- It starts off with making the initial comparison of 'things the government spends money on' to 'going and getting pissed at the pub'. Personally, I rate the NHS, the roads, and all that jazz as being rather more useful than a pint.
- It has the rich man paying the majority of the bill. Which is quite an arguable point; yes, the very rich pay a fair chunk of the income tax bill, but 60% seems a rather over-exaggeration.
- Especially when you take into account the more regressive taxes like VAT — those sorts of charges make up a rather larger proportion of the expenditure of people on lower incomes than they do for the rich.
- The reduction in costs is a rather random addition to the mix; again because it's all about beer, there's no look at whether that money saved could be better spent elsewhere, or what the effects of the reduction is.
- It presupposes that the reaction of the poorer is to complain at the richer getting more of a saving from cost reduction. Is this a fair comparison? Sure, people have complained at the reduction in the top rate of tax recently, but that's not quite the same — they're complaining that in a time of austerity, the taxes are being reduced on claimed grounds of 'promoting growth' rather than a reduction in the bar bill, and at the same time the support for the poorer parts of the society has been reduced on the claims we can't afford it.
- To get all technical, it also misses out on the 'decreasing marginal utility of money'. Or to put it another way, taking £10 from a millionare and giving it to someone in poverty, creates more happiness overall, as that £10 is much more useful to the poorer person.
- Finally, it ends with a fairly meaningless pair of statements presented as a truism.
Ten men go for a pint
draxar Apr 11th, 2013 33 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
RAW Paste Data