FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Ten guys go out for a beer...
Ten guys go out for a beer...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
just to balance that out a little.  | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
"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 ball. "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 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 realised 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 pound 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 pound 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, 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 may 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. "but somehow the wealthy still come out on top ,if I were that wealthy man I wouldn't have drank with them spongers anyway | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better." It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology " What facts, are you suggesting the OP has stated facts?? | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology What facts, are you suggesting the OP has stated facts?? " The maths is correct is it not? If you think the analogy isn't representative then feel free to say why? | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology " I have an ideology but its not this | |||
| |||
"If everyone played by the rules paid taxes and equally didn't take advantage of the state it would be a much simpler solution. Instead, the big earners pay as little as they can (admit it, almost everyone would) and people with nothing see having kids as a career option then demand a house and call an ambulance for their kid with a cough (I have witnessed that) But the moral to the story, life is far from fair and it's not improving." There's also a third criteria that the state doesn't take advantage of them. Democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner. | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology What facts, are you suggesting the OP has stated facts?? The maths is correct is it not? If you think the analogy isn't representative then feel free to say why? " Because it is a very simplified analysis that does not take into account all the variables, tbh it's utter bollocks  | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology What facts, are you suggesting the OP has stated facts?? The maths is correct is it not? If you think the analogy isn't representative then feel free to say why? Because it is a very simplified analysis that does not take into account all the variables, tbh it's utter bollocks "Well feel free to expand that statement to point out the missing critical variables? | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology What facts, are you suggesting the OP has stated facts?? The maths is correct is it not? If you think the analogy isn't representative then feel free to say why? Because it is a very simplified analysis that does not take into account all the variables, tbh it's utter bollocks
Well feel free to expand that statement to point out the missing critical variables? "I don't have the time or the inclination tbh, it is far more complicated than the OP is suggesting | |||
"ten people go out for a drink 9 are members of parliament, the other is a hard working tax payer with a family to support and a mortgage, he pays taxes on food, clothing, heating, as well as his wages. the bill comes all of the MPs get a reduction paid for by the hard working guy. he has a heart attack and due to government cutbacks he dies before he can pay the bill though. the MPs just get other tax payers to foot the bill instead. i shall be back when i think of more stories.... "I thought the MPs would have claimed it on their expenses ? | |||
"Mate you should be on the news and explain these things so we can understand better. It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology What facts, are you suggesting the OP has stated facts?? The maths is correct is it not? If you think the analogy isn't representative then feel free to say why? Because it is a very simplified analysis that does not take into account all the variables, tbh it's utter bollocks
Well feel free to expand that statement to point out the missing critical variables?
I don't have the time or the inclination tbh, it is far more complicated than the OP is suggesting"I'm not a big fan of the 30-second sound bite media we have in this country, but since it is the prevailing culture then simplified examples are going to happen. If you can't articulate the missing variables in a sentence then it suggests they wouldn't severely undermine the logic to the extent you claim. | |||
"It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology " This is the Fab forum - you should expect anti-responses, regardless of the topic. "The tenth guy should have had a shit-hot accountant making sure he paid feck all tax in the first place like most good company directors that get a share of profits on top of their declared low wage." I've been a company director - those profits are subject to 20% corporation tax, the same as my income tax. The only (very slight) saving, was not paying national insurance on the dividends. | |||
| |||
"It's clear from the anti-responses that some people don't want to understand facts that conflict with their ideology This is the Fab forum - you should expect anti-responses, regardless of the topic. The tenth guy should have had a shit-hot accountant making sure he paid feck all tax in the first place like most good company directors that get a share of profits on top of their declared low wage. I've been a company director - those profits are subject to 20% corporation tax, the same as my income tax. The only (very slight) saving, was not paying national insurance on the dividends." I have no problem with anti-responses, i just prefer them to come with facts and or logic rather than fake outrage and emotion | |||
"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..." presuming none of them use tax loopholes nor profited off exploitation of others for their own gain. "The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing." because despite their efforts of time and labour the economy does not value them. maybe they claim tax credits to bump up their meagre income? therefore causing a budget deficit. criminal! how dare you try to survive in an economy that does not value you. property ownership is not for you peasant. "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." now as you can see the more money you get paid the more taxes you have to pay. a lot of people in the top income tax bracket only receive half a million pounds per year, these taxes bring that right down to 1/4 of a million. you're paying not only for MPs food subsidies, wages, and expenses but you're also paying working people more wages in a system that wants to deny them that. filth, get off my land. "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 ball. "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 men would now cost just £80." What the landlord didn't tell them was he'd actually figured out if he watered down the alcohol he could make more profit. Yes, if we reduce the bill people will stop using the tax loopholes that we haven't closed..thus saving us the problem of having to close the loopholes. shit they might even use trickle down economics and pay their labour force more money. Anyway... pissy watery beer. 
