The ICAEW, who publish Economia, asked me not to reproduce Ben Saunders’ comments in full, to protect you, dear reader. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to act in time to prevent themselves accidentally printing his article in their magazine and online.
The Fair Tax Mark Boardgame intentionally produces random results using die in order to name and shame random businesses into paying more tax. Saunders shows that he doesn’t understand this because he expects the results to somehow reflect reality.
More interesting though is his final paragraph:
Consensus is vital to the general adoption of this sort of benchmark. So will the Fair Tax Mark campaign listen to others’ views of what is fair? Will they listen to independent reviews of their methods? Or have the opinions of the few behind the campaign already decided that what they consider fair is all that matters?
The first sentence represents an extraordinary claim. The untrained eye might conclude that he is simply suggesting that if the Fair Tax Mark Boardgame is to sell well people will need to enjoy playing it. In actual fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Saunders is obviously suggesting that the Fair Tax Mark Boardgame must be subject to some sort of Fair Fair Tax Mark Boardgame Mark. He might as well have said:
You pay me or I’ll give your Fair Tax Mark Boardgame a bad Fair Fair Tax Mark Boardgame Mark
Anybody reading his words would arrive at the same logical conclusion that I have because I am always completely logical in my conclusions and I never ever create straw man arguments to justify ad hominem assaults on my critics.
In short, it is an undeniably logical conclusion that Ben Saunders must have some ulterior motive, which is almost certainly some sort of racketeering involving his concept of a Fair Fair Tax Mark Boardgame Mark.
Well, I shan’t be paying for any Fair Fair Tax Mark Boardgame Mark because it is clearly just based on Saunders’ opinion. And the Fair Tax Mark Boardgame has the integrity of being decided through the roll of a dice.