Independent Leyton Orient Forum

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 (a100% 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 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.

So how do the rich give back there tax windfalls to
The poor .

Havent yet heard 1 story where google paid Joe Bloggs
Half a million quid for his tax rebates or his profits
from loyal useage.

Ive seen this type of Brainfart before from
someone who thinks they are rich.

He now has no money as when the banks collapsed ,
He couldnt get his buisnesses money , had to use his personal wealth as the banks stopped lending ,

£6.5 million quid down the swanny trying to keep his buisness from collapsing.
Failed & lost his house .
Wife had a Heart attack , He got cancer &
His workforce of 27 all got laid off.

Pathetic copy and paste.

Embarassing.

A Farrago of IMBECILITY.

Usual suspects Zzzzzzzzz.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:51 pm Pathetic copy and paste.

* 1 million

Chancethor of the exchequer

It’s an interesting story and although I agree with the article about the rich guy not getting beaten up, it has merits.

I recall a few years ago Sturgeon wanted to tax the rich even more. 50%. But the idea was dropped because of the fear that the high earners would leave Scotland and if some did, 5% or so, tax revenue would fall. In effect they would go to another pub. Sturgeon back tracked if I recall. Good theory, poo poo practice.

Nice or not, increasing the tax burden on high earners will likely lead to an increase in legal tax avoidance schemes and revenue may well fall. Morally wrong, but it will happen. There will be clever financial ambulance chasing wizards out there ready to make a buck. They win, high earners win, public purse loses.

Well, you "recall" wrong, Prez.

I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Without the rich man there would be no biscuits to fight over.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:37 pm

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Without the rich man there would be no biscuits to fight over.

There would be home made biscuits.
Just no Biscuit industry.

Communism, marxism, socialism works. It’s incredibly fair, we all end up equal, .....with f*** all.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:37 pm

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Without the rich man there would be no biscuits to fight over.

The rich man hasn’t done anything other than the provide the antique mahogany table on which to place the biscuits. A table that has been handed down through the generations.

It’s the two workers that grafted to actually make the biscuits.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:37 pm

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Without the rich man there would be no biscuits to fight over.

How insulting. The rich tw*t did nothing. If access to the means of production was social (note I say social and not nationalised) then biscuits would continue to be made just fine. All that would have changed was that the means of production would no longer be behind a legal firewall that ensured you only got access to them by agreeing to work for the "private owner" who then gets to keep the biscuits that you made and do with them as he wishes. For your efforts you are treated as a commodity and paid the going rate, i.e - the measliest amount that someone, somewhere is willing to work for. The business owner drives down your wage further by investing in machinery that dispenses with the need for skilled labour and thus deskills the work force and forces them to accept even less in recompense.

For pays for the ingredients and equipment etc?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:39 am For pays for the ingredients and equipment etc?

It entirely depends under which system you're operating. There are literally vast possibilities in this regard. Some have been tried or were the norm at various points in our history. The model we live under currently has only been evolving/devolving for about 60 years.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:37 pm

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Without the rich man there would be no biscuits to fight over.

He only took the value, he didn't create it.

RedO wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:03 am

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:37 pm

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

Without the rich man there would be no biscuits to fight over.

The rich man hasn’t done anything other than the provide the antique mahogany table on which to place the biscuits. A table that has been handed down through the generations.

It’s the two workers that grafted to actually make the biscuits.

It would be the company and a tax rebate that provided the table, not the rich man. He would have just ordered it.

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

But normal courtesy is that you offer first. This does not ring true, whereas your first example does happen, certainly in my circle.

Still's Carenae wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:08 pm

Eat The Rich wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:35 pm I prefer the one about the biscuits. It goes like this...

There were three men at a company meeting. The first man was a director of the company and incredibly wealthy. The second man worked in admin and was comfortably off. The third man just scraped by on what little he earned working on the floor. On the enormous mahogany table in front of the three men was a silver tray piled high with delicious biscuits. They all eyed them hungrily but before the poor man or the middle class man could make a move the rich man had grabbed them all in two fat fists, all apart from one slightly dented biscuit. With a knowing nod the rich man turned to the comfortably off man and said under his voice. . . "I'd watch out for that rotten commie sitting next to ya, it looks like he's after your biscuit."

See, that's how its done.

But normal courtesy is that you offer first. This does not ring true, whereas your first example does happen, certainly in my circle.

Sorry mate, I've read that a handful of times and I can't see what you're saying. Could you rephrase please.

Generally, being a host, you offer to others first. For biscuits.

I am fortunate to have some friends, who are significantly better of than most and will pay a larger share on occasion. For beer.

What I am implying is that I see the beer example more frequently than the biscuit one.

The biscuit example is everywhere - it’s our current economic model - but you’re just not seeing it. That’s the problem.