If you ran your own state.....
Discussion
Plotloss said:
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Flat Income Tax rate.
Seriously?That makes less sense than the toxic gas thing!
12% flat income tax would improve quality of life for everyone in the country other than the literally thousands of HMRC monkeys you simply would not need any more.
I think calls of circa 20-25% sound much more plausible but are completely unacceptable!
A flat tax does not favour the wealthy, in fact in the 22%/12K model 2 of the top 3 tiers are the smallest gainers of the lot.
G_T you may wish to read this.
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/stories/flattaxuk....
Not that with the allowance 22% means that EVERYONE is better off and the overall tax take is not reduced
G_T you may wish to read this.
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/stories/flattaxuk....
Not that with the allowance 22% means that EVERYONE is better off and the overall tax take is not reduced
Edited by Plotloss on Friday 3rd July 09:43
Plotloss said:
It was a report made to the government a while back.
Adam Smith Institute seems to suggest 22% with a 12K allowance.
I think 12% was with no allowance.
It costs £30Bn to run HMRC which seems utterly utterly absurd to me.
£30 billion wouldn't be bad if it was all efficient.Adam Smith Institute seems to suggest 22% with a 12K allowance.
I think 12% was with no allowance.
It costs £30Bn to run HMRC which seems utterly utterly absurd to me.
I bet £20 billion of it is spent retrieving about 10% of total tax take, and maybe £5 billion spent retrieving 1% (ie, there are areas of taxation that are hugely ineffcient to run, ie, best not collecting it because it costs more to collect than they get!)
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Plotloss said:
It was a report made to the government a while back.
Adam Smith Institute seems to suggest 22% with a 12K allowance.
I think 12% was with no allowance.
It costs £30Bn to run HMRC which seems utterly utterly absurd to me.
£30 billion wouldn't be bad if it was all efficient.Adam Smith Institute seems to suggest 22% with a 12K allowance.
I think 12% was with no allowance.
It costs £30Bn to run HMRC which seems utterly utterly absurd to me.
I bet £20 billion of it is spent retrieving about 10% of total tax take, and maybe £5 billion spent retrieving 1% (ie, there are areas of taxation that are hugely ineffcient to run, ie, best not collecting it because it costs more to collect than they get!)
Dave
Then you have the cost to everyone of these silly tax avoidance loopholes.
Pension scheme decides to save 3% on your contributions by doing salary sacrifice, a year later HMRC spend millions tying up a legal loophole, millions more spent by private/service sector finding new loopholes, then pensions schemes pay millions more utilising the new gaps and re-adjusting their schemes etc.
Just one example where billions are likely just 'sapped' out of everyones pockets to net the government a tiny real saving in tax avoidance funds, for a relatively short period of time, before the next gap/avoidance technique is used to save the next smallest amount of money.
Dave
Pension scheme decides to save 3% on your contributions by doing salary sacrifice, a year later HMRC spend millions tying up a legal loophole, millions more spent by private/service sector finding new loopholes, then pensions schemes pay millions more utilising the new gaps and re-adjusting their schemes etc.
Just one example where billions are likely just 'sapped' out of everyones pockets to net the government a tiny real saving in tax avoidance funds, for a relatively short period of time, before the next gap/avoidance technique is used to save the next smallest amount of money.
Dave
Plotloss said:
A flat tax does not favour the wealthy, in fact in the 22%/12K model 2 of the top 3 tiers are the smallest gainers of the lot.
G_T you may wish to read this.
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/stories/flattaxuk....
Not that with the allowance 22% means that EVERYONE is better off and the overall tax take is not reduced
I'll have a read and report back. As I said earlier I am open to the concept but I've yet to see how it doesn't favour the wealthy. But if this contradicts that then fair enough!G_T you may wish to read this.
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/stories/flattaxuk....
Not that with the allowance 22% means that EVERYONE is better off and the overall tax take is not reduced
ETA: It's a good article. Great reference Plotloss, and it answers some of the questions I had without calling me a filthy communist!
