XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y
From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm
On 14/10/2019 02:46, ZakJames wrote:
>
>
> "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 ?
They cannot "pay less tax" unless they stick the money in a big brown
bag inside the flue.
Tax will be either be paid by the earner of the income or paid on
spending enabled by that saved money when others borrow it (when it is
deposited in a bank or similar).
There really is NO other purpose to which money can be put (although I
suppose there's a limited scope for using the metal in coins in some
semi-industrial endeavour).
>
>>>> 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.
Why? What do you say will ultimately happen to the money? What do the
people who borrow money out of the savings do with their borrowings?
>> Not in the slightest. The money has to be spent.
>
> No it does not, it can be saved or invested...
...in which case(s), someone else will spend it (and pay the sales tax).
>> It has no other purpose or use.
>
> That is just plain wrong.
I'm afraid that your saying so is 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.
Correct. And all of that involves spending, by someone or other.
>> 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.
Your incorrect response to that, you mean?
You seem to have this idea that putting money into a bank account is the
same as stuffing it into a mattress. It most certainly is not (and the
bank doesn't have a vault full of shoe-boxes containing account-holders'
cash).
>>>>> 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.
See above re. savings and investment. Reflect on what "investment"
actually is. [Here's a big clue: it's spending.]
[ ... ]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
