A thought experiment v.2.0

[.blank cd]

Read the following analogy and discuss its implications.



An economics professor at a local college says that he has never failed anybody. He tells his class that anybody who studies hard can get whatever grade they deserve.

In the class is the professor's son. The son doesn't show up to class, doesn't take any tests, and doesn't study. He gets 700% on every test. He also gets to help write the tests and rigs it so that nobody is capable of getting above 65%. Anybody who slips below 50% fails, and is kicked out of the class. The students study 9 hours a day, and some of the students who were originally getting 55% are now getting 60%. The teacher uses this as an example of how hard work pays off, and how anybody can get ahead if they would only apply themselves.

The students organize a protest against this situation, and after much arguing, the tests are changed so that a 67% is now possible. The son is no longer allowed to write the tests. The son continues to write the tests anyway, but shows up to class just long enough to convince people that that's not really the case, and that if the rest of the students would only get off their lazy asses and study, they would get better grades.

The students protest again, this time they want the son to share some of his 700% with them. The son agrees to give 5% of his grades to the students who have learning disabilities, and are in danger of being kicked out of the class. The son and the teacher get to define what counts as a learning disability. Some students abuse this generosity, and this is taken as an example of how the whole system has failed.

The teacher stands in front of the class and explains to the students that since the new rules have come in, the average mark in the class has actually gone down, and that socialism obviously doesn't work.

[David88vert]

You forgot to mention that the professor's son paid for all of the students' tuition and their books.
You also showed that you don't understand percentages very well.

Here's a situation that is more applicable:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a 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 $1.00

The sixth would pay $3.00

The seventh would pay $7.00

The eighth would pay $12.00

The ninth would pay $18.00

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00

So that’s what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with arraignment, 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 $20.00.

“Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00

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 there “fair share?” They realized that $ 20.00 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 pay $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, 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 union. “ We didn’t I 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, journalist 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.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[.blank cd]

You forgot to mention that the professor's son paid for all of the students' tuition and their books.
You also showed that you don't understand percentages very well.

It doesn't say who paid for tuition and books, does it?

[bu villain]

What both these scenarios show is that fairness is a psychological construct and depends greatly on your personal point of view. In David's scenario, everybody was content and discord only started after an event that made them all better off. Clearly that is illogical, anyone paying less should be happy and those who never paid anything should be neither happy nor upset as their situation didn't change. People like being better off but not if they think the person next to them is getting an even better deal.