XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 On 13/10/2019 00:06, ZakJames wrote: 
 > 
 > 
 > "JNugent"  wrote: 
 > >> On 12/10/2019 14:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: 
 >>> "JNugent"  wrote: 
  
 >> 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. 
  
 There is no purpose to which money can be put except spending*. If 
 someone doesn't spend all this week's wages by next week, they will 
 still spend this week's wages some time or other. They cannot do 
 anything else unless they save it up under the mattress till they die. 
 Or, I suppose, give some away as a gift, which the recipient will 
 then... spend. 
  
 > 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. 
  
 I don't see how. You can only spend your income. Having children doesn't 
 guarantee more of that (except for chuild benefit, I suppose). Paying 
 more sales tax because you have mmore income is hardly an unfair 
 proposition, is it? 
  
 > 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. 
  
 It doesn't apply to the extent you seem to think. 
  
 > 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. 
  
 They will do one of several things with their incomes: 
  
 (a) spend it and pay sales tax 
  
 (b) spend some of it (sales tax) and save some of it (which will then be 
 lent by the bank to people who want to borrow because they want to spend 
 and will pay sales tax 
  
 (c) - is there a (c) which isn't covered by (a) or (b)? 
  
 >> 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 ? 
  
 How one spends is entirely up to oneself. With VAT on restaurant meals 
 that question - to the extent that it has validity - already arises. 
  
 >> 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)