Lt Kije Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Come on Eagle, The lower the wage the lower your disposable income, the harder it will hit, as your limited resources will be even more limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Any flat rate tax (EG 20% VAT) will hit those with the least most; as a ?20 increase in shopping bills is a bigger proportion of ?100 pw than ?1,000 pw. Income tax is the simplest means of increasing revenues, proportional to ability to pay - PROVIDING: we had effective tax gathering mechanisms, devoid of legal loop holes. No need to mess with benefits at all, other than to rationalise and simplify what has become an over complex system, which actually deters genuine claimants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 VAT is a tax on spending not earnings. The more you earn in all probability the more you spend on VAT rated items. It is still in proportion to total spend, everybody will have to spend 5% more than they did before. It does not hit anyone disproportiionately. You spend ?1000 it will cost you an extra ?50, I spend ?100 it will cost me ?5. In proportion to what we were spending before the increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 You spend ?1000 it will cost you an extra ?50, I spend ?100 it will cost me ?5 But if a ?100 is all you have as disposable income eagle or even ?50.00 something has to give, Gas or electric For someone on a high income it might just be a bottle of Malt a month that they for go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Errrm, Eagle; do better off folk pay 10 times more for their weekly food shop - OK, they may add the odd tin of Baluga Caviar to their order; but their basic living costs are the same. Increase these costs through VAT, and it hits the poorest hardest - it's a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Food is zero rated so it is nowt to do with the comparisons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 An irrelevence - the point being one of principle: the cost of any commodity is increased by VAT, which represents a bigger proportion of poor person's disposable income than of that of a rich person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 of course, but it's even simpler just to increase their income tax. How is that simpler? Not everybody earning over ?44000 PA receives child benefit (I believe you have to have children to be able to claim?). There's been a lot of crying over people who are just over the threshold losing the benefit thus giving them less earnings than someone just under the threshold. Simple solution - take a pay cut to put yourself under the threshold and let the taxpayer make up the difference. Or is that too simplistic? In any case, how many families with children are there where both parents are earning over ?44000 PA? Anyone on here in that situation? Yes? Lend us a few quid will you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 As I've suggested, no need to touch "benefits" at all, other than to rationalise them (all 36 types!) into an easily understood system. A progressive income tax system should be able to rake in the required amount and do it fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 Well how about setting tax thresholds at such a level that, if you earn enough to pay tax you can support yourself without needing the state to give you your own money back in the form of benefits. Thats the way to simplify the system, not by introducing more complicated tax/benefit systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 Errm no, Universal Benefits are simply that - Universal - paid to everyone regardless of wealth; however, in the case of the wealthy, they receive what amounts to pin money whilst giving in tax in proportion to their earnings. Like the bus pass, you don't have to use it if you prefer your car, but it's there if you want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 And what I'm saying is get rid of universal benefits. Only give benefits to those who need them. I would have thought that would have met with your socialist approval - from each etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 Errm, not quite; as that would require "means testing" which is even more beaurocratic and costly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Sorry work got in the way I think Obs says it all though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 The Gov do have a point though; with their proposed cap on overall benefits to large chav families; it may encourage birth control! Also, perhaps they could examine the costs of illegal immigration while they're at it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 It was all going so well till your last post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Food is zero rated so it is nowt to do with the comparisons. Won't the fuel companies pass on their increases to the Supermarkets for delivering, and those with their own fleet pass on the added cost to the customer? so as not to take a drop in profits. PLUS everyone will have added cost, so that will be passed on down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.