH has NEVER been taxed. The 10th man has so much beer to drink he has to pay the 9th man extra to help him drink it.
And the wealth distribution of those 10 men would be as follows. The first man would have 5 beers, the next two would have 2 a piece, and the other 7 men would get to share a beer.
I think that almost all of the USA commenters failed to notice that JohnstonGrocke is an Australian accounting firm. So when the video narrator discusses "our tax system", he is referring to the Australian system. An income tax is not a sales tax or a poll tax. Rather, it is a tax on income. So, the more you make, the more you are taxed.
This is such an easy explanation for how things do actually work. My friends who own businesses and have money, do not have to start another business and can shut down the ones they do own. They are set up so that they do not have to work another day in their lives. Take their incentive away and they go on vacation. A lot of people go home that day; not to return to their jobs because their jobs do not exist anymore. Those now without jobs are hardly the ones to start up new businesses...high taxes, high wages, employee benefits, 401's and IRA's, gov't regulations, and so much more; enough to keep the un-motivated and unlearned to stay home and watch the game instead of working a 60 or 80 hour week to start and keep a business running.
Buffett pays taxes at the capital gains tax rate while his secretary pays and the employee / W2 rate. The actual dollar amount that Buffett pays is many times greater than his secretary, but his tax RATE is lower because it is cap gains and not standard income tax. He uses this ridiculous example to pretend that he wants higher tax rates for the "rich", but what he really should be advocating is for his secretary's (and everyone else's) income tax rate to be lower in order to allow people to keep more of their money and to keep more money in the economy as opposed to simply going to the government to be wasted. It should also be noted that Buffett (Bershire Hathaway) has been battling with the government for over 20 years in a tax dispute in which Buffett / Berskshire claim that they owe less than the government claims they do. If he really wanted to practice what he preaches, he would gladly pay the extra taxes and tell the shareholders that he was just doing his "patriotic duty" as opposed to maximizing shareholder value which he is obligated to do as a fiduciary.
I've looked through a few replies here and from similar videos. I've read a few books and articles on the ideas presented. The notions that keep flying into my head revolve around how our (USA) society sees the issue. On an individual basis, we see it from an angle that another individual couldn't fathom seeing it from, and the other person can't fathom you seeing it from your angle. I came across a post of someone who didn't believe in the social good, and that certainly forced me to pause because that's the supposed driving force behind taxes. They're used to pay for schools, roads, buildings, social projects, etc. And along the way through the sheer nature of management, the funds get chopped away as they make it (or don't) to their intended targets. I think those views are fair, but society seems to understand that whether it likes it or not it must operate in accordance to the social good (or at least appear to do so). So, I think a decent way of thinking about the situation is as a subscription service - The American Subscription. If you stay here, you're subscribed no matter what - whether you like it or not. Now, there are things you can do to keep your subscription and make it significantly cheaper, but that's temporary and will pretty much always be temporary. I see posts of people talking about how they contributed in the past significantly and think that it entitles them to passes in the future. But, whether you pay for the whole website to be professionally redesigned or decide to pay for a year's worth of America at $4.99 a month, you're only getting one bonus year. That is to say, your contribution - no matter how grandiose or insignificant will only service you temporarily and even then only to a degree. And while there's no way to prove this, I'm fairly sure that even if you personally payed for 10 year's worth of maintenance on every American road, you'd still have to pay your property taxes. Sure, maybe it's unfair that you have a subscription you didn't ask for and don't have the ability to change, but I'm fairly sure the slow seal thought it was unfair the shark didn't go after the faster - less meatier seal, too. And, I think that's what leads to this natural sense of fairness, "When we put a lot of work into something, we expect something out." Which, when I think about it, makes partial to perfect sense as to why the labor aspect of communism failed. "Whether I make 20 tank parts or 2, I'm getting the same amount of bread and water today." Now, that's not saying capitalism isn't flawed. But, I do believe that it staves off the psychological aspect of unfairness. When there's a rich guy, it's expected that he did something shady to get his wealth, his family got it for him, or he worked hard and smart for it. The underlying notion being that he did something "better" than anyone else to get his current status, even if all he did "better" than someone else...was being born. (Go back to the seals...) The overall points of this post being: People are astronomically different and will continue to be. Your contributions will provide something for a time, but you'll still need to keep paying into the system - no matter what...like...ever (Even when you die...you pay taxes) A fair system cannot be contrived. Equal? Sure, but not fair. And as far as the last guy leaving to go to Europe, what are the other 9 guys supposed to do about that? He could have made that choice at any time, so at any point in time he could have completely f'd them over. However, I do agree that it's not the best idea to expedite your own demise. But, I think it's something worth noting at another point in time that someone can basically get behind you and say, "Spread 'um", and those cheeks part like Moses just strolled up to the Red Sea.
Mad Marc liberalism creates bums who feel that they are ENTITLED to what others work for and earn. This is why pinheads like WynMills1 complains that the "Beer Analogy" is a "CROCK of S#!T" rather then explaining why it is He or She or HE*SHE thinks the way it thinks.
Because the more likely scenario is the super rich guy will say ‘why am I paying for everyone else when I can dodge paying entirely?’ And now that AMT has been appealed I don’t even have to leave my card behind the bar. Meanwhile the middle class guys find out the bar owner has started charging them much more for peanuts, and consequently they can’t buy as many beers. Next day the bar owner has to close the business because not enough revenue is coming in. You may believe the trickle down crock of shit were being sold, but its been well and truly debunked. Next.
Demosolon Go with the analogy. Just swap the expensive peanuts for the extra costs resulting from cancelled middle class deductions, and visualize the bar as the Treasury.
@@Fusion008a so the rich guy accumulated more wealth by paying less in taxes? Also, this story also leaves out how the rich guy is also the owner of the bar.
It would be more sensible to look at the Government as a Criminal Entity, that is the way we actually see them anyway. The manipulated populous see the government as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The reality it is more like Al Capone, it gives crumbs to the poor(Al did this btw), all the while using most of that money to expand its organization and live lavishly at the expense of working people. Every time you hear a politician say they are going to give you something, they are just saying I am going to take money from someone else, to pay for what I am giving you. When they say "we are going to create a new whatever to address this important issue of the week", they are really saying we are going to hire more henchmen at your expense. Government creates nothing, every job in it is a negative tax gain, and if the government job goes away does the negative gain go away, no that money is redirected to other places the manipulated think are good, never back to the working people(De-fund Police, good current example). So no the Rich did not accumulate more wealth, Al Capone took less of it , and then manipulated the poorer into hating the rich guy for it. Also, if the rich guy was the owner, he would not pay for any of it.
