"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:koda7vFcge2U4@mid.individual.net...
On 07/10/2023 12:29 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oau0iip5ac44pvftbqvru6s3vp514s5apo@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 21:25:22 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ej7rhih02bunt3841jndaj59fleu33onbn@4ax.com...
..
VAT isn't regressive, because everybody pays the same rate and the >>>>>> same
proportion of their expenditure.
But *not* the same proportion of their income.
Most people's expenditure is directly related to their income.
As is the amount they invest in tax efficient private pensions
and paying off their mortgages.
Both of which are besides the point.
Whether rich or poor, in order to sustain life at a minimal
level a person will need to spend at least some money on VAT
rated goods. So that whoever you are, rich or poor, if you want
to stay alive you're going to end up contributing a minimum
of say £2.12 a week in VAT. This is unavoidable, unlike the luxury
goods rich people may choose to flitter their money away on.
However if you're on Jobseekers Allowance, this would represent
1/40th of your weekly income Whereas If you're on £800 p.w
it would only represent 1/400th.
The person on £800 pw (net?) would not only be buying goods and services
carrying £2.12 in VAT per week.
But what they spend in order to incur further VAT, over and above £2.12
is immaterial.
Assuming my example is roughly correct, everyone contributes at least
£2.12 per week in VAT.
And for the poor people for whom that is their only contribution, that
VAT *most definitely is regressive* as it represents 1/40th of their
total income.
Whereas the equivalent £2.12 *component* of the richer person's total
VAT bill, only represents 1/400 of their income.
The fact that they incur further VAT in addition is neither here not there.
A tankful of petrol (at say, £84) carries a VAT charge of about £14. Most >> people would use several tankfuls in a month. And that's just petrol for
the car.
And ? But if they worked from home and got all their groceries delivered
and bought everything else on Amazon, they wouldn't need a car at all
would they ?
All this additional expenditure is discretionary, to a greater or lesser extent. People whose only income derives from investments etc
can simply lie in bed all day and do nothing and hardly spend anything
at all except sufficient to run up £2.12 worth of VAT per week.
Even if that.
Unlike this weekly £2.12 which is being gouged out of the poorest
members of society just in order for them just to survive at the barest level possible
And it wouldn't actually matter if it was only 12p per week. From the perspective of the person who's paying it, its regressive.
On 07/10/2023 12:16 am, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/10/2023 22:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-04, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
We need some form of consumption tax. And VAT is a better form of >>>>>>> consumption tax than its predecessor.
I don't agree with the premise that a general consumption tax is
necessary or good for society. (Special ones to recover externalized >>>>>> social costs, such as for cigarettes and pollutants, are a different >>>>>> matter.)
What would you replace it with, in order to maintain government
revenue at broadly equivalent levels?
Progressive taxes on income and wealth.
We already have a progressive tax on income. Are you suggesting
increasing it? And how would you calculate wealth?
There are some points at various level of income, where there's tax
hike of loss in benefits such that net income goes down as gross
income rises.
That has a technical term: "fiscal drag".
It used to be combated via the well-known "Rooker / Wise amendment",
which obliged the Chancellor to uprate tax-free allowances by the rate
of inflation each year.
Tax Credit reductions,
Have there been any?
Child maintenance contributions,
Supporting one's own children who live elsewhere is not "regressive".
Not, at least, unless supporting one's own children who don't live
elsewhere is "regressive".
Child benefit withdrawal, loss of personal allowance come to mind.
Each could be considered regressive around those points of interest.
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of 97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
Even the standard rate was 37.5% when I was a teenager
, now reduced to 20%.
Of course, both of those mitigations have been offset to an extent by
the transformation of flat rate National Insurance into a separate
income tax, applying all the way up the scale.
Rich people pay more in VAT than poor people but *not* as a
proportion
of their income or wealth. General consumption taxes are regressive.
VAT isn't regressive, because everybody pays the same rate and the
same
proportion of their expenditure. It's a flat tax. A regressive tax is
Fredxx posted some links which disagree.
He posted one link which asserts that VAT is regressie, and one link
which asserts that it's progressive. On average, then, it's neither :-)
The second link referred to 22 countries that were flat or slightly
progressive due to low rates of VAT. The rest were regarded by all
other studies to be regressive. The title of the article is rather
misleading and is best considered in context with the article text.
There are many other articles that claim VAT is a regressive tax.
Of course it is.
