So was I.
How The Tax System Works
- Thread starter gjrc
- Start date
So how was it a retort?
No point quibbling, the OP's point still comes across. Nobody likes a statistical conversational bore who nitpicks at wrong figures when the central point still comes through.
"Hah I don't believe you! I want FAHCTS and PROOF"
*people walk away from conversation*
Quote + Reply <> Retort. I was very precisely posting some links, which you can see (precisely, of course) if you cast your eyes precisely over my post.
So why not just post the page on laffer curves from wikipedia rather than trying to clearly manipulate people. Exactly what the story does.
But it doesnt really respond to my post.
Caporegime
Where is the fun in that explanation?
Text A states income distribution.
Text B declares income distribution stated in Text A is inaccurate.
Text C agrees with statement of inaccuracy.
Text D links to actual income distribution.
As B replied directly to OP A, and C quoted B, it only made sense for D to quote C.
I think you failed to understand the very nature of the 2 posts (b and c). Public goods are not the same as beer. Secondly tax revenue by income percentiles are not in that distribution.
I will provide the precise ones when I get access to a computer.
I didn't quote the message about public goods.
I have provided the income tax percentiles from HMRC for the UK.
I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic about the point being made in the OP in an effort to justify being such a boring person.
EDIT: That was unnecessarily harsh of me, but there is little need to dwell on the point of exact income/tax distributions when everybody realises this is not going to be absolutely current and exactly applicable. It's not a scientific message.
Last edited:
Soldato
One could argue that this is what actually happens. In the UK at least.
Im someone who has studied economics upto a fairly high level. I find such grossly incorrect messages doing no one a service. The supposed author did not write this as snopes discovered. The field of labour economics (admittedly not my field) is much more complicated with results which cannot be captured by this analogy.
Last edited:
Do you have an analogy that does, or at least can you explain the basic differences?
This isn't representative at all - based on the HMRC site.
Only those below the bottom 5% contribute no tax. But in this example 4 out of 10 (or 40%) pay nothing into the system.
It is hugely biased.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf
That table only includes tax payers. The percentage of the total population contributing no tax will therefore be significantly higher than 5%. If you count not only those out of work/unable to work + pensioners you might be getting up to closer to 40%? It's perhaps not as biased as you suggest.
If the nine men didn't have the tenth man to pay for them, they'd wouldn't go without beer, they'd just have less good beer as a result.
Then the ninth man would blame the pub for the poor state of modern beer, and how it was so much better back in the day.
EDIT: Oh, I see we've gone boring. Boo.
Then the ninth man would blame the pub for the poor state of modern beer, and how it was so much better back in the day.
EDIT: Oh, I see we've gone boring. Boo.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Unfortunately this country has been beating on the rich man for so long that a huge number of them have left, and taken millions of jobs with them and their business.
A sane country that wanted some kind of economical stability would reduce spending AS we lost those jobs/rich people and rich business tax income. Labour instead increased spending and borrowed to make up the difference.
Compared to the story, the 9 guys left over are all Labour, rather than buy cheaper/worse beer as someone suggested, they decided to buy the same beer, and a spare beer for a pretty lady at the bar, and they ran up a HUGE bar tab. The owner hasn't cut them off yet, but when he does, none of them will be able to buy any beer until the tab is significantly reduced, and none of the 9 men can do that without the 10th man whose long since gone.
A sane country that wanted some kind of economical stability would reduce spending AS we lost those jobs/rich people and rich business tax income. Labour instead increased spending and borrowed to make up the difference.
Compared to the story, the 9 guys left over are all Labour, rather than buy cheaper/worse beer as someone suggested, they decided to buy the same beer, and a spare beer for a pretty lady at the bar, and they ran up a HUGE bar tab. The owner hasn't cut them off yet, but when he does, none of them will be able to buy any beer until the tab is significantly reduced, and none of the 9 men can do that without the 10th man whose long since gone.