This at least provides an introduction to understanding that it's a cordial relationship that intices wealth to invest in to a community. This then brings on a positive multiplier effect and boosts economic growth. But that's not to say that course of action is always the right one. Sometimes you need your community to adapt and inspire to create their own wealth, make their own innovations; this edict is becoming less undertaken however in the face of a lack of assured growth, which has evidently led to the growth of multinational conglomerates that are arguably too big
@SuperSaiyan4Broly ok but you missed the point of my comment which was to get 17 thumbs up from people who know the national debt humor. Or maybe it’s something else, i did right this comment like 2 years ago and am not going to rewatch the video so let’s just pretend you’re right for fun..
You guys got my vote! I hope your company got a ton of new business from this! Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish...well but they got to want to right? Its because once they eat free, why fish?
Happening in Australia right now with the media attacking the Stage 3 tax cut. Currently it is a massive disincentive to work harder / get a side hustle as most of it goes to taxes anyway.
@@tomrod1949 - republicans like doing their own thang and will deny anything that contradicts their totalitarian beliefs... I guess Democrats do too, but different people believe in different things I guess.
The last statement is the most disconcerting. As more and more of the US tax burden falls on few and few people the nation as a whole becomes more vulnerable to any of the super wealth leaving the US. It's completely upside down a far strong system would have everyone paying a small amount. It's the rule of numbers and logic. Never to congress to develop a system that's not sustainable!!! It's a scary future for my kids and grandkids. I guess I need to get ready now to hear how wrong I am. Happy Day!!
Randall Horst you're not wrong...unfortunately the solution is for the super wealthy to pay the employees of the companies they own more so that the tax burden can be shared more equally.
SkyriderRJM RIght. Except that very rarely happens because the way market economics work the cost of labor is tied to global competition and the rich would rather pay their Chinese employees in their Chinese based factories peanuts rather than the real cost of living in the US. Nothing will change with this tax bill except the wealthy get to keep more of their wealth, the rest will have to survive somehow on reduced income and the deficit will rocket up another trillion dollars.
Lower tax rates have netted high inflows to the federal government. Both the JFK and Regan tax cuts increased revenues dramatically. Raising taxes reduces inflows to a government. So less cash flow won't help the deficit. Obama almost double the debt level over the 8-year term in office, I heard almost nothing about deficits. It's as if all money is the federal governments!?! Seems funny I only hear about deficits when the talk turns to citizens keeping their money. My point on the inverted taxes system where the top 1% pay more than 50% of the tax burden. If the top 1% stop paying we are doomed!!! The rest of us don't make enough each to make up for the shortfall!!!! As in the simplistic video, it's not sustainable!!! As far as the deficit growing it will till the voters punish the out of control spending of the federal government!!! The federal government is completely out of control!! And as you note it will be the distraction of the nation!!! Happy Day!!!!
While there may be something to be said about JFK's tax cut which reduced the top rate from an eye watering 91%, the argument that revenues increased dramatically during Reagan's two terms and that this proves the value of tax cuts is a flawed one. Revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they also doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 %, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. So claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is " like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn". It ignores the fact that receipts from individual income taxes was bolstered by an increase in the FICA tax rate which went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues, which include Social Insurance revenues. It's a bit hypocritical to include these revenues as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut. The evidence actually suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues. You don't mention Bush's tax cuts. Perhaps that's because you're well aware that individual income tax receipts declined 8.9% from 2000 to 2008 rather than going up.There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts, but higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.
the men drank $21,000,000,000,000 and allowed all of their neighbors to also come in and join the FREE PARTY. The CHILDREN will not be HAPPY at all, once they OPEN THEIR EYES! (THAT''S you Millennials!) [That BIG number there children, is 21 Trillion dollars that have already been consumed without ANYBODY'S consent....the "rulers" just keep spending it for your VOTE.]
Great video. I wish you would have some how worked in with the savings the rich man used a portion of his savings to pay more into the beers. I actually was listening to the radio tonight and a business owner was happy as punch because after tax cuts she was giving all her employees a bonus.
Based on your numbers, yes the amount the richest guy had to pay went down, but the percentage of his share of the bill actually went up. He went from 59% to 61.25%. So remember, just because the rich look like they’re getting a better break, it doesn’t always mean that.
I love this video It's like handing a socialist a rock while telling them "it's a rock" and yet you can see from the comments while holding it they say "no this is a stick." These are the same people who skipped economics that say we need higher taxes.
@@tomrod1949 Now there's a baseless accusation because nowhere in the video did it say how much each person drank. But you know what WAS in the video? The fact that four socialist parasites were happy to let other people pay for their drinks while bitching about how exploited they were. That and not offering one iota of fucking recognition or gratitude for the benefits they enjoyed while begrudging any benefits given to their benefactors. "Hey! Load us up on them free beers but don't anyone dare give something to the guys paying for them."
@@tomrod1949 Ah, yes. The tired old socialist canard that the rich got that way by somehow stealing money from those who never earned it. Here's a novel concept. Did you know that you can get money by working for it? And that you can build wealth by making sound financial decisions regarding the money you've made? It's true. My wife and I do it every day.
@@dwcnineteensixtythree341 I agree with that but not everyone has access to the same opportunity. I know people in poverty, they aren't there because they're just lazy. Our education system also doesn't even teach financial education
Nice explanation but what if each person was required to pay an equal $10 each? A true reflection would show that the bottom 4 would hypothetically only earn around 10 cents and the top guy would earn $10,000 so the bottom 4 wouldn’t be going to the bar in the first place and the bar would cease to function. Do you want a bar or not?
I like Rolling Rock. Tastes better and costs much less than Stella Artois. Buy what you can afford and try to be happy. Don't steal another man's beer.
The analogy of this to the recent tax law changes would have been to have the richest person get 83% of the reduction in beer cost, even though he previously was paying 49% while the other 9 people get only 17% of the reduction even though they were previously paying 51% of the cost. "... The tax bill will have an impact on the business cycle. The two major macroeconomic impacts will be: from a form of classic Keynesian deficit stimulus and the further widening of inequality. Prior to enactment of the bill, the top 1% paid about 39% of Federal taxes. If a tax bill that provided that 39% of the benefits went to the top 1%, were enacted, there would have been very little impact on the degree of inequality. However, the actual tax bill provides that 83% of the benefits will go to the top 1%. While only 17% will go to the rest of the 99%. Conventional analysis of the impact of tax legislation on inequality makes a profound error. Many use the terms pretax inequality and after-tax inequality. This terminology misses the causal relationship. A hundred years ago, looking at pretax inequality and then estimating how much the tax code impacts inequality might have been logical. That assumes there are some significant nontax factors that are causing inequality and tax law can then increase or decrease the degree of inequality. There is at any given point in time a degree of pretax inequality. However, almost all of the variability of pretax inequality since at least World War I has been the cumulative effect of tax and other legislation. Prior to enactment of the Federal income tax in 1913, all inequality was due essentially to nontax factors. The first Federal income tax in 1913 reduced inequality, since it was a tax of 7% of income above $500,000. At that time $3 a day was considered a good wage. Thus, originally only a minute fraction of the richest 1% paid all of the Federal income tax in 1913. At that time it was accurate to say that there were significant nontax causes of inequality. Changes in tax and social welfare laws after then would either increase or decrease inequality..." seekingalpha.com/article/4133734
AN ALTERNATE ENDING: The bartender promised to lower the price of the beer for the men. But what he really did was started a tab in the name of each of the ten men to make up the difference. Each tab was assessed the same amount. Some of the men seemed happy that they and their rich friend were saving money because they did not understand about the “tabs.” But the other men asked the bartender when and how they were going to pay the growing bills. The bartender told them to send their children in to pay the bill when they are old enough to drink. The bartender then celebrated the new system by giving the richest man free champagne.
