I'm sure most of you will have seen this parable before, which illustrates that 'tax cuts for the rich' are not what they appear.
Well yes, of course, but why does the author accept that income tax is a sensible way of paying for common expenditure in the first place? If a Land Value Taxer had been asked, he would have explained that it is far better for all concerned if we scrap income tax and everybody just pays for his own drinks.
It would be fun going through all the Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not and applying them by analogy:
"That doesn't relate to ability to pay!" In that case drink less.
"People on low and fixed incomes will die of thirst!" Nope, because the bar is a parable for the government, and as it makes a profit on selling beer, it can dish out those profits as a Citizen's Dividend, so everybody will be able to afford something.
"But how will we keep track of what everybody has drunk?" It can be done, believe me.
"But the value of a drink is subjective! How will the bar manager know how to set his prices?" By trial and error, like anybody else. It's quite clear that he'll charge more for a double than a single, that high strength beer will cost more than low strength fizz, and that a glass of tap water will cost pennies. The fact that I cannot predict what prices for individual drinks will be does not mean that there isn't an answer.
"But then the evil bar manager will just screw more money out of us by hiking his prices!" In that case go drink elsewhere where the prices are more reasonable.
"But I like being able to drink for free!" You're not drinking for free, nothing is free, you're paying for it in income tax. Why does it make any difference how the bill is split up?
"Millions of people would pay more under the new system than the old system!" So what? Millions of people (high earners and/or modest drinkers) would pay less as well.
"But the richest guy will now be able to consume $59 worth of beer every day, leaving us with none!" No he won't. He'll probably drink the same as ever, maybe a bit less. In any event, it's his money and he can spend it how he likes.
And so on, you get the idea.
Muh, Far Right
1 hour ago
11 comments:
I'm not sure he's saying income tax is best, just how people can perceive things within the context of income tax.
The best LVT/bar example I know is what they do in France, where there are 3 prices for drinking. If you want a coffee en terrasse where you can enjoy the sunshine, you pay the top price. If you want to sit comfortably inside, you pay the medium price. If you don't want to spend much, you can sit at the bar on a stool with the noise of the coffee machines. Same coffee, same cup, different prices.
JT, that is a brilliant example. Do they not have an even cheaper price for take away coffee in a paper cup?
and everybody just pays for his own drinks
Unless he's in a round, of course and skips out of the door before his turn comes.
JH, sure, but in that case don't include him in the next round.
Mark,
I'm not sure. I don't think I've seen that in France. People there seem to view breaks as important to their day (quite a lot of French men go home at lunchtime to a cooked meal).
JT, no doubt we'll see more of it as and when the smoking ban becomes stricter.
I am surprised, nay shocked, that you would even use such a dubious tale as the basis of your discussion - people getting together in a group and buying rounds of alcoholic drink ! Ten of them - So if they all buy a round they all must drink at least 3 times their daily limit ! And with all that drinking is it any surprise that the evening degenerated into a street brawl !
It is about time Mr Shenker and his crusaders at AC got such "moral parables" which are but the thinnest of disguised promotions for the demon drink banned !
By the way - whenever I have been involved in such "group outings" for a bevvy everyone chipped in the same at the outset of the ecvening and at top up time - none of this "I am a poor piss artist but you are a rich one" nonsense - you either chipped in the required amount or didn't drink out of the kitty - simples !
Anon, if a group of people agree in advance to split the bill equally, then that is another fine way of doing it. Shenker would disagree as this encourages everybody to drink as much as possible, but hey, that's part of the point of doing it.
MW - Don and his prodnose troopers would never agree but, we found that "having a kitty" tended to act as a limiter - once we had chipped in the obligatory say £5 (I am going back a few years here) at the outset, and then those of us still about chipped in a further - but final - say £5 later during the evening that was "it" - top the kitty up maybe the once, but then when the kitty was exhausted, we stopped drinking. And not one of our evenings ended up in fights between ourselves or with passers-by ..
"and that a glass of tap water will cost pennies"
I thought landlords weren't allowed to charge for tap water.
Anon, £5??? That really is going back a few years!
B, this is an analogy and not to be taken literally. Or we can put social housing for elderly and disabled (which would be 'free') on par with tapwater (for which catering establishments aren't allowed to charge by law).
Post a Comment