green Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I'm more and more persuaded that Vat is the way forward. Land tax aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Land tax aswell. And Tobin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I've always felt VAT is the one of the fairest taxes as it targets luxury goods and as its based on the sales value of something then it applies to all equally. Heat isn't a luxury good. Privatised energy companies have year on year price increases and VAT is applied to energy bills (albeit) at a lower rate. I'd be careful claiming VAT applied to luxury goods only. I can think of essentials it applies to as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Heat isn't a luxury good. Privatised energy companies have year on year price increases and VAT is applied to energy bills (albeit) at a lower rate. I'd be careful claiming VAT applied to luxury goods only. I can think of essentials it applies to as well. Post #46.. beat you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Heat isn't a luxury good. Privatised energy companies have year on year price increases and VAT is applied to energy bills (albeit) at a lower rate. I'd be careful claiming VAT applied to luxury goods only. I can think of essentials it applies to as well. Fair point I had forgotten that it was added to utility bills. On the whole though its applied to luxury goods. I know it's added to certain foods but the essentials are VAT free. If it were possible to make VAT the primary source of personal taxation then could it not be applied on a sliding scale maybe for example on £100 increments? For example a £200 telly attracts a 10% rate whereas as a £1000 attracts 35%. This could also be a way of making the higher earners contribute more than those on lower incomes. After all a banker is probably more likely to buy a £1000 telly than the unemployed person. Folks may not baulk at paying more tax if they feel they're getting their money's worth (ie a 50" plasma as opposed to the 30" version). I don't have a great grasp of economics so there is probably a big hole in the idea but it did always puzzle me as to why we taxed income as opposed to spending money. As it strikes me that making companies pay tax on profit as opposed to sales just encourages underhand accounting practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladesman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Not sure I have ever bought a coffee from Starbucks. I am not enticed to buy any of their made up crappy frappucinos and usually go somewhere else that serves a proper Italian coffee instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Always makes me chuckle when people say they have never visited a Starbucks or a Costa then follow it up with a why would anyone want to drink their crap coffee. Person A - I don't like Starbucks and would never drink their crap coffee. Person B - Have you ever been into a Starbucks and had a coffee. Person A - No, but I know I wouldn't like it. Person B - Oh right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I boycott Starbucks or whatever because they are large soulless places, all done out the same (the dreaded machine model) which charge a lot of money for rubbish coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Is there any chance of everybody boycotting a football match until they pay footballers what they are actually worth rather than what they think they're worth, thus bringing ticket prices down? I've been doing that for decades and it didn't make a blind bit of difference because many more people are more interested in the game than what taxes they pay. Got to say I wouldn't deprive myself of the occasional Starbucks just because they use the tax system to avoid pay large amounts of tax into the UK government coffers which would most likely be wasted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Instead of spouting off in the press the MP might like to propose a change in the law.....something he never did when Labour were in government, and then, if his ideas were taken up the tax loophole could be closed. It's dead easy.....IF politicians want to close tax loopholes they will pass laws to do so. Then HMRC will try to uphold those rules. IF politicians don't want to close loopholes they won't. More to the point, if the public wanted politicians to close tax loopholes they would start voting for a party that promised to close them and not lab/con party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.