and the men drank $21,000,000,000,000 and allowed all of their neighbors to also come in and join the FREE PARTY. The CHILDREN will not be HAPPY at all, once they OPEN THEIR EYES! (THAT''S you Millennials!) [That BIG number there children, is 21 Trillion dollars that have already been consumed without ANYBODY'S consent....the "rulers" just keep spending it for your VOTE.]
This is a very simple description of how a very complicated tax system works, and yes...It's very accurate. Reading in the comments you can see people already complaining about how they don't benefit from the tax laws, exactly as the video describes.....
@@michaelbolduc6155 lol I got a perfectly fine job as an electrician and my wife and I make 6 figures in small town ky. That doesn't change the fact that there should be a maximum wage/ wealth cap and doesn't change that the 1% in this country fraudulently don't pay 175B in taxes a year after the bullshit tax cuts from the last few piece of shit republican presidents.
@@dreamz808 are you trying to say the trump tax cuts were good for the poor? That's dumb because in order to pay for those tax cuts the Republicans put in sunset provisions for the cuts that affected the poor which begin to expire this year.
@@jasonw1779 it was good for the ECONOMY, which is good for literally everyone. Youre idea of this tax situation is way too one dimensional. taxes will ALWAYS hinder growth and opportunity. Check Robinhood, very good story.
It is a good presentation about taxes but the reality is that corporations today wouldn't lower the cost of their products. CEO's, upper management and investors are never satisfied with the amount of money they possess. Lowering costs for consumers is a dream.
Good video. Regardless of its accuracy, at least I learnt a new perspective about tax reduction / tax policy changes. We need to be more grateful of what we get. So what if some people get $10 off and we only get $1 off, it is still a discount for us. Would we be happier if we are the only ones getting $1 off and no other people get discount? Or should I say, would we be happier to see others suffer / getting less than us? Remember, happiness is not about getting things. Happiness is about being grateful of what we have.
This video forgets to include the part that the lower five men get a two dollar per hour income while working their asses off for the top guy who gets 100x that. So only fair he buys them a beer from time to time.
Thank you for making this so SIMPLE!.... Only ungracious bottom feeders would dispute the tax plan. As a retired small business owner I can only say THANK YOU for your easy to understand clip. Pass this along to everyone you possibly can.
I like to share this periodically, naturally my liberal friends just laugh at it and then complain about not making enough while working at gas stations and doing nothing to better their own lifes
The more you help people, the more helpless they become........ Just ask any Liberal and they will tell you that you don’t deserve what you have earned. That you should be ashamed of your work ethic and that they deserve all of what you have worked for.
Illustrating percentiles as individuals skews math. The man representing the 90th percentile would include the numbers from everyone below him. That's not how this was set up so it was wrong from the start. Second, the person who thought this up didn't want to use decimals and rounded down on all the math, lumping the rounding errors onto the last number and further skewing the answer. Spreading the savings equally doesn't mean $3.33 each, it means 20% each. The one that paid $1 before would pay $0.80 now and so on. Lastly, this story is supposedly an allegory for income taxes, but is written as an expenditure tax. Sales tax is the same regardless of how much you make. If you wanted to look at the incomes of the percentiles, their annual incomes would be: 1 $7000 2 $15000 3 $23000 4 $30000 5 $38000 6 $47000 7 $59000 8 $76000 9 $110000 10 $301000 Let's come off the beer cost and use helpful numbers. Thought experiment: If you gave a $200 to guy #5 with his $38k/yr income, would he spend it or save it? Do the same with thought experiment for the guy that makes $301k. According to the math used in the story, if guy #5 gets $200, guy #10 would get almost $12,000. Does he spend it or save it (investments are a kind of savings)? What impact does that have on the economy? If you want to benefit the economy, you tax progressively and cut in a way that maintains the progression. If you want to make the rich richer, you cut taxes like the beer drinkers. Final note: You cannot learn any economics in a 3-minute video. It took years for me to learn all the principles I utilized for this resonse.
The video is not supposed to represent the changes in tax code exactly, nor is it trying to address repercussions of tax code changes. It's merely is pointing out the childish reactions that liberals have to tax code changes. So, it's spot on.
They covered the savings in the video. It could be done equally ($3.33 per person) or on a percentage (though the video splits the percentages differently than you did). The point you missed is this video is trying to simply illustrate how/why people get upset when the rich get bigger tax breaks than the poor while explaining that they should get a bigger tax break. Your trying to impress folks with your knowledge just muddies the water.
Eric North Your 'thought experiment' just show how different our view is, and that affect how we approach this issue. You are using terms "impact on economy" like we are all belong to the collective, where we work strictly for common good. I reject that very idea. Libertarians are very much against that collectivist idea. I don't expect the society to help me, and I owe society nothing. Just like I don't expect you to help me, so don't expect me to help you. You know, like Adam Smith said: "it's not from the benevolence of butcher, baker, or brewer that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Investments aren't savings. They're risk incurred at the prospect of creating wealth. Typically, the richest people are rich because they're the best at creating wealth. I'd assume that, rather than stick it in a meager 4% savings account, they'll invest in in the stock market, allowing companies to grow, employ more people, engage in more competition, and produce better/cheaper products. Or, you can give it to poor people, who are bad at managing their money, who will use it on booze or some other one off purchase that doesn't affect any long-term outlooks. Just saying
@Micheal Sorensen Meager 4%?!?!?!?! What bank has a 4% interest on savings accounts? Even in the mid late 90's we didn't have it as high as 4%. Hell I would kill for a CD above 2% right now. Definitely don't know where you pulled those numbers out of.
The real tax system: 10 beers = $100. 5 poorest men pay nothing. 4th pays $1 3rd pays $3 2nd pays $8 Richest pays $13 The balance of $75 goes on a credit card, then one day even the richest man cannot afford to pay the interest!
Its true. Government and cities treat business owners like its a crime to create jobs and seen focus to how to sabotage your business or make you their ATM. No wonder they move to other countries. Worker all they do is complain and want raises for their laziness and lack of motivation, and yet we all prefer cheap Chinese goods.
