PSA: Tax Cuts Explained

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Ok, after making the mistake of visiting P&N again (where I was told I should be in jail for voting for Bush). I thought we should clear up the misconception one more time:


Tax Cuts Explained

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. 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 $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $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 eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Unfortunately, TOO MANY COMPLAINERS cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

Thank You.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
The problem is that the recent tax cuts are being funded with deficit spending, so we can't really afford them. The deficit this year is $457 billion.

But yes, P&N is full of socialist hippies
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

But yes, P&N is full of socialist hippies

No, P&N just lacks moderates. You can't honestly defend someone like Ripronin, I agree bbond/conjur are very socialist hippies in some sense....but there are a couple of rightists on there that are just as bad.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

But yes, P&N is full of socialist hippies

No, P&N just lacks moderates. You can't honestly defend someone like Ripronin, I agree bbond/conjur are very socialist hippies in some sense....but there are a couple of rightists on there that are just as bad.
Definitely, faithful from both parties quote talking points and excuse the behavior of their side while pouncing on any perceived fault in the other. Logic surrenders.
 

AmbitV

Golden Member
Oct 20, 1999
1,197
0
0
That a nice little story, but unforunately the supposed "straight-forward logic" really shows nothing about justice in taxation. For one thing, you can't simply presuppose that one is entitled to pretax market outcomes. In the story, it is merely assumed that each person receives the same meal. In real life, different people will receive different benefits from the government, not only in terms of direct transfer payments in the form of social programs and subsidies, but also in terms of the outcomes generated by the legal, economic, and social policies of the government itself. Justice in taxation can only be evaluated in the context of the overall distributional justice that results from the totality of government, which itself is the result of any particular tax regime.

In other words, this story, like much of the discussion in taxation in the public arena, looks at only one side of the story. You can't view taxes merely as a kind of burden to be shared - i.e. to treat "the collection of taxes as though it were only a common disaster - as though the tax money once collected were thrown into the sea". In short, one must take into account justice not only on the revenue side (tax burden), but the expenditure side as well.
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: AmbitV
That a nice little story, but unforunately the supposed "straight-forward logic" really shows nothing about justice in taxation. For one thing, you can't simply presuppose that one is entitled to pretax market outcomes. In the story, it is merely assumed that each person receives the same meal. In real life, different people will receive different benefits from the government, not only in terms of direct transfer payments in the form of social programs and subsidies, but also in terms of the outcomes generated by the legal, economic, and social policies of the government itself. Justice in taxation can only be evaluated in the context of the overall distributional justice that results from the totality of government, which itself is the result of any particular tax regime.

In other words, this story, like much of the discussion in taxation in the public arena, looks at only one side of the story. You can't view taxes merely as a kind of burden to be shared - i.e. to treat "the collection of taxes as though it were only a common disaster - as though the tax money once collected were thrown into the sea". In short, one must take into account justice not only on the revenue side (tax burden), but the expenditure side as well.


erm... would i be correct in saying that poor ppl are a bigger burden than the rich....therefore they put less in and stlill get more out?

 

mundane

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2002
5,603
8
81
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: AmbitV
That a nice little story, but unforunately the supposed "straight-forward logic" really shows nothing about justice in taxation. For one thing, you can't simply presuppose that one is entitled to pretax market outcomes. In the story, it is merely assumed that each person receives the same meal. In real life, different people will receive different benefits from the government, not only in terms of direct transfer payments in the form of social programs and subsidies, but also in terms of the outcomes generated by the legal, economic, and social policies of the government itself. Justice in taxation can only be evaluated in the context of the overall distributional justice that results from the totality of government, which itself is the result of any particular tax regime.

In other words, this story, like much of the discussion in taxation in the public arena, looks at only one side of the story. You can't view taxes merely as a kind of burden to be shared - i.e. to treat "the collection of taxes as though it were only a common disaster - as though the tax money once collected were thrown into the sea". In short, one must take into account justice not only on the revenue side (tax burden), but the expenditure side as well.


erm... would i be correct in saying that poor ppl are a bigger burden than the rich....therefore they put less in and stlill get more out?

