First, some background statistics would be in order, and I am using household income rather than individual income, as it appears that that is what the authors of the beer story did (makes the most sense as most people who can, file their income taxes as a household):

The first four drinkers represent the poorest 40% of households in the United States. They make between 0 and 34k as a household, most have only one income earner, they are divided about 50/50 between homeowners and renters, and their income, measured in inflation adjusted dollars, has fallen by about 2k since the year 2000, that’s between 9 and 10 percent of the median for that 40%. Additionally, they pay an average of 5% of their income in regressive taxes (sales taxes, sin taxes, property taxes, etc.)

The fifth guy represents households making between 34 and 41k, this is the median in our nation. This group is pretty evenly divided between one and two earner households, they are still, interestingly, divided evenly between renters and owners, but this is probably because they are concentrated in cities, where the poorest 40% (the above paragraph and the first 4 drinkers) are divided between urban and rural locations. Their incomes (in inflation adjusted dollars) dropped about 1.5k since 2000, representing a decrease of about 4% (for the median in this group). They pay about 4.75% of their income in the other forms of taxation listed above.

Guy number 6 represents families earning between 41 and 55k. This group is significantly skewed towards two earner families owning their own homes, also, this is the first group that tends to live in suburban areas. Their incomes have gone down by a little less than a thousand dollars since 2000, representing about 2% of income lost. They pay about 4% of their income in other forms of taxation.

Guy number 7 represents families making 55-72k. These are nearly 85% two earner families, nearly 90% homeowners, trending towards suburban living. Their incomes have remained pretty much the same since 2000. They pay a median of 3% of their income in the other taxes I listed above.

Guy number 8 represents families making 72-88k. Again, lots of two earner families, homeowners, suburban. Their incomes have gone up by about 500$ since 2000, they pay a little less than 3% of their income in other taxes.

Guy number 9 represents families between 88 and 150k, again, two earners, homeowners, suburban. Their incomes have gone up by about 1200 since 2000, representing an increase of 1%. They pay a little bit more than the last group, about 3% of their income in other taxes.

Guy number 10 represents families earning 150 and up. Amazingly enough that’s one in ten American families… Not in Lamoille county though, I can say that much for sure… Again 2 earners usually, their incomes have gone up by an average of 4900 since 2000, but since they are so rich, that’s only about a 1% increase over the median. They, however, pay less than one percent of their income on other taxes (on average)…

Next we get to why I really hate it when people use these stupid political analogies.* In the real world, the tenth guy can up and leave, but that doesn’t affect the amount of taxes collected (working in a simplified model). His wealth cannot simply disappear, if it is produced in the United States, it will still be taxed. So I don’t get where they are going with that one. This turns out to be a) a bad analogy and b) have no relevance because it’s based on a third grader’s assumptions about economics.

Again, you should be smarter than this. If you’re going to post this crap, take the time to figure out if it makes sense or if it’s just a bunch of BS…

*If they had a point about taxation, why not just make it. There’s plenty of respectable arguments for various forms of more and less progressive taxation. All they do by turning it into an analogy is make it easy to hide a flawed argument based on a deceitful premise. Analogies can be useful, but they can also be dangerous. They can simplify a concept, but they also lead to abstraction, which makes it easy to cover a lie.

From what I can can gather off your site, you are married, have a couple kids, live in/near a small city, have one earner, aren’t too poor, nor too rich to blog (ever notice that blogging is essentially a middle-class pastime? there are, of course a few exceptions, and I could go into the classic economic arguments (from both extremes of the economic political spectrum) that the middle class is myth, but I’m making a point here). To me, that sounds pretty typical. Pretty much like my family, in fact, and the ones on either side of our house, and the one across the field, and the two across the street. In fact, If all I’ve said is true, and I haven’t left out anything important (and I’m not prying here, just making a point), the Tensels are a lot like most families in America.

So when you refer to “what is best for the Tensel family,” you’re really talking about “what’s best for much, or most, of America.” And that IS something that public policy should be based on.

For one, public policy should not be based on what is best for the Tensel family. We are but five out of over 300 million in this country.

For two, income redistribution is taking money from the person who it belongs to and giving it to someone else. Period. I don’t agree with that.

For three, money that isn’t redistributed downward is used for many purposes, not just horded away. It is invested, used to create jobs, used to produce goods. It’s used for such things as to buy that chair you are sitting in, the computer you are using, and the bandwidth you are stealing to surf the internet when you should be working.

Economic patriot. Very clever, Haik. I still don’t like the idea, but at least you understand the value of co-opting patriotism to further your agenda.

Progressive taxation makes sense. If you only make 20K, you need 100% of it just to live. If you make a million bucks, you only need 2% if it to live.

Money redistributed downward gets pumped straight back into the economy becuase the poor have pent up needs. Money that isn’t redistributed downward just sits in banks, because the wealthy already have everything they need.

Charity, are you aware that you yourself are not rich? You constantly defend policies that help people who don’t need help at the expense of your own family. Personally, I think that’s crazy. You’re like a chicken that thinks Colonel Sanders is a swell guy.

*****

I think socialism could use some re-branding. I’m going to start calling socialism “economic patriotism” instead. It means the same thing, but it probably sounds better to some people.

“I’m not a socialist, damn it! I’m an economic patriot!”

You like?