The Parable of 10 Men in a Bar, and Why the Tenth Man Leaves
A short story about a $100 beer bill explains how progressive income tax works. A handful of people pay most of the bill. Those same people are the easiest to lose. Since 2022, Norway and the UK have both raised the bill on exactly those payers, and some of them have walked out of the bar.
The Parable of 10 Men in a Bar is an anonymous story about ten men who split a $100 beer bill the way income tax is split. The four poorest pay nothing. The richest pays $59. When the bar cuts the bill by $20, the richest man saves the most in dollars, the others resent it, and he stops coming. The nine who are left cannot pay even half the bill.
The point is simple. When a small group of mobile people pays most of the tax, the system depends on them staying. For a European professional already living abroad, the real question is what still follows you when you leave.
Run the three nights yourself
Each bar is what one man pays towards the night's bill. The gold bar is the tenth man. Switch between the nights to see what the story is really about.
- Man 1$0
- Man 2$0
- Man 3$0
- Man 4$0
- Man 5$1
- Man 6$3
- Man 7$7
- Man 8$12
- Man 9$18
- Man 10$59
Four men drink free. The tenth man pays more than the other nine combined.
Figures as they appear in the widely shared version of the story. On Night 2 the published shares add to $79, not the $80 bill; the story never accounts for the missing dollar. In the story, the nine bring $30 to the $80 bill and fall short. Night 3 here compares like with like: the Night 1 bill of $100, split among the nine in Night 1 proportions. Cents rounded.
The parable, as it is usually told
Every day, ten men go out for a beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. They pay it the way we pay our taxes. The first four, the poorest, pay nothing. The fifth pays $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12 and the ninth $18. The tenth man, the richest, pays $59.
Everyone seems happy with the arrangement. Then one day the owner makes them an offer. "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." The bill drops to $80.
The group still wants to pay the way we pay our taxes, so the first four are unaffected. They still drink for free. The question is how the six paying men should share the $20. Split evenly, it comes to $3.33 each. Take that off every bill and the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to drink.
So the owner cuts each man's bill by roughly the same proportion. The fifth man now pays nothing. The sixth pays $2 instead of $3. The seventh pays $5 instead of $7, the eighth $9 instead of $12, the ninth $14 instead of $18. The tenth man pays $49 instead of $59.
Each of the six is better off than before. Then, outside the bar, they compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," says the sixth man, pointing at the tenth. "But he got $10!"
"That's right," says the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me."
"Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?" says the seventh. "The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," say the first four together. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surround the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man does not show up. The nine sit down and drink without him. When the bill arrives, they discover something important. Between all of them, they do not have enough money to pay even half of it.
The people who pay the most tax get the most from a tax cut. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they may stop showing up. They might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Three things the arithmetic says, and two things it leaves out
The biggest saving was the smallest cut
The tenth man saved $10, the most of anyone. That was 17% of his bill. The sixth man saved $1, which was 33% of his. Whether the cut looks generous depends entirely on which number you quote.
He got the biggest cut and paid a bigger share
Before the cut, the tenth man paid $59 of $100, or 59%. After it, he paid $49 of the $79 collected, or 62%. The cut that caused the row left more of the bill resting on him.
Nine men, $30, an $80 bill
Without the tenth man, the other nine put in $30 between them. That covers 37.5% of the $80 bill. Put the original $100 bill in front of the nine, split the way they split it on Night 1, and each paying man's share rises 2.44 times. The ninth man would pay $43.90 instead of $18.
Income tax is not the only tax
The bar only counts income tax. Everyone in the bar also pays VAT on what they buy, and most pay social security contributions on their wages. The parable leaves those out, so the four men who drink free are not quite as free as the story suggests.
The tenth man also earns more of the income
The story never says how much each man earns. In the UK in 2023-24, the top 10% of income taxpayers received 34.0% of pre-tax income and paid 59.1% of income tax. The top 1% received 12.4% and paid 27.2%. In the US in 2023, the top 10% had 47.6% of income and paid 70.5% of the tax. The honest version of the argument uses both numbers.
The tenth man pays $59. In the UK, the top 10% pay 59.1%.
Sources: HMRC, Income Tax liabilities statistics, Table 2.4 (published 15 July 2026). Tax Foundation analysis of IRS Statistics of Income data for tax year 2023 (published 15 April 2026).
An old email chain with a number that still fits
The parable has circulated by email since the early 2000s. It is often credited to David R. Kamerschen, an economics professor at the University of Georgia. He has said he did not write it and does not know who did. The earliest version traced so far appeared in a 2001 letter to the Chicago Tribune.
Versions differ. The earliest known version is a restaurant dinner; the beer and bar version came later, and the figures after the cut vary. The version on this page is the one most widely shared today.
The story circulated during American tax-cut debates. Twenty-five years later, the ending carries the weight: what happens when the people paying most of the bill can simply leave.
In the UK, the HMRC projection for 2026-27 puts the top 10% at 58.4% of income tax and the top 1% at 26.6%. The bill is still resting on a small number of shoulders.
One caveat on the match with the tenth man's $59. HMRC ranks only people who pay income tax, while the bar counts the four who pay nothing. The two figures are close, and the methods differ.
Tax rules at home keep moving
One short email when a home-country tax change affects European professionals living abroad, with what it means for your pension, portfolio and estate.
Some governments have raised the bill. Some of the tenth men have left.
In several European countries, the parable's ending is now a policy debate with real departures attached.
The non-dom regime ended on 6 April 2025
The remittance basis was replaced by a four-year foreign income and gains regime. It is open only to people arriving after 10 consecutive tax years outside the UK. Inheritance tax moved to a residence test: 10 of the previous 20 tax years makes you a long-term resident, with worldwide assets in scope.
16,500 millionaires, by one estimate
Henley & Partners' 2025 report projected a net outflow of 16,500 millionaires from the UK that year, the largest of any country, and a net inflow of 9,800 into the UAE. Critics have challenged the method, and the 2026 edition dropped net-flow estimates altogether. The direction is clearer than the number.
A wealth tax rise, then moves to Switzerland
Norway raised its wealth tax for 2022. By mid-December that year, the business paper Dagens Næringsliv had counted at least 30 wealthy Norwegians who had moved to Switzerland.
The 2% "Zucman tax" was voted down, for now
The proposal was a minimum 2% annual tax on fortunes above €100 million. The National Assembly rejected it on 31 October 2025, by 228 votes to 172. The 2026 finance law was promulgated on 19 February 2026 without it.
Sources: GOV.UK guidance on the FIG regime (HS266) and on inheritance tax for long-term UK residents. Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2025 and 2026 press release. Swissinfo, reporting Dagens Næringsliv data. French National Assembly vote record.
Leaving the bar is not the same as settling the tab
The parable assumes the tenth man walks out clean. Several governments now send part of the bill after the people who leave.
UK: up to 10 years after you go
A long-term UK resident who leaves stays in scope of UK inheritance tax on worldwide assets for a tail period. It runs 3 years after 10 to 13 years of residence and rises by a year for each extra year, to a maximum of 10.
Germany: a tax on the way out
Under section 6 of the Foreign Tax Act, someone resident for 7 of the last 12 years who holds 1% or more of a company is taxed on the unrealised gain when they leave. On application, the tax can be paid in 7 annual instalments.
The other bars raise prices too
Italy's flat tax on new residents' foreign income was €100,000 a year until August 2024. It rose to €200,000, and to €300,000 for those arriving from 1 January 2026. The UAE still does not tax salaries or personal investment income.
Sources: GOV.UK, inheritance tax if you're a long-term UK resident. Außensteuergesetz §6 (gesetze-im-internet.de). Agenzia delle Entrate, opzione per i neo-residenti. UAE Federal Tax Authority.
Many expats are already the tenth man who left
Picture a French engineer in Singapore, a Dutch banker in Dubai or a British director in Bangkok. Each moved for a role, and a new tax position came with it.
The parable ends when the tenth man walks out. His finances at home keep running. A pension is still in London or Paris. A portfolio may still sit with a home-country broker. An inheritance tax clock may still be running. A home-country government can still tax the parts of you that never moved.
That is why the useful question is structural. Which assets are taxed where you live now? Which are still taxed where you came from? And what happens to each one if the rules at home change again next year?
Getting the structure right matters more than the destination. A low-tax country does little for someone whose pension, estate and portfolio are all still anchored to the high-tax one.
The Takeaway
- A tax system that leans on a few payers depends on those payers staying put.
- Leaving a country ends some taxes immediately, some after a delay, and some not at all.
- Exit taxes, inheritance tax tails and home-country pensions decide what follows you.
- Ask yourself: if your home country raised taxes again next year, which of your assets would it still reach?
Find out what still ties you to the old bar
A planning session maps where each of your assets is taxed today, what your home country can still reach, and how your pension, portfolio and estate plan fit the country you actually live in.
Book a Planning SessionContinue exploring
Departures: how much would moving abroad save you?
Take-home pay on your salary in 18 cities, against where you work now. 2026 rates.
Read more →You Are Moving Abroad. What Actually Happens to Your Money?
Six things change when you move countries for work: pensions, tax residency, currency, investment structure, employer shares and your will.
Read more →UK Inheritance Tax for Expats in Malaysia
How UK inheritance tax follows long-term residence from 6 April 2025, and how long the tail lasts after you leave.
Read more →Expat Tax Planning in SE Asia
Tax residency triggers, foreign-sourced income rules and remittance planning in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.
Read more →Left the bar, but not the tax system?
Book a 30-minute session to map what your home country can still tax, and how your pension, portfolio and estate plan fit where you live now.