The damage of taxation

[V8mate]

In this country we have reasonably competitive rates of both personal and corporation tax (in most instances/for most people/yadayada)

So, ignoring the revenue either delivers, i.e. from a purely academic perspective, if you could make either of these taxes zero, which would you change?

The existence of which, do you feel, most damages the economy?

[V8mate]

The Don of Croy said:

I'd prefer to turn this question the other way - as in, what services do you think the state should provide out of general taxation?

Army/Navy/RAF
Police
Customs
Olympics (only joking)

Everything else you get to choose (healthcare, education, transport, bin emptying)

Start a different thread then

[V8mate]

sidicks said:

youngsyr said:

Sounds ideal, until you realise that with no CT, and no NI, the flat rate of tax would need to be vastly higher than 25% to cover the shortfall, even with a substantial pick up in employment.

Even with CT and NI, I suspect the flat rate would need to be in the high 30%/low 40% range, as don't forget, the vast majority of income tax is paid by the tiny minority with the highest incomes, who will largely be paying over 30% effective rate.

But you forget that:

- Under this scheme you would rule out a lot of tax avoidance / evasion hence increasing total tax income
- Under this scheme there would be more jobs and hence lower benefits (so lower tax income would be required)

etc

And he also forgets that I asked that we 'ignore the numbers' in the OP.

As the off-topic poster^^ reminded us, revenue is a function of desired expenditure, and that's a separate discussion.

[V8mate]

Newc said:

To answer the OP - lower income taxes. "Ought we to deprive the people of capital, which would fructify in their hands much more than in those of government" (The Chancellor in 1819 - it's not a new debate).

That quote, due to its date, lacks the context of Corporation Tax though. One could suggest that both taxes 'deprive the people of capital'.

[V8mate]

johnfm said:

Businesses grow (and employ more people, pay more NI, rent, rates, consume more 3rd party products and services) by investing money in product or service deveoplment, design, manufacture, distribution etc.

They either invest retained earnings or borrow money to do this investing.

If they had more retained earnings to play with, they would invest more, as retained earnings are cheaper than borrowed capital.

Do they always do that though?

Sometimes businesses just sit on cash, because:
a. Consumers have no money
b. There's no more growth in their product (just the consistent income)
c. The ROI of R&D, or even just D, is forecast as worse than sticking their cash in a savings account
d. They're a family business and they've 'always just stuffed spare cash under the mattress'

I'll take a completely unsubstantiable punt here, but I'd suggest that giving an individual a notional 'extra pound' will more likely result in that pound being spent than giving it to a company, who will consider more carefully the benefit of spending that pound.