It insists that the only way to get it work fairly is by raising the threshold before taxing people to 12,000. I have no problem with this, but I would like to hear more details about the removal of other state benefits to fund it. They skim over this but it is a very delicate issue that I fear would be extremely costly to implement. Far more than is suggested in the article, particularly under a labour government.
The article states that there would be an "initial crude loss of investment". It states that this investment would be recouped from administrative costs, reduction in benefits and in the long term the reduction of tax avoidance. However, it concedes that quantifying these amounts is difficult. This for me is the biggest problem. The figures it cites are largely speculative.
From the article I'll definately say that I can now see how, if conducted like the article, a flat tax rate will not cost the poor more. But only if (1) The abolition of benefits is not costly to implement and does not render many families worse off, and (2) the estimated figures provided about "the reduction of tax evasion" are accurate.
The biggest problem, in my opinion and in agreement with the article, is that quantifying my second point is difficult, if not impossible, and if you could easily end up losing a massive massive amount of money. The only solution would be to raise the flat rate again. This would lead to the poor being in a worse financial position.
I'll agree it could definately work without chastising lower earners. But it sounds like a hell of gamble to me and I seriously doubt it would be a cheap to implement as the article suggests.
Edited by G_T on Friday 3rd July 10:54
Good link.
But how much of that distortion and ambiguity do the parties of the day actually enjoy? It allows them to easily lie as Labour have done, and up taxes massively, mainly via a whole raft of stealth taxes which are hugely inefficient to collect.
Then it allows them to hide the mess that is created because we can just put things down to distortion where it doesn't look so nice. All that time/money spent on the current system, and trying to assess it and correct for these distortions just to argue over effectiveness. It's just bonkers!
But how much of that distortion and ambiguity do the parties of the day actually enjoy? It allows them to easily lie as Labour have done, and up taxes massively, mainly via a whole raft of stealth taxes which are hugely inefficient to collect.
Then it allows them to hide the mess that is created because we can just put things down to distortion where it doesn't look so nice. All that time/money spent on the current system, and trying to assess it and correct for these distortions just to argue over effectiveness. It's just bonkers!
Plotloss said:
G_T said:
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Flat Income Tax rate.
Seriously?That makes less sense than the toxic gas thing!
12% flat income tax would improve quality of life for everyone in the country other than the literally thousands of HMRC monkeys you simply would not need any more.
es? This will piss a few people off 
-Flat rate income tax.
-Probably around the 20% rate.
-Zero Inheritance Tax.
-Benefits- people are entitled to benefits even if they've worked recently and lost their jobs and have savings and a house (not means tested like in the UK). There's a time limit to benefits and they reflect a certain percentage of the persons previous salary.
-Teenage single mothers who get houses and huge benefits-will be looked into and curtailed
-A system where by the national health service can be opted out of by those who earn high enough and want to go private-which will end up being cheaper for single people of a young enough age- like in Germany
-Limit to Bankers salaries and people who work in the financial sector in general- Banking or passing money around shouldn't be rewarded so highly-sorry. To get the bankers into the industry-do what engineering does in the UK presently, offer a high initial graduate salary followed by little or very few rises-after a while it will be too late for these people to move to other industries
-The same with Lawyers and solicitors- this old boys institution that specialises in bureacracy -takes the piss
- No speed limit-autobahns
-Manufacturing companies encouraged to develop and design cars that last and are not disposable type fashion accesories. This will also benefit local garages/communities and small business that support maintaining older cars
-High sales taxes applied to cheap disposable "white goods" cars like Hyundais and Kias
- Lower sales taxes on enthusiast cars
-Engineers salaries more in line with US/German salaries encouraged
-Ease of entry into the country for immigrants who offer valuable skills/hard work/ valued business
-Extreme Difficulty of entry into the country for parasites
-Death penalty for some crimes, offenses and also for mechanics and technicians who call themselves 'engineer'
-Severe penalties for violent street crimes and vandalism
-Flat rate income tax.
-Probably around the 20% rate.
-Zero Inheritance Tax.