"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes." trickle down theory, yay, it works. people really do pay more taxes when we offer them pissy beer. "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 everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer." hell no, no more money for those in the middle income bracket. lazy fucks, they should be stamped on like the working classes. get down where you belong, semi-peasant. "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." bar owner is stealing their wallets as he is talking to them. they're all d*unk off the pissy beer coz the landlord spiked it with killer to make more money for himself. "And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving)." landlord put up VAT to make him pay his share though.
"The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving)." landlord made his mum sell her house to pay for her care, fair is fair. big brother society and other cliches available.
"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)." all in it together. "The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving)." austerity measures. "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 saving," declared the sixth man." he smirked as he quickly shoved it into his offshore bank account. "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 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." due to police budget cuts they got away with this act of violence. "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!" well shit the guys said. we can't afford to pay off the national deficit and didn't really profit from it, what we gonna do? "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 may 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. "the end. of a nation, of an empire, of slavery, of everything britain holds dear. :cry: *cry smiley here* | |||
 | |||
"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... presuming none of them use tax loopholes nor profited off exploitation of others for their own gain. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. because despite their efforts of time and labour the economy does not value them. maybe they claim tax credits to bump up their meagre income? therefore causing a budget deficit. criminal! how dare you try to survive in an economy that does not value you. property ownership is not for you peasant. 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. now as you can see the more money you get paid the more taxes you have to pay. a lot of people in the top income tax bracket only receive half a million pounds per year, these taxes bring that right down to 1/4 of a million. you're paying not only for MPs food subsidies, wages, and expenses but you're also paying working people more wages in a system that wants to deny them that. filth, get off my land. 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 ball. "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 men would now cost just £80. What the landlord didn't tell them was he'd actually figured out if he watered down the alcohol he could make more profit. Yes, if we reduce the bill people will stop using the tax loopholes that we haven't closed..thus saving us the problem of having to close the loopholes. shit they might even use trickle down economics and pay their labour force more money. Anyway... pissy watery beer.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
trickle down theory, yay, it works. people really do pay more taxes when we offer them pissy beer.
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 everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
hell no, no more money for those in the middle income bracket. lazy fucks, they should be stamped on like the working classes. get down where you belong, semi-peasant.
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.
bar owner is stealing their wallets as he is talking to them. they're all d*unk off the pissy beer coz the landlord spiked it with killer to make more money for himself.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
landlord put up VAT to make him pay his share though.
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
landlord made his mum sell her house to pay for her care, fair is fair. big brother society and other cliches available.
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).
all in it together.
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
austerity measures.
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 saving," declared the sixth man.
he smirked as he quickly shoved it into his offshore bank account.
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 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.
due to police budget cuts they got away with this act of violence.
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!
well shit the guys said. we can't afford to pay off the national deficit and didn't really profit from it, what we gonna do?
