[Closed] Paying tax on tax - you have to just love labour dont you.

Paying tax on tax has always been the case - it's not just Labour

If you think about it - you've been taxed 3 times

Yup, 'tis all a bit ridiculous.

Taxed when you earn, taxed when you save, taxed when you spend.

Hey - Someone has to pay for the holy war you know!

money doesn't grow on trees.

Yup - got to pay for services somehow. fuel is too cheap anyway and our tax burden whilst no longer the lowest in europe is still one of the lowest in terms of total tax take - direct and indirect as a % of gdp.

Do you really want a low tax system like the USA. 30% of the polulation have no effective access to healthcare, child mortality and life expectancy are very poor in comparison to other idustrialised countries? Or would yo rather have good healthcare and services free at the point of use? No beggars in the streets etc - then pay dutch levels of tax.

good healthcare and services free at the point of use

To get it good rather than adequate you would need to pay dutch levels of tax - significantly higher than we pay

Well on the plus side they were the ones that got rid of the fuel tax accelerator thingy that was introduced by the Major government so it's not all bad.

Dont mind paying tax if the money goes to the services it is intended for, the amount of road tax we pay should mean we have super roads, the amount of NI we pay means the NHS,Social Services etc should be able to deliver what it says on the tin, in reality the money is squandered(insert list as required) on garbage to buy the votes of those that dont want to contribute to the pot and have no intention of doing so as well as filling the pockets of career politicians.

I can never understand why we have a Health system with twice the number of management staff as there is clinical staff, absolute scandal that the so called free healthcare system is run as a business.

[i]Taxed when you earn, taxed when you save, taxed when you spend.[/i]

Yeah, those second homes don't just refurbish themselves you know!

Anokdale - that simply is wrong - we do not have twice the number of management staff as clinical. sources please.

The NHS suffers from a lack of management - it needs more and better quality managers. NHS managerial overheads are far lower than comparable systems accross the world - partly because its funded from taxes

NI at 9% ( 10% ???) of income up to up to a ceiling of £30k+ does not provide anything like enough money for the nhs which costs 9% of GDP let alone social services.

can never understand why we have a Health system with twice the number of management staff as there is clinical staff

I find that very hard to believe, can I ask the source of that statistic?

TJ, the NHS has sufficient managers, possibly a few too many. What it doesn't have is quality management. I'm dealing with three fairly straightforward projects which have stalled simply because the people involved are just not capapble of making decisions, so meetings are called, discussions are had and the only thing agreed on is that we need another meeting in a month or so.

To a point one should "enjoy" paying tax.
Beyond that point, one will often resent paying tax.

the "point" at which it moves from one to the other is going to be a function of your politics.

One thing is constant though, the UK hasnt had hypothecated taxes for generations and that is a good thing - as someone smarter than me once said: "the point of taxation is to have your money spent on something you'd never willingly spend it on yourself". 🙂

I can never understand why we have a Health system with twice the number of management staff as there is clinical staff

absolute scandal that the so called free healthcare system is run as a business.

I had the same argument with MrsMM, not long after we met....... (She is a management accountant in a local trust) - it has to be run as a business and decisions have to be made about where to draw the line, otherwise the NHS would be a bottomless pit into which he'd keep throwing money and, as we know (see I hate the NHS thread...) there ain't enough money to go round as it is.......

Not saying the NHS is perfect, nor would Mrs MM - but it is a shed load better than what a lot of other folk around the world have available......

amount of road tax we pay should mean we have super roads

For ****s sake this is a cycling website, surely to good you've heard that there's no such thing as road tax?

NI at 9% ( 10% ???) of income up to up to a ceiling of £30k+ does not provide anything like enough money for the nhs which costs 9% of GDP let alone social services.

There is employers NI as well as employees don't forget.

Even so epic steve - the amount of money raised in NI is a fraction of the cost of the NHS

Well, at least taxpayers money isn't being frittered away, eh?