Jon H The owners of Amazon and Tesla have so much money they are waisting their money on a space race with each other. NASA has stated thier rockets are useless and dangerous. But the Republicans want us to buy them beer. LMAO
Jon H LMAO I got one. How about the employees of Sears, Radio Shack, ToysRus and the workers building Ford cars buy the owners of Amazon and Tesla a beer. LMAO
This cartoon screws up the percentages - this shows the percentages dropping as it goes up the ladder - the reality is the percentage savings INCREASE for the more wealthy. Also - their savings are permanent where as workers are going to have their tax cuts reduced over the next 5 years - this is the biggest con. Idiots are free to like Trump, but you're only fooling yourselves if you think he's doing working people any favours. It's actually incredible - a life-long democrat, switches Republican at the last minute and pretends to go to church and to help workers, while actually giving rich people a windfall at the expense of infrastructure (for everyone) and you guys all lap it up because you hate the idea of Mexicans moving in and so he's milking it! You guys are getting reamed...
That's an easy explanation. It should be more balanced in the system where more than 10% can easily afford a nice vacation every year or at least able to save more for whatever their wonderful heart desires and deserves. Such an abundance of wealth in the world and so many people unable to experience what they wish. Might be a few hundred years yet but eventually heads will be removed from asses and more of humanity will live TOGETHER 😃 Would be nice to experience that!!
Nice video!! Very engaging from beginning to end. Nevertheless, businesses and investment are the easiest way to make money irrespective of which party makes it to the oval office.
@@telegramusername9571 My personal portfolio/investment manager; Mr Charles Patrick, after a whole week of research,he runs an investment platform where you don't have to undergo any stress in the trades, he manages my trading account which i opened with a capital of $3000 and now i have grown my portfolio up to over $21,500, a huge success
TheOsk1e I must be old school. I figure the beer would taste better if I paid at least a dollar or two. This would make me part of the group, lighten the load on the others and I would have pride in my self. Deadbeats pay nothing...
This should be taught in high school before anyone enter the workforce
I am an 18 year old grade 12 student, i would like to learn about taxes but our school keeps teaching us about square dances and sht
It's been debunked by several people; it'd be a waste of their valuable time.
@@chrisrj9871 why is it a waste of time learning about this?
@@chrisrj9871 i dont believe that at all.
@@chrisrj9871 lmao you can't just say its been debunked and provide 0 sources
AWESOME! This should be played round the clock on National Television.
I once worked in a factory that was a union shop. The factory workers ranged from unskilled workers to highly skilled workers i.e tool and die makers. We had union negotiations with the company for new contracts every two years. Every contract time there was disagreement between the unskilled workers and the skilled workers. The unskilled workers wanted an across the board pay raise and the skilled workers wanted a percentage pay raise. The unskilled workers thought a percentage raise favored the skilled workers because 2% of tool and die maker wage was more than 2% of unskilled workers wage. The skilled workers knew that multiple years of across the board raises would close the gap between unskilled wages and skilled wages. The unskilled workers believed it was greed for skilled workers to receive a larger pay increase by using a percentage raise while the skilled workers believed it was greed on the unskilled workers to receive a larger pay increase by giving everyone an across the board pay increase. Even though a percentage raise benefited everyone, the unskilled workers just couldn't stand to see the skilled workers receive a larger pay raise by using percentage. So two year contracts usually offered one year of across the board raises followed by the second year receiving percentage raise. Crazy.
Sounds like a Union. Ask the car companies why they moved to "right to work" states.
Unskilled and uneducated it seems. Unsurprising.
@@listey And of course, people advocating to benefit themselves. Like voting, people often act in a "ME FIRST" way.
Pretty good analogy, TC. The transfer of student loan debt to taxpayers, sometimes mislabeled "student loan forgiveness" falls into the same category of thought-- socialism.
This should be revised to show that many persons who pay no taxes get "refunds" via credts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.
This is more relevant than ever
I thought the rich had enough write offs to pay very little
Imagine the 4 free loaders asking to be paid to drink 😂
Ye this actually happens in actual tax terms tho. They actually ask to be paid for things that others have to pay for just because they don’t have the money
Yeah, for example when they are poor and have so many children, and then the government generously helps them... Just one example that I could think of
We don't have to imagine. That already happens... and they STILL complain.
If they raised the minimum wage the money the poor ppl make for the rich guy would balance itself out when it comes to taxes.
Bryan Lee, the video misses a very key point. The 1st 4 men must share 1 beer in 4 cups between them (their combined wealth(gross assets)=1 beer,) even though it is FREE. The 6th man gets 1 beer and must share his 1 beer by pouring a shot of beer into a cup for the 5th man. When the $20 tax cut comes in the 6th man must give the 5th a larger portion. The 7th man gets 6 beers but must give 1 to the 1st 4 (his workforce) and 1 to his management team (men 6 and 5).
The 8th man gets 2 cases of beer, but must give a 6 pack to the 7th.
The 9th man gets 1,000 warehouses of beer, but must give 2 cases to the 8th.
The 10th man owns all the beer made by Budweiser, miller coors combined. He owns ALL of the beer an infinite amount, but only pays tax on the 2 cases paid out by level 8 and below. As his WEALTH has NEVER been taxed.
The 10th man has so much beer to drink he has to pay the 9th man extra to help him drink it.
The richest man would just walk out and say "sue me"
9 men could just beat up the bar owner after figuring out they can't pay the bill.
Yeah, that would totally work, once.
/sarcasm
"Hey, why did our bar close down, and why are we in jail?"
@@seanbodkin8549 because the law is an as
And that’s the idea of socialism.
And where would they drink the next day....?
And the wealth distribution of those 10 men would be as follows. The first man would have 5 beers, the next two would have 2 a piece, and the other 7 men would get to share a beer.
I think that almost all of the USA commenters failed to notice that JohnstonGrocke is an Australian accounting firm. So when the video narrator discusses "our tax system", he is referring to the Australian system.
An income tax is not a sales tax or a poll tax. Rather, it is a tax on income. So, the more you make, the more you are taxed.
The USA also has a progressive income tax
This is such an easy explanation for how things do actually work. My friends who own businesses and have money, do not have to start another business and can shut down the ones they do own. They are set up so that they do not have to work another day in their lives. Take their incentive away and they go on vacation. A lot of people go home that day; not to return to their jobs because their jobs do not exist anymore. Those now without jobs are hardly the ones to start up new businesses...high taxes, high wages, employee benefits, 401's and IRA's, gov't regulations, and so much more; enough to keep the un-motivated and unlearned to stay home and watch the game instead of working a 60 or 80 hour week to start and keep a business running.
Good job...
Tax from indonesia watching... 👍
It’s like taxes explained in beer. If you’ve never heard of that do a CZcams search it’s simplistic but also makes a lot of sense
What a brilliant explanation, has Mr Sanders been sent a link to this video?
