An interesting spin on taxation...

I read this and thought it gave an interesting spin on taxation and its perception from differing points of view: -

Here's another take on the tax situation:

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.

Cheers,

Graham.
 
+1 Graham! The 'stinking thinking' of these men in your example is exactly what is wrong with society today.
Garry
 
Graham,

Thought this may interest you as it seems the prof did not write it but just gave the article to his students as well as other opinion pieces reflecting different perspectives in order to stimulate debate, and did not neceserily agree with it.



Origins: The only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship, and the investigation reveals this item to be one of those favored pieces of writing adopted and reprinted by numerous columnists without their knowing (or necessarily caring) who originally penned it.

The signature block at the bottom of the currently circulating Internet version identifies it as being the work of "T. Davies," a Professor of Accounting at the University of South Dakota. Professor Thomas Davies does indeed teach at USD's School of Business, but when we inquired of him whether he was the originator of this piece, we received the following response:
Thank you for your message. I previously distributed the "How Taxes Really Work" article (as well as other opinion pieces reflecting different perspectives) to my graduate tax class to encourage them to think beyond the rules and regulations. Unfortunately, it is rather easy to focus on the myriad of complex rules and forget that tax policy frequently influences taxpayer behavior beyond what may have been intended. Thus my students are frequently asked to think "outside the box," and consider such topics a tax complexity, alternative forms of taxation, and the impact of taxes on behavior. The article was not written by me, and I have intentionally avoided commenting on its validity in order to encourage my students to think critically, and to assist in the development of their analytical and communication skills. I am unaware of the true author's identity, which is unfortunate, since the piece has generated considerable interest. Unfortunately, one of my students sent it along and erroneously contributed the authorship to me.
 
Great article, regardless of authorship. It makes the point even if the numbers themselves aren't accurate. You guys in the UK have my sympathy re. taxes etc. Bitch as we do here in the States, we're a lot better off. Case in point; we're going to a squadron reunion at RAF Lakenheath, and here is an example of advertised cost vs. actual:
Alamo car rental: 1 week 82 pounds. Vehicle license fee, Premium Location fee(?) (an airport, for God's sake), VAT etc. 80 pounds, i.e as much as the rental is worth.

And we have people here who WANT VAT? (17.5%, sports fans).
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
I wish all of life's complicated issues could be fairly described by a short anecdote (which it seems none do, or do well). It was entertaining though, and it purpose of intitiating come critical thinking was a success.
 
Thanks guys,

My point was exactly that - to open a conversation about taxation, its benefits, pitfalls and how balanced, or unbalanced it can be.

We have a situation brewing here in the UK where Child benefit (worth around £100 per month, per child) is being taken away from higher rate tax payers (someone earning over £45,000 per year (a rough number, but you get my point)).

The Irony is that it's OK to keep the benefit if both partners work and earn £44,000 per year each (equals £88,000... ), but the families who have a parent who stays at home to look after the child(ren) whilst the other parent is a higher rate tax payer loses the benefit.

I don't have any children (my loss, made a choice when I was younger that I now regret), so I have no vested interest in this foolish plan.

It seems that somewhere along the line common sense exited the building called "politics" and entered the building called "fucking stoopid".

There are too many ways to screw over the (slightly) well off and the people called "middle England" of which I guess I'm one. We are more than happy to pay taxes to support our country, but the phrase "where will it end" is becoming a tad worn out.

Cheers,

Graham.
 
Thanks guys,

My point was exactly that - to open a conversation about taxation, its benefits, pitfalls and how balanced, or unbalanced it can be.

The Irony is that it's OK to keep the benefit if both partners work and earn £44,000 per year each (equals £88,000... ), but the families who have a parent who stays at home to look after the child(ren) whilst the other parent is a higher rate tax payer loses the benefit.

Graham,

Spot on, the thing I find most distasteful is that governments go after benefit cheats because it's headline grabbing whilst ignoring those, many of whom are very wealthy who use every trick in the book, legal or not, to avoid paying taxes.

Estimated cost to the country from benefit cheats £1 billion
Estimated cost to the country from tax avoidence £25 billion


From Direct Govt website

Benefit fraud cost the country around £900 million in 2008-09. If you think someone is committing benefit fraud, find out how you can report them and stop them taking money from the people who need it most.


From Tax Research UK

The TUC published a report called ‘The Missing Billions: The UK Tax Gap’ this morning. I’ll declare an interest now: I wrote this report.

