Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Welcome to the forum. Although you can post in any forum, the USA forum is here in case of local regs or laws

View the thread, titled "prehaps labour and snp should read this ?" which is posted in UK Plumbers Forums on UK Plumbers Forums.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lame plumber

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.
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.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
 
'Great fortunes are oft conceived in sin.'

And that's putting it mildly.

If people are going to be rich it has to follow that some people are going to have an awful lot less. And in a civil society great wealth should come with great responsibility. They axiomatically cannot be relied upon to be philanthropic themselves, more often jealously and aggressively defending their fortunes at any cost just as they seek to increase them.

An analogy involving ten fair-minded people trying to work out how best to serve each according to his needs and from each according to his means before the savage and ungrateful proles beat the poor rich man is as contemptable as it is laugable.
 
The 'rich' should be taxed as much as possible. If they decide to drink overseas or choose not to show up, tough.
When I take a cab and I'm charged £8 at the end of my journey, I hand the cabbie £10 and walk away while he is ''pretending'' to look for my change.
When I go for a hair cut and the bill is say £8, I hand over £10, say thank you and walk away.
But in the Web Estate in Purley, I have a customer who is a fruit exporter. He supplies all the big supermarkets. He is 82 years old and walk with a walking stick and has a curved back (gravity is taking over, I think). When I attend to do a job for him and charge him £48, he says: 'it's a business expense, give me a receipt for £48'. He then actually waits for you to go to the van and bring back his change of £2. Pathetic.
 
Still don't think the Tories are the best choice to be honest. A lot of less fortunate people than us will be in for a hard 5 years.
P.s I really don't believe how many (Tory biased) newspapers demonized us (SNP) and how many folk in England believed it. There was another option, people chose not to believe in it.
🙂
 
How much money do you have to have before you become officially "Rich" and therefore your belongings become the property of the state and every envious person who wants something for nothing, and the whole world is entitled to believe that you are evil without a shred of evidence, just because it panders to their prejudices?

I only ask so that I can stop short £1 short of that figure, and remain on the right side of humanity. 🙂

Its all relative. In global terms you need to earn just $34,000 (thats dollars, not pounds) to be in the top 1%. I guess most people on this site earn more than that. So be careful how you judge the guy on $40,000. Rich b@st@ard.
 
Cameron will have a 'HardTime' with the SNP (believe you me). That Nicola Stugen - or summat - will be besides herself, thinking: I have all these seats in Parliament, but no power to go with it? She will be well frustrated. It is not whether she will be pushing for Scotland to go it alone. It is a question of WHEN? And we all thought the Scottish Referandum was all over and done with? Think again
 
I've already seen many Labour supporters blaming Scotland for getting another 5 years, even though if Labour won all 59 Scottish seats it would have made no difference what so ever.
 
How much money do you have to have before you become officially "Rich" and therefore your belongings become the property of the state and every envious person who wants something for nothing, and the whole world is entitled to believe that you are evil without a shred of evidence, just because it panders to their prejudices?

I only ask so that I can stop short £1 short of that figure, and remain on the right side of humanity. 🙂

Its all relative. In global terms you need to earn just $34,000 (thats dollars, not pounds) to be in the top 1%. I guess most people on this site earn more than that. So be careful how you judge the guy on $40,000. Rich b@st@ard.

I have no intention to be rich, and never go to bed at night praying to be rich. I also fail to understand why someone will win say £30m on the lottery, then broadcast it to the world????

Let us assume that a town is made up of just a street and 40 families live in that street. Also, let us assume that each family plays the lottery. Then one family scoops a £10m win while the others have nothing. Chances are the winning family's home will eventually be broken into as others look to get something from them. Except they take lame plumber's advice and move abroad. If they did, their absence will make no difference to the other families
 
If people are going to be rich it has to follow that some people are going to have an awful lot less.

This is the greatest misunderstanding in political economics.

It is absolutely, completely and comprehensively, untrue. It would be only be true if there was a finite amount of wealth in the world. Were that to be the case, then for Adam to have an extra £1, then Billy must have £1 less. But there is not a finite amount of wealth. The amount of wealth is a constantly shifting value, and is only very vaguely limited to population. It is much more affected by the abundance of natural resources, the skills and productivity of the labour force, the organisational ability of management, the innovation of entrepreneurs, the creativity of scientists and designers, the wise allocation of capital resources and the strength of the political, social and economic institutions. It is perfectly possible (and indeed likely) that a clever and hard-working Adam can get rich without Billy suffering in the least.


And in a civil society great wealth should come with great responsibility.

Why? Why should rich people have obligations and responsibilities that others don't have? We should all obey just laws, treat our neighbours with respect, and look after those who are genuinely unable to take care of themselves. No more, no less.

An analogy involving ten fair-minded people trying to work out how best to serve each according to his needs and from each according to his means before the savage and ungrateful proles beat the poor rich man is as contemptable as it is laugable.

I would agree with you, except that it absolutely nails the mis-representation of tax cuts. They are not "giving" the tax payer anything. The are merely taking less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no intention to be rich, and never go to bed at night praying to be rich.

Nor me now VI.

Because now I realise that if we are successful in our business, that will automatically make me evil, and all my wealth will rightly become the prey of jealous neighbours.

And those of my colleagues who re-mortgaged their houses, sold their cars, borrowed more than they could afford or cashed in their life savings to participate in the MBO in the hope of a better life for their family? Are they all in danger of becoming evil too?

I just want to know where the threshold is.

And I feel really sorry for MickW, who after 43 years of building the business has now sold it, and apparently should be REQUIRED to give away the proceeds either through forced philanthropy or punitive taxation.
 
