XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 On 12/10/2019 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: 
 > In article , 
 >     Steve Walker  wrote: 
 >> On 11/10/2019 11:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: 
 >>> In article , 
 >>>      JNugent  wrote: 
 >>>>>> Surely you don't think VED actually pays for road upkeep? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> The total collected in all car taxes including the tax on fuel likely 
 >>>>> does tho. 
 >>> 
 >>>> ...by a factor of three at a minimum. 
 >>> 
 >>> Then with that logic, the taxes collected from smoking should be ring 
 >>> fenced for medical treatment of those smokers, and the same with 
 >>> alcohol? 
 > 
 >> No. The point isn't that motoring taxes shouldn't be spent elsewhere, it 
 >> is simply the amount that is taken, often from people who can least 
 >> afford it (running the oldest cars), when they have no real choice 
 >> (other than quitting work). 
 > 
 > So give us your view on how taxes should be collected which would be fair 
 > to all? 
 > 
 >> Collecting maybe two thirds of that tax (so down to a 2x multiplier) 
 >> from motoring and the rest spread more generally across the population 
 >> instead of treating motorists as cash cows would be fairer. 
 > 
 >> For most people these days, driving is not the luxury that is once was. 
 >> With work that only lasts a few years, people cannot be expected to keep 
 >> moving close enough to ride or walk; children cannot be uprooted from 
 >> schools, friends and extended family support. Local shops have closed, 
 >> bus and train routes have disappeared or become too sporadic. Driving, 
 >> for many, is simply a necessity and yet we are heavily taxed for it. 
 > 
 There is no single method of taxation which is likely to be agreed as 
 "fair" by all groups. Almost everyone thinks that is other people who 
 should be paying more. 
  
 But the obvious tax which collects in proportion to income is a sales 
 tax like VAT. Spending is always proportional to income and a sales tax 
 is the least subject to evasion. Even one-man-band roof-tilers and 
 window-cleaners, who might find it easy to evade all or most of their 
 income tax and national insurance liabilities, won't find it so easy not 
 to pay sales taxes. 
  
 What if we abolished income tax, corporation tax, investment income tax 
 council tax and similar charges, but increased the VAT rate to (say) 40%? 
  
 With an obvious exemption for things like uncooked food and ingredients, 
 rent and mortgage payments, we would all pay tax in proportion to our 
 incomes and spending. Some incomes (eg, Retirement Pensions and certain 
 other social security benefits) might need to be increased so as not to 
 collect more tax overall from those in receipt. But as long as the 
 calculations were done so as to keep the "losers" to a minimum (or at 
 leasat keep the losers afraid to complain because it will involve 
 admitting previous tax fraud), it could work. And it wouldn't keep some 
 people awake at night worrying about tax-evasion any more. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)