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 may 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.
the end. of a nation, of an empire, of slavery, of everything britain holds dear. :cry: *cry smiley here*"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. | |||
| |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. " i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. | |||
"It's a poor analogy for a few reasons. First, it makes the point with consumer goods that are desireable but not necessary - beer. This automatically makes the poorest seem like the moochers they are meant to appear like. Second, it presupposes that what the poor people want is a bigger slice of the saved money (the tax cut, by analogy) rather than wanting revenue to be kept at the current rate or even raised. In fact, by the terms of the analogy it wouldn't even make sense to want to pay more for the beer....whereas with taxes there are reasons why it would be desirable to not take the cut at all. " Fair points " Furthermore, because the anaology is done with consumer goods, you can completely separate the payment issue from the earning issue - that is to say, you can pretend for the sake of the analogy that the bartender can't change the wages of the poorest consumers, that he can only affect the cost of the beer, the tax. But that's not the case for governments. It's, frankly, a false analogy. A straw man." The influence of government to effect wages in a capitalist economy is pretty limited, especially once the minimum wage is already in place. In the long-run wages can only ever be proportional to productivity which the government can assist with, but in reality the employer and employee have a lot more control over. Otherwise you just end up with an economy like France where wages have outstripped productivity, as Britain did in the 70's. | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist." My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. | |||
"It's a poor analogy for a few reasons. First, it makes the point with consumer goods that are desireable but not necessary - beer. This automatically makes the poorest seem like the moochers they are meant to appear like. Second, it presupposes that what the poor people want is a bigger slice of the saved money (the tax cut, by analogy) rather than wanting revenue to be kept at the current rate or even raised. In fact, by the terms of the analogy it wouldn't even make sense to want to pay more for the beer....whereas with taxes there are reasons why it would be desirable to not take the cut at all. Fair points Furthermore, because the anaology is done with consumer goods, you can completely separate the payment issue from the earning issue - that is to say, you can pretend for the sake of the analogy that the bartender can't change the wages of the poorest consumers, that he can only affect the cost of the beer, the tax. But that's not the case for governments. It's, frankly, a false analogy. A straw man. The influence of government to effect wages in a capitalist economy is pretty limited, especially once the minimum wage is already in place. In the long-run wages can only ever be proportional to productivity which the government can assist with, but in reality the employer and employee have a lot more control over. Otherwise you just end up with an economy like France where wages have outstripped productivity, as Britain did in the 70's. " Eh. Its a poor analogy. You and I can debate how much influence a government can have over wage growth, but the fact is that regardless of that particular factor, the anaology with a pub makes it all very one dimensional whereas government functioning is dynamic. Tax cuts simply aren't analogous to getting a good deal on a pint. Governments and tax payers have more to consider when paying taxes than just saying "thanks!" when they can put a fiver back in their pockets. We can disagree on how much a government can ifluence wages, but I dont think you can argue that it's certainly more than your local pub owner can infuence your salary. | |||
"It's a poor analogy for a few reasons. First, it makes the point with consumer goods that are desireable but not necessary - beer. This automatically makes the poorest seem like the moochers they are meant to appear like. Second, it presupposes that what the poor people want is a bigger slice of the saved money (the tax cut, by analogy) rather than wanting revenue to be kept at the current rate or even raised. In fact, by the terms of the analogy it wouldn't even make sense to want to pay more for the beer....whereas with taxes there are reasons why it would be desirable to not take the cut at all. Fair points Furthermore, because the anaology is done with consumer goods, you can completely separate the payment issue from the earning issue - that is to say, you can pretend for the sake of the analogy that the bartender can't change the wages of the poorest consumers, that he can only affect the cost of the beer, the tax. But that's not the case for governments. It's, frankly, a false analogy. A straw man. The influence of government to effect wages in a capitalist economy is pretty limited, especially once the minimum wage is already in place. In the long-run wages can only ever be proportional to productivity which the government can assist with, but in reality the employer and employee have a lot more control over. Otherwise you just end up with an economy like France where wages have outstripped productivity, as Britain did in the 70's. Eh. Its a poor