The Pig That Wants to be Eaten

Look, Chris...I'll admit I'm just arguing with his word choice here, but root/origin = first appearance.

Here's a problem that's less a question of human free will or ethics, and more a bit of parodoxical logical confusion:

"94. The Sorites tax

"A Party Political Broadcast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Sorites.

"These are taxing times for our country. The last government left us with run-down public finances and the need to raise extra recvenue. But you, th people, do not want to have to foot the bill. So how can we raise the money we need without making you feel the pain?

"The answer is simple. Focus groups, opinion polls and economists have shown that charging an extr 0.01 percent tax has a negligible effect on personal income. No one who is comfortably off is made to struggle, no one rich is mad epoor, no one already struggling is made to struggle more, by paying 0.01 percent extra on their tax bill.

"So today we are raising income tax by 0.01 percent. And logically, since this small amount makes as little differnce to the person who earns 0.01 percent less than you than it does to you, we can repeat the step tomorrow, when you are in the position of that insignificantly poorer person. And so the nextday, and the next, for the next 300 days.

"Each time we raise the taxes, we do soin a way that makes no difference to your quality of life. And so your quality of life will not be affected. Yet, miraculously, thenet effect of these measures will be a large increase in government revenue, which we intend to use to cut the national debt and still have enough left over to buy everyone in the country a drink. We hope you will use it to toast our ingenuity."

Yeah, I can see how it would be that way. It reminded me of the whole "Take an additional 25% off of our 50% off sale," thing. However, it's the spin on the numbers that would have someone that isn't really reading falling for it. The only ones who would be toasting each other in that scenario would be the government.

I realize anyone can look at it and say, "Well, I'm not falling for it because it's obviously a 3% tax hike," but where, exactly, is the fault in the logic, then?

Remember, we are taking the assumption that 0.01% is indeed negligible.

So... This got moved here, and I'm wondering if anybody noticed... We were currently on "The Sorites Tax" above., if anyone wants to tell me how to resolve this logic problem...

It's basically a tax hike over time.

In the first month it's not noticable, but the net effect on lifestyle will be the same as if they said, "We're going to raise taxes by 3% in one year's time" because that's exactly what it is.

Yes, but try taking the logical steps outlines in the problem. Where, exactly, does it break down? At what point, exactly, does so many "negligible" increases turn into a noticeable one?

You wouldn't notice it happening probably, until you looked back and look at what happened.

Okay, so, I have many more problems to throw on here. I'll leave this for you people to choose, though: What next, an ethics question, or another logical paradox?

I vote ethics. :)