XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 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". 
  
 > 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? 
  
 >> 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. It has no other purpose 
 or use. 
  
 >> 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. 
  
 >> 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. 
  
 >>> 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. Or more than they can borrow, which 
 means other peoples' savings. 
  
 >> 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. 
  
 >> 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. 
  
 >>> 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. 
 > 
 >>> 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 (there's no other purpose for 
 investment) will pay the sales mtax. 
  
 >> (c) - is there a (c) which isn't covered by (a) or (b)? 
  
 > Yep, what I just listed. 
  
 It was covered. 
  
 >>>> 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. 
 > 
 > Yes, but we are discussing whether its fair to tax those 
 > who can cook basic food and who arent into conspicuous 
 > consumer spending, new toys all the time, much less than 
 > those who can't cook and who are conspicuous spenders. 
  
 See my previous post on that topic. 
 > 
 >> With VAT on restaurant meals that question - to the extent that it has 
 >> validity - already arises. 
 > 
 > Yes, but we are discussing if your proposed tax scheme would 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)