A salient lesson perhaps?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

verytalldave

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,590
Location
Bromley, Kent
Car
W203 C200K Cubanite
Suppose that every day, the same ten men go out for a few beers 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 threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten 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 roughly the same amount, and he proceeded

to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).


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 pound out of the £20,'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 pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'

'That's true' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The 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 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, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them 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. ;)
 
Except, it doesnt work like that in this country.

Its 40% tax for all, no 60% tax bracket and before you say the 40% tax bracket is only for higher earnings, you're forgetting that NI contributions stop at that level, making it pretty much the same rate across the whole spectrum.

As a percentage of earnings, the poor are the highest taxed and the rich are taxed the lowest.

In anyones book that cant be right can it?
 
I heard a slightly different story. It was much the same except the tenth man was domicled in the Cayman islands and had a good accountant, so although he liked to drink with his mates in the pub they had to pay for all the beer. The money he saved he used to buy English premier league soccer clubs for amusement.;)
 
Quote:
"Except, it doesnt work like that in this country.

Its 40% tax for all, no 60% tax bracket and before you say the 40% tax bracket is only for higher earnings, you're forgetting that NI contributions stop at that level, making it pretty much the same rate across the whole spectrum.

As a percentage of earnings, the poor are the highest taxed and the rich are taxed the lowest.

In anyones book that cant be right can it?"








Seems to be in Gordons and Darlings opinions...........


I bet Harold Wilson and George Brown are both turning in their graves and Micheal Foot is shaking his head in disbelief...........
 
Last edited:
I heard a slightly different story. It was much the same except the tenth man was domicled in the Cayman islands and had a good accountant, so although he liked to drink with his mates in the pub they had to pay for all the beer. The money he saved he used to buy English premier league soccer clubs for amusement.;)

The one I heard was slightly different too - That had a guy who worked for himself and was set up to pay little or no money toward the beer, but complained continually about what he was given to drink and the fines he kept getting for illegally parking his Porsche.

:devil: :)
 
Is there one where the guy has trouble ordering the beer because he doesn't speak English but still expects it for nothing and also wants a half a coke sent home to his children? :devil:
 
Quote:


I bet Harold Wilson and George Brown are both turning in their graves and Micheal Foot is shaking his head in disbelief...........

On a slightly different tack, I often feel Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave at the current state of his once great institution.

But then I might be taking the thread down a political road....
 
Except, it doesnt work like that in this country.

Its 40% tax for all, no 60% tax bracket and before you say the 40% tax bracket is only for higher earnings, you're forgetting that NI contributions stop at that level, making it pretty much the same rate across the whole spectrum.

As a percentage of earnings, the poor are the highest taxed and the rich are taxed the lowest.

In anyones book that cant be right can it?

Except the rich, who have huge disposable incomes, pay more in Sales tax (VAT) and other stealth taxes than poor persons entire gross income.

Ever considered how much the stamp duty is on a £10 Million central London Town house?

It's swings and roundabout and that's how is works in a capitalist society, any idiot in the government that thinks removing wealthy non domiciles from the UK is a good idea needs a basic lesson in economics.
 
Thats simply not correct Mudster.

Poorer people pay a bigger percentage of their earnings on sales tax as well since as they 'have to' spend a bigger percentage of their earnings on taxable goods and have little or no savings.

If anyone complains about the sales tax on a ten million pound property, I have little sympathy - sorry.
 
A good post, but let us not spoil it by turning it into a Political debate eh?:eek:
 
Thats simply not correct Mudster.

Poorer people pay a bigger percentage of their earnings on sales tax as well since as they 'have to' spend a bigger percentage of their earnings on taxable goods and have little or no savings.

If anyone complains about the sales tax on a ten million pound property, I have little sympathy - sorry.

Where did I suggest anyone who's buying a £10 Million property was complaining, I was simply highlighting the fact they pay £500,000 in stamp duty to the government for the privilege...that's tax....no other way around describing it.

I wasn't discussing percentages, simply sums of money, after all that's what matters, how much actual cash is paid. Percentage is quite simply irrelevant and any government is going to keep sweet the people that pay for them to be elected (the rich and businesses) and that doesn't matter if they are a capitalist or "Socialist" government.