@Jose Torres Don't guess just ask me, then you will know rather than exercise your stupidity.
Watch the video on the "wealth distribution in America" after this.
This should be a commercial during the Super Bowl
Now explain what Warren Buffet meant by saying he pays less in taxes than his secretary
Tax dodge.
He gives an iou for a prolonged period of time, and then after that period(a year), the bar figures that it's fine.
Because his money is invested and he spends debt
Buffett pays taxes at the capital gains tax rate while his secretary pays and the employee / W2 rate. The actual dollar amount that Buffett pays is many times greater than his secretary, but his tax RATE is lower because it is cap gains and not standard income tax. He uses this ridiculous example to pretend that he wants higher tax rates for the "rich", but what he really should be advocating is for his secretary's (and everyone else's) income tax rate to be lower in order to allow people to keep more of their money and to keep more money in the economy as opposed to simply going to the government to be wasted. It should also be noted that Buffett (Bershire Hathaway) has been battling with the government for over 20 years in a tax dispute in which Buffett / Berskshire claim that they owe less than the government claims they do. If he really wanted to practice what he preaches, he would gladly pay the extra taxes and tell the shareholders that he was just doing his "patriotic duty" as opposed to maximizing shareholder value which he is obligated to do as a fiduciary.
You told the story of germany up to this day - amazing, I had no idea that complicated stories could be told so easy - great job !
Finally a czech man like myself understands taxes
Actually explained very well.
Very good explanation, this will go right over the head of liberals, Democrats, and socialist. Hay Bernie! Watch this!
With power comes responsibility.
PragerU would call Spiderman a leftist for this!
and with no power comes no responsibility?
Jeeze I need to go drinking with the tenth guy
yeh so he can pay my taxes
Should show this in school.
Loved this !
Legend says this video is played in limos that drive along Silk road
Don't worry about what everyone else is getting, just worry about yourself.
no
Learning this as I get older. Less stressful.
That was a great perspective
All college professors, students, Democrats , liberals , republicans, should have to watch this .
Which is exactly why se need less regulations on U.S. goods. Foreign made crap is ridiculous
What about citation when 1 person has 100 liters, the second 10, and the rest 0.3? How they are supposed not to be thirsty?
Nice perspective.
Reminds me that France enacted a "Millionaires Tax" a few years ago. So Millionaires left (and I think France rescinded the tax!)
I've looked through a few replies here and from similar videos. I've read a few books and articles on the ideas presented. The notions that keep flying into my head revolve around how our (USA) society sees the issue. On an individual basis, we see it from an angle that another individual couldn't fathom seeing it from, and the other person can't fathom you seeing it from your angle. I came across a post of someone who didn't believe in the social good, and that certainly forced me to pause because that's the supposed driving force behind taxes. They're used to pay for schools, roads, buildings, social projects, etc. And along the way through the sheer nature of management, the funds get chopped away as they make it (or don't) to their intended targets. I think those views are fair, but society seems to understand that whether it likes it or not it must operate in accordance to the social good (or at least appear to do so).
So, I think a decent way of thinking about the situation is as a subscription service - The American Subscription. If you stay here, you're subscribed no matter what - whether you like it or not. Now, there are things you can do to keep your subscription and make it significantly cheaper, but that's temporary and will pretty much always be temporary. I see posts of people talking about how they contributed in the past significantly and think that it entitles them to passes in the future. But, whether you pay for the whole website to be professionally redesigned or decide to pay for a year's worth of America at $4.99 a month, you're only getting one bonus year. That is to say, your contribution - no matter how grandiose or insignificant will only service you temporarily and even then only to a degree. And while there's no way to prove this, I'm fairly sure that even if you personally payed for 10 year's worth of maintenance on every American road, you'd still have to pay your property taxes.
Sure, maybe it's unfair that you have a subscription you didn't ask for and don't have the ability to change, but I'm fairly sure the slow seal thought it was unfair the shark didn't go after the faster - less meatier seal, too.
And, I think that's what leads to this natural sense of fairness, "When we put a lot of work into something, we expect something out." Which, when I think about it, makes partial to perfect sense as to why the labor aspect of communism failed.
"Whether I make 20 tank parts or 2, I'm getting the same amount of bread and water today."
Now, that's not saying capitalism isn't flawed. But, I do believe that it staves off the psychological aspect of unfairness. When there's a rich guy, it's expected that he did something shady to get his wealth, his family got it for him, or he worked hard and smart for it. The underlying notion being that he did something "better" than anyone else to get his current status, even if all he did "better" than someone else...was being born. (Go back to the seals...)
The overall points of this post being:
People are astronomically different and will continue to be. Your contributions will provide something for a time, but you'll still need to keep paying into the system - no matter what...like...ever (Even when you die...you pay taxes) A fair system cannot be contrived. Equal? Sure, but not fair.
And as far as the last guy leaving to go to Europe, what are the other 9 guys supposed to do about that? He could have made that choice at any time, so at any point in time he could have completely f'd them over. However, I do agree that it's not the best idea to expedite your own demise. But, I think it's something worth noting at another point in time that someone can basically get behind you and say, "Spread 'um", and those cheeks part like Moses just strolled up to the Red Sea.
Cknight341 taxes are theft and the progressive tax is a cancer. Flat tax rate would show the poor why we should stop government bloat
My God, even when this video explains things in the simplest of terms. We still got stupid people trying to argue against it.
That's because its a crock of shit.
Mad Marc liberalism creates bums who feel that they are ENTITLED to what others work for and earn. This is why pinheads like WynMills1 complains that the "Beer Analogy" is a "CROCK of S#!T" rather then explaining why it is He or She or HE*SHE thinks the way it thinks.
Because the more likely scenario is the super rich guy will say ‘why am I paying for everyone else when I can dodge paying entirely?’ And now that AMT has been appealed I don’t even have to leave my card behind the bar. Meanwhile the middle class guys find out the bar owner has started charging them much more for peanuts, and consequently they can’t buy as many beers. Next day the bar owner has to close the business because not enough revenue is coming in. You may believe the trickle down crock of shit were being sold, but its been well and truly debunked.
Next.
Demosolon Go with the analogy. Just swap the expensive peanuts for the extra costs resulting from cancelled middle class deductions, and visualize the bar as the Treasury.
No serious economists has ever promoted anything called "trickle down economics". It is not a thing.
clever storty but when did the gvnmt reduce the cost of living by 20%?
the Bar tender was the government, the $20 was a tax reduction, not a cost of living reduction.
@@Fusion008a so the rich guy accumulated more wealth by paying less in taxes?
Also, this story also leaves out how the rich guy is also the owner of the bar.
