• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

The tax system explained in beer

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The tax system explained in beer

    Suppose that once a week, 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. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly 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 not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided 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 (a 100% saving). The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
    Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10" "Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1 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 only got £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 week 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 to pay 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 might 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

    #2
    if i have more money than my mates i am happy to buy the beer.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by moggy View Post
      if i have more money than my mates i am happy to buy the beer.
      You have more money than me and as of now I am your mate. Congratulations! Your round.
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #4
        Alot of the rich appear to drink while contributing very little. Except to the drinkers in tax havens.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
          You have more money than me and as of now I am your mate. Congratulations! Your round.
          i draw the line at crisps tho!

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
            Alot of the rich appear to drink while contributing very little. Except to the drinkers in tax havens.
            What exactly do they drink ?

            You should probably also define contribute very little, if you mean in terms of income tax then I suspect you are right, if you mean contribution to the overall tax take of which income tax represents a small portion then I think you are wrong.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by kevinlam View Post
              And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
              And that's where credibility was lost in the analogy.

              I'm not suggesting that the richest should pay 59% of the tax bill for a county, but the way I see it, the minimum wage worker pays more as a percentage of tax than the richest guy, who pays nothing , or 10% tops.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
                Alot of the rich appear to drink while contributing very little...
                Well that's why they're rich innit. No-one got rich by giving it all away.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Scoobos View Post
                  And that's where credibility was lost in the analogy.

                  I'm not suggesting that the richest should pay 59% of the tax bill for a county, but the way I see it, the minimum wage worker pays more as a percentage of tax than the richest guy, who pays nothing , or 10% tops.
                  But this is why the wealthy move to tax havens. Most I think would have no objection to paying ten or twenty percent tax. Where the problem arises in my opinion is that the people who take the risks, put their house on the line at times and work 80 hour weeks and become successful get rewarded with paying to keep the "work the bare minimum and happy to let others pull the load" brigade.

                  This is why I think a flat rate of tax would not only simplify the entire system but also generate more reveune for the treasury, the wealthy would feel less victimised and less inclined to piss off to Monaco. That to me is people paying their fair share of tax.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by kevinlam View Post
                    ..David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics...
                    This is bollocks. Do a search and you'll see he and the many other people this tale has been supposedly written by didn't provide any of its content.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X