It’s message is simple, but based upon a mass of research in HM Revenue & Customs data with regard to individuals and in the accounts of the 50 largest companies in the UK with regard to corporate tax. The simple fact is that tax avoidance is commonplace and is costing, in my estimate, not less than £25 billion a year.
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Thanks guys,

My point was exactly that - to open a conversation about taxation, its benefits, pitfalls and how balanced, or unbalanced it can be.

We have a situation brewing here in the UK where Child benefit (worth around £100 per month, per child) is being taken away from higher rate tax payers (someone earning over £45,000 per year (a rough number, but you get my point)).

The Irony is that it's OK to keep the benefit if both partners work and earn £44,000 per year each (equals £88,000... ), but the families who have a parent who stays at home to look after the child(ren) whilst the other parent is a higher rate tax payer loses the benefit.

I don't have any children (my loss, made a choice when I was younger that I now regret), so I have no vested interest in this foolish plan.

It seems that somewhere along the line common sense exited the building called "politics" and entered the building called "fucking stoopid".

There are too many ways to screw over the (slightly) well off and the people called "middle England" of which I guess I'm one. We are more than happy to pay taxes to support our country, but the phrase "where will it end" is becoming a tad worn out.

Cheers,

Graham.


Having a child I filled in the necessary 40 page form to "claim" the Child tax credit.

Back then I was earning probably £30k annually
I was paid about £30 per month for the first year (The credit is on a sliding scale based on your earnings - higher the earnings less you get as credit)
This dropped to about £20 per month for the 2nd year
And half - three quarters the way through the 2nd year I got a demand for £329 that they claim was overpaid to me for the first year.

2 or 3 months later I got a demand for about £218 for that which they claim they overpaid in the 2nd year

I returned the funds and told them to stop all further payments as it was not worth the hassle for about £25 per year - I had also had an increase that put my salary

I got no further payments - received no further communications and thought the end had happened

Heard nothing for about 6 years then gor a bailifs demand for about £700 pounds overpaid to me over the years 3 - 6 of the scheme

Just as well I'm anal about these things and kept copies of my letters and bank statements and could prove what had gone on before - I got a letter of apology and confirmed no further action would be taken. (That probably means I'm in court next year!)

This whole scheme was a system generated to create Government jobs under Labour and was not going to benefit anyone in employment to any great level - but was "sold" as something to offsed the Tax increases Gordon "dickhead" Brown put through.

The whole thing should be scrapped and not just for the wealthy.
Let the people who earn keep their money and support their own famlies (reduce taxation)
Disband this stupid department running this "scheme" - save millions in wages admin costs and property rentals.
Let the lower paid and non paid (Scroungers) apply for assistance and prove they need it and why they cannot get off their arses and get a job.

Sorry this whole scheme touches a nerve with me (Rant over)

Ian
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
THATS THE EASY BIT IAN, wait till you die and they will still screw you for 40% of your kids inheritance !

What inheritance?
The GT40? By then it will be a worthless ornament as there will be no oil left in the world!

Actuall Frank I agree

Time for an uprising and get the useless barstewards to stop messing with things that do not concern them.
Road Tax pays for road generation and maintenance - hell even put that as 5 p on a litre of fuel then even the current non payers pay when they fill up.

NI Pays for NHS (Only for UK Natonals / residents) and Pension (Leave the country and lose the pension)

Tax on income pays for Defence - Air Navy, Army and Police - but only on our shores (Army for rent in Afghanistan - only when Afghanistan pays)
And Education - only for UK residents / UK Nationals (Foreign attendees must pay full fees)

De we really need anything else from central government? - Send al the politicians and hangers on packing! (that will save even more than the Con- Dems are suggesting)

Local Government keeps the streets clean and collect the rubbish.

Simple and efficient

Ian
But I don't think I'll get voted in to get the changes done
 
If I was there I'd definitely vote for you, Ian. In Oz, and probably all Western economies, you find that your tax is taken as money for huge bureacracy, overseas study trips, and countless red tape departments not actually doing anything useful, as well as a very basic funding of the state's services. All the areas that our taxes were to cover, to a reasonable extent for everyone, like education, hospital cover, roads, public transport, pension when you retire, don't get much of this core tax money, so we have to pay EXTRA levies and taxes as road tolls and speeding fines, superannuation, medicare levy, etc. Need more power stations for the growing population, oh that's extra on your electricity bill; need more dams, that will be a surcharge, live near bush, that needs a bushfire levy. And all the public utilities that we already own are also sold off for short term gain, leaving us to pay a private company costs plus large profit. We are being screwed. Part of our taxes should be used to maintain high quality, essential infrastructure that should not be sold off/privatised. Airports, water supply, electricity supply, and the basic communication network throughout the country, probably a few other things. The accounting for expenditure of our tax money should be quite transparent. Any big stuff-ups, and you're gone.
End of rant.
 
Graham,

Estimated cost to the country from benefit cheats £1 billion
Estimated cost to the country from tax avoidence £25 billion



Lets be clear about terminology here.

Cheating the benefits system is illegal
Tax AVOIDANCE is NOT illegal.

It is simply playing the rules to your best advantage to avoid paying more tax than the rules require. If the legislators leave loopholes that can be exploited, then more fool them. It doesn't make exploiting those loopholes illegal.

Tax EVASION is illegal. Lets not confuse the two.
 
Interesting. Just a few comments:
- in the UK and in Europe, we live in social democracies that are cradle to grave welfare states and they are expensive - everyone knows that
- private initiative is curbed, and risk isn't encouraged
- no one is very wealthy and making a lot of money is difficult, starting your own business is not hard, but getting it to move is (actually the UK is in pretty good shape here for starting something new)

I ask the question, are we better off with social welfare or jobs that pay decent wages?
With jobs, the tax rates are lower. With social welfare, taxes to those who work have to be higher.

Comments???
 
Interesting. Just a few comments:
- in the UK and in Europe, we live in social democracies that are cradle to grave welfare states and they are expensive - everyone knows that
- private initiative is curbed, and risk isn't encouraged
- no one is very wealthy and making a lot of money is difficult, starting your own business is not hard, but getting it to move is (actually the UK is in pretty good shape here for starting something new)

I ask the question, are we better off with social welfare or jobs that pay decent wages?
With jobs, the tax rates are lower. With social welfare, taxes to those who work have to be higher.

Comments???

Domtoni,


Interesting question, but one that has it's own issues. Are we to follow the labour route of public sector job creation which we have seen in the last fifteen years, or do we take on a more laissez faire market driven approach.

Both of these are wrong, and actually I believe that an amalgam of the two is the correct course of action. It is the responsibilty of the individual to pay taxes to the democratically elected government. Unfortunately from that point on it passes out of our hands and into the hands of people who I wouldn't buy milk from, let alone trust to run my country in most cases.

The biggest truism that the Labour party continues to forget (IMHO) is that every single penny required by the state HAS to be supplied by the private sector ('cos it ain't coming from anywhere else (apart from the IMF, with interest rates attached...)). So we end up with yoyo parliaments, goody goody labour who create jobs for all and nasty Mr Conservative who then over the course of a couple of parliaments has to try and pay back that debt and balance the books again. I have seen this over the course of my lifetime, and I don't think it's about to change anytime soon.

We now have a debt whose interest payments next year (let alone the capital repayment) will be more than the total spending on defence and the health service, which is simply STAGGERING.

Graham.
 
Hi Graham,

Listening to BBC Radio this morning, the same thought passed my mind about how we just see saw back and forth between the two policies.

Last saturday I was in the local town and saw the Socialist Workers organising a protest against the Conservative conference in Birmingham, and couldn't help but wonder (signs said that cuts destroy lives) with the private sector unemployment as high as it is, who is going to pay for all of this? I guess they expect that those with any money should be taxed to the hilt. Didn't all the big rock stars leave the UK in the 1970s when the marginal tax rate on highest earners was 90%?

At least for me, it makes sense to:
- cut business taxes and allow private sector jobs to be created
- tax these businesses fairly
- make sure that the worker is not overly taxed
- make sure that government bureaucracy is not too big - I was in the Job Seekers + and couldn't help but reflect on the make work jobs that were put in place - US Unemployment doesn't require someone to report every two weeks to make sure they are looking for a job

But what do you do when one policy that transcends 30 years+ wipes on manufacturing jobs, how do you replace them? Cut the tax rate for hedge funds/bankers and bring the financial industry to London or employ people in the government?
 
Graham,

Estimated cost to the country from benefit cheats £1 billion
Estimated cost to the country from tax avoidence £25 billion



Lets be clear about terminology here.

Cheating the benefits system is illegal
Tax AVOIDANCE is NOT illegal.