It would be more sensible to look at the Government as a Criminal Entity, that is the way we actually see them anyway. The manipulated populous see the government as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The reality it is more like Al Capone, it gives crumbs to the poor(Al did this btw), all the while using most of that money to expand its organization and live lavishly at the expense of working people. Every time you hear a politician say they are going to give you something, they are just saying I am going to take money from someone else, to pay for what I am giving you. When they say "we are going to create a new whatever to address this important issue of the week", they are really saying we are going to hire more henchmen at your expense. Government creates nothing, every job in it is a negative tax gain, and if the government job goes away does the negative gain go away, no that money is redirected to other places the manipulated think are good, never back to the working people(De-fund Police, good current example).
So no the Rich did not accumulate more wealth, Al Capone took less of it , and then manipulated the poorer into hating the rich guy for it.
Also, if the rich guy was the owner, he would not pay for any of it.
Awesome.
Brilliant. Thank you.
Just got back from a vacation and drinking beer abroad. Seems to ring true!
I would like to see a flat tax of 10 to 15% with no loop holes. Everyone pays, no exceptions.
jeff bezos is sending john wick and angent 47 after you
@@bill8711 Hopefully not! I actually like Keanu Reeves movies!
BRAVO!
Well done!
This at least provides an introduction to understanding that it's a cordial relationship that intices wealth to invest in to a community. This then brings on a positive multiplier effect and boosts economic growth.
But that's not to say that course of action is always the right one. Sometimes you need your community to adapt and inspire to create their own wealth, make their own innovations; this edict is becoming less undertaken however in the face of a lack of assured growth, which has evidently led to the growth of multinational conglomerates that are arguably too big
Good job, but you forgot about the "genius" idea the bardrinkers had to drink more, borrow money and party and making their grandkids pay for it. :-)
@SuperSaiyan4Broly ok but you missed the point of my comment which was to get 17 thumbs up from people who know the national debt humor. Or maybe it’s something else, i did right this comment like 2 years ago and am not going to rewatch the video so let’s just pretend you’re right for fun..
You guys got my vote! I hope your company got a ton of new business from this! Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish...well but they got to want to right? Its because once they eat free, why fish?
This is the best explanation of the Tax system, I've every Heard or Seen, Even a Politician Might, be able to understand it.🤣
Happening in Australia right now with the media attacking the Stage 3 tax cut. Currently it is a massive disincentive to work harder / get a side hustle as most of it goes to taxes anyway.
Especially if it is a PAYE job. I have attempted to take side jobs but any time j do that math, I am like what's the point ?
Thank you for explaining that so well. This is interesting.
It's been around since at least 2003, so it's not his, and it's since been debunked.
@@chrisrj9871 I can't believe these comments dude, how do they not realize how stupid this video is? It pains me
@@tomrod1949 - republicans like doing their own thang and will deny anything that contradicts their totalitarian beliefs... I guess Democrats do too, but different people believe in different things I guess.
The last statement is the most disconcerting. As more and more of the US tax burden falls on few and few people the nation as a whole becomes more vulnerable to any of the super wealth leaving the US. It's completely upside down a far strong system would have everyone paying a small amount. It's the rule of numbers and logic. Never to congress to develop a system that's not sustainable!!! It's a scary future for my kids and grandkids. I guess I need to get ready now to hear how wrong I am.
Happy Day!!
Randall Horst you're not wrong...unfortunately the solution is for the super wealthy to pay the employees of the companies they own more so that the tax burden can be shared more equally.
SkyriderRJM RIght. Except that very rarely happens because the way market economics work the cost of labor is tied to global competition and the rich would rather pay their Chinese employees in their Chinese based factories peanuts rather than the real cost of living in the US. Nothing will change with this tax bill except the wealthy get to keep more of their wealth, the rest will have to survive somehow on reduced income and the deficit will rocket up another trillion dollars.
Lower tax rates have netted high inflows to the federal government. Both the JFK and Regan tax cuts increased revenues dramatically. Raising taxes reduces inflows to a government. So less cash flow won't help the deficit. Obama almost double the debt level over the 8-year term in office, I heard almost nothing about deficits. It's as if all money is the federal governments!?! Seems funny I only hear about deficits when the talk turns to citizens keeping their money. My point on the inverted taxes system where the top 1% pay more than 50% of the tax burden. If the top 1% stop paying we are doomed!!! The rest of us don't make enough each to make up for the shortfall!!!! As in the simplistic video, it's not sustainable!!! As far as the deficit growing it will till the voters punish the out of control spending of the federal government!!! The federal government is completely out of control!! And as you note it will be the distraction of the nation!!!
Happy Day!!!!
While there may be something to be said about JFK's tax cut which reduced the top rate from an eye watering 91%, the argument that revenues increased dramatically during Reagan's two terms and that this proves the value of tax cuts is a flawed one. Revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they also doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 %, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. So claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is " like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn".
It ignores the fact that receipts from individual income taxes was bolstered by an increase in the FICA tax rate which went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues, which include Social Insurance revenues. It's a bit hypocritical to include these revenues as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.
The evidence actually suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues. You don't mention Bush's tax cuts. Perhaps that's because you're well aware that individual income tax receipts declined 8.9% from 2000 to 2008 rather than going up.There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts, but higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.
Employees only deserve to get paid what they are worth to the employer. Some of you Libtards are not worth paying $4 an hour.
Nice video - the problem is that reality is the opposite: The bartender increases the bill.
Brilliant!
Happy if I can still afford a beer!
the men drank $21,000,000,000,000 and allowed all of their neighbors to also come in and join the FREE PARTY. The CHILDREN will not be HAPPY at all, once they OPEN THEIR EYES! (THAT''S you Millennials!) [That BIG number there children, is 21 Trillion dollars that have already been consumed without ANYBODY'S consent....the "rulers" just keep spending it for your VOTE.]
Great video. I wish you would have some how worked in with the savings the rich man used a portion of his savings to pay more into the beers.
I actually was listening to the radio tonight and a business owner was happy as punch because after tax cuts she was giving all her employees a bonus.
heck the even richer man would be the owner of the brewery or co owner
Based on your numbers, yes the amount the richest guy had to pay went down, but the percentage of his share of the bill actually went up. He went from 59% to 61.25%. So remember, just because the rich look like they’re getting a better break, it doesn’t always mean that.
👍 Two thumbs up 👍
Excellent presentation. Would you remake this based on 2018 tax laws?
This is perfect!
thank you
Brilliant video! Kudos!
I love this video It's like handing a socialist a rock while telling them "it's a rock" and yet you can see from the comments while holding it they say "no this is a stick." These are the same people who skipped economics that say we need higher taxes.
Top 2 dudes drank 90% of the beer while paying for 70% of it
@@tomrod1949 Now there's a baseless accusation because nowhere in the video did it say how much each person drank. But you know what WAS in the video? The fact that four socialist parasites were happy to let other people pay for their drinks while bitching about how exploited they were. That and not offering one iota of fucking recognition or gratitude for the benefits they enjoyed while begrudging any benefits given to their benefactors. "Hey! Load us up on them free beers but don't anyone dare give something to the guys paying for them."