It could also be interpretted that those with significant investments in the economy would benefit from the government involvement and the infrastructure that was built with government money. So maybe we're debating that the poor people put little in, but get large direct (monetary) benefits from the government, while the rich put a lot in, but are rewarded by success of corporations and the economy (and thereby increasing their wealth). Interesting point, I've never thought of it that way.

Edit: BTW OP, thanks for posting this.
 

FlyLice

Banned
Jan 19, 2005
1,680
0
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

But yes, P&N is full of socialist hippies

No, P&N just lacks moderates. You can't honestly defend someone like Ripronin, I agree bbond/conjur are very socialist hippies in some sense....but there are a couple of rightists on there that are just as bad.

America is great because we can all fight and sht over policies but have a beer together at the end of the day. Cheers :beer:
 

QuitBanningMe

Banned
Mar 2, 2005
5,038
2
0
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: AmbitV
That a nice little story, but unforunately the supposed "straight-forward logic" really shows nothing about justice in taxation. For one thing, you can't simply presuppose that one is entitled to pretax market outcomes. In the story, it is merely assumed that each person receives the same meal. In real life, different people will receive different benefits from the government, not only in terms of direct transfer payments in the form of social programs and subsidies, but also in terms of the outcomes generated by the legal, economic, and social policies of the government itself. Justice in taxation can only be evaluated in the context of the overall distributional justice that results from the totality of government, which itself is the result of any particular tax regime.

In other words, this story, like much of the discussion in taxation in the public arena, looks at only one side of the story. You can't view taxes merely as a kind of burden to be shared - i.e. to treat "the collection of taxes as though it were only a common disaster - as though the tax money once collected were thrown into the sea". In short, one must take into account justice not only on the revenue side (tax burden), but the expenditure side as well.


erm... would i be correct in saying that poor ppl are a bigger burden than the rich....therefore they put less in and stlill get more out?

Yes.
Something that confuses me:
A few years ago (for three years in a row) I was in school I worked a part time job and the wife worked full time. Did the taxes and got all the money back. Great. I can use the money. So really I'm not paying taxes. Same with most "poor" people.

Here is where the confusion comes in. A few weeks later I get a letter saying that I/ we qualified for an EIC. OK. Another couple of weeks go by and I get a check for $2700.
WTF??????!!!!!! Could I use the money? Sure. Is there any reason I should get the money? Not that I can see.

Same with a couple people I know. Have kids, work low paying jobs but get back 2-3X what they put in. WTF?
 

FlyLice

Banned
Jan 19, 2005
1,680
0
0
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: AmbitV
That a nice little story, but unforunately the supposed "straight-forward logic" really shows nothing about justice in taxation. For one thing, you can't simply presuppose that one is entitled to pretax market outcomes. In the story, it is merely assumed that each person receives the same meal. In real life, different people will receive different benefits from the government, not only in terms of direct transfer payments in the form of social programs and subsidies, but also in terms of the outcomes generated by the legal, economic, and social policies of the government itself. Justice in taxation can only be evaluated in the context of the overall distributional justice that results from the totality of government, which itself is the result of any particular tax regime.

In other words, this story, like much of the discussion in taxation in the public arena, looks at only one side of the story. You can't view taxes merely as a kind of burden to be shared - i.e. to treat "the collection of taxes as though it were only a common disaster - as though the tax money once collected were thrown into the sea". In short, one must take into account justice not only on the revenue side (tax burden), but the expenditure side as well.


erm... would i be correct in saying that poor ppl are a bigger burden than the rich....therefore they put less in and stlill get more out?

Unfortunately for the more productive members of society, if you don't let the "poor" dig into their pockets, possible rebellions/revolutions could occur.
 

