Its a poor story and a very poor comparison to our taxation. A more accurate comparison to todays system might be: 9 men go for beer. There are three groups of three as the different group fail to interact and are not encouraged to move between groups. The first group of three are poor. They scrimp and save but only manage to afford one beer each. Which they each pay for. Then they go home. The next group of three can afford to pay for their beer. They are in all in full time employment. And as such the price of beer is set remarkably high but they all cough up. The next group of three are all independently wealthy with their own businesses. They avoid the set price for beer completely, even though they could comfortably afford to buy all three groups beer all night. Instead they buy themselves lots of bottles of champagne (which bizarrely seem to attract the highest cashback rewards); good for them - and bollocks to everyone else. They stay all night, keeping the staff up, even though the salary of the pub staff is paid mostly by contributions from the middle group. Then the landlord receives an unexpected bonus from his brewery (North Sea Oils & Beers). He thinks his customers deserve something from that. He looks at the three groups. He gives a little to the poorest group - half a glass of shandy each. He likes the loud wealthy group. He gives them free bottles of champagne. He ignores the middle group and makes them cough up the same high price for their beer. Ain't that how it works?

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Quote	06/05/15 14:45:00	John Southey
Re:Quote	06/05/15 14:49:00	Vanessa Smith
Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 16:19:00	Richard Greenhough
Re:Quote	06/05/15 14:54:00	Dan Murphy
Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 15:06:00	Pete Mayes
Re:Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 15:08:00	Pete Mayes
Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 15:15:00	James Holmes-Siedle
Re:Quote	06/05/15 17:13:00	Denis Fox
Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 17:55:00	Alan Clark
Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 18:03:00	David McLoughlin
Re:Re:Quote	06/05/15 18:04:00	Viv Griffiths

Forum Home