Taxes Explained

Suppose that 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 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 realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone’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 restaurant, 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!’

‘Yes, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a pound, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did’

‘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.

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.

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

But the only reason the tenth man had reduced savings (16% as opposed to 33%) is because the saving is given as a proportion of his payment - which can be assumed to be linked to his wealth. The saving should be given as a proportion of the total payment of the group, as first suggested - in the same way the poorest people receive benefits for doing nothing.

What the analogy seems to be saying is that richer people should/do recieve greater tax breaks because each individual pound is worth proportionally less to them!

Just because the rich put more into the system doesn’t mean they should get more out of it - they put in more for the sole reason that they have more to put. Otherwise it’d be like saying “my twenty-year-old child provided me with a better Christmas present last year than my five-year-old child. Therefore, this Christmas I will buy the twenty year old a proportionally better present”!

I’m not arguing with the fact that a uniform tax break would naturally benefit the rich, who pay more - but with the idea that tax breaks should be uniform. I reckon that, like they should be inversely proportional to wealth, in the same way that, say, income tax is directly proportional to it.

The whole analogy is flawed, anyway, because in reality the sum of the payments from the lower tax brackets is much, much higher than the sum of payments from the higher.

I think I’ll have to show that to my economics teacher - I think he may appreciate that :smiley:

The thing about tax really doesn’t get bug me. It’s there for a reason.

But the thing that really f**ks me off is the fact i paying for the people that don’t have jobs, dont want to get jobs, and spend their money on fags, drink and watching T.V.

OR

Teenage girl who purposely get pregnant to get given a house/flat to rent (cheap) and loads of benfits to bring up the child. I actually know people like that.

+1

And I know people like that aswell unfortunately…

I think this section is the most important one, and it links to what you just said:

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison.

‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor’

What do they think about your views?

Anyway -

https://www.youtube.com/v/h45WnW0ASFY&hl=en

+2