It affects price (disadvantageously for the consumer). All prices are regressive on the "poor" (however defined). The only way to stop that
would be for everything to be distributed free of charge by the state.
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of 97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
I think it's between 100k and 125k - the withdrawal of the personal
allowance adds an effective 20% to the 40% rate. Plus 2% NI, the
effective rate is 62%.
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of 97.5%
within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The tapering of allowances at the 100k level results in an effective
marginal income tax of 60% (you pay 40p tax on each pound, and also lose
50p of allowance so you pay 40% of 50p, another 20p).
I've heard rumours of 75% somewhere, but it's just a rumour. I have no evidence.
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of
97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The tapering of allowances at the 100k level results in an effective
marginal income tax of 60% (you pay 40p tax on each pound, and also lose
50p of allowance so you pay 40% of 50p, another 20p).
I've heard rumours of 75% somewhere, but it's just a rumour. I have no evidence.
Andy
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of
97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The tapering of allowances at the 100k level results in an effective
marginal income tax of 60% (you pay 40p tax on each pound, and also lose
50p of allowance so you pay 40% of 50p, another 20p).
I've heard rumours of 75% somewhere, but it's just a rumour. I have no evidence.
Savings is money that you're keeping for a time when you expect to spend
it later - either saving up to buy something, or keeping it "for a rainy
day" - while investment is money spent in order to generate a return. Obviously, there's a certain amount of crossover there insofar as an
interest bearing savings account or similar will both enable you to accumulate capital while also generating a (small) return. But, realistically, you won't earn a big enough return just from an interest-bearing deposit to make it a useful source of income, whereas
an investment (eg, in property) can generate a living income.
On 07/10/2023 02:25 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 09:25 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
VAT isn't regressive, because everybody pays the same rate and the
same
proportion of their expenditure.
But *not* the same proportion of their income.
Hence, it's regressive.
All taxes - indeed, all prices and all financial transactions of every
last description - are regressive on the "poor".
No they're not. Poor people don't pay Inheritance Tax for a start as
they don't usually inherit anything; except maybe debts.
That is not - for various reasons - thought of (or ever included) as a regressive tax!
And most likely very few will be affected by any increase in the price
of caviar, as a result of the War in Ukraine.
Ditto, though actually,the price of caviar IS regressive on the "poor" (however defined).
The price of everything is regressive on the "poor". That's what "poor"
and "regressive" mean.
On 07/10/2023 19:28, Mark Goodge wrote:
Savings is money that you're keeping for a time when you expect to spend
it later - either saving up to buy something, or keeping it "for a rainy
day" - while investment is money spent in order to generate a return.
Obviously, there's a certain amount of crossover there insofar as an
interest bearing savings account or similar will both enable you to
accumulate capital while also generating a (small) return. But,
realistically, you won't earn a big enough return just from an
interest-bearing deposit to make it a useful source of income, whereas
an investment (eg, in property) can generate a living income.
I invest my savings (including pension) in various places. With any luck
some of them will generate a return above inflation.
Some of that is in the stock market, which is generally regarded as an investment. But all I'm trying to do is protect the value of the money I
have put aside for my retirement - which meets your "keeping it for a
rainy day".
I don't try to distinguish the two.
Andy
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kodfcuFde8qU1@mid.individual.net...
On 07/10/2023 02:25 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/10/2023 09:25 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
VAT isn't regressive, because everybody pays the same rate and the >>>>>> same
proportion of their expenditure.
But *not* the same proportion of their income.
Hence, it's regressive.
All taxes - indeed, all prices and all financial transactions of every >>>> last description - are regressive on the "poor".
No they're not. Poor people don't pay Inheritance Tax for a start as
they don't usually inherit anything; except maybe debts.
That is not - for various reasons - thought of (or ever included) as a
regressive tax!
You were referring above to "all taxes". Not simply to regressive taxes..
And most likely very few will be affected by any increase in the price
of caviar, as a result of the War in Ukraine.
Ditto, though actually,the price of caviar IS regressive on the "poor"
(however defined).
The price of everything is regressive on the "poor". That's what "poor"
and "regressive" mean.
Only in a trivial mathematical sense (a) and only if both actually buy
the item in question (b)
a) Thus if A has £100 and B has £10, then A has 10 times as much as
B (100/10)
a) Howver as soon as "both" spend a fixed amount say £6 on something, C
then A now has £94 while B now only has £4 so now A has 23 times as much
as A ! And so its regressive
b) However if *neither A nor B buy C* then A still has 10 times as much as
B.
While if only A buys C, then as a result A now only has 9.4 times as much
as B
As to income tax.
99% of people will doubtless claim its employees who pay income tax
that they're the taxpayers, and its their money which is being "stolen"
by the government. When in fact its employers who are the taxpayers.
Leaving aside NI etc if a garage needs to employ motor mechanics for
whom the current going rate is £800 net a week, then they will need to pay a gross wage which will produce that amount. If IT is at 50% then they will need to pay £1600 gross PW, at 75% £2400 gross PW etc.
However seeing these figures doubtless outraged Daily Mail reading motor mechanics would say "If it wasn't for this greedy thieving government I
could be taking home £2400 a week.
When in fact they couldn't. All they could ever take home would be £800
a week, as that is the going rate.
All that very high income tax rates indicate is not greedy governments but the very high demand there is for some people in the economy.
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 12:16 am, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/10/2023 22:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-04, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
We need some form of consumption tax. And VAT is a better form of >>>>>>>> consumption tax than its predecessor.
I don't agree with the premise that a general consumption tax is >>>>>>> necessary or good for society. (Special ones to recover externalized >>>>>>> social costs, such as for cigarettes and pollutants, are a different >>>>>>> matter.)
What would you replace it with, in order to maintain government
revenue at broadly equivalent levels?
Progressive taxes on income and wealth.
We already have a progressive tax on income. Are you suggesting
increasing it? And how would you calculate wealth?
There are some points at various level of income, where there's tax
hike of loss in benefits such that net income goes down as gross
income rises.
That has a technical term: "fiscal drag".
It used to be combated via the well-known "Rooker / Wise amendment",
which obliged the Chancellor to uprate tax-free allowances by the rate
of inflation each year.
Tax Credit reductions,
Have there been any?
If you knew how tax credits and the rate they're removed for every pound
you earn you wouldn't have asked the question.
Child maintenance contributions,
Supporting one's own children who live elsewhere is not "regressive".
Not, at least, unless supporting one's own children who don't live
elsewhere is "regressive".
It can be according to income and when contributions are taken from
gross pay, where the % is added to Tax Credit withdrawal and also
removed from your gross income as well as IT and NI
Child benefit withdrawal, loss of personal allowance come to mind.
Each could be considered regressive around those points of interest.
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of
97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The maximum of 45% is pretty the same I get taxed out of gross income if
I did some work for someone.
Lets assume you pay me £1,000 My company then pays 13.8% employers NI leaving £862
I then pay employees NI and IT of 12% and 20%, making it 32% of £862
being £276
I am left with £586. So a tax rate of 41-42%
Even the standard rate was 37.5% when I was a teenager
That's still higher than the overall basic rate I current pay for work
done.
, now reduced to 20%.
Yes, with things like rental income, interest etc. You forget other
increases of taxes of income for those who work.
Of course, both of those mitigations have been offset to an extent by
the transformation of flat rate National Insurance into a separate
income tax, applying all the way up the scale.
Quite
Rich people pay more in VAT than poor people but *not* as a
proportion of their income or wealth. General consumption
taxes are regressive.
VAT isn't regressive, because everybody pays the same rate and the >>>>>> same proportion of their expenditure. It's a flat tax. A regressive >>>>>> tax is
Fredxx posted some links which disagree.He posted one link which asserts that VAT is regressie, and one link
which asserts that it's progressive. On average, then, it's neither :-)
The second link referred to 22 countries that were flat or slightly
progressive due to low rates of VAT. The rest were regarded by all
other studies to be regressive. The title of the article is rather
misleading and is best considered in context with the article text.
There are many other articles that claim VAT is a regressive tax.
Of course it is.
It affects price (disadvantageously for the consumer). All prices are
regressive on the "poor" (however defined). The only way to stop that
would be for everything to be distributed free of charge by the state.
Your conclusion is utterly flawed. Even an article I referred to
mentioned it was a high rate of VAT that created the regressive nature
of VAT.
On 08/10/2023 21:12, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of
97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The tapering of allowances at the 100k level results in an effective marginal income tax of 60% (you pay 40p tax on each pound, and also lose 50p of allowance so you pay 40% of 50p, another 20p).
I've heard rumours of 75% somewhere, but it's just a rumour. I have no evidence.There are also issues over childcare where it is withdrawn immediately
when your income is over £100k.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare
Because this is quite a hit I've known employees discussing this with
their employer so they don't go over this magic threshold.