FlyLice

Banned
Jan 19, 2005
1,680
0
0
Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Originally posted by: AmbitV
That a nice little story, but unforunately the supposed "straight-forward logic" really shows nothing about justice in taxation. For one thing, you can't simply presuppose that one is entitled to pretax market outcomes. In the story, it is merely assumed that each person receives the same meal. In real life, different people will receive different benefits from the government, not only in terms of direct transfer payments in the form of social programs and subsidies, but also in terms of the outcomes generated by the legal, economic, and social policies of the government itself. Justice in taxation can only be evaluated in the context of the overall distributional justice that results from the totality of government, which itself is the result of any particular tax regime.

In other words, this story, like much of the discussion in taxation in the public arena, looks at only one side of the story. You can't view taxes merely as a kind of burden to be shared - i.e. to treat "the collection of taxes as though it were only a common disaster - as though the tax money once collected were thrown into the sea". In short, one must take into account justice not only on the revenue side (tax burden), but the expenditure side as well.


erm... would i be correct in saying that poor ppl are a bigger burden than the rich....therefore they put less in and stlill get more out?

Yes.
Something that confuses me:
A few years ago (for three years in a row) I was in school I worked a part time job and the wife worked full time. Did the taxes and got all the money back. Great. I can use the money. So really I'm not paying taxes. Same with most "poor" people.

Here is where the confusion comes in. A few weeks later I get a letter saying that I/ we qualified for an EIC. OK. Another couple of weeks go by and I get a check for $2700.
WTF??????!!!!!! Could I use the money? Sure. Is there any reason I should get the money? Not that I can see.

Same with a couple people I know. Have kids, work low paying jobs but get back 2-3X what they put in. WTF?

You're complaining about getting money back?
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
erm... would i be correct in saying that poor ppl are a bigger burden than the rich....therefore they put less in and stlill get more out?

It could also be interpretted that those with significant investments in the economy would benefit from the government involvement and the infrastructure that was built with government money. So maybe we're debating that the poor people put little in, but get large direct (monetary) benefits from the government, while the rich put a lot in, but are rewarded by success of corporations and the economy (and thereby increasing their wealth). Interesting point, I've never thought of it that way.

Edit: BTW OP, thanks for posting this.

But the statement above it like saying...hmm.... well, that it should be considered what the rich guys have for breakfast and dinner, too... while deciding how mch they pay for lunch. If the rich are paying their share of taxes and can still benefit somewhere else... that should not have any affect on the subject at hand.

i am suggesting that the rich put more into the tax pot ... by a huge proportion...and are not the ones who are taking much of it out. they can afford private schools, medical insurance, and dont really use welfare, unemployment, or many of the numerous government freebies.. but they still pay for them.

the poor ppl...put the least in that are getting the most out...they either dont pay taxes at all, or pay a very small amount by comparison... but they are the ones that use the schools, government programs, welfare...etc.

If we start to bring other stuf into the equation... like investments and etc...then we should also add that rich ppl are the ones that really keep the economy afloat. if they were not here anymore... with their luxury spending, and investment...the service industry would take a huge hit as well as any other industry that they spend and invest their money.

but this is all a diferent kettle of fish... i was trying to point out that it is the richest who pay the most, and get the least out.. and those that put the least in, get the most out.


 

QuitBanningMe

Banned
Mar 2, 2005
5,038
2
0

Yes.
Something that confuses me:
A few years ago (for three years in a row) I was in school I worked a part time job and the wife worked full time. Did the taxes and got all the money back. Great. I can use the money. So really I'm not paying taxes. Same with most "poor" people.

Here is where the confusion comes in. A few weeks later I get a letter saying that I/ we qualified for an EIC. OK. Another couple of weeks go by and I get a check for $2700.
WTF??????!!!!!! Could I use the money? Sure. Is there any reason I should get the money? Not that I can see.

Same with a couple people I know. Have kids, work low paying jobs but get back 2-3X what they put in. WTF?[/quote]

You're complaining about getting money back? [/quote]

Absolutely. What entitles me to get more back than I put in? I would have survived without it.

