MrSmith Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 VAT is a regressive tax. It doesn't equalise anything. Every attempt I've ever seen to prove that it isn't regressive could be picked apart in minutes. The poorest would pay zero VAT like they do know and the more expensive items that the poor can’t afford but the rich can afford would have the highest rate of VAT. The more you earn the more you spend, and rich people would spend most of their money on luxury items at the highest rate of VAT whilst the poorest only buy the items that are Zero rated. Looks to me like rich people would end up paying the most tax and poor people would end up paying the least tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Registration does not equal HMRC approval. End of story. HMRC can investigate any scheme at any time and close it down sorry i didnt know you had superior access to the revenue methods:suspect: wether they are approved or not they will have been "looked" at, if you think revenue inspectors play by the rules....think again!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It's morally wrong because he avoided paying the tax he was supposed to pay. The tax man didn't tell him to pay 1% tax did he? I pay the amount of tax the tax man asks me to pay, Jimmy went out of his way to avoid doing this. If this was somebody you didn't like, i.e, some politician, you'd be calling for his resignation. Please don't come back and say you wouldn't because everybody knows you'd be lying. You like Jimmy Carr, and you're too stupid to realise that it's OK to criticise somebody you like, don't worry about it, there are many people like you. Listen, Jimmy is an intelligent man, he knew what he was doing was wrong and he's admitted he was wrong to do it. It's his mistake, and it's for him to say if his actions were wrong. He's admitted they were wrong. Therefor I and Jimmy are right and you're wrong. Yes he did pay what the tax man was asking otherwise what he was doing would have been illegal and Jimmy would have been arrested for tax evasion. He used a scheme that limited his tax liability that worked the system to his advantage, paying the minimum of what he can get away with paying which is exactly the same as you or I. The only differnce is Jimmy had the money to employ someone who could do this for him while we are stuck with paying tax through PAYE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 VAT is a regressive tax. It doesn't equalise anything. Every attempt I've ever seen to prove that it isn't regressive could be picked apart in minutes. OK, prove to me that its a regressive tax then as for it to be regressive the poor would need to pay more in tax than the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 sorry i didnt know you had superior access to the revenue methods:suspect: wether they are approved or not they will have been "looked" at, if you think revenue inspectors play by the rules....think again!! eh? I'm just telling it like it is. Any good accountant will tell you that because a scheme is registed with HMRC does not mean it is approved by HMRC. A lot of people who get into these schemes fall into the trap of believing that the registration number for the scheme means that HMRC is happy with the scheme. It ain't necessarily so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 OK, prove to me that its a regressive tax then as for it to be regressive the poor would need to pay more in tax than the rich. The usual measure is tax burden as a % of income. It's not about paying more in absolute terms but about the proportion of income that is taxed. Or put another way a regressive tax is “a tax where the ratio of tax paid to income falls as income rises”. Textbook basic economics. The only way you can make it not regressive would be to hack the VAT rates and re-classify many items bought by people on lower incomes to lower bands (but in doing so richer people would benefit to because they rely on basics like food and energy too to stay alive), and to increase the personal allowance of tax to much higher than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 The usual measure is tax burden as a % of income. It's not about paying more in absolute terms but about the proportion of income that is taxed. Or put another way a regressive tax is “a tax where the ratio of tax paid to income falls as income rises”. Textbook basic economics. The only way you can make it not regressive would be to hack the VAT rates and re-classify many items bought by people on lower incomes to lower bands (but in doing so richer people would benefit to because they rely on basics like food and energy too to stay alive), and to increase the personal allowance of tax to much higher than it is now. No it isn't, you do the opposite and increase the VAT on the item poor people can’t afford, but wealthier people buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 No it isn't, you do the opposite and increase the VAT on the item poor people can’t afford, but wealthier people buy. Well, you could do that too I guess. I think it would result in a massively complex and confusing, perhaps even discriminatory VAT system. How would make the judgements on what a poor person couldn't afford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 eh? I'm just telling it like it is. Any good accountant will tell you that because a scheme is registed with HMRC does not mean it is approved by HMRC. A lot of people who get into these schemes fall into the trap of believing that the registration number for the scheme means that HMRC is happy with the scheme. It ain't necessarily so. eh? all i am saying is even if its just "registered" & nobody is saying anyone approves it!!! it will have been looked at and either acted upon there and then or left for a later date, i doubt any scheme is "approved" by HMRC...well maybe ISA s, the schemes we are talking about are within the law.......until such time as the revenue says otherwise or "necessarily so"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Well, you could do that too I guess. I think it would result in a massively complex and confusing, perhaps even discriminatory VAT system. How would make the judgements on what a poor person couldn't afford? A rich politician and the tax systems are already complicated and easy to fiddle, this wouldn’t be any more complicated than the various systems we have now and would much more difficult to fiddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.