@@dwcnineteensixtythree341 Don't want to strawman so I'm just going to ask you, do you think there's a problem with wealth inequality in the US?
@@tomrod1949 Ah, yes. The tired old socialist canard that the rich got that way by somehow stealing money from those who never earned it. Here's a novel concept. Did you know that you can get money by working for it? And that you can build wealth by making sound financial decisions regarding the money you've made? It's true. My wife and I do it every day.
@@dwcnineteensixtythree341 I agree with that but not everyone has access to the same opportunity. I know people in poverty, they aren't there because they're just lazy. Our education system also doesn't even teach financial education
The whistling that occurs when the letter “S” is involved makes me want to shit myself.
The solution of not showing upon a bar is easier than finding another place to live.
Nice explanation but what if each person was required to pay an equal $10 each? A true reflection would show that the bottom 4 would hypothetically only earn around 10 cents and the top guy would earn $10,000 so the bottom 4 wouldn’t be going to the bar in the first place and the bar would cease to function. Do you want a bar or not?
I like Rolling Rock. Tastes better and costs much less than Stella Artois. Buy what you can afford and try to be happy. Don't steal another man's beer.
Your face when you think Stella is expensive.
Keep the Rolling Rock and Stella. Shiner for me, if I have the coin.
Pabst.
how much is Stella in the US?
Thomas Van Giel $0.92/bottle if you buy a case in Costco (24 bottles).
The analogy of this to the recent tax law changes would have been to have the richest person get 83% of the reduction in beer cost, even though he previously was paying 49% while the other 9 people get only 17% of the reduction even though they were previously paying 51% of the cost.
"... The tax bill will have an impact on the business cycle. The two major macroeconomic impacts will be: from a form of classic Keynesian deficit stimulus and the further widening of inequality. Prior to enactment of the bill, the top 1% paid about 39% of Federal taxes. If a tax bill that provided that 39% of the benefits went to the top 1%, were enacted, there would have been very little impact on the degree of inequality. However, the actual tax bill provides that 83% of the benefits will go to the top 1%. While only 17% will go to the rest of the 99%.
Conventional analysis of the impact of tax legislation on inequality makes a profound error. Many use the terms pretax inequality and after-tax inequality. This terminology misses the causal relationship. A hundred years ago, looking at pretax inequality and then estimating how much the tax code impacts inequality might have been logical. That assumes there are some significant nontax factors that are causing inequality and tax law can then increase or decrease the degree of inequality. There is at any given point in time a degree of pretax inequality. However, almost all of the variability of pretax inequality since at least World War I has been the cumulative effect of tax and other legislation.
Prior to enactment of the Federal income tax in 1913, all inequality was due essentially to nontax factors. The first Federal income tax in 1913 reduced inequality, since it was a tax of 7% of income above $500,000. At that time $3 a day was considered a good wage. Thus, originally only a minute fraction of the richest 1% paid all of the Federal income tax in 1913. At that time it was accurate to say that there were significant nontax causes of inequality. Changes in tax and social welfare laws after then would either increase or decrease inequality..."
seekingalpha.com/article/4133734
AN ALTERNATE ENDING: The bartender promised to lower the price of the beer for the men. But what he really did was started a tab in the name of each of the ten men to make up the difference. Each tab was assessed the same amount. Some of the men seemed happy that they and their rich friend were saving money because they did not understand about the “tabs.” But the other men asked the bartender when and how they were going to pay the growing bills. The bartender told them to send their children in to pay the bill when they are old enough to drink. The bartender then celebrated the new system by giving the richest man free champagne.
and the men drank $21,000,000,000,000 and allowed all of their neighbors to also come in and join the FREE PARTY. The CHILDREN will not be HAPPY at all, once they OPEN THEIR EYES! (THAT''S you Millennials!) [That BIG number there children, is 21 Trillion dollars that have already been consumed without ANYBODY'S consent....the "rulers" just keep spending it for your VOTE.]
This is a very simple description of how a very complicated tax system works, and yes...It's very accurate. Reading in the comments you can see people already complaining about how they don't benefit from the tax laws, exactly as the video describes.....
I was gonna dislike for the cringe voiceover but the plot twist in the end deserves all the likes in the world.
Such an amusing video!
There are 14 reviewers who have been drinking for free, and still refuse get it.
Forgot to add that the top 2 drank 93% of all the beer while only paying for 71% of it.
You pay for more you get more stop wining and get a job
@@michaelbolduc6155 lol I got a perfectly fine job as an electrician and my wife and I make 6 figures in small town ky. That doesn't change the fact that there should be a maximum wage/ wealth cap and doesn't change that the 1% in this country fraudulently don't pay 175B in taxes a year after the bullshit tax cuts from the last few piece of shit republican presidents.
@@jasonw1779 oh shut up lol taxes hurt the poor
@@dreamz808 are you trying to say the trump tax cuts were good for the poor? That's dumb because in order to pay for those tax cuts the Republicans put in sunset provisions for the cuts that affected the poor which begin to expire this year.
@@jasonw1779 it was good for the ECONOMY, which is good for literally everyone. Youre idea of this tax situation is way too one dimensional.
taxes will ALWAYS hinder growth and opportunity. Check Robinhood, very good story.
It is a good presentation about taxes but the reality is that corporations today wouldn't lower the cost of their products. CEO's, upper management and investors are never satisfied with the amount of money they possess. Lowering costs for consumers is a dream.
Great explanation!
Good video. Regardless of its accuracy, at least I learnt a new perspective about tax reduction / tax policy changes.
We need to be more grateful of what we get.
So what if some people get $10 off and we only get $1 off, it is still a discount for us. Would we be happier if we are the only ones getting $1 off and no other people get discount? Or should I say, would we be happier to see others suffer / getting less than us?
Remember, happiness is not about getting things. Happiness is about being grateful of what we have.
Whether we are happy or sad, does this give us the right to force some to make others happy?
This video forgets to include the part that the lower five men get a two dollar per hour income while working their asses off for the top guy who gets 100x that.
So only fair he buys them a beer from time to time.
But does the value of their labour compare to that of the 10th man?
Funny vid it’s more complicated than the beer comp
Good Job
Thank you for making this so SIMPLE!.... Only ungracious bottom feeders would dispute the tax plan. As a retired small business owner I can only say THANK YOU for your easy to understand clip. Pass this along to everyone you possibly can.
I like to share this periodically, naturally my liberal friends just laugh at it and then complain about not making enough while working at gas stations and doing nothing to better their own lifes
'Friends'.. .lol OK
@@jriding6161 yeah this didn't age well 😂😂😂
Same
Love it!
This video was payed for by the tenth man
I came here because of a White House press briefing... yeah the futures kind of weird guys.
The more you help people, the more helpless they become........
