The 2010 Emergency Budget thread

[Weazel2006]

'VAT, I expected something there, the more you earn, the more you spend.'

 

 

er, not quite, Vat is a very regressive tax, someone on 12'000 pays the same for an item as someone on 100'000, it stinks

 

LOL! That is all i have to say on that matter

[llamatron]

A rise in VAT does hit the poorest disproportionately. Perhaps we should look at having different rates for luxury goods, rather than necessities. After all, food is zero rated. We could increase the VAT to 22% on TVs, games consoles etc and reduce it on clothing. The advantage of VAT is that the tax avoiders and evaders find it a little more difficult to skirt around.

 

In this case, everyone on a low and middle income will gain on the income tax swings and lose on the VAT roundabout. The actual difference in tax paid will depend upon how much you spend. Those on benefits have been squeezed twice.

 

How? It is fixed. You pay VAT on what you buy. It hits people who spend more on stuff they don't need. Surely rich people buy more of this so it is hitting them disproportionately.

 

Or do you just begrudge people with more money?

[donuticus]

'VAT, I expected something there, the more you earn, the more you spend.'

 

 

er, not quite, Vat is a very regressive tax, someone on 12'000 pays the same for an item as someone on 100'000, it stinks

 

I've never understood this argument. If a person earning a £100,000 buys a can of coke from the newsagent and then someone on the dole buys the same can from the same newsagent, both have the same service and the smae product. You cannot justify charging one more than the other.

 

Same product + same service = same price.

[FallenAngel6]

Remember Remploy?

 

It provided employment for vulnerable disabled workers in a supportive environment and demand always exceeded places available, so please don't assume that the disabled dom't want to work.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Remploy has been axed and nothing has taken its place. The workplace is often a ruthless environment with no time or money to give the disabled the support they need.

 

Something as simple as fire regulations can disbar someone from a normal workplace environment.

 

Where's the support for a blind person? Paraplegics? Learning disabled?

I know people in all the above catagories who work, but have been forced to give up when funding for special equipment etc has been withdrawn.

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

And you obviously cannot read very well.....notice the sentence stating "I know this isnt possible for everyone by the way, before you start hurling immature insults at me."

 

She is backing up the need for such programs, that they do not exist is not her problem.

 

Thank you weazel im glad someone was reading my post properly :/

[benefits_boy]

It looks as though Cameron is looking to attack the benefits, typical tory :rant:

 

WHat a complete fool, instead of attacking the people on benefits, he should be increasing the tax on workers. If I go to work, I can't afford to pay the rent, and how is that fair ?

[FallenAngel6]

It looks as though Cameron is looking to attack the benefits, typical tory :rant:

 

WHat a complete fool, instead of attacking the people on benefits, he should be increasing the tax on workers. If I go to work, I can't afford to pay the rent, and how is that fair ?

 

Your name says it all...

 

You'd rather take everyone elses money instead...that they work hard for???

[Weazel2006]

Don't bother with him fallen, read some of his other posts to weigh up the validity of his troll license, not getting as much now though are ya boy

[DaFoot]

I've never understood this argument. If a person earning a £100,000 buys a can of coke from the newsagent and then someone on the dole buys the same can from the same newsagent, both have the same service and the smae product. You cannot justify charging one more than the other.

 

Same product + same service = same price.

 

I still struggle with that argument too.

 

Presumably the guy on £100k has worked hard to get that salary in the first place (I don't mean those on the lessor salaries don't work hard). Why do so many people insist on penalising people for doing well?

 

Isn't the idea of VAT suppossed to be one of it gets applied to luxuries?

 

Why should someone on a lower income get charged less for luxuries (I know, there are exceptions and VAT sometimes covers things that aren't luxuries too).

[Grahame]

How? It is fixed. You pay VAT on what you buy. It hits people who spend more on stuff they don't need. Surely rich people buy more of this so it is hitting them disproportionately.

 

Or do you just begrudge people with more money?

 

The more you earn the more you spend. Bigger house, bigger car, more things for the house, posh restaurants and hotels etc. Most people seem to live up to their income, so the more you earn the more you spend and the more VAT you pay.

[donuticus]

I still struggle with that argument too.

 

Presumably the guy on £100k has worked hard to get that salary in the first place (I don't mean those on the lessor salaries don't work hard). Why do so many people insist on penalising people for doing well?

 

Isn't the idea of VAT suppossed to be one of it gets applied to luxuries?

 

Why should someone on a lower income get charged less for luxuries (I know, there are exceptions and VAT sometimes covers things that aren't luxuries too).

 

Also a person on £100k will be paying more on income tax and almost certainly more on their council tax. Not to mention probably driving a car that takes more petrol and has a higher road fund licence bracket. You could also argue that they have more disposable income to spend on goods taht attract the VAT levy.

 

People who earn more should, without a doubt, pay more tax but it should still be a fair amount.