It has never been any different, it won't ever be any different. If you're unhappy with the system, move to a socialist/communist state and revel in the equality of it all whilst the state tells you how you live your life.

Simon Cowell is a good example, He lives in LA just enough to be a UK non domicile, He probably pays less as a percentage of his income than the cleaner who cleans my house, but last year He paid £12 Million in Tax in the UK.

Tell me how increasing his tax burden helps the country? He simply removes a proportion of the business from the UK and removes as much of that £12 Million as He possibly can...explain the benefit to the country please?

And do you really think charging these people a flat fee of £25K a year is going to change anything, how about if they remove their income simply on principal and for the sake of £25K they government costs the country £12 Million?

Fair doesn't come into it and is a completely pointless argument, it's capitalism, accept it, move elsewhere or do something about it to become one of the rich that benefits.
 
Last edited:
The super rich have done very well for themselves in this country under Labour.

The top 1% have 23 percent of the countries total wealth. Whereas the lowest 50% of the country have only 7% of the countries total wealth.

The difference between the have's and have nots has never been greater.

I'm not saying we should be a comunist state but I did expect that under a labour government, there would be a slight wealth distribution shift in the other direction.

As for Simon Cowel, if he has managed to register himself non domicile in the UK, he probably now pays little or no tax at all back to the uk treasury with the cleaner taking up the slack.

[edit] btw, the state is telling us how to live our lives already :eek:
 
Last edited:
Quote:
"Except, it doesnt work like that in this country.

Its 40% tax for all, no 60% tax bracket and before you say the 40% tax bracket is only for higher earnings, you're forgetting that NI contributions stop at that level, making it pretty much the same rate across the whole spectrum.

QUOTE]

Not quite.

In basic terms someone has to be earning £41,435 in order to pay 40% tax

Everyone gets stuffed for normal NIC contributions as well up to roughly the same point (£770 a week or £40,040 p.a.) but above that point Class 1 NICs are charged at 1% and there is no upper limit.

End result is that the marginal rate of tax in this country on "higher" earners is 41%.

And on a historic note for the benefit of those too young to have noticed or not around at the time, within living memory (tax years 1974/5 through 1978/9) the marginal rate of income tax was 83% at you got there on taxable income over £25K. If that were not bad enough, on Investment Income there was a 15% surcharge, resulting in a marginal tax rate of 98%.

No surprise that those years saw some of the greatest economic and social problems this country has ever faced, a huge flight of talent and capital and a vast disincentive for anybody to work or start a business in the UK.

My father, along with huge numbers of others, was driven to work abroard against his wishes for many years by simple and undeniable economics: stay here and you and your family will be utterly broke.

The only reason this country never actually got to suffer under the utlimate destructive economic folly of a Wealth Tax (although the legislation was in place and the Inland Revenue had geared up to run it) was because one of the very first acts of Thatcher, M, as Prime Minister was to abolish it.
 
Not quite.

In basic terms someone has to be earning £41,435 in order to pay 40% tax

Not quite.

Someone earning over £41,435 doesn't pay 40% income tax: they pay some of their income at 40%

:devil: :D
 
Not quite.

Someone earning over £41,435 doesn't pay 40% income tax: they pay some of their income at 40%

:devil: :D

Plus there are plenty of incentives for company directors to pay themselves in dividends as opposed to salary that makes the tax obligation quite legally a lot less.
 
And quite right too, here is an example of the seriousness of the UK tax policy. Why would a company of this size choose to stay here and pay more tax when legal alternatives are available.

It is after all, business and not charity.

Its just globilisation in practice. when the tax bill can be halved for the "company" no wonder the "shareholders" demand it. Of course if you don't like what these companies do make sure you don't buy anything of theirs; until then they will ignore you.

Little wonder that the EU wants harmonised taxes where all member states pay the same. that way we can act as a large trading block as a bulwark against the evil multinationals who just move from one "low cost" economy to the next in a slash and burn fashion...yes I am playing Devils advocate at this stage but i just wanted to spice things up:D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom