advertisement


The Premiership of Mary Elizabeth Truss.Sept 2022 - Oct 2022

It’s been around for decades. The actual (recent) data in the link on post #1860 would suggest it has some merit. Maybe those who dismiss the anecdote could criticise the actual data.
The criticism is that it omits to show the income difference between them all. So it ignores that the guy in the top position earns massively more than any of the others and wouldn’t even notice the bar tab.
 
The criticism is that it omits to show the income difference between them all. So it ignores that the guy in the top position earns massively more than any of the others and wouldn’t even notice the bar tab.

The first 4 don’t notice the bar tab at all either.
 
Although I disagree with the 45p tax cut, I am reminded of this…

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 decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and they proceeded to work out the amounts 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! 
So they told the landlord he could whistle for his money and treated him to a few verses of:


The Man That Waters the Workers' Beer is from the pen of "Paddy Ryan" (Dr. R. E. W. Fisher) written in 1938 when he was a medical student. He recorded the song a year later, with The International, as the first releast of the nascent Topic Records.


I am the man, the very fat man
That waters the workers' beer
I am the man, the very fat man
That waters the workers' beer
And what do I care if it makes them ill
If it makes them terribly queer
I've a car, a yacht, and an aeroplane,
And I waters the workers' beer.

Now when I waters the workers' beer
I puts in strychnine
Some methylated spirits
And a can of kerosene
Ah, but such a brew so terribly strong
It would make them terribly queer
So I reaches my hand for the watering-can
And I waters the workers' beer:

Now a drop of good beer is good for a man
When he's tired, thirsty and hot
And I sometimes have a drop myself
From a very special pot
For a strong and healthy working class
Is the thing that I most fear
So I reaches my hand for the watering-can
And I waters the workers' beer:

Now ladies fair, beyond compare
Be you maiden or wife
Spare a thought for such a man
Who leads such a lonely life
For the water rates are frightfully high,
And the meths is terribly dear
And there ain't the profit there used to be
In watering the workers' beer:
 
Truss seems totally oblivious to the chaos she has caused ,seems to think it will all go away as she has such a brilliant plan which will take at least 10 years to show any progress .Everyone is in despair that this brainless woman is actually the PM , only plus point .looks like she may be setting up the chancelor for the chop
 
It’s been around for decades. The actual (recent) data in the link on post #1860 would suggest it has some merit. Maybe those who dismiss the anecdote could criticise the actual data.
The little parable has the split of income tax correct. So it begins plausibly (although it omits earnings). The problem is, as soon as it introduces the 20% discount - that is, as soon as it launches its argument - it departs from reality.

The barman gives them a discount, and they decide how to split it. The parable has departed from the real world at this point. Let's think about what the parable is talking about here: a reduction in income tax. The obvious ways to reduce the tax-take are a change in thresholds or a change in the rate of tax.

If the tax-free threshold is raised, no fight ensues; the policy is in line with progressive taxation - a principle that all democratic states have arrived at, for obvious reasons of fairness.

If the top rate of tax is cut as the only change, then a fight ensues because all the benefit goes to high earners, who don't need it, and perceived unfairness, a breach of the social contract, results. Finally, let's note: in the latter scenario, the rich man doesn't stop earning or paying tax. He carries on earning, and thinks about buying another property.

The parable shows us nothing, except that you can fool people with numbers and/or devious storytelling.
 
The Tories need to get her out this week. The world is already in a precarious enough state, the last thing the UK needs is to make itself the centre of a global crisis.
 
That'll only recover 10% of the money, I think it will make little difference to the markets and the damage is done electorally!
 


advertisement


Back
Top