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

Tax explained with beer



Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,395
Saw this on another forum and thought it was worth posting on here (hopefully it's not fixtures)

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 (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!"

"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 any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
 














ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
7,668
Just far enough away from LDC
What happens when the tenth person gets advice on how to avoid paying his beer bill?
 




Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
What happens when the tenth person gets advice on how to avoid paying his beer bill?

The poorest 4 will have to stay at home and watch Sky TV on a 50 inch LCD tv?
 




Superphil

Dismember
Jul 7, 2003
25,926
In a pile of football shirts
I rather like that
 




Bulldog

Well-known member
Sep 25, 2010
749
Brilliant spin on reality, sadly i don't get my beer brought by a rich man, i pay for my own.
In truth, our tax system does penalise the low paid with direct taxes as you well know.
The lowest paid in the group will be paying a far higher marginal rate of tax on his beer than the rich one, and thats why "we all pay the same" taxes are unfair and progressive taxation is the only way.
That said, i agree with you that the wealthy are a finite resource that needs to be treated just as fairly as everyone else and should not be seen as the one that buys the proverbial beer.
My experience of the working class suggests that most would tell the rich guy to stick his money up his arse and insist on buying thier own anyway.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,499
In truth, our tax system does penalise the low paid with direct taxes as you well know.
The lowest paid in the group will be paying a far higher marginal rate of tax on his beer than the rich one, and thats why "we all pay the same" taxes are unfair and progressive taxation is the only way.

well done for missing the point. i'd like to see the story retold to demostrate how progressive taxation works. the starting place will be much the same and the conclusion similar expect.

My experience of the working class suggests that most would tell the rich guy to stick his money up his arse and insist on buying thier own anyway.

so, to play with the metaphor, why do so many worry about the guy buying Champagne and demand that he should buy another round of drinks for everyone else too?
 


Bulldog

Well-known member
Sep 25, 2010
749
I didn't miss the point, thats why i said it was a spin on reality.

If you take all taxation into account, the low paid provide a higher percentage of thier income in tax than the rich. VAT for example is the same for people on a minimum wage as a millionair banker, just a lot more affordable for the latter.

I would expect that the outcome of your pretend world, if ALL taxation is considered, would have the 4 lowest paid spongers in your example, actually paying more in terms of thier income to settle the bill than he rich guy, so no bloody wonder he got beaten up.

I simply don't follow the bit about the Champers? Are you suggesting the rich should pay the same tax rate as the poor?
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,694
To extend the analogy, capping housing benefit is the equivalent of one of the first 4 blokes buying the crisps...
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,499
I didn't miss the point, thats why i said it was a spin on reality.

If you take all taxation into account, the low paid provide a higher percentage of thier income in tax than the rich. VAT for example is the same for people on a minimum wage as a millionair banker, just a lot more affordable for the latter.

but it wasn't about all taxation, we dont know the income of the drinkers (other than by inference). its about the impact of tax reduction. thats why an similar alternative analogy showing progressive taxation, including income, would be good to see.
 


1

1066gull

Guest
Brits are only happy if they have enough money to go pub at the end of the week.

is it any surprise why arabs are the richest people on earth? and do not say oil because that aint the reason
 


e77

Well-known member
May 23, 2004
7,296
Worthing
The 2nd pub based analogy of complex events so far this week on NSC.

I whole heartedly approve.
 


jonny.rainbow

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2005
7,025
Poor analogy.

It would possibly only work if you factored in that the poorest men only ordered lime and soda and the richest ordered caviar and vintage champagne to take in to account the differences in their share of the bill (income).

Not to mention the rich man is bringing a few bottles from his father's private reserve and refusing to pay corkage on them!
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here