This is the part I don't get:

"Since you
are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

Why didn't he just leave the price the same?

The tenth man may be fed up that he is being treated unfairly but he won't leave the restaurant. He may not show up for a couple of nights but he is still going to make sure that he has a seat at the restaurant which by the way charges for your seat whether you eat there or not.

[Edited by - pharzeone on 11-04-2008 1:32 PM]

That’s why reach people are not drinking with pure...

Posted by Allanfan20:

OK, so the rich people move, which gives other people the benefit to step up on the ladder. And who's to say that we're all ganging up on the 10th man and beating him up and kicking him out in the first place? If anything, we're getting a little extra money to go out and support his business. This is not an accurate model in any sense.

Your beating him up (according to this scenario) by putting Obama in the house, which his plan is to tax the rich even more. And as far as spending money to give back to the rich man, how did that work for the system when we all got those stimulus packages? I don't see the economy doing any better for it.

This is kind of what I was trying to bring up about upsetting a system that has been in place for decades, on another thread called 'How do you folks feel about spreading the wealth'?

Let's hope Bam doesn't have to do a back track on this one and ends up doing the famous 'read my lips' scenario, like George Sr. had to do when he told the people 'read my lips, no new taxes' only to have to tax the hell out of everyone after all.


And by the way Mattshaw78, not to belittle your scenario here, but I could have sworn I read something exactly like this scenario about 15 years ago somewhere. Where'd ya get it from?

[Edited by - 4949 on 11-04-2008 10:34 PM]

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Allanfan20:

OK, so the rich people move, which gives other people the benefit to step up on the ladder. And who's to say that we're all ganging up on the 10th man and beating him up and kicking him out in the first place? If anything, we're getting a little extra money to go out and support his business. This is not an accurate model in any sense.

Your beating him up (according to this scenario) by putting Obama in the house, which his plan is to tax the rich even more. And as far as spending money to give back to the rich man, how did that work for the system when we all got those stimulus packages? I don't see the economy doing any better for it.

This is kind of what I was trying to bring up about upsetting a system that has been in place for decades, on another thread called 'How do you folks feel about spreading the wealth'?

Let's hope Bam doesn't have to do a back track on this one and ends up doing the famous 'read my lips' scenario, like George Sr. had to do when he told the people 'read my lips, no new taxes' only to have to tax the hell out of everyone after all.


And by the way Mattshaw78, not to belittle your scenario here, but I could have sworn I read something exactly like this scenario about 15 years ago somewhere. Where'd ya get it from?

[Edited by - 4949 on 11-04-2008 10:34 PM]

This scenario I got this from office discussions

Posted by GoNyGoNyGo:

I have seen this before and regardless of how true and accurate it is, if you can't comprehend the reality of it, like apparently some of you can't, then there is no amount of explaining that is going to convince you of the sheer facts. The truth is that the rich are rich mostly because they have earned it. It is an outright crime to take money from one person and their hard work and just give it to someone based on their low income level.

We will soon see what happens, when you penalize those who are the producers in society. The rich will remain rich as they will put their money where it cannot be touched and where it is not working to provide jobs and opportunities for others.

How many jobs do poor people create for other people? At what point do those who produce see that they are not gaining anything anymore so they pull back? Then what happens to the tax base? Then what happens to all those free money "checks"? The answer is that the government cannot make ends meet and collapses.

Beware of the end game. Those who are wishing for "change" will get exactly what they ask for.

Disagree completely. First off, maybe rich people work hard, but that doesn't mean they don't work harder than people who get paid less. Prove me wrong. Go to all work places and tell me how the rich are working harder or how the poor are working harder or middle class working harder. And what is your definition of working hard, btw? It's nonsense when people say stuff like that. And why should we get taxed more, so that the money goes to the rich?

On the other hand, the other way I can see that this could work is 'Bam empowers all of those people who been wanting either to start or strengthen their businesses to other levels, opening up the playing fields and creating greater wealth among poorer groups, minority groups and a good chunk of the middle class of people, who in turn could find them selves becoming 'givers back into the system' because as I said before, by taxing the rich, they may end up cutting back on something as huge as fund raising. It's a billion dollar industry in itself, that has helped to create thousands, if not millions of jobs, not to mention help the growth of others as individuals or groups.

People will say 'there's no room on top of the mountain'. But I say we have a ton of work to do in cleaning up our environment first of all and there is forever ideas that need to be brought to the forefront of our societies, harvested and implemented. And what is one of the famous business rules? 'Where there is a problem, there is opportunity'

Create more mountains.

Now as an example of fundraising, it is an important part of how many services are funded by private corporations that otherwise would not be possible. That is just one' example of our balanced system (or really, a 'one tracked minded' system). As a matter of fact, it almost seems that the more the rich got tax breaks, then the more they were able to give. It's a built in system. How do you rebuild it 'without skipping a beat' is the question? The one we have now is the 'beer drinkers society' (hence Matts story)

So like said, if the Bam tax system can spur business in other sectors of our society, then it could become the new and (very important) 'expanded' source for fundraisers of virtually anything. When he talked to Joe the plumber, I know Joe didn't really understand what he was saying, because Joe was only thinking of himself and not the growth and improvement of other people. Or for anyone' for that matter. But that conversation, when Bam said he wanted to give other people a break told me a lot of things.

I"m thinking of it this way. We have a very stubborn system that has refused to change for decades. I look at it like energy. We are moving further and further away from nuclear, dam and oil power and more into wind, solar and bio energies. It's just a matter of the new system having a chance to prove itself and a matter of time. I think the Bam tax system can work. Because society tends to forget it's most important resource - people power!!!

I"m actually liking it more and more the more I think about it. It's like changing your portfolio. You don't lose money and might even gain. Can you imagine if in about ten years, the very rich constituted for about 20% of society (instead of 10% now) in this country? The possibilities and opportunities would be phenominal. Education could, would expand and all social problems would have a better chance of being solved.

Hey' they been doing it in Europe and Canada. Why not us? I think this could work? Make the people happy and not only that, but Bam would increase his chances of re-election. Screw the 10%. Doors open for them, if they wanna play and unless they are stupid, they will catch on also. I also think it is time to alter this system anyway, now that it is a world market and if one fails, we all fail system. We need a change just for that at least.

Anyway, just a few more thoughts on it.



[Edited by - 4949 on 11-06-2008 11:44 PM]