Direct & Indirect Taxation

**Biggles** · 04-03-2004, 01:59 PM

Pumba aka Gordon would no doubt agree.

**Rat Faced** · 04-03-2004, 02:33 PM

"Progressive taxes soak the rich, and Regressive taxes soak the poor."

An example...

Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen. They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.

(One guy makes 15K, the other 100K)

Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on a 17.5%% sales tax.... eg VAT

Poor Boy buys a £10,000 car pays £1750 or well over 10.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a £60,000 car pays £4250 or less than 5.0% of his income.

Poor Boy has nearly 3 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car. Rich Boy hardly feels the taxes.

Then run the numbers on a £30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy rockets.

Sales tax (or VAT) is NOT a flat tax.

Let us look again at what happens when people actually THINK about regressive taxation...

Remember when Ms Thatcher brought in the Poll Tax? The ultimate Regressive Tax...there were riots.

The only difference is that you can choose not to buy the goods with VAT in theory... with the Poll Tax you had to pay.

However lets take another example...Tampons. Why should poor ladies pay a much higher proportion of their income in VAT for this "luxury"? Are you suggesting they should use rags to avoid it?

Should poor men have beards? Clothes aren't a necessity?

The fact is, if the poor didnt require the things for sale, there would be much fewer Rich people around, so let again I say....... increase Basic Income Tax rates, and get rid of most VAT.

BTW....just out of curiosity, does anyone know why Gold is zero rated for VAT? I would have thought Gold was a luxury, if anything is

As an aside, the Government couldnt give 2 hoots whether you smoke. They tax cigarettes so much as there are a large group adicted to the habit and will pay it...the amount they pay is hugely more than what they cost the NHS, they are in fact subsidising the rest of us.

They are encouraging Organised Crime with this policy, as we all know...just about everyone knows where they can get cigarettes at 2/3 the shop price....

Motorists are also subsidising the rest of us, paying a hugely inflated amount of Tax. Shame that Orgainsed Crime cant handle petrol as easily as Cigarettes...there is a huge market waiting

**Busyman** · 04-03-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 April 2004 - 10:33
"Progressive taxes soak the rich, and Regressive taxes soak the poor."

An example...

Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen. They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.

(One guy makes 15K, the other 100K)

Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on a 17.5%% sales tax.... eg VAT

Poor Boy buys a £10,000 car pays £1750 or well over 10.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a £60,000 car pays £4250 or less than 5.0% of his income.

Poor Boy has nearly 3 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car. Rich Boy hardly feels the taxes.

Then run the numbers on a £30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy rockets.

Sales tax (or VAT) is NOT a flat tax.

Let us look again at what happens when people actually THINK about regressive taxation...

Remember when Ms Thatcher brought in the Poll Tax? The ultimate Regressive Tax...there were riots.

The only difference is that you can choose not to buy the goods with VAT in theory... with the Poll Tax you had to pay.

However lets take another example...Tampons. Why should poor ladies pay a much higher proportion of their income in VAT for this "luxury"? Are you suggesting they should use rags to avoid it?

Should poor men have beards? Clothes aren't a necessity?

The fact is, if the poor didnt require the things for sale, there would be much fewer Rich people around, so let again I say....... increase Basic Income Tax rates, and get rid of most VAT.

BTW....just out of curiosity, does anyone know why Gold is zero rated for VAT? I would have thought Gold was a luxury, if anything is

As an aside, the Government couldnt give 2 hoots whether you smoke. They tax cigarettes so much as there are a large group adicted to the habit and will pay it...the amount they pay is hugely more than what they cost the NHS, they are in fact subsidising the rest of us.

They are encouraging Organised Crime with this policy, as we all know...just about everyone knows where they can get cigarettes at 2/3 the shop price....

Motorists are also subsidising the rest of us, paying a hugely inflated amount of Tax. Shame that Orgainsed Crime cant handle petrol as easily as Cigarettes...there is a huge market waiting

One thing that is left out of your description is

What is the income tax rate and how much would you want an increase?

**Biggles** · 04-03-2004, 03:29 PM

Another factor that I should have mentioned above is credit.

Every good purchased on credit is a profit to someone. This profit is taxed consequently the government is taxing on goods sold which we haven't actually earned the money to pay for yet. This is why if one were to wait for government regulations to curb indebtedness one could turn a little blue around the gills.

**Barbarossa** · 04-05-2004, 09:39 AM

I'm in agreement with RatFaced, take it from me up-front and the rest is mine.

I'd also be in favour a local income tax to replace council tax. last year my council tax rose by about 17%, this year it was only 7% ..... :helpsmile:

**MagicNakor** · 04-05-2004, 11:05 AM

Tax me more.

I'm Canadian, and I like it.

**lynx** · 04-05-2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Biggles+3 April 2004 - 11:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 3 April 2004 - 11:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Unless they introduce an under-the-bed-tax [/b]

I hope Gordon Brown doesn't read that, you'll give him ideas.
Oops, too late, there goes my pension.

<!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced
BTW....just out of curiosity, does anyone know why Gold is zero rated for VAT?[/quote]I don't know where you get that idea. Gold is rated at 17.5%. There have been several scams aimed at avoiding VAT on gold, there wouldn't be much point if it was zero rated.

Remember when Ms Thatcher brought in the Poll Tax? The ultimate Regressive Tax...there were riots.

Agreed, it was badly implemented, but it wasn't as bad as was made out at the time, and no-one gave it a chance to find out what changes could be made.

Were you aware for instance that those on benefits were given extra money to cover the payments, in cash. The amount was based on the highest charging councils, so those who lived in lower charging areas actually made money on the deal. Unfortunately, those living in the higher charging areas wanted to keep this cash too, so they kept it and didn't pay the tax. When demands were made that they pay the money they had already received, they rioted. That put's a whole new slant on the situation, don't you think?

No doubt you think it is ok that someone living alone should pay 75% of the tax of his/her neighbours where there are 2 or more incomes. The only cost to councils which is almost directly proportional to the number of dwellings is rubbish collection, almost everything is proportional to the number of occupiers. Hardly what I would call progressive taxation.

**J'Pol** · 04-05-2004, 08:26 PM

I prefer the VAT type system.

It gives me control over the tax I pay, by choosing what to buy and how expensive a version of it.

With PAYE and the like you have no control.

Oh and I would have thought that for most traveling salesmen the vehicle would be purchased by the Company.

Oh and businesses can reclaim VAT on purchases of goods and services, it's called input tax.

Oh and VAT registered businesses are the only ones who don't pay VAT, they claim it all back from the Government.

Oh and VAT rates vary depending on the type of Gold it is, whether bullion, coin, investment. It can actually get rather complex.