analogy. You and I can debate how much influence a government can have over wage growth, but the fact is that regardless of that particular factor, the anaology with a pub makes it all very one dimensional whereas government functioning is dynamic. Tax cuts simply aren't analogous to getting a good deal on a pint. Governments and tax payers have more to consider when paying taxes than just saying "thanks!" when they can put a fiver back in their pockets. We can disagree on how much a government can ifluence wages, but I dont think you can argue that it's certainly more than your local pub owner can infuence your salary." Yes but surely there's no perfect analogy and you recognise the complexity if we tried to articulate the actual example to the electorate? The tax to GDP ratio in the UK is 36% which is very much in line with the long term average of the UK. Other than financing world war two, the UK has never has as much debt as it does now and the major opposition is proposing even more spending. If they don't collect the extra tax then they will add to that debt and we already spend more on debt interest than defence. If interest rates return to any normal level (which is almost certain) then we'll spend more on debt interest than healthcare. I can't come up with a sound bite to describe that. | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. " i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing." But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. | |||
"Yes but surely there's no perfect analogy and you recognise the complexity if we tried to articulate the actual example to the electorate? The tax to GDP ratio in the UK is 36% which is very much in line with the long term average of the UK. Other than financing world war two, the UK has never has as much debt as it does now and the major opposition is proposing even more spending. If they don't collect the extra tax then they will add to that debt and we already spend more on debt interest than defence. If interest rates return to any normal level (which is almost certain) then we'll spend more on debt interest than healthcare. I can't come up with a sound bite to describe that. " No, there isn't a perfect analogy. But then, you don't need analogy at all. The OP was a confusing muddle of percentages and costs and the reader basically just walks away saying "well those free loaders wanted to be paid to drink beer?! No wonder the rich dude left!" How ridiculous. More spending isn't the answer. True. Are higher taxes the answer? I don't know - it's worth a debate. But deciding a better way to allocate the revenue we already have is probably most pressing of all. None of that is addressed in the OP. It's all about who gets money when taxes are cut, which doesn't address debt or increasing tax revenue and may even have an adverse effect on inflation rates. All analogies like the OP do is confuse the simplest of people into thinking the issue is all about freebies that the poor want. It's deflection. If you discuss the issue directly then you don't need sub-par and misleading analogies at all. | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. " no they don't, they really don't. robots can do most jobs now and it's only a matter of time before they do. now if we really were a bunch of capitalists this wouldn't matter coz we'd all have enough capital to deal with that. the government, it's cronies, and the mega wealthy, are capitalists. it's their economy they're concerned about and that is all. when the government talk about the economy it never applies to my own financial state, just theirs. and the tax shit that started off this chat? well that's who they get to pay for everything they fuck up or want.# the national debt is mine and belongs to all tax payers, but the profits hardly ever are. | |||
"Yes but surely there's no perfect analogy and you recognise the complexity if we tried to articulate the actual example to the electorate? The tax to GDP ratio in the UK is 36% which is very much in line with the long term average of the UK. Other than financing world war two, the UK has never has as much debt as it does now and the major opposition is proposing even more spending. If they don't collect the extra tax then they will add to that debt and we already spend more on debt interest than defence. If interest rates return to any normal level (which is almost certain) then we'll spend more on debt interest than healthcare. I can't come up with a sound bite to describe that. No, there isn't a perfect analogy. But then, you don't need analogy at all. The OP was a confusing muddle of percentages and costs and the reader basically just walks away saying "well those free loaders wanted to be paid to drink beer?! No wonder the rich dude left!" How ridiculous. More spending isn't the answer. True. Are higher taxes the answer? I don't know - it's worth a debate. But deciding a better way to allocate the revenue we already have is probably most pressing of all. None of that is addressed in the OP. It's all about who gets money when taxes are cut, which doesn't address debt or increasing tax revenue and may even have an adverse effect on inflation rates. All analogies like the OP do is confuse the simplest of people into thinking the issue is all about freebies that the poor want. It's deflection. If you discuss the issue directly then you don't need sub-par and misleading analogies at all." It seems we focussed on different parts of the story because i didn't think anything negative of the low tax people. What i liked was that