XPost: uk.radio.amateur, uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y 
 From: gtyr@gmail.com 
  
 "JNugent"  wrote in message 
 news:h0j5deF26rgU1@mid.individual.net... 
 > 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. 
  
 Of course they can if they put the money in say shares 
 and profit from the capital gain when your scheme has 
 no income tax or company tax, just sales tax on goods. 
  
 > 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). 
  
 Its much more complicated than that with savings that 
 arent done by putting the savings in a bank that pays 
 peanuts in interest so it doesn€€€t even beat inflation. 
  
 > There really is NO other purpose to which money can be put 
  
 You can keep repeating that lie, changes nothing. 
  
 > (although I suppose there's a limited scope for using the metal in coins 
 > in some semi-industrial endeavour). 
  
 Or getting real radical and investing it or even 
 spending it on the stuff like uncooked food that 
 has no sales tax applied or the ingredients used 
 to make your own beer or grog etc etc etc. 
  
 Or spend it out of the country where 
 there is no sales tax applicable. 
  
 >>>>> 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? 
  
 Spend it out of the country where there is no sales tax applicable. 
  
 > What do the people who borrow money out of the savings do with their 
 > borrowings? 
  
 Only the stupid put it in a bank account with 
 the  derisory interest paid on it there now. 
  
 >>> 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). 
  
 Not if you spend it out of the country on a holiday etc. 
  
 >>> It has no other purpose or use. 
 >> 
 >> That is just plain wrong. 
 > 
 > I'm afraid that your saying so is wrong. 
  
 Nope. 
  
 >>>>> 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. 
  
 No it does not when you put it in shares and make 
 a big tax tree capital gain under your system which 
 has no income tax or company tax or you spend it 
 outside the country so that the country never sees 
 any tax from the foreigners that spend it. 
  
 >>> 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 havent established that it is incorrect. 
  
 > You seem to have this idea that putting money into a bank account is the 
 > same as stuffing it into a mattress. 
  
 No I do not and putting it in a bank account is a stupid 
 thing to do with it given the derisory interest paid on it. 
  
 > It most certainly is not 
  
 Having fun thrashing that straw man ? 
  
 > (and the bank doesn't have a vault full of shoe 
 > -boxes containing account-holders' cash). 
  
 In fact modern banks lend a lot more than they have on deposit. 
  
 >>>>>> 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.] 
  
 Spending isnt saving or investment, it€€€s the alternative to saving and 
 investment. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)