[img] [/img]

[url= http://dizzythinks.net/2009/08/cost-of-communities-clipart.html ]More examples here[/url]

As Stoner says, up to a point, paying tax is a very neceessary thing. It's what's done with that tax which will define how you feel about it.

Even so epic steve - the amount of money raised in NI is a fraction of the cost of the NHS

Well N.I. receipts for the last financial year were around £97 Billion

The department of health spent a similar figure

What fraction did you have in mind TJ? 😀

IMO - it's worth every penny too

Do you really want a low tax system like the USA. 30% of the polulation have no effective access to healthcare, child mortality and life expectancy are very poor in comparison to other idustrialised countries? Or would yo rather have good healthcare and services free at the point of use? No beggars in the streets etc -

Simplistic, emotive, nonsense.

The highest tax burden this country has ever endured, was under Thatcher. Despite that, the NHS suffered serious underfunding under Thatcher - as indeed did all other welfare provisions.

Taxation and welfare provisions are not necessarily linked.

Simplistic yes Ernie - but you have to get the money to pay for Health and welfare services from somewhere. So while you can have a high tax poor service regime as you indicate, you cannot have a low tax high service regime.

Uplink - the figures I have now found are wider apart than that but I am suprised How close they are. However initially it was claimed "the amount of NI we pay means the NHS,Social Services etc should be able to deliver what it says on the tin" which is clearly not right as the NHS absorbs all of NI and a bit more. ( not that the taxes are hypothecated anyway.)

you cannot have a low tax high service regime.

Yes you can.

Full employment (everyone paying smaller amounts of tax) and revenue from the profits of nationalised, gas, oil, water, electricity, and banking industries, just for starters, can reduce the government's need to increase the tax burden.

the figures I have now found are wider apart than that

What figures have you found?

OK Ernie - without major economic restructuring then 🙂

The country/next govt needs to do some serious restructuring - we're getting to the point where we are becoming a country with no notable exports/manufacturing and importing everything (due to Nu Labours policies) - couple this with Nu Labour trying to destroy the banking industry and raising taxation we'll all be ****ed in a few years.

Another Labour/Communist experiment has failed - I can't wait for their next "rebranding" and destroying years of conservative good practice

conservative good practice

Oxymoron.

Lanesra, I may not be a genius but I'm not stupid, however I really couldnt make sense of your last post.

Conservatives destroyed manufacturing - not labour remeber the thatcher slump?. Nice attempt at rewriting history and Labour is nowhere near communist.

OK Ernie - without major economic restructuring then

Yes, it would require abandoning the failed monetarist, neo-liberal, and hugely misnamed "laissez-faire" economics of the past 30 years.

You appear to have been seduced by TINA TJ.

Which is surprising, considering the comprehensive, global, and systematic, failure of the monetarist experiment.

Not at all been seduced by TINA. I am with you on the solution. guilty of simplistic posting however 😳

The country/next govt needs to do some serious restructuring - we're getting to the point where we are becoming a country with no notable exports/manufacturing and importing everything (due to Nu Labours policies) - couple this with Nu Labour trying to destroy the banking industry and raising taxation we'll all be **** in a few years.

Another Labour/Communist experiment has failed - I can't wait for their next "rebranding" and destroying years of conservative good practice

look, I know the NHS isn't the best funded health system in the world, but surely you can ask your doctor to prescribe you something a little stronger?

Full employment (everyone paying smaller amounts of tax) and revenue from the profits of nationalised, gas, oil, water, electricity, and banking industries, just for starters, can reduce the government's need to increase the tax burden.

Recipe for disaster. Governments cannot run industries. Every time they try its always ended in failure.

How are we to miraculously generate the millions of jobs necessary for full employment? Even if you could get the benefit scroungers off their lazy asses to fill them.

The usual left wingers jumping in without offering up a solution/cause - apart from blaming it all on Thatcher :yawnsmiley:

Governments cannot run industries. Every time they try its always ended in failure.

Absolute nonsense.

For example ........ utilities such as electricity, gas, and water, have all previously been under state or local government control. They were highly successful businesses which generated huge profits, although profits were often deliberately suppressed (such as gas for example) to allow ordinary people to have more disposable income - the equivalent of tax cuts if you will.

