what's with the Lansera-baiting?
He's absolutely hilarious when you wind him up. Like some little scouser on a day trip to London so he is.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Paying tax on tax - you have to just love labour dont you.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Stoner, what's happened? You're sounding almost left-wing
Who are you and what have you done with the real Stoner?Posted 2 years ago # -
i know sandwich i keep agreeing with him too, i just dont understand!?! was he seduced by mandelson or something??
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ive never been "right wing". Im not sure that neccessarily makes me "left wing" though
My personal view is that tax is a fine thing and as a nation we are taxed at about the right kind of amount (c. 40% of GDP give or take a few % through the economic cycles). Overall I have no desire to see the tax burden increased or decreased.
I think structurally its a finking mess. I would love to see a massively simplified tax system*. Merging capital and income taxes, making them more progressive (increase the personal allowances substantially whilst increasing the rates. I wouldnt increase the upper rate beyond 50% though as that will have negliable impact on the tax take at that level and may in fact reduce it. And above 50% is simply an act of spite by the jealous left rather than an act of redistribution in the mould of Minimax optimisation
* In a previous life I used to work in teams that would take all sorts of extraordinary turns and chinks to avoid paying massive chunks of tax on property transaction - legally mind you. It was made possible by having such a convoluted tax system. If the system was simplified, but reduced in rate than total tax receipts would increase from commerical payers IMO.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Unfortunately duty is pretty much the only way of controlling consumption other than rationing
But we do have rationing ........ it just happens to be 'rationing by the purse strings' .... that's all.
Although 'proper' rationing is now well overdue imo. With the current global situation, dependency issues, and environmental concerns, it is ridiculous that petroleum fuels are treated as commodities to which people can just help themselves as if there is no tomorrow.
I can't see a problem with sensible rationing. And if a reasonable amount was allocated to individual drivers, plus the cost was seriously slashed to a reasonable price, I believe that it would be popular.
Obviously how you use your fuel would be left to the individual, ie. if you want a 'gas-guzzler' then fair enough - just be prepared to have it parked in your drive for a few days every month. Buy a sensible car, and enjoy the benefits of being able to drive all over the country without any restrictions.
Of course you could easily adjust quantities to suit individual needs - eg GPs, the disabled, etc, can be provided with extra and above.
The present system of 'rationing by the purse strings' is not working, and pushing prices higher and higher is not tenable.
Communist idea ? ........ well I don't think the US/Western-backed government of Iraqi can be described as communist for introducing petrol rationing. If despite all the oil they have, they can introduce rationing, then so can we.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Stoner, I agree completely, but you can apply that argument to most taxes. Look at the total tax burden on the poor compared to the rich.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ernie - petrol is a luxury not a necessity. Taxes on petrol can be easily avoided. Don't buy a car. Many folk especially those on lower incomes do not own a car.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes, but poor people buy food and stuff as well. How do you think that food gets to the supermarkets?
Given the huge distances that food is routinely transported before it gets to the shelves, are you really arguing that fuel prices are a significant factor in the affordability of food? And even it it was significant, this would provide an incentive to reduce food miles. I think that's a good thing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ernie - petrol is a luxury not a necessity. Taxes on petrol can be easily avoided.
'Bollocks' ............ if you don't mind me saying.
I can't get to work without a car.
Or do you think having a job is a 'luxury' ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Stoner, I agree completely, but you can apply that argument to most taxes. Look at the total tax burden on the poor compared to the rich.
ransos, Im afraid you have that wrong.
In, I think, all economies that are based on a progressive income tax system, overall the entire tax system (including the non-progressive parts) tend to be redistributive. i.e. the wealthy overall pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the poor.
Im trying to find a better graph for you...
Posted 2 years ago # -
I can't get to work without a car.
I moved house so I would be close enough to cycle.
Posted 2 years ago # -
2 things:
1.
fuel taxes are not high enough.
agreed entirely. Petrol should be at least £2 a litre IMO, but no politician is going to line himself up for a lynching from the numpties for suggesting this.2)'Bollocks' ............ if you don't mind me saying.
I can't get to work without a car.
Or do you think having a job is a 'luxury'
I'd suggest you could probably get a job which you could get to without a car. Presumably you had some kind of choice in which job to have?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hooray ! Stoner has posted a 'pretty graph' !
Mind you, it took you a while mate .................. what kept you ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ernie - IIRC you are a self employed carpenter. Yes people in your situation need a car to work and once again I am too simplistic. However the vast majority of car use is luxury - commuting to work is a luxury, driving to the shops is a luxury. Etc etc.
Driving in the course of your work often is a luxury but not always.
