Thursday 4th July - Election Night Special

[jdaw1]

Cockburn 1967

Hopeless. Not this shipper; not this vintage. Not even an election year.

[hadge]

Dow 1966

[jdaw1]

Dow 1966

What? The year in which Harold Wilson had a majority of 98!

1966: yes. But not Dow.

[Glenn E.]

1966 Cockburn?

[Alex Bridgeman]

1966 Taylor

[flash_uk]

1966 Croft

[Justin K]

Fonsie a 1966

[jdaw1]

1966 Cockburn?

Ck didn’t declare 1966. They made some, but did not declare.

1966 Taylor

Wrong shipper.

1966 Croft

Wrong shipper.

[jdaw1]

Fonsie a 1966

No points for spelling, but yes, Fonseca. Victory!

[flash_uk]

messias 1966

[jdaw1]

messias 1966

You’ve already been told it’s Fonseca 1966 — how hopeless can this be?

[rich_n]

Just a note - the Taylor Terra Feita 2005 was a delight. Tasting note to follow at some point!

[Alex Bridgeman]

And that wraps up an enjoyable evening. Thank you everyone who participated.

[Andy Velebil]

Wonderful to see everyone, even briefly. Sorry couldn’t stay longer.

[Justin K]

Good chat last night and one last thought on first past the post system of voting: On vote share under PR Rishi and Nigel would be discussing a coalition government this morning. Some solace to you Conservatives (Neil) that that didn’t happen

[winesecretary]

Lovely to see you all albeit briefly.

I should have got Julian’s shipper from the smokiness, although I experience that as tobacco rather than smoke. It the vintage would have been a wild guess from that tasting note.

[hadge]

It is going to be an interesting times ahead.

At this times I always like to think about the 10 men in the pub and the last line.

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 realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested 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!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

[rich_n]

It is going to be an interesting times ahead.

At this times I always like to think about the 10 men in the pub and the last line.

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 realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested 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!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

Now re-work this analogy but with the reality that the richest man is actually hiding most of his income and wealth in offshore accounts and Cayman Island based businesses and not paying anywhere near the £59 he owes.

[rich_n]

On a more serious note, it was a fun evening and I very much enjoyed all your company and the discussions around port and politics!

[flash_uk]

　[/quote]Now re-work this analogy but with the reality that the richest man is actually hiding most of his income and wealth in offshore accounts and Cayman Island based businesses and not paying anywhere near the £59 he owes.
[/quote]
Indeed. You are both correct. There are both the wealthy £59 man, AND the Cayman dodger. The Cayman dodger will never be beaten up. Which is a double-whammy for the set-upon £59 chap.

[flash_uk]

Now re-work this analogy but with the reality that the richest man is actually hiding most of his income and wealth in offshore accounts and Cayman Island based businesses and not paying anywhere near the £59 he owes.

Indeed. You are both correct. There are both the wealthy £59 man, AND the Cayman dodger. The Cayman dodger will never be beaten up. Which is a double-whammy for the set-upon £59 chap.

[hadge]

Now re-work this analogy but with the reality that the richest man is actually hiding most of his income and wealth in offshore accounts and Cayman Island based businesses and not paying anywhere near the £59 he owes.

my last comment on this, as we will not agree on this subject, but at least we can agree on how great port is.

from gov.uk, statistics,
the top 1% of Income Tax payers were liable for 29.1% of total Income Tax in 2020 to 2021. This is projected to decrease to a 28.5% share of total Income Tax by 2023 to 2024

How much more do you want to take from them, if it gets too high they just leave and then this figure goes down and the burden falls on others who can't leave as easily.

[rich_n]

at least we can agree on how great port is.

Absolutely, and the remains of the '05 Terra Feita are absolutely singing right now - I will be keeping an eye out for bottles of this in the future.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I have very carefully kept out of this discussion, but am now forced to join in by Rich’s last post.

My Taylor 2015 LBV (Tower of London Edition) is better tonight than it was last night. I will keep an eye out for both this and the 2005 Terra Feita.

[PhilW]

I've commented elsewhere before that I think 2005 is much better than its general reputation. I have very much enjoyed Quevedo, Niepoort, Taylor Terra Feita and Churchill Gricha; despite their youth, they seem to be in a rather nice place currently. I'd like to try more of their peers; perhaps a small 2005 horizontal might be in order sometime, though no rush assuming they don't all decide to close down for a while.

[rich_n]

I've commented elsewhere before that I think 2005 is much better than its general reputation. I have very much enjoyed Quevedo, Niepoort, Taylor Terra Feita and Churchill Gricha; despite their youth, they seem to be in a rather nice place currently. I'd like to try more of their peers; perhaps a small 2005 horizontal might be in order sometime, though no rush assuming they don't all decide to close down for a while.

Was the 2005 the one they sent out in the first year of Port.Club? If so that's good to hear because I've still got a bottle of that in the cellar.