On Monday, 9 October 2023 at 11:51:40 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/10/2023 21:12, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:There are also issues over childcare where it is withdrawn
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances
(at higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing
that mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a
maximum of 97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of
45%.
The tapering of allowances at the 100k level results in an
effective marginal income tax of 60% (you pay 40p tax on each
pound, and also lose 50p of allowance so you pay 40% of 50p,
another 20p).
I've heard rumours of 75% somewhere, but it's just a rumour. I
have no evidence.
immediately when your income is over £100k.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare Because this is quite a hit
I've known employees discussing this with their employer so they
don't go over this magic threshold.
These lumps and bumps in the income tax system are ludicrous, and
seem to be increasing in number over time. It's about time a
government sorted it, and ensured a smooth increase in rate as
earnings increase
On 08/10/2023 03:01 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 12:16 am, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/10/2023 22:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-04, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
We need some form of consumption tax. And VAT is a better form of >>>>>>>>> consumption tax than its predecessor.
I don't agree with the premise that a general consumption tax is >>>>>>>> necessary or good for society. (Special ones to recover
externalized
social costs, such as for cigarettes and pollutants, are a
different
matter.)
What would you replace it with, in order to maintain government
revenue at broadly equivalent levels?
Progressive taxes on income and wealth.
We already have a progressive tax on income. Are you suggesting
increasing it? And how would you calculate wealth?
There are some points at various level of income, where there's tax
hike of loss in benefits such that net income goes down as gross
income rises.
That has a technical term: "fiscal drag".
It used to be combated via the well-known "Rooker / Wise amendment",
which obliged the Chancellor to uprate tax-free allowances by the
rate of inflation each year.
Tax Credit reductions,
Have there been any?
If you knew how tax credits and the rate they're removed for every
pound you earn you wouldn't have asked the question.
The rate at which other income is taken into account when calculating entitlement to tax credits is not the same thing as the amount (scale
rate) of tax credits.
I'm surprised that you confuse those two entirely separate matters.
Child maintenance contributions,
Supporting one's own children who live elsewhere is not "regressive".
Not, at least, unless supporting one's own children who don't live
elsewhere is "regressive".
It can be according to income and when contributions are taken from
gross pay, where the % is added to Tax Credit withdrawal and also
removed from your gross income as well as IT and NI
Perhaps yu can explain your implicit calculations?
But probably, you can't.
After all, liability to maintain one's OWN children is hardly a state
impost. Who ELSE should be liable to do it?
Child benefit withdrawal, loss of personal allowance come to mind.
Each could be considered regressive around those points of interest.
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of
97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The maximum of 45% is pretty the same I get taxed out of gross income
if I did some work for someone.
45% and 97.5% are the same, are they?
Lets assume you pay me £1,000 My company then pays 13.8% employers NI
leaving £862
I then pay employees NI and IT of 12% and 20%, making it 32% of £862
being £276
I am left with £586. So a tax rate of 41-42%
Even the standard rate was 37.5% when I was a teenager
That's still higher than the overall basic rate I current pay for work
done.
Quite so.
But NI and income tax are separate things.
And employer's and employee's NO "contributions" (ie, tax) were separate
too.
, now reduced to 20%.
Yes, with things like rental income, interest etc. You forget other
increases of taxes of income for those who work.
Of course, both of those mitigations have been offset to an extent by
the transformation of flat rate National Insurance into a separate
income tax, applying all the way up the scale.
Quite
???
It's lower now!
Rich people pay more in VAT than poor people but *not* as a
proportion of their income or wealth. General consumption
taxes are regressive.
VAT isn't regressive, because everybody pays the same rate and
the same proportion of their expenditure. It's a flat tax. A
regressive
tax is
Fredxx posted some links which disagree.He posted one link which asserts that VAT is regressie, and one
link which asserts that it's progressive. On average, then, it's
neither :-)
The second link referred to 22 countries that were flat or slightly
progressive due to low rates of VAT. The rest were regarded by all
other studies to be regressive. The title of the article is rather
misleading and is best considered in context with the article text.
There are many other articles that claim VAT is a regressive tax.
Of course it is.
It affects price (disadvantageously for the consumer). All prices are
regressive on the "poor" (however defined). The only way to stop that
would be for everything to be distributed free of charge by the state.
Your conclusion is utterly flawed. Even an article I referred to
mentioned it was a high rate of VAT that created the regressive nature
of VAT.