I voted for the party that was best placed to represent me, my family and my needs. I've been called a snob, a c u next Tuesday, brainwashed, accused of not reading policies etc but interestingly by people I went to school with, people I considered fair minded friends. All had the same chances as me and all supposedly smarter then me when you look back at school. Yet if they placed as much time and effort on their cv as they do their Facebook status then they wouldn't need to worry so much about their benefits being cut which would leave money in the pot for those who truly need it.

I work damn hard! And often do a 100 hour week! To say I then should be paying more in tax to help those who choose not to is no incentive to succeed and counter productive to my aspirations and efforts.

I fail to see why the same principle shouldn't be applied to those whose earn more then I could comprehend so long as you pay what's due.

Hounding those driven by success and the desire to live out their dreams for the benefit of those too lazy to help themselves is just not on
 
I've already seen many Labour supporters blaming Scotland for getting another 5 years, even though if Labour won all 59 Scottish seats it would have made no difference what so ever.

Here's the thing though the snp didn't win conservatives didn't win labour lost!conservative didn't gain that many votes but labour supporters just don't turn up. 15 million people didn't come out to vote and I'd say the majority of whom would be labour.
 
The voting system proved to be a joke approx 1.5 million voted the bigot /SNP party yet 5 million voted others and get no representation hmmmm ,.

Any one notice mrs fidget (nicola sturgeon) has no top lip

Wealthy or poor who cares we all end up dead
 
I voted for the party that was best placed to represent me, my family and my needs. I've been called a snob, a c u next Tuesday, brainwashed, accused of not reading policies etc but interestingly by people I went to school with, people I considered fair minded friends. All had the same chances as me and all supposedly smarter then me when you look back at school. Yet if they placed as much time and effort on their cv as they do their Facebook status then they wouldn't need to worry so much about their benefits being cut which would leave money in the pot for those who truly need it.

I work damn hard! And often do a 100 hour week! To say I then should be paying more in tax to help those who choose not to is no incentive to succeed and counter productive to my aspirations and efforts.

I fail to see why the same principle shouldn't be applied to those whose earn more then I could comprehend so long as you pay what's due.

Hounding those driven by success and the desire to live out their dreams for the benefit of those too lazy to help themselves is just not on


I laughed at the Facebook status of the moaners on my page all moaning about cons getting in , and strangely it was all the ones that don't really contribute to society in any way except producing mass children.
 
I only ask so that I can stop short £1 short of that figure, and remain on the right side of humanity. 🙂

Ray, Ray, Ray. We've had this conversation before old chum. You are a merchant. You made that deal at the crossroads - your very first sale probably. You can't be human with no soul!

Anyway, I had better get back to work. Widows and orphans don't oppress themselves you know...,

That's better! 🙂
 
The problem with this country is if someone works hard builds a big business and becomes rich there automatically branded ******s and hated

Should it not be a lot of them people should be looked upto not demonised they have achieved great things not say on there bum and take money hand over fist from the tax payer why should someone who has done well for themselves get screwed and have to pay a lot more money for there hard work just because our welfare system is paying good money to s lot of scumbags

Of course there will be exceptions
No wonder people try and take there money out of Britain or try to avoid the huge tax they get charged
 
why should someone who has done well for themselves get screwed and have to pay a lot more money for there hard work just because our welfare system is paying good money to s lot of scumbags

What a lot of the loony left, the feckless and bone idle, the entitled, fail to grasp is the the rich DO pay a lot more.

20% of £1M per annum is a lot more than 20% of £10K p.a.

To then doubly penalise high earners by putting them into higher tax brackets will not improve the economy in the long term as it reduces or removes the incentive to work harder, innovate, invest and grow.

Additionally, as a percentage of their tax contribution higher earners are lower consumers from the common pot. A GP appointment or operation or policing costs basically the same whether you're a mega-rich plumbers' merchant or a poor plumber. Their relative tax contributions are worlds apart, however.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Additionally, as a percentage of their tax contribution higher earners are lower consumers from the common pot. A GP appointment or operation or policing costs basically the same whether you're a mega-rich plumber or a poor plumber's merchant without two brass farthings to rub together. Their relative tax contributions are worlds apart, however.

Fixed your typo Mas.
 
The problem with this country is if someone works hard builds a big business and becomes rich there automatically branded ******s and hated
there is another angle to that generally they are, as one of the requirements to get on in this world is a total disregard for how others see you and no desire to please anyone else but yourself. All stems from childhood i think we grow up to be pleasers or non pleasers and its usually the latter who are more succesfull
The classic scenario is tough background with little love becomes billionaire
 
there is another angle to that generally they are, as one of the requirements to get on in this world is a total disregard for how others see you and no desire to please anyone else but yourself. All stems from childhood i think we grow up to be pleasers or non pleasers and its usually the latter who are more succesfull
The classic scenario is tough background with little love becomes billionaire

Whilst there is some truth to that Steve, I don't think it's entirely true. There are a LOT of philanthropic millionaires. Some have built businesses by being ruthless, others being being visionaries and spotting a niche in the market.

I think you need a thick skin and extreme resilience to shrug off the doubters and bounce back from early failures. You need determination and a great deal of stubbornness but I don't think it's necessary to not care about others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Official Sponsors of Plumbers Talk

Reply to the thread, titled "prehaps labour and snp should read this ?" which is posted in UK Plumbers Forums on Plumbers Forums.

We recommend City Plumbing Supplies, BES, and Plumbing Superstore for all plumbing supplies.

Weekly or Monthly Email Digest

Back
Top