Progressive Radio Host Can't Do Mathematics

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOnq4y_nnJ8

Here’s the deal.

One YouTube user makes a video where he says that the same percentage of a large number is bigger than the same percentage of a small number.

That is all.

That is ALL.

Pac Man, the radio host, tries to debunk this “theory”, because this video was made by a Republican-voting American.

I KID YOU NOT!

This is one of the most Disliked videos on YouTube, because like Steam For Mac Sucks!, it is just too obviously stupid.

Here is the original idea (joke) he was attempting to debunk:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

•The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

•The fifth would pay $1.

•The sixth would pay $3.

•The seventh would pay $7.

•The eighth would pay $12.

•The ninth would pay $18.

•The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “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

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so…

•The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

•The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

•The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

•The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

•The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

•The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

I feel dumber for watching that video. Thanks for the full text TheNcredibleEgg

The whole taxation issue reminds me of how wrong both sides are and how the whole debate is off topic.

On one hand, you have certain conservatives deriding taxation-based goods provision as socialism. How can it be socialism, when taxes are generated from private capital? How can it be socialism when it is based not on the common ownership and usage of means of production, but a dependency on private enterprise’s fruits only? And results a system where production for government is limited to increases in private capital?

On the other hand, you have certain progressives defending the system because it holds back the power of the rich. Holds back the power of the rich? It creates a society that depends on the rich and depends on their incomes for survival. It’s anything but the will of those ol’ commoners triumphing over the rich. It forces the creation of a government that has to use every carrot and stick policy at home and abroad to make sure that more money goes into the hands of the rich so that it can go into the hands of the government - hence protectionism, corporate lobbying, wars abroad to enrich domestic businesses.

The end result is something weirder and more complicated - a kind of neo-corporatism where a government first bullies the more prosperous and then gives them candy when they are sobbing. In India, progressive magazines like Seminar or Frontline complain about government’s protection of business, and yet they never realize that their own approved progressive policies are the root cause of incorporation of government and business into a single superunit.

I googled steam for macs sucks after watching that. I think I just lost hope for humanity.