ANY rate of VAT is regressive. It increases prices. ALL prices are
regressive on the "poor".
On 09/10/2023 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2023 03:01 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:59, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 12:16 am, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/10/2023 22:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-04, Mark Goodge wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
We need some form of consumption tax. And VAT is a better form of >>>>>>>>>> consumption tax than its predecessor.
I don't agree with the premise that a general consumption tax is >>>>>>>>> necessary or good for society. (Special ones to recover
externalized social costs, such as for cigarettes and pollutants, >>>>>>>>> are a different matter.)
What would you replace it with, in order to maintain government >>>>>>>> revenue at broadly equivalent levels?
Progressive taxes on income and wealth.
We already have a progressive tax on income. Are you suggesting
increasing it? And how would you calculate wealth?
There are some points at various level of income, where there's tax
hike of loss in benefits such that net income goes down as gross
income rises.
That has a technical term: "fiscal drag".
It used to be combated via the well-known "Rooker / Wise amendment",
which obliged the Chancellor to uprate tax-free allowances by the
rate of inflation each year.
Tax Credit reductions,
Have there been any?
If you knew how tax credits and the rate they're removed for every
pound you earn you wouldn't have asked the question.
The rate at which other income is taken into account when calculating
entitlement to tax credits is not the same thing as the amount (scale
rate) of tax credits.
I'm surprised that you confuse those two entirely separate matters.
I'm surprised you don't understand the reduction of universal credit
with income.
Child maintenance contributions,
Supporting one's own children who live elsewhere is not
"regressive". Not, at least, unless supporting one's own children
who don't live elsewhere is "regressive".
It can be according to income and when contributions are taken from
gross pay, where the % is added to Tax Credit withdrawal and also
removed from your gross income as well as IT and NI
Perhaps yu can explain your implicit calculations?
The maximum the CMS can take out of your income is 40%, though I accept
that is only where there are arrears.
 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7774/
So:
40% CMS
55% Universal Credit taper
20% Income Tax
12% National Insurance
But probably, you can't.
You could have research the numbers yourself so I can only assume if you
had these at hand you wouldn't know what to do with them, so I'll help
you add these together:
125%
In simple layman's terms that you might understand that means for every £1.00 you earn you lose 25p of whatever you had in your pocket.
After all, liability to maintain one's OWN children is hardly a state
impost. Who ELSE should be liable to do it?
I agree, but it is pointless to discourage people to work the extra hour
or a little harder, because if they they will be so much worse off.
Obviously you disagree and prefer these people never to better
themselves or encourage them to pay taxes.
Child benefit withdrawal, loss of personal allowance come to mind.
Each could be considered regressive around those points of interest.
I agree that the tapering and withdrawal of personal allowances (at
higher levels of income) is not a good thing. But one thing that
mitigates it is that Income Tax has been reduced from a maximum of
97.5% within easy living memory to a maximum of 45%.
The maximum of 45% is pretty the same I get taxed out of gross income
if I did some work for someone.
45% and 97.5% are the same, are they?
Only someone who is innumerate would compare the numbers and ask such a
silly question.
Lets assume you pay me £1,000 My company then pays 13.8% employers NI
leaving £862
I then pay employees NI and IT of 12% and 20%, making it 32% of £862being £276
I am left with £586. So a tax rate of 41-42%
Even the standard rate was 37.5% when I was a teenager
That's still higher than the overall basic rate I current pay for
work done.
Quite so...
But NI and income tax are separate things.
And employer's and employee's NO "contributions" (ie, tax) were
separate too.
They're separate in name only. They are both a tax on income.
I have
already given you an example where I might work for £1,000 and end up
with an overall tax rate of 41-42%
, now reduced to 20%.
Yes, with things like rental income, interest etc. You forget other
increases of taxes of income for those who work.
Of course, both of those mitigations have been offset to an extent
by the transformation of flat rate National Insurance into a
separate income tax, applying all the way up the scale.
Quite
???
It's lower now!
What is lower now, National Insurance?
You're plucking claims from
nowhere with no justification once again.
Your conclusion is utterly flawed. Even an article I referred to
mentioned it was a high rate of VAT that created the regressive
nature of VAT.
ANY rate of VAT is regressive. It increases prices. ALL prices are
regressive on the "poor".
Then you just proves you haven't read the article I cited, presumably it
has content you don't want to read or rather forget if you had read it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:14:53 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,474 |