XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y
From: gtyr@gmail.com
"JNugent" wrote in message
news:h0ht7eFoqfqU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 13/10/2019 21:02, ZakJames wrote:
>>
>> "JNugent" wrote in message
>>> 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*.
>>
>> But some choose to piss what income they have against
>> the wall as soon as it shows up in their pocket
>
> That's called "spending".
Duh,
>> and others have enough sense to save quite a bit of it so that they can
>> handle anything that happens work or health wise without having to put
>> their hand out to the state for a handout.
> And?
So under your scheme, they would pay far less tax. What's fair about that ?
>>> 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.
>> That€€€s just plain wrong with those that choose to save.
> Not in the slightest. The money has to be spent.
No it does not, it can be saved or invested.
> It has no other purpose or use.
That is just plain wrong.
>>> They cannot do anything else unless they save it up under the mattress
>>> till they die.
>> Don€€€t have to stuff it under the mattress, they
>> can invest it where it delivers a decent return.
>> And can get real radical and buy a house etc.
> See my previous post on that topic.
See my response to that.
>>> Or, I suppose, give some away as a gift, which the recipient will
>>> then... spend.
>>
>> Or save and invest.
>
> See my previous post on that topic.
See my response to that.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Kids obviously have to have quite a bit spent on them.
>
> They can't have more spent on them than their parents (and grandparents,
> etc) have as income or savings.
Yes, but that€€€s obviously a lot more than those who
have no kids spend and invest or save instead.
> Or more than they can borrow, which means other peoples' savings.
Not necessarily with modern banking where the
banks lend a lot more than they have on deposit.
>>> You can only spend your income. Having children doesn't guarantee more
>>> of that (except for chuild benefit, I suppose).
>>
>> But they do require much more to be spent and so more tax is paid.
>
> See above.
See above.
>>> Paying more sales tax because you have mmore income is hardly an unfair
>>> proposition, is it?
>>
>> But paying a lot less tax because you spend a lot
>> less because you don€€€t have any kids clearly is.
>
> See my previous post on that topic.
See my response to that.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Corse it does when the state doesn€€€t have to hand benefits
>> to those who arent capable of finding any work because
>> they cant even so very basic stuff like drive a vehicle because
>> they can't even read the street signs etc and there are few
>> jobs for ditch diggers anymore etc.
>
> See my previous post on that topic.
See my response to that.
>>>> 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
>>
>> Or invested instead and not pay any tax on that when there is
>> no longer any income tax or corporate tax with your scheme.
>
> Those who borrow the invested income
That's not investing, that€€€s saving.
> (there's no other purpose for investment)
Wrong. Plenty of it is to produce new businesses,
explore for minerals and oil etc and under your
scheme, none of that will be taxed.
> will pay the sales mtax.
Not when its invested in new businesses etc.
>>> (c) - is there a (c) which isn't covered by (a) or (b)?
>
>> Yep, what I just listed.
>
> It was covered.
No it was not.
>>>>> 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"
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