They [i]did not[/i] end in "failure"

EDF is an [u]extremely successful[/u] energy company. It is owned by a government.

If a government has the organisationally skills to prosecute a war thousands of miles away on the other side of the world, if it has the organisationally skills to provide a nation's children with their life long educational needs, if it has the organisationally skills to provide a nation's full healthcare needs, then it is perfectly capable of providing it's citizens with electricity, gas, and water.

As indeed they have successfully done so in the past. What "magic wand" do you think profit-hungry private companies possess ffs ? The same one which bankers used until they were bailed out by the government maybe ?

.

How are we to miraculously generate the millions of jobs necessary for full employment?

"Generate" jobs ? What do you mean "generate" jobs ? 😯

There is no need to 'generate jobs' ....... in fact, there are not enough people in our society to do all the work which requires doing.

Under our present economic model if 5% of the workforce are unemployed, it is considered to be [u]extremely good[/u] ! And yet, it is clearly an obscene waste of precious human resources.

We have had full employment and a much lower tax burden in the past. TINA is a lie.

without offering up a solution

He he ...... you are a joker Lanesra !

When the world was facing global economic meltdown as a direct result of the economic failings of the Bush administration, why wasn't a big fat dose of more free-market fundamentalism not administered ?

..... if [i]that[/i] is the "solution" eh ?

Why did the neo-conservatives abandoned their beloved 'free-market solutions' as quickly as rats from a sinking ship ?

Why did they at the drop of a hat, embrace 'government intervention' even though for decades they had argued against it ?

Why did Bush enter the White House as a neo-conservative, and yet eight years later leave as a neo-socialist ?

No other solution ?

We'd be in a better position if all income tax didn't get spent on supporting those with inadequate income.... But for some reason there are more poor people here than ever before?!

They did not end in "failure"

British Leyland

If a government has the organisationally skills to prosecute a war thousands of miles away on the other side of the world

Er, not the Government the British Army and Airforce. The ministry of Defence has recently been hammered as it couldn't apparently procure the proverbial in a brewery let alone for example buy a few Chinook helicopters that actually worked or bring even one defence procurement in on time and on budget.

There is no need to 'generate jobs' ....... in fact, there are not enough people in our society to do all the work which requires doing.

What is this work that requires doing then and who is going to pay for it to be done pray tell?

The country/next govt needs to do some serious restructuring - we're getting to the point where we are becoming a country with no notable exports/manufacturing and importing everything (due to Nu Labours policies) - couple this with Nu Labour trying to destroy the banking industry and raising taxation we'll all be **** in a few years.

Another Labour/Communist experiment has failed - I can't wait for their next "rebranding" and destroying years of conservative good practice

That is funny on so many levels.

re. exports - check the OECD stats (btw, you can export services too)
re. manufacturing - yep, would be nice to have more. However, we have more than most people think.
re. importing everything - lol
re. Labour & banking - you clearly don't understand that Brown-Blair continued the deregulation started by the Tories
re. Communist - you know Labour are a centralist party, right?
re. rebranding - what is the conservative logo these days?

Don't try to speak sense with Ernie, he lives in a world where we'll be paid in vegetables which would then be traded for white goods etc etc..And everyone would live happily ever after

Gordon Brown has never grasped the concept of Macroeconomics and has viewed the world/economics in the simplistic microeconomic view; I.e. he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. For e.g. selling the UK's gold reserves at a record low

Labour & banking - you clearly don't understand that Brown-Blair continued the deregulation started by the Tories

That's alright then can't be labours fault if they were only continuing Tory policies.

Nothing wrong with deregulation. Problem is there is no consequence for failure which would regulate the behaviour of the banks for example discouraging them from taking excessive risks as they can't be allowed to fail and they know it.

Nothing's Labours fault, they've only been in power for 12 years, what can the do it that amount of time ffs

Everything stems from Thatcher

LOL @ uponthedowns ! !

British Leyland never provided electricity, gas, nor water !

