XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: gtyr@gmail.com 
  
 "JNugent"  wrote in message 
 news:h0f1ffF6krkU1@mid.individual.net... 
 > 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. 
  
 And that€€€s true even if you remove their agreement 
 on  what is fair and work that out dispassionately. 
  
 > 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. 
  
 The problem is that the spendthrifts and frugal would pay 
 a lot less tax than the profligate spenders and those who 
 choose to piss their income against the wall on frivolous 
 spending or on getting others to prepare the food they eat. 
  
 And those with lots of kids would pay a lot more tax 
 than those who don€€€t have any kids at all and are single. 
 In some ways that is more justifiable because they would 
 cost the govt a lot less in services, but you can certainly 
 make a case that those who choose to be single for life 
 should be paying their bit towards the education of their 
 nation's children because that produces a better society. 
  
 But those singles who choose to pull the plug when they 
 don€€€t like the medical downsides of old age wont necessarily 
 cost the govt much at all, particularly if they are well paid 
 professionals. Given that there will always be some who 
 don€€€t come even close to paying for what govt services 
 or benefits they end up with over their life, it does make 
 sense to tax those singles more than those with much 
 higher costs because of their kids etc. 
  
 > 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. 
  
 Would certainly need to be increased, particularly for 
 those who arent capable of cooking the food they eat. 
  
 > 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. 
  
 But is it fair that those who can cook well and who 
 are very frugal should pay a lot less tax than those 
 who can't cook and whose consumer spending is 
 what sees the economy have a lot more jobs etc 
 and avoids lots more on unemployment benefits ? 
  
 > 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)