How many other people are getting this. Most people I know that get this type of return blow it on BS. The government is paying them to have a big screen. WTF?
 

FlyLice

Banned
Jan 19, 2005
1,680
0
0
Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Yes.
Something that confuses me:
A few years ago (for three years in a row) I was in school I worked a part time job and the wife worked full time. Did the taxes and got all the money back. Great. I can use the money. So really I'm not paying taxes. Same with most "poor" people.

Here is where the confusion comes in. A few weeks later I get a letter saying that I/ we qualified for an EIC. OK. Another couple of weeks go by and I get a check for $2700.
WTF??????!!!!!! Could I use the money? Sure. Is there any reason I should get the money? Not that I can see.

Same with a couple people I know. Have kids, work low paying jobs but get back 2-3X what they put in. WTF?

You're complaining about getting money back? [/quote]

Absolutely. What entitles me to get more back than I put in? I would have survived without it.

How many other people are getting this. Most people I know that get this type of return blow it on BS. The government is paying them to have a big screen. WTF?[/quote]

big screens help stimulate the economy. anyways what gives the govt right to take so much money and give it to poor people?
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Yes.
Something that confuses me:
A few years ago (for three years in a row) I was in school I worked a part time job and the wife worked full time. Did the taxes and got all the money back. Great. I can use the money. So really I'm not paying taxes. Same with most "poor" people.

Here is where the confusion comes in. A few weeks later I get a letter saying that I/ we qualified for an EIC. OK. Another couple of weeks go by and I get a check for $2700.
WTF??????!!!!!! Could I use the money? Sure. Is there any reason I should get the money? Not that I can see.

Same with a couple people I know. Have kids, work low paying jobs but get back 2-3X what they put in. WTF?

You're complaining about getting money back? [/quote]

Absolutely. What entitles me to get more back than I put in? I would have survived without it.

How many other people are getting this. Most people I know that get this type of return blow it on BS. The government is paying them to have a big screen. WTF?[/quote]


my b/f has never been married... he has no children. he own a very small business. He pays more in taxes then anyone I have ever met. He gets nothing back for it. nothing. he has no kids in the education system, he is not entitled to any government programs. He does not get free medical, free food stamps, or anything else. the government just takes his money and gives it to someone else. Likewise, his property tax on this house... 53% of it goes to schools that he does not have any kids in.

I was a single mom for years. I did not pay taxes at all. With my EIC, I broke even.

If sucks for him. He pays himself as an employee of the business and has not had a salary increase in almost 10 years... cause if he were to take an additional $50.00 per month, he would have to pay an additional $63.00 per month in taxes.

Sucks for him BIG TIME!
 

QuitBanningMe

Banned
Mar 2, 2005
5,038
2
0
Originally posted by: FlyLice
Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Yes.
Something that confuses me:
A few years ago (for three years in a row) I was in school I worked a part time job and the wife worked full time. Did the taxes and got all the money back. Great. I can use the money. So really I'm not paying taxes. Same with most "poor" people.

Here is where the confusion comes in. A few weeks later I get a letter saying that I/ we qualified for an EIC. OK. Another couple of weeks go by and I get a check for $2700.
WTF??????!!!!!! Could I use the money? Sure. Is there any reason I should get the money? Not that I can see.

Same with a couple people I know. Have kids, work low paying jobs but get back 2-3X what they put in. WTF?

You're complaining about getting money back?

Absolutely. What entitles me to get more back than I put in? I would have survived without it.

How many other people are getting this. Most people I know that get this type of return blow it on BS. The government is paying them to have a big screen. WTF?[/quote]

big screens help stimulate the economy. anyways what gives the govt right to take so much money and give it to poor people?[/quote]

That is my point. The rich people, who aren't really "rich" for the most part, would be spending the money too. Or the Government could be spending it on something more worthwhile.
I and many of the people, if not all, who receive this money should not be getting it.

 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
That made no sense.