Just ask any Liberal and they will tell you that you don’t deserve what you have earned. That you should be ashamed of your work ethic and that they deserve all of what you have worked for.
Prop
A
Gan
Da
Beer often brings things into perspective
Can all the men pay for they're own beer they drink and not pay for others?
Roses are red violets are blue, TAXATION IS THEFT inflation is too
with so much information and people go against what really is reality
Genius
Illustrating percentiles as individuals skews math. The man representing the 90th percentile would include the numbers from everyone below him. That's not how this was set up so it was wrong from the start. Second, the person who thought this up didn't want to use decimals and rounded down on all the math, lumping the rounding errors onto the last number and further skewing the answer. Spreading the savings equally doesn't mean $3.33 each, it means 20% each. The one that paid $1 before would pay $0.80 now and so on. Lastly, this story is supposedly an allegory for income taxes, but is written as an expenditure tax. Sales tax is the same regardless of how much you make. If you wanted to look at the incomes of the percentiles, their annual incomes would be:
1 $7000
2 $15000
3 $23000
4 $30000
5 $38000
6 $47000
7 $59000
8 $76000
9 $110000
10 $301000
Let's come off the beer cost and use helpful numbers. Thought experiment: If you gave a $200 to guy #5 with his $38k/yr income, would he spend it or save it? Do the same with thought experiment for the guy that makes $301k. According to the math used in the story, if guy #5 gets $200, guy #10 would get almost $12,000. Does he spend it or save it (investments are a kind of savings)? What impact does that have on the economy? If you want to benefit the economy, you tax progressively and cut in a way that maintains the progression. If you want to make the rich richer, you cut taxes like the beer drinkers.
Final note: You cannot learn any economics in a 3-minute video. It took years for me to learn all the principles I utilized for this resonse.
The video is not supposed to represent the changes in tax code exactly, nor is it trying to address repercussions of tax code changes. It's merely is pointing out the childish reactions that liberals have to tax code changes.
So, it's spot on.
They covered the savings in the video. It could be done equally ($3.33 per person) or on a percentage (though the video splits the percentages differently than you did). The point you missed is this video is trying to simply illustrate how/why people get upset when the rich get bigger tax breaks than the poor while explaining that they should get a bigger tax break. Your trying to impress folks with your knowledge just muddies the water.
Eric North Your 'thought experiment' just show how different our view is, and that affect how we approach this issue.
You are using terms "impact on economy" like we are all belong to the collective, where we work strictly for common good.
I reject that very idea. Libertarians are very much against that collectivist idea.
I don't expect the society to help me, and I owe society nothing. Just like I don't expect you to help me, so don't expect me to help you.
You know, like Adam Smith said: "it's not from the benevolence of butcher, baker, or brewer that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
Investments aren't savings. They're risk incurred at the prospect of creating wealth. Typically, the richest people are rich because they're the best at creating wealth. I'd assume that, rather than stick it in a meager 4% savings account, they'll invest in in the stock market, allowing companies to grow, employ more people, engage in more competition, and produce better/cheaper products. Or, you can give it to poor people, who are bad at managing their money, who will use it on booze or some other one off purchase that doesn't affect any long-term outlooks.
Just saying
@Micheal Sorensen Meager 4%?!?!?!?! What bank has a 4% interest on savings accounts? Even in the mid late 90's we didn't have it as high as 4%. Hell I would kill for a CD above 2% right now. Definitely don't know where you pulled those numbers out of.
The real tax system:
10 beers = $100.
5 poorest men pay nothing.
4th pays $1
3rd pays $3
2nd pays $8
Richest pays $13
The balance of $75 goes on a credit card, then one day even the richest man cannot afford to pay the interest!
Its true. Government and cities treat business owners like its a crime to create jobs and seen focus to how to sabotage your business or make you their ATM. No wonder they move to other countries. Worker all they do is complain and want raises for their laziness and lack of motivation, and yet we all prefer cheap Chinese goods.
Hits the nail on the head Simple and clear
All haters of Trump and his 2018 tax law must watch this video.
Speaker Builder
You can't compare beer to taking our prepaid social security to go towards the national dept.
All those people (Democrats) who attacked his plan? I didn't see one of them giving back any bonuses they got from their Companies?
Jon H
The owners of Amazon and Tesla have so much money they are waisting their money on a space race with each other. NASA has stated thier rockets are useless and dangerous. But the Republicans want us to buy them beer. LMAO
Jon H
LMAO I got one. How about the employees of Sears, Radio Shack, ToysRus and the workers building Ford cars buy the owners of Amazon and Tesla a beer. LMAO
This cartoon screws up the percentages - this shows the percentages dropping as it goes up the ladder - the reality is the percentage savings INCREASE for the more wealthy. Also - their savings are permanent where as workers are going to have their tax cuts reduced over the next 5 years - this is the biggest con. Idiots are free to like Trump, but you're only fooling yourselves if you think he's doing working people any favours. It's actually incredible - a life-long democrat, switches Republican at the last minute and pretends to go to church and to help workers, while actually giving rich people a windfall at the expense of infrastructure (for everyone) and you guys all lap it up because you hate the idea of Mexicans moving in and so he's milking it! You guys are getting reamed...
3 weeks later, the bar closed due to financial struggles.
That's an easy explanation. It should be more balanced in the system where more than 10% can easily afford a nice vacation every year or at least able to save more for whatever their wonderful heart desires and deserves. Such an abundance of wealth in the world and so many people unable to experience what they wish. Might be a few hundred years yet but eventually heads will be removed from asses and more of humanity will live TOGETHER 😃 Would be nice to experience that!!
great explanation...ty
2 words, Health care
Nice video!! Very engaging from beginning to end. Nevertheless, businesses and investment are the easiest way to make money irrespective of which party makes it to the oval office.
@Anthony Brown Investing for today is priceless because tomorrow isn't promised, trading bitcoins, gold, silver and crypto secures a better tomorrow.
Trading with Mr Charles Patrick was never a regret to me, All thanks to him, he is the best I have ever seen
@@telegramusername9571 My personal portfolio/investment manager; Mr Charles Patrick, after a whole week of research,he runs an investment platform where you don't have to undergo any stress in the trades, he manages my trading account which i opened with a capital of $3000 and now i have grown my portfolio up to over $21,500, a huge success
Oh, I've heard of him but I didn't take it seriously until I tried out with $ 5000 and made profits within some days
+ 1 ••• (9 1 8). •••• 3. 1 9 •••• 9 1 3 4
I'm glad we don't need 10k pages to explain
Great upload!! Well explained! :)
This. Is. Great.
Thanks for putting this together. Loved it!
For some strange reason i don't like the 4 people that don't have to pay for there..... Ever.
Something sounds not right about that.
TheOsk1e I must be old school. I figure the beer would taste better if I paid at least a dollar or two. This would make me part of the group, lighten the load on the others and I would have pride in my self. Deadbeats pay nothing...