The poor have lower levels of car ownership than the rich.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If despite all the oil they have, they can introduce rationing, then so can we.
Of course not a communist proposal. A security one.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I moved house so I would be close enough to cycle.
*chuckles at the thought of cycling to work and moving house every time I start on a new site*
.
EDIT :
btw 'enjoying life' by indulging in reasonable pursuits is not a 'luxury' ........ in my not-so humble opinion.Posted 2 years ago # -
Er where's the key on that graph?
I think this one is just as useful
Posted 2 years ago # -
Of course not a communist proposal. A security one
Nope. Not a security issue ..... more a question of petrol being a precious commodity which they don't have enough of.
Posted 2 years ago # -
*chuckles at the thought of cycling to work and moving house every time I start on a new site*
You could become a nomad and live in a tent!
You see, there's always choices difficult ones maybe, but choices nonetheless.
To really "need" something like a car is really incredibly rare.
Posted 2 years ago # -
here's a better graph:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/taxbhi0709.pdfpage 2
Original income and final income by income quintile group, 2007/08taht graph shows total household income after redistributions as a result of direct and indirect taxtion and benefits and tax credits etc.
However (and here, ransos I shall apologise as I was too quick to criticise your point) in terms of JUST taxtion (i.e. excluding the effects of tax credits and benefits) then the proportionate tax rate is NOT very redistributive OVERALL
HERE is a disturbing fact you won’t have read anywhere else: the poorest families in Britain today pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the wealthiest. Such a claim may sound crazy but here are the figures: the bottom fifth of earners pay 38.7 of their gross income in total tax, the next fifth 32.7 per cent, then 34.6 per cent, 35.4 per cent, falling to 34.9 per cent for the top fifth of higher-earning households. For those of you about to email in disbelief – after all, we have just had 12 years of Labour government – feel free to check out my sources. All these explosive figures are contained in The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2007/08, a 38-page report by Andrew Barnard, published online yesterday by the Office for National Statistics.
SOurce: http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/Allister-Heath/v3wex9416u.html
but, it is the indirect taxation which we've already agreed is regressive that's causing the most problems, and this mainly stems from the costs of fuel duty, ostensibly for environmental reasons, which is difficult for the left to have worked around yet.
... [the] anti-poor bias is entirely due to indirect taxation – value added tax and duties on alcohol and tobacco [and fuel duty] – which hit those on lower incomes much more severely. The bottom fifth pay 27.9 per cent of their gross income in indirect tax, the next fifth 18.6 per cent, then 15.9 per cent, 13.7 per cent and just 10.0 per cent for the top fifth.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Stoner, I was looking up the same information! Read page 41 of this link: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/07_08/downloads/ELMR_Jul08_Jones.pdf
Interestingly, the poorest quintile spend less on fuel duties than the 2, 3 & 4th quintiles, which supports my contention that they drive less. However, it is a higher proportion of their disposable income.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"especially those on lower incomes do not own a car."
"which supports my contention that they drive less."
but would they if they could ? I'm betting "yes"
Posted 2 years ago # -
but would they if they could ? I'm betting "yes"
If I earned more, I'd have a nicer bike and and a bigger house.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If I earned more, I'd have a nicer bike and and a bigger house.
when I earned more, I got a smaller house and work less. I also got a nicer bike, natch
Posted 2 years ago # -
Given the huge distances that food is routinely transported before it gets to the shelves, are you really arguing that fuel prices are a significant factor in the affordability of food?
..and how is food "routinely transported" over those "huge distances"? By pedal power or by big lorries with a fuel consumtion of around 8 mpg?
Posted 2 years ago # -
..and how is food "routinely transported" over those "huge distances"? By pedal power or by big lorries with a fuel consumtion of around 8 mpg?
Err, that's my point - food is transported long distances only because transport costs aren't significant enough to outweigh other factors. 2p on fuel duty is not going to make food less affordable.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I can't provide the data ATM but I recall that the average transport cost for items in Europe is less than 1% of their retail price
This obviously encompasses everything from a locally grown cabbage to a bike from ChinaPosted 2 years ago # -
I apologise in advance, but Im bored.
assuming a container is approximately 6m x 2.5m x 2.5m I reckon you can fit about 130 On-One 456 frames at £125 each into a lorry, or about £16k worth.
In the same lorry (but not at the same time, obviously), I reckon you could probably fit about 9,000 cabbages at £1 a cabbage.
for an average trip of 300 miles at 8mpg and 110p per litre of diesel then the fuel cost represents 1.15% and 2.10% of the RRP value of the loads, frames & cabbages, respectively.
You'll all sleep better for knowing that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well done Stoner
There are of course some economies of scale to be made too
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
