Merged politically motivated topics by the same originator.

Quote from Zprangz
The UK tax system 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 realized 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 (a100% 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!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £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

Quote from anthonyh
The gap between the rich and poor has increased considerably during the 'recession'....

Quote from IainT
I cant normally be bothered with political stuff because I'm not political, left, right, centre, torys, liberals, labour, I couldn't,t give a monkeys, but I like things to be fair. And taxing certain a sector of the community because they are more successfull than the rest of us is not fair and seems stupid and counterproductive to me. If people are rich they will spend their money on goods which are heavily taxed. If the rate of income tax is to high, the rich will live somewhere else and spend the money somewhere else, that's been well proven. It was tried in the 70,s and helped to almost bankrupt the country. I don't think it's Osborne who is to stupid to understand a simple point.....

Quote from IainT
I cant normally be bothered with political stuff because I'm not political, left, right, centre, torys, liberals, labour, I couldn't,t give a monkeys, but I like things to be fair. And taxing certain a sector of the community because they are more successfull than the rest of us is not fair and seems stupid and counterproductive to me. If people are rich they will spend their money on goods which are heavily taxed. If the rate of income tax is to high, the rich will live somewhere else and spend the money somewhere else, that's been well proven. It was tried in the 70,s and helped to almost bankrupt the country. I don't think it's Osborne who is to stupid to understand a simple point.....

Quote from mattharper
If you allow someone wealthy to keep an extra five grand a year, they just might buy that £100,000 car that they want for the wife. If they do, the factory that makes it make money, the guys building it are more secure, the garage selling it survive, sales, mechanics, car cleaner and so on. Oh, I nearly forgot, the government get over £16,000 in VAT, plus the other taxes generated in the production process. Play with pennies and you simply won't see any difference as all it does to a poor family is allow them one packet of fags or two pints of beer a week. Economics is not as simple as looking for arguments that suit your political stance. I can't afford a £100,000 car but I don't change my political views because someone else can. We need rich people as they generate a lot of money and with it, jobs, directly and more importantly, indirectly. It is rubbish to say wealthy people spend all their money abroad, they may spend some but it is all percentages.

Quote from Keith1
I'm sure the bankers and their multi millionnaire friends will be over overjoyed to discover that they can now afford a car for £100,000. Previously they had to make do with a 50 million pound private jet.

Quote from Keith1

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

You want to give even more money to those who already have more than they need.

While at the same time not give anything to those who can’t afford to heat their homes or feed their children properly.

Is this a correct assessment of your thinking? Yes or no?

 

Quote from Keith1
I'm sure the bankers and their multi millionnaire friends will be over overjoyed to discover that they can now afford a car for £100,000. Previously they had to make do with a 50 million pound private jet.

Quote from Keith1

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

You want to give even more money to those who already have more than they need.

While at the same time not give anything to those who can’t afford to heat their homes or feed their children properly.

Is this a correct assessment of your thinking? Yes or no?