it highlighted the flaw in the constant rhetoric from labour that the "tories always give tax breaks to their rich friends". The tax to GDP ratio is still 36% and tax free allowances went up significantly during coalition governemnt which benefits the poor the most so someone is paying the taxes... | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. no they don't, they really don't. robots can do most jobs now and it's only a matter of time before they do. now if we really were a bunch of capitalists this wouldn't matter coz we'd all have enough capital to deal with that. the government, it's cronies, and the mega wealthy, are capitalists. it's their economy they're concerned about and that is all. when the government talk about the economy it never applies to my own financial state, just theirs. and the tax shit that started off this chat? well that's who they get to pay for everything they fuck up or want.# the national debt is mine and belongs to all tax payers, but the profits hardly ever are. " We're still decades away from robots automating everything but if and when it happens then it might become viable to introduce things like UBI which are more socialist in nature, but will actually be introduced to save the capitalist system. | |||
| |||
"Yes but surely there's no perfect analogy and you recognise the complexity if we tried to articulate the actual example to the electorate? The tax to GDP ratio in the UK is 36% which is very much in line with the long term average of the UK. Other than financing world war two, the UK has never has as much debt as it does now and the major opposition is proposing even more spending. If they don't collect the extra tax then they will add to that debt and we already spend more on debt interest than defence. If interest rates return to any normal level (which is almost certain) then we'll spend more on debt interest than healthcare. I can't come up with a sound bite to describe that. No, there isn't a perfect analogy. But then, you don't need analogy at all. The OP was a confusing muddle of percentages and costs and the reader basically just walks away saying "well those free loaders wanted to be paid to drink beer?! No wonder the rich dude left!" How ridiculous. More spending isn't the answer. True. Are higher taxes the answer? I don't know - it's worth a debate. But deciding a better way to allocate the revenue we already have is probably most pressing of all. None of that is addressed in the OP. It's all about who gets money when taxes are cut, which doesn't address debt or increasing tax revenue and may even have an adverse effect on inflation rates. All analogies like the OP do is confuse the simplest of people into thinking the issue is all about freebies that the poor want. It's deflection. If you discuss the issue directly then you don't need sub-par and misleading analogies at all. It seems we focussed on different parts of the story because i didn't think anything negative of the low tax people. What i liked was that it highlighted the flaw in the constant rhetoric from labour that the "tories always give tax breaks to their rich friends". The tax to GDP ratio is still 36% and tax free allowances went up significantly during coalition governemnt which benefits the poor the most so someone is paying the taxes... " I get what you're saying. But my comments still stand. It's a poor analogy. Let's just talk about the issues as they are rather than using anologies that, I believe, encourage the readers to think a certain way about the players involved. | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. no they don't, they really don't. robots can do most jobs now and it's only a matter of time before they do. now if we really were a bunch of capitalists this wouldn't matter coz we'd all have enough capital to deal with that. the government, it's cronies, and the mega wealthy, are capitalists. it's their economy they're concerned about and that is all. when the government talk about the economy it never applies to my own financial state, just theirs. and the tax shit that started off this chat? well that's who they get to pay for everything they fuck up or want.# the national debt is mine and belongs to all tax payers, but the profits hardly ever are. We're still decades away from robots automating everything but if and when it happens then it might become viable to introduce things like UBI which are more socialist in nature, but will actually be introduced to save the capitalist system. " idk when it'll happen but i reckon it will be asap. how is UBI going actually? i heard a lot about it when it was first being bandied about but not heard of anything for a while. genuine question. i know a couple of countries at least introduced that (but can't remember which ones). | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. no they don't, they really don't. robots can do most jobs now and it's only a matter of time before they do. now if we really were a bunch of capitalists this wouldn't matter coz we'd all have enough capital to deal with that. the government, it's cronies, and the mega wealthy, are capitalists. it's their economy they're concerned about and that is all. when the government talk about the economy it never applies to my own financial state, just theirs. and the tax shit that started off this chat? well that's who they get to pay for everything they fuck up or want.