British car manufacturing was on the ropes after years of under/no investment and monumental ****ups by private companies when the government stepped in to save it - even a conservative government nationalised Rolls Royce ! Eventually it was handed back to the private sector which managed to kill it off completely.

So the sad story of the British car industry means that the nationalised electricity companies never made
a profit ! LOL !

.

Er, not the Government the British Army and Airforce.

LOL ! ....... now stop it - my sides are starting to hurt ! ! 😀

You mean the government has nothing to do with Army and Airforce ? !

So that also means education has nothing to do with the government !
And the NHS has nothing to do with the government !

I thought a nationalised electricity company meant that a government minister would come to read my meter !

......... hang on wait a sec ..... come to think of it, the guy from EDF who came to read my meter had an accent ...... do you think he was from the French government ? ! 😀

LOL ! .................. what a prat 😀

Everything stems from Thatcher

See you took my advice and got your dose upped after all.

You need to be around when the Torys was in.
The Tax went up and up every couple of days, up to 15 %
On your mortgage.
Most now will be Homeless and dont forget the introduction of POLL TAX

I am not saying Labour is the answer But the Torys had no idea what to do
when the Country went into recession and no idea how to get out and did say
before Labour got in power that the recession will be even worse !!

And the best bit was the Disbelief on the Tory faces when they got kicked out.
Never trust the Con ****ers
They should have been shot after that.
OK they may have let the common family buy there house but that was just to
control and stop people from striking.

When Thatcher dies I am having a PARTY that would be the end of one piece of ROT !

When Thatcher dies I am having a PARTY that would be the end of one piece of ROT !

Pathetic

Lanesra your hopefully trolling with that comment, if not it is pretty sad, but the fact is she was an elected leader and in my opinion a good one.

Not like Brown who has not even been elected PM and who i would personally not follow to the pub even if he was buying. His cabinet is so disjointed he appointed Mandelson as his stand in because he could not trust any of the others to hand the keys back, another character who has been fired form the cabinet how many times.

Elected PM? - only by their own party

? I was quoting Grantaway

Hang on. This is the FOURTH duty rise on fuel in a year. I thought Labour was trying to encourage new car sales?!!!

I like how they are using the excuse that they need the revenue to fund public spending - but wasn't this a deferred rise from when fuel prices were high? It has nothing to do with the current economic climate.

But they like to spin don't they?

[b]Lanesra your hopefully trolling with that comment, if not it is pretty sad[/b]

Lanesra ........ ? I was quoting Grantaway

In fairness, you can't expect a Maggie Thatcher lover to have the intellectual ability to figure out who said what.

Almost a billion to one of the worlds fastest growing powers....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3257104.ece

The country/next govt needs to do some serious restructuring - we're getting to the point where we are becoming a country with no notable exports/manufacturing and importing everything (due to Nu Labours policies) - couple this with Nu Labour trying to destroy the banking industry and raising taxation we'll all be **** in a few years.

Another Labour/Communist experiment has failed - I can't wait for their next "rebranding" and destroying years of conservative good practice

You are joking aren't you?

UK taxes are not high in western European terms, and the total cost of motoring has actually fallen in real terms. No-one likes paying more tax, but can we please get some perspective?

Ransos is correct unfortunately, far from the "persecuted British motorist" model that is perpetually sold to the population of this country, the truth is that things have never been so cheap for the motorist.

Shame really because sooner or later we're going to have to start paying the full price for all our forms of transport, air, sea and land. It's going to be a shock to the system of 99% of the population when that happens. Should be good for local produce though!

UK taxes are not high in western European terms

When it comes to petrol, UK taxes are extremely high in western European terms, probably the highest in
fact - diesel certainly is.

Whilst the overall tax burden might well be about average for Western Europe, taxes on fuel are not necessarily based on ability to pay. Which suggests that the UK has an unfair tax system. A disgraceful and shameful indictment of a "Labour" government's policies.

taxes on fuel are not necessarily based on ability to pay

That's a bit open to debate isn't it? As a personal example - I sold my car when I couldn't afford to run it any more, voila 0% fuel tax for me to pay!

