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

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...

I can't get to work without a car.

I moved house so I would be close enough to cycle.

2 things:

1.
[i]fuel taxes are not high enough.[/i]
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)[i]'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]

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?

Hooray ! Stoner has posted a 'pretty graph' !

Mind you, it took you a while mate .................. what kept you ? 😯

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.

If despite all the oil they have, they can introduce rationing, then so can we.

Of course not a communist proposal. A security one.

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 [i]is not[/i] a 'luxury' ........ in my not-so humble opinion.

Er where's the key on that graph?

I think this one is just as useful
[img] [/img]

😛

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.

*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.

here's a better graph:

STATISTICS.GOV.UK "http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/taxbhi0709.pdf"

page 2
Original income and final income by income quintile group, 2007/08

taht graph shows total household income [i]after[/i] redistributions as a result of direct and indirect taxtion [i]and[/i] 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

[i]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.[/i]

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.

[i]... [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.[/i]