PDA

View Full Version : the tax system explained in beer



annemarie482
03-Jun-12, 21:29
i recieved this as a email today, just another one thats sent around by friends.

but it got me thinking,
and then i thought of "the org"
and wondered what opinions this would bring up on here so here goes!

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 arrangementuntil, 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 firstfour 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"

"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

Angel
03-Jun-12, 22:03
Absolutely spot on...

Angel...

annemarie482
03-Jun-12, 22:04
agreed angel!

but how long before someone disagrees.......

Rheghead
03-Jun-12, 22:16
Well I say tax the rich.

In the 1970s, the Rolling Stones famously abandoned the UK for tax reasons because they were being taxed up to 80% of their income. Within 6 months they were back because they missed their mums and fell into a deep spell of a lack of creativity. It sounds nice to save money but they nearly always come back for one reason or another. It was a win-win situation all round.

Alrock
03-Jun-12, 22:20
Did you factor in the effect of minimum pricing for alcohol?
None of them will now be allowed free beer.

annemarie482
03-Jun-12, 22:22
Did you factor in the effect of minimum pricing for alcohol?
None of them will now be allowed free beer.

good point,
unfortunately im just the copy and pastee lol
thought it would bring some interesting perspectives tho.

theone
03-Jun-12, 22:26
Great post, and a reason we shouldn't listen too much to the tabloids.

John Little
03-Jun-12, 22:32
And the name of the tenth man was John Galt.

smithp
03-Jun-12, 23:07
10 men go for a night out and spend £100 on ale - i.e 3 pints each! These men are obviously southern softies therefore your analogy is by vertue of association 'pants'!
I thought I'd go this way with the reply because I detest your simplistic approach to wealth distribution, I'm sending you to the naughty corner in the Chavez school of political correction.

Corrie 3
04-Jun-12, 01:44
It really wouldn't worry the 4 men who didn't pay for their beer.
Once the rich man stopped paying for it they would automatically be granted a "crisis loan" from the DWP.
So no worries for them.

C3................:roll:;)

rogermellie
04-Jun-12, 02:08
a "crisis loan" from the DWP.


C3................:roll:;)

AKA the cat ate my giro loan, been a few years since i signed on, is everything electronic now ? ... a Nigerian prince stole my giro is maybe de rigueur

RecQuery
04-Jun-12, 11:40
Turns out that's crap by the way, as if you couldn't already tell by how blatantly spurious and wrong it is. Another one of those stupid chain e-mail things: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp it's also talking about the US tax system. It also makes the assumption that people pay what they should and don't hire expensive lawyers or create systems of corporations to avoid paying.

Strange how when workers don't show up it's called a strike and seemingly cracked down upon by the media and the government. Yet when rich people threaten no to show up we're supposed to feel sorry for them.

The tax rate we have now is really low compared to what it is been over the past 50 years and the rich are still complaining, there's a surprise.

pinotnoir
04-Jun-12, 12:48
A recent academic paper suggests that the optimal higher rate of tax for the top 1% of earners is 83%.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/public/PikettySaezStantcheva2011.pdf

The authors still assume a minor supply-side effect, making up 40 per cent of the total elasticity, which is why it isn't higher. That is, they still assume that high tax rates will encourage the rich to work less, but they also assume that they will encourage the rich to put more of their effort into actual work, and less of it into "compensation bargaining".
They also argue that tax cuts do not correlate with higher economic growth. This suggests that nations should be taxing the top 1% of earners far more.

RecQuery
04-Jun-12, 15:23
A recent academic paper suggests that the optimal higher rate of tax for the top 1% of earners is 83%.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/public/PikettySaezStantcheva2011.pdf

The authors still assume a minor supply-side effect, making up 40 per cent of the total elasticity, which is why it isn't higher. That is, they still assume that high tax rates will encourage the rich to work less, but they also assume that they will encourage the rich to put more of their effort into actual work, and less of it into "compensation bargaining".
They also argue that tax cuts do not correlate with higher economic growth. This suggests that nations should be taxing the top 1% of earners far more.

That's more like the historic rates in the UK and US which tended to go between 70% and 90% which curiously is when both countries were at their most prosperous. There was an interesting TED talk on why cutting the tax rate won't create jobs billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer gave (http://www.businessinsider.com/this-billionaire-venture-capitalist-gave-a-ted-talk-saying-rich-people-dont-create-jobs--and-ted-is-refusing-to-post-it-2012-5#ixzz1v4NvmZV2), but they were too scared/politicaly biasedl to make it available.