When it comes to petrol, UK taxes are extremely high in western European terms, probably the highest in
fact - diesel certainly is.

Whilst the overall tax burden might well be about average for Western Europe, taxes on fuel are not necessarily based on ability to pay. Which suggests that the UK has an unfair tax system. A disgraceful and shameful indictment of a "Labour" government's policies.

The last time I checked, lots of people were driving too fast, in fuel-hungry cars. This tells me that fuel taxes are not high enough.

In any case, tax always disproportionately impacts on the poor, so I don't know why you would single out fuel duty. It's the total tax burden that counts.

I agree that duty and VAT are not redistributive taxes (Juan, pay attention at the back) and so in theory a "left" wing government should have considered a move towards income/wealth distribution instead of consumption taxation, in matter of fact, the "environmental" issue has moved the fiscal objective towards consumption taxation a bit. This is a new area for the left to have to consider and one that has never previously sat naturally with the left. I think the allying of Bob Crow and the Greenpeace in Isle of Wight at the Vestas plant is an interesting development.

Personally Id be happy to see a transition from Duty and VAT towards more income tax for both progressive reasons and because Im a tightwad 🙂

In any case, tax always disproportionately impacts on the poor

Not at all ...... well it certainly doesn't have to.

As that great guru of the Conservative Party Adam Smith points out in Volume II of "The Wealth of Nations"
Book V, Chapter II, part II. :

[b]The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities;

that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.[/b]

.

...lots of people were driving too fast, in fuel-hungry cars. This tells me that fuel taxes are not high enough.

And it tells me that many people can afford to pay high fuel prices and aren't bothered by them.

It also tells me that rationing by the "purse strings" isn't necessarily the best/most effective/fairest means of controlling fuel consumption.

lanesra - just for you
[img] [/img]

Is that Gerrard celebrating after getting off scot-free from assaulting someone in a bar?

😉

what's with the Lansera-baiting?

Not at all ...... well it certainly doesn't have to.

And it tells me that many people can afford to pay high fuel prices and aren't bothered by them.

It also tells me that rationing by the "purse strings" isn't necessarily the best/most effective/fairest means of controlling fuel consumption.

And it tells me that many people can afford to pay high fuel prices and aren't bothered by them.

>Then there should be no problem with raising duty.

raising duty effects all, including the poor.

however, Id disagree with Gus:

It also tells me that rationing by the "purse strings" isn't necessarily the best/most effective/fairest means of controlling fuel consumption.

Unfortunately duty is pretty much the only way of controlling consumption other than rationing* and softer behavioral changes.

Since variable purchase taxes are completelty unworkable in real life (* i.e. only thorugh ration books) then consumption taxation is always going to be unfair.

*(ooohh, scary communist idea 😉 )

raising duty effects all, including the poor.

On average, richer people use more fuel.

ransos:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/reducing-impact-green-taxes-and-charges-low-income-households

the level of consumption differential betwen rich and poor is not sufficient enough to counteract the difference that flat rate duty as a proportion of household expenditure has on poorer households where it is disproportionately high.

i.e. Charles StJohn-Smythe spends 5% of his disposable income on fuel worth £1,000, of which 50% (£500) is tax. That tax represents 2.5% of Charles' household income. Whereas Brenda Smith spends 25% of her disposable income on fuel worth £500 of which £250 is tax which is 12.5% of her household income despite her consuming far less fuel than Charles. That is regressive.

On average, richer people use more fuel.

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.

Stoner, what's happened? You're sounding almost left-wing 🙂
Who are you and what have you done with the real Stoner?

i know sandwich i keep agreeing with him too, i just dont understand!?! was he seduced by mandelson or something??

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 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax ]Minimax optimisation[/url]

* 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.

Unfortunately duty is pretty much the only way of controlling consumption other than rationing

But [i]we do[/i] 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 [u]sensible[/u] rationing. And if a [u]reasonable[/u] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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' ? 😕

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.

[img] [/img]

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...