# the national debt is mine and belongs to all tax payers, but the profits hardly ever are. We're still decades away from robots automating everything but if and when it happens then it might become viable to introduce things like UBI which are more socialist in nature, but will actually be introduced to save the capitalist system. idk when it'll happen but i reckon it will be asap. how is UBI going actually? i heard a lot about it when it was first being bandied about but not heard of anything for a while. genuine question. i know a couple of countries at least introduced that (but can't remember which ones)." I don't know really, Natalie Bennett butched it when she tried to explain it as leader of the Green party but really it's just an extension of unemployment benefit and in future the majority of people will spend the majority of their time 'unemployed'. Alternatively you can think of it as income tax on robots. | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. no they don't, they really don't. robots can do most jobs now and it's only a matter of time before they do. now if we really were a bunch of capitalists this wouldn't matter coz we'd all have enough capital to deal with that. the government, it's cronies, and the mega wealthy, are capitalists. it's their economy they're concerned about and that is all. when the government talk about the economy it never applies to my own financial state, just theirs. and the tax shit that started off this chat? well that's who they get to pay for everything they fuck up or want.# the national debt is mine and belongs to all tax payers, but the profits hardly ever are. We're still decades away from robots automating everything but if and when it happens then it might become viable to introduce things like UBI which are more socialist in nature, but will actually be introduced to save the capitalist system. idk when it'll happen but i reckon it will be asap. how is UBI going actually? i heard a lot about it when it was first being bandied about but not heard of anything for a while. genuine question. i know a couple of countries at least introduced that (but can't remember which ones). I don't know really, Natalie Bennett butched it when she tried to explain it as leader of the Green party but really it's just an extension of unemployment benefit and in future the majority of people will spend the majority of their time 'unemployed'. Alternatively you can think of it as income tax on robots. " ah ok. it did sound good at the time but i wasn't sure how they'd implement it and then everyone just seemed to stop talking about it. i'll have a google about it when i get back from the gym. thanks for reminding me about it. | |||
| |||
"Sounds just like a night out with my mates.... fucking round dodgers " | |||
"In a capitalist society people need to produce something the market values. It's not the job of society to invent value where it doesn't see value. i'm not a capitalist. i own literally nothing. don't see where i fit into a capitalist society really, except as someone to be leached off to provide services, goods, or money to a capitalist. My comment isn't aimed at your personal circumstances. Your analysis started by saying the poor were poor because society didn't value them. I'm simply saying that a capitalist society isn't meant to value them, the market is. If you're saying you don't want to live in a capitalist society then that's your belief but we were discussing taxes in a capitalist society. i said the economy doesn't value them. society values them, society is their families, friends, people who don't even know them but are working the same jobs. we are not a capitalist society, we are a socialist one. we are run by capitalist but that's not the same thing. But we have a capitalist economy and people need to offer something the market values, not the gosplan needs to change to asssign value to what people want to produce. no they don't, they really don't. robots can do most jobs now and it's only a matter of time before they do. now if we really were a bunch of capitalists this wouldn't matter coz we'd all have enough capital to deal with that. the government, it's cronies, and the mega wealthy, are capitalists. it's their economy they're concerned about and that is all. when the government talk about the economy it never applies to my own financial state, just theirs. and the tax shit that started off this chat? well that's who they get to pay for everything they fuck up or want.# the national debt is mine and belongs to all tax payers, but the profits hardly ever are. We're still decades away from robots automating everything but if and when it happens then it might become viable to introduce things like UBI which are more socialist in nature, but will actually be introduced to save the capitalist system. idk when it'll happen but i reckon it will be asap. how is UBI going actually? i heard a lot about it when it was first being bandied about but not heard of anything for a while. genuine question. i know a couple of countries at least introduced that (but can't remember which ones). I don't know really, Natalie Bennett butched it when she tried to explain it as leader of the Green party but really it's just an extension of unemployment benefit and in future the majority of people will spend the majority of their time 'unemployed'. Alternatively you can think of it as income tax on robots. ah ok. it did sound good at the time but i wasn't sure how they'd implement it and then everyone just seemed to stop talking about it. i'll have a google about it when i get back from the gym. thanks for reminding me about it. "Technically it already exists in alaska, finland too i think. | |||