It is simply playing the rules to your best advantage to avoid paying more tax than the rules require. If the legislators leave loopholes that can be exploited, then more fool them. It doesn't make exploiting those loopholes illegal.


Tax EVASION is illegal. Lets not confuse the two.

Chris,

You are right bad example I should have used this from the National Fraud Authority breakdown of fraud losses

Tax fraud £15.2 billion


To me however tax evasion is some casses is no less obscene, how much money does an individual need.

Christian Aid report

Tax avoidance, the legal option, usually conducted via one of the globe’s many tax havens is also criticised in the report. A firmly entrenched and widely accepted practice in the modern world, Christian Aid comments on the “moral ambivalence” that the toleration of tax avoidance promulgates. It is within this grey area of tax-havens and offshore accounts that “a full 50 per cent of world trade is reported to take place”.

With this in mind let’s have a look at a few recent examples of some famous types who’ve followed the path of so many transnational corporations and done their best to hand over as little of their hard-earned fortunes to the taxman as possible; and in doing so perhaps legitimised and promoted the practices of tax avoidance and tax evasion in the eyes of their adoring fans…



Lewis Hamilton: Quick off the Grid
In August 2007 Lewis Hamilton, the 22-year-old British F1 superstar (who is briefly mentioned in the Christian Aid report), told the media that he was planning to move from the UK in a bid to reclaim his privacy from the obsessively intrusive tabloid press. However, after the predictable announcement of his ensuing move to Switzerland, tax-haven of numerous racing drivers, Hamilton was forced to reveal his true motivation: with estimated earnings of around £10m ($19.8m) for this year Hamilton will now avoid the UK’s 40% tax and pay a mere £180,000 ($350,000) in his new Swiss hometown – saving a tidy sum of around £3.82m ($7.5m). Hopefully he’ll be able to spend his fortune in seclusion far away from prying eyes.

The Rolling Stones: Sell out, Cash in and Rock on (and on and on)
The world-famous sexagenarian rock group made their mark in the 1960s with classic tunes such as (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction and Jumpin’ Jack Flash. As pioneers of prostituting their art in the name of big money (they were early advocates and life-long exponents of commercially-sponsored tours) Jagger & Co made an early shrewd decision to base the holding company managing their music rights in The Netherlands rather than in their native UK back in 1972. Two years ago figures were released revealing that despite earning a colossal £240m ($476m) in royalties over a twenty year period they have paid a mere £3.9m ($7.7m) in tax, just 1.6% – an advantage of the lenient Dutch tax laws for musicians.
 
Last edited:
I guess they expect that those with any money should be taxed to the hilt. Didn't all the big rock stars leave the UK in the 1970s when the marginal tax rate on highest earners was 90%?

Leona Mindy Roberts Helmsley billionaire :heard to say "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes"
 
The "rich" in America that pay a large amount of tax are small business Corporation sub chapter S. The owners file the business profit on their personal income tax which shows them as being the rich. It doesn't take into account that the money will be used to expand the business or buy new equipment, etc. The top 10% of the "rich" pay 90% of the tax. We should get some of those that are drinking free beer to get a job and pay some taxes.
 
Where we fall short in the US is in the area of tax upon the ultra-wealthy. We have a reasonably balanced progressive taxing scheme that leaves enough dollars in the pocket of the typical wage earner to still provide incentive to grow incomes, while at the same time generating a meaningful amount of federal tax to cover federal expenses. Where our current scheme lacks effectiveness is with incomes above $1.0M (the "ultra-wealthy"). While the current top rate approaches 40%, the effective rate of the ultra-wealthy is typically much, much lower because of sophistiated tax planning schemes - their effective rates are usually in the range of 10-20%. This, of course, puts the ultra-wealthy in a lower effective tax bracket than most earners with middle incomes ($50k-$100k) who typically cannot afford sophisticated tax planning.

My first job as a cpa 25 years ago was tax planning for the ultra-wealthy. I quickly realized that these folks spend a little on complex tax planning schemes and save an enormous amount of tax dollars thereby. Being able to move the effective rate upon the ultra-wealthy from 10-20% to 40% would solve any and all budgetary problems we presently have by a very, very wide margin.

Taxing the ultra-wealthy more effectively is a difficult sell because, of course, the ultra-wealthy are really the people in control in Washington D.C. They are able to stall any initiative through back channel means (lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc.) before it ever gets to be considered by congress or commented upon in the popular media. It's really pretty pathetic, and sign of exceedingly weak leadership in Congress
 
Last edited:
Back
Top