General Politics Thread

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Damocles, 21 Jun 2017.

  1. GortonBlue62


    26 Nov 2015
    Are there any left wing intellectuals on here who can help me with this Tory argument that's doing the rounds at the moment relating to the tax system.

    I've tried to pick it apart but I'm afraid I can't see the flaws and as there seems to be so many unbiased socialists on here I thought maybe some of you could help.

    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

    Fuckin' Tory Scum Comrades.
  2. squirtyflower


    30 Mar 2009
    Listening to Danamy
    This is the general politics thread, we already have a Brexit thread.
    If you continue to debate Brexit in here then don't be surprised if your posts are deleted,
  3. bluethrunthru


    19 May 2012
    professional underacheiver
    seconds away from bankruptcy
    well............ they said May was too weak to sack Boris..................are the Tories to weak to oust May?
  4. glyncity


    10 Jan 2008
    Surely the tenth man would get his lawyers and accountants to place all his income in various trust funds under the names of his wife/children/dog etc..or invest it in some offshore account and then sit with men 1 2 3 and 4 with the begging bowl claiming to be skint...
  5. Len Rum

    Len Rum

    27 Nov 2012
    The name's Rum, Len Rum.
    Waste of forum space that post mate.
    Been debated before.
  6. MillionMilesAway


    14 Sep 2015
    It's reductive, of course, which is probably the intention. I've seen this doing the rounds for many years. It's turned up as written by many authors, and Kamerschen has specifically denied writing it; of course, claiming it's written by an economics professor is there to imply that it's valid. It's a philosophical construct, deliberately stripped down and reductive, created as a thought prompt for economics students to think outside the simple presented facts.

    The bubble nature of it removes context and/or reality, the following of which occur to me (not all may be valid, and I'm not that bothered - as the original is loaded and reductive, I see no reason not to do similarly!):
    - use of spending to represent conversion of 100% to £100, which is manipulative (replace the £ with a % and see if reads the same)
    - that the 100% is consumed equally by all 10!
    - the given fact that #10 would get beaten up by the others; presenting it as violent is deliberately emotive, and also assumes that the 9 will be unaffected by beating up #10.
    - what grounds there are for the £20 discount being given by the apparently solvent barman
    - disposable income vs income (all those other taxes that everyone pays)
    - has the unspoken (and false) implication that benefits from taxes are returned to everyone equally
    - Does #10 run away and presumably separate himself from what makes him rich in the first place?
    - if taxes are made too generous to the rich, then the people making that decision may find themselves out of a job.

    It's presented as a saving made, which is false. There's a 20% reduction in tax total, not them being given 20% back of their 100. Why would 5/6/7 expect that to be shared evenly, and thus to have more of a %age reduction than others?

    People with higher income pay more tax. It is hardly a surprise that a %age cut would save more £ for someone paying more tax, and assumes for some reason that others are resentful of that. In my experience, annoyance comes when there is a disproportionate saving rather than some Utopian ideal.
  7. KS55


    14 Oct 2016
    If you spend £5 on a tin of coffee, then the next week it's reduced to £4, the shop will say "save £1 ", but you don't save anything, you spend £4.
  8. Ifwecouldjust.......


    26 Jan 2010
    East Stand Level 1

    Your missing the point.........

    Drinkers 1,2,3 are all probably on some form of income support .... such as Child allowance, Housing Benefit etc paid for out of the tax contributions of Drinkers 4,5,6,7,8

    Drinkers 9, 10 actually pay less tax than drinkers 1,2,3 cos they have their money offshore in the Cayman Islands
  9. stonerblue


    23 May 2004
    Still alive here....
    Great constructive post there boss.
  10. MillionMilesAway


    14 Sep 2015
    I think I hit quite a lot, but yes, I didn't consider the Cayman Island gambit.

Share This Page