Let me clear it up. The richest 6 men should eat the 4 poor men, since they weren't anything but dead weight. But now they're dinner, served with BBQ sauce, rice, and vegetables

End of story.
 

AmbitV

Golden Member
Oct 20, 1999
1,197
0
0
KarenMarie and diegoalcatraz: you guys offer two different possibilities (i.e. either the poor or the wealthy benefit more from government). But here's the important thing to keep in mind: just the fact that we can have a debate about that shows that the story offered by the OP really shows nothing about whether the "tax cut" in the story is just or not.

Just to be very explicit: if it were the case that wealthy guy makes 1 billion per year, and the 9 other people make about $10 per year, and each put in the same amount of effort. Also asume that the only reason the wealthy guy makes 1 billion is because of the particular socio-economic structure of the government. For instance, Warren Buffett himself has said if he were born in India, his skills would not have been valued at all. But because he was born in the USA, his skills in stock analysis happened to be very valuable. Can we really say it's "fair" in this case for the wealthy guy to get a $7 tax cut? Can we say it's "fair" that the wealthy guy get any tax cut at all?

Conservatives like to assume that everyone has X amount of dollars, and that because they earned it, they are entitled to this money. These conservatives then view any government taxation as invading their property rights to this money. But the fact is, noone has any property rights at all without a government. It is only because there is a government with an established legal system that we have any property rights. In this sense, noone really suffers a net burden from government taxation, no matter how high the taxation is.

Conservatives like to talk about having X dollars of money before the government comes in and takes its cut. But this is to turn the logical priority of things on its head. Only when there is a government can you then make X dollars of money. For without a government, we are back to Hobbes's state of nature, with every man against every man - essentially like intelligent apes battling each other in the jungle.

The question is not whether the burdens imposed on us through taxation are, taken in isolation, just. Rather, the question is whether the society we have created as a whole is a just one - whether there is justice, equality, and fairness in the overall distribution of welfare, of which justice in taxation plays a role.
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
ambitv..

i have to disagree with you... the freedoms (property rights amoungst them) that we have come from a higher power than the government... that is the entire basis of our government system... this is an entire different debate and not one i will get into here... however... while not being a conservative or liberal, i will say that i believe that if someone earns something, it is theirs. it is not anyone elses. anything less than that is either socialism or communism and that is not how it works here. ppl do not work for the government in that whatever they earn belongs to the government and it is only up to the government how much they are allowed to keep. ppl work for themselves... and it is thru our system of voting that we decide what our taxation policy will be. i fail to understand how we became a country that has the government ditacte who can and cannot earn or keep their riches, according to your post. Also, if it were true that only with a government can ppl have or earn $$$... then where did the ppl get their riches before the 1700's?

Distribution of wealth would be a huge failure. there would be no incentive for ppl to bust their azz... but there would still be the same spongeswe have now.

 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
bsobel, that's a nice little story, but unfortunately, the real world doesn't fit into a simple little model like that. If only everything were so simple.

Clearly, any system where the weatlhy get more wealthy, the middle class shrinks, and the number of poor (uninsured) grow is flawed. That's exactly what what we are seeing right now. The reality is, there is no real tax cut, there is deficit spending, which means we all will end up paying for that 'cut' at one point or another. I'd be all for tax cuts if they were funded by reductions in government wasteful spending.

I'm conservative, and I certainly don't want to hear stupid arguments from the socialists on how the wealth should be redistributed. However, one must keep in mind that you have to have some equity. Without some equity, the country will be no better than some of the third world countries where a select few have everything, while the masses starve.
 

TwiceOver

Lifer
Dec 20, 2002
13,544
44
91
With a 4/1 poor to rich ratio this all makes sense. Unfortunately I don't believe that is a correct scale for the entire US.

Technically I am under the poverty level for this state, and they still take 23% of my check.
 

aplefka

Lifer
Feb 29, 2004
12,016
2
0
If that's all there was too it I'm sure we wouldn't be in such sh1tty financial shape right now.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |