Profile incomplete
8:29 AM, 3rd April 2013, About 11 years ago 82
Text Size
I have to confess to not being the author of this piece, I found it on Facebook, but I do think it is very worthy of sharing here.
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 ball.
“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 men would 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 realised 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” 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 pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax 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 their 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 government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally 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.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
Previous Article
Paul Linstead of PJL Property Rentals CrowboroughNext Article
Mark Garner of Garner Homes Maidstone
20:45 PM, 12th April 2013, About 11 years ago
@ Mark - "I wouldn’t bother responding to Tom if I were you. I’ve had to delete one of his posts". Much better than trying to defend your own arguments eh? Just delete the ones to which you cannot respond.
The attack on the poor in this thread are very offensive, but I would never dream of asking them to be deleted. No-one has the right not to be offended. Where would we be if anyone at any time could cry "offence" and immediately be free from criticism of whatever statement they chose to make? Without discussion we cannot advance .
Surely if someone does not want to respond to my comments it is up to them, not you. Why do you feel a need to tell them what to do? Of course you can always block my comments, but there is no moral justification for doing so.
@Gillian - Great posts. Keep up the good work.
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
21:41 PM, 12th April 2013, About 11 years ago
Tom, have you ever considered moving to North Korea? From what I have heard about the country it would seem to have exactly the regime you wish to live in
21:59 PM, 12th April 2013, About 11 years ago
@Mark - Great attempt to address my arguments. I find it hilarious that you censor me and then suggest that I move to North Korea. Surely it would be more to your liking, given your propensity to censor unwelcome comments.
Still, I am quite happy to discuss the issue. Which of my stated beliefs do you think would be suited to North Korea?
22:33 PM, 12th April 2013, About 11 years ago
@Tom Trainer
I think the problem with your posts is that you ***need*** to be the last person to post. It's really very irritating. More irritating than your lack of debate (apart from just repeating yourself).
BTW - I have looked at the equality website and have been reading reports from the Joseph Rowntree foundation for many years now... It's just that I cannot be bothered to answer your challenges. It's as if you are not listening... So whatever I write, you just blast away, repeating yourself...
@Mark - keep on posting. It's good to hear success stories! 🙂 And I'm perfectly happy for you to censor me or anybody else - it's your website...
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
22:50 PM, 12th April 2013, About 11 years ago
Thanks Simon
23:41 PM, 12th April 2013, About 11 years ago
I have just realised we are debating me and my debating style. I will respond to comments made regarding the original issue, but if anyone just wants to attack me, then please go for it. No response will be forthcoming.
Freda Blogs
7:53 AM, 13th April 2013, About 11 years ago
@Tom - some friendly observations if I may.
I too stopped responding to you because you did not seem to acknowledge that your point had been addressed and you kept repeating yourself. That style stifles rather than encourages response when it becomes clear that there is no point in replying.
You have singled out Gillian to applaud her story. I applaud it too, as does Mark A, so we are not all so different. However you appear not to have noticed the similarity between Mark and Gillian's situations and continue with your somewhat polarised arguments that make no sense.
Debate is an exchange of views, not relentless pursuit of an issue that has little bearing on the thread and doesn't have regard to what others have said.
You have a different view to many, which in itself is fine. Perhaps you can present those views differently?
Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118
11:49 AM, 13th April 2013, About 11 years ago
Given that this forum was created for landlords to share best practice (not debating socialist/communist vs capitalist politics) perhaps we should be discussing ways to minimise our tax burdens and optimise our exit strategies as opposed to pointlessly debating politics with the loony left?
12:55 PM, 13th April 2013, About 11 years ago
@gillian, I was only going on what an ex-miner told me. and he was adamant. at the time he was made redundant he earned £1200 per week. I questioned him on this issue several times, and he refused to budge on the figure.
I was, to say the very least, very surprised at his story.
so it's wrong I humbly apologise for spreading a falsehood.
@all ... who or what is this Tom chap ? does anyone know him personally ?
would anyone want to ?
i can't stop laughing at his rants.
reminds me of John Cleese beating up his car in Faulty Towers.
sorry guys but he really is funny. he's just winding everyone up and you're all biting. i'm sure it's an act. got to be.
13:26 PM, 13th April 2013, About 11 years ago
I'm afraid you are being wound up Cosmo. That would have meant miners were on 62k per year. The PM salary in 1972 was 20k pa. Maybe your friend mean 'in today's money'. They were very well paid, but boy did they work for it. Both of my uncle's brothers died from respiritory diseases, one at 43 the other at 54. My mum's dad died from lung cancer at 58. He's stopped smoking at 30. Her grandfather and his brother died in the dreadful Earsdon Colliery disaster where 32 men lost their lives. Her mother received £2 6 shillings in compensation. In some respects I'm quite pleased the mines have gone as it is no way, however well paid, to make a living.