Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

General Election 2017



D

Diablo

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 22, 2014
4,205
lewes
Stato said:
Where is this pub? I don't know any rich people willing to pay for my beer. I currently have to pay exactly the same tax on my pint as a billionaire.

Why has one of them been paid in dollars? No wonder he got cross.

Is the moral that we should keep our current tax system where the rich don't shift capital overseas to avoid paying tax? Why was it set in a bar, not a Starbucks?
Click to expand...

Where is this pub ?? are you joking !!! Read again It says IF !!

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The moral of the story is... The rich pay for most..... support of state schools (and most of their kids go private),they pay for our hospitals (and most of them go private).

The top 3000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million. Push that 3000 to hard and they leave.....
 






D

Deleted member 22389

Guest
JC Footy Genius said:
Unfortunately, the NHS has been a political football for far too long. Supposedly Tories always = privatisation, Labour always = spend more and more and more etc. Time for a serious debate well away from party point scoring facing up to some hard truths.
Click to expand...

Your right, nobody wants to face the hard truths.
 








C

CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
44,791
Tories all over the shop with their tax plans today I see. Less than a week out they can't tell anyone where the raises will be.
 




T

The Rivet

Well-known member
Aug 9, 2011
4,512
Diablo said:
Do you like Corbyn believe that there is a money tree ?? ......would be nice !!! I`ll ask at my local garden centre ..
Click to expand...

You'd be better off talking to the local hydroponic shop. There is no money tree but there is certainly a money bush, apparently............:whistle:
 












M

MattBackHome

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
11,732
Diablo said:
I`m sure most on NSC have read this little story before but it is rather relevant as we approach General Election

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 said. “Since you are all such good customers,” “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 realized 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 dollar 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 dollar 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 is how our tax system works. . Tax the rich 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.
Click to expand...
Do you genuinely think this is relevant?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 








carteater

carteater

Well-known member
Jan 1, 2014
4,825
West Sussex
The problem is that Labour are promising too much too quickly. If they had a slightly toned down commitment to public spending and someone else as leader they'd walk this.
 


larus

larus

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
6,580
In the land of hope and expectation....
Diablo said:
Where is this pub ?? are you joking !!! Read again It says IF !!

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The moral of the story is... The rich pay for most..... support of state schools (and most of their kids go private),they pay for our hospitals (and most of them go private).

The top 3000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million. Push that 3000 to hard and they leave.....
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time mate. Maybe the analogy is over their heads, or they don't really understand the underlying principle which is that excessive taxation has an impact on the economic performance of the country.

For example, assume you are a business owner and tax rates change from 40% to 60%, then this is a disincentive to work harder and also a motivator to encourage more schemes to avoid paying tax, such as off-shore companies which have management charges imposed on the subsidiaries. Nothing illegal, but still impacts the tax take. Along the same lines as what Juncker (CJTC) set-up for many multi-nationals in Luxembourg when he was PM.

The top 1% pay a huge amount of tax and it only takes a small percentage of those to say "F*ck it, I'll go somewhere else" and have a base there.
 


D

Diablo

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 22, 2014
4,205
lewes
MattBackHome said:
Do you genuinely think this is relevant?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The moral behind the story is surely very relevant.....If you push the highest contributors, be it individuals or businesses to hard they`ll up and leave......
 






vegster

vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
27,902
I think the moral of the story is that greedy *******s will always greedy *******s.
 


S

soistes

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2012
2,643
Brighton
Diablo said:
The moral behind the story is surely very relevant.....If you push the highest contributors, be it individuals or businesses to hard they`ll up and leave......
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced:

a) that so many of the highest earners would actually leave under a system with slightly higher corporation and income tax (in both cases the Labour proposals are for tax rates which are no higher, and in many cases lower, than many other successful industrialised countries who don't seem to have a problem with mass exodus of higher earners)

b) that the highest earners are necessarily always the "highest contributors"

c) that even if some of them did go, the country would actually be significantly worse off - it would help the net migration figures after all, and enable us perhaps to recruit in their place a few more useful doctors and scientists from abroad without breaching the net migration figures.

and finally - I think the economic risk of losing significant businesses (or parts of businesses) which move to other countries because of Brexit (because they can't get the skills here any more, or because they need - like financial service companies - to be within the EU, or because they don't want to pay tariffs on their supply chains), is massively higher than the economic risk of a few oligarchs and rich parasites leaving because they can't facing a few more percentage points of tax to contribute to a decent society with good health and social care and public infrastructure.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here