-Benefits- people are entitled to benefits even if they've worked recently and lost their jobs and have savings and a house (not means tested like in the UK). There's a time limit to benefits and they reflect a certain percentage of the persons previous salary.
-Teenage single mothers who get houses and huge benefits-will be looked into and curtailed
-A system where by the national health service can be opted out of by those who earn high enough and want to go private-which will end up being cheaper for single people of a young enough age- like in Germany
-Limit to Bankers salaries and people who work in the financial sector in general- Banking or passing money around shouldn't be rewarded so highly-sorry. To get the bankers into the industry-do what engineering does in the UK presently, offer a high initial graduate salary followed by little or very few rises-after a while it will be too late for these people to move to other industries
-The same with Lawyers and solicitors- this old boys institution that specialises in bureacracy -takes the piss
- No speed limit-autobahns
-Manufacturing companies encouraged to develop and design cars that last and are not disposable type fashion accesories. This will also benefit local garages/communities and small business that support maintaining older cars
-High sales taxes applied to cheap disposable "white goods" cars like Hyundais and Kias
- Lower sales taxes on enthusiast cars
-Engineers salaries more in line with US/German salaries encouraged
-Ease of entry into the country for immigrants who offer valuable skills/hard work/ valued business
-Extreme Difficulty of entry into the country for parasites
-Death penalty for some crimes, offenses and also for mechanics and technicians who call themselves 'engineer'
-Severe penalties for violent street crimes and vandalism
- A time limit on the amount of time you can claim unemployment benefits
- All speed bumps removed
- The following cars to be banned from the roads: Vectra, Corsa, Picasso, Scenic, Pug 308, anything pink
- A car may only carry a 'sport' badge if it is actually sporty
- A ban on the phrase 'carbon footprint'
- All 'travellers' given their own island off the Scottish Highlands a la Escpae From New York (but without the escaping bit)
- Increase the penalties for crimes committed whilst drunk
- A ban on all music that involves a whiny rapper talking about a girl in a club and 80's pop songs with a dance beat over them
- Anyone using fog lights when not needed gets their car burnt in front of their eyes
- Anyone found to be driving with their sidelights and front fogs on at night will be taken to the side of the road and shot. No exceptions.
Bit disappointed at the number of people who would have income taxes in their states. Can't see why it can't be scaped myself as proposed by the UK Libertarian party.
"
According to government statistics, Income Tax raised £143bln in 2006/07, which accounted for approximately one quarter of the total government spending of £534bln (public sector current expenditure plus net investment). However, consider this: in 2001/02, the equivalent government spending was £378bln. Were we to return to those recent levels of public spending, we would have more than enough income from other sources to immediately abolish Income Tax.
Have the improvements to our public services since 2002 really been worth 40% of everything that you've earned? Could you have got better value buying these services directly, leaving your family better off?
Looking back at 2001/02 spending levels provides a graphic example of how wasteful government spending truly is. If we were to return to those levels, even after the abolition of Income Tax there would be £13bln remaining—sufficient to also abolish, at current revenue levels, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and duty on beer and wine, with some small change left over!"
Remember income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to pay for a war. Isn't the 50% rate supposed to be temporary??
"
According to government statistics, Income Tax raised £143bln in 2006/07, which accounted for approximately one quarter of the total government spending of £534bln (public sector current expenditure plus net investment). However, consider this: in 2001/02, the equivalent government spending was £378bln. Were we to return to those recent levels of public spending, we would have more than enough income from other sources to immediately abolish Income Tax.
Have the improvements to our public services since 2002 really been worth 40% of everything that you've earned? Could you have got better value buying these services directly, leaving your family better off?
Looking back at 2001/02 spending levels provides a graphic example of how wasteful government spending truly is. If we were to return to those levels, even after the abolition of Income Tax there would be £13bln remaining—sufficient to also abolish, at current revenue levels, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and duty on beer and wine, with some small change left over!"
Remember income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to pay for a war. Isn't the 50% rate supposed to be temporary??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff