I Am Thinking Of Calling It A Day

[raptorrex]

It's robin hood all over again!

lol, in a mirror. rob the poor, to aid the rich!

 

[BethK]

and the priminister is the sheriff of nottingham

 

[chrisbassist]

Vat increase doesn't punish the poor more than the rich, things classed as necessities are vat free anyway. It's people who buy more luxuries who pay the price there.

VAT is on, most things, people buy. and is a pathetic regressive tax. designed to tax the poor, much, more than the better off. PAYE is the fairest tax. tax as a percentage of your total earning, is the only fair way.

someone said "i didn't hear anyone complaining when VAT went down." you weren't listening bud. those of thought said, from the beginning, VAT will go up, soon enough.

Tax, on the lowest 20% of wage earners, is at 80%+. how can that be fair, when a billionaire is taxed, at as little as 15%?

I agree Taxes need to rise. but taxing the poorest, highest. simply is not the way to go. but the greed and jealousy, of the country's top 2% earners (and the power they hold). will always keep it that way.

Indirect taxation it the most regressive kind.

If it's on nearly everything we buy, how come I've not paid any vat in the last 2 weeks? Except for cigarettes? And not even them in the last 5 days now. And I guarantee it will be another week and a half at least before I pay any more vat simply because we can't afford anything this month. When you can't afford anything, you shouldn't be going out and buying luxuries. Food is more important.

 

[raptorrex]

Vat increase doesn't punish the poor more than the rich, things classed as necessities are vat free anyway. It's people who buy more luxuries who pay the price there.

VAT is on, most things, people buy. and is a pathetic regressive tax. designed to tax the poor, much, more than the better off. PAYE is the fairest tax. tax as a percentage of your total earning, is the only fair way.

someone said "i didn't hear anyone complaining when VAT went down." you weren't listening bud. those of thought said, from the beginning, VAT will go up, soon enough.

Tax, on the lowest 20% of wage earners, is at 80%+. how can that be fair, when a billionaire is taxed, at as little as 15%?

I agree Taxes need to rise. but taxing the poorest, highest. simply is not the way to go. but the greed and jealousy, of the country's top 2% earners (and the power they hold). will always keep it that way.

Indirect taxation it the most regressive kind.

If it's on nearly everything we buy, how come I've not paid any vat in the last 2 weeks? Except for cigarettes? And not even them in the last 5 days now. And I guarantee it will be another week and a half at least before I pay any more vat simply because we can't afford anything this month. When you can't afford anything, you shouldn't be going out and buying luxuries. Food is more important.

so you don't use gas or electricity, ever? or water as vat is charged for the supply (not the water.)
you never buy clothes? or should those on low wages run naked?
how about bus fairs (as you rightly point out a car is a luxury)
papers for looking for jobs.
many foods items (not staples). but cost for transport are subject to vat.
how about your wife's (if any) sanitary products.

you have a simplistic attitude here. but assuming that, anyone, can go through life, and never pay VAT (by dint on not buying luxuries) is, "away with the fairy's", to put it mildly.

 

[chrisbassist]

I'm not saying you can go through life never paying at all. But for someone with low income, those thongs should be a one off not a recurring cost. Yes you buy clothes, but how often? It shouldn't be a monthly cost. Last time I purchased clothing was my shoes about 4 months ago, and I'll probably be replacing them before anything else. And those only cost a tenner including the vat, so there's not a lot going the governments way there. As for transport, buses? I wanted to go to some trails at a woodland yesterday, 7 miles away. I didn't drive or take a bus, I rode my bike. Yes I paid vat on that bike but a lot less than I would have paid in vat for fuel or bus fairs for the milage I've done. Plus I'm healthier, and aside from the initial expense gives me more income to play with each month.

And as for water and electric etc, I didn't say I never pay vat, I said I hadn't in the last couple of weeks and won't in the next couple. Trust me, when I have money to spend the government gets it's cut. In a couple weeks time I hope to be giving them a large chunk of cash from the vat on a new lens for my camera. (a nikkor 50mm f1.8 prime). The point is, only people who can afford these extras pay the vat on them. If we are as short next month as we are this month then that's something I won't be getting so it's vat I won't be paying.

The system has it's problems, but theyre as bad as you make out. Personally I'd like a review on the things which get charged vat. Remove things like clothes electric, water and some food items which still get charged vat. In return I would be happy for the vat rate to go up on everything else to pay for the loss.

Yes it has problems. But it's not taxing the poor more than the rich unless you look at percentages of income to vat. But of course that will be lower. Because they aren't spending all the money. And there's only so much to buy.

 

[JoshuaA]

This made me giggle...

how about your wife's (if any) sanitary products.

But for someone with low income, those thongs should be a one off not a recurring cost.

I don't know if you meant things or actually thongs in response to the wife's products. I surely hope she is not using a thong as a sanitary product.

I agree with raptorrex here on everything, you class a lot of things as luxuries but actually in this day and aged a lot of stuff is necessary.

I don't know how you've gone so long without paying VAT unless you get someone to do the shopping for you, I've tried to keep costs down so much recently but since I can't stand bread alone for too long and there needs to be some sort of variety in life especially when it comes to food you eventually have to start paying towards VAT.

End of the day VAT is a regressive tax and taxes the poor more than the rich that is a fact, whether you avoid paying it by not buying anything is different. Though 20% on a product means more to a poorer person to a richer person.

 

[chrisbassist]

It does mean more agreed. But it's the same amount of money. Rich people tend to buy more stuff, because they can afford to, so they actually pay more in vat than the poor. Maybe as a percentage of the wage, it's lower, but no one pays more in vat because they earn less. That's like saying if you earn less than 15k you pay 25% vat.

And like you say, you want variety, and yes it's great, I lobe being able to go across the road to the Chinese restaurant or to burger king, but just like your variety, it's a choice. We've gone that long by using things up which would otherwise have been lost in the freezer for all eternity, by having sensible portion sizes, by not having fizzy drinks etc.

Like I say there is no way to avoid it altogether, which is why what is deemed as a luxury should be re evaluated.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, I think it's a reasonable fair tax with the potential to be great. Obviously others don't.

What IS wrong is how many times we pay tax. You get paid and you pay tax on your earnings, you buy something and they want even more tax. So I do agree in a sense. One needs getting rid of so you at least only pay once. Since income tax is the easier one to get right they should adjust that a bit more and get rid of vat.

 

[Curiosity101]

Since income tax is the easier one to get right they should adjust that a bit more and get rid of vat.

But then those that tried to avoid 'luxuries' where possible will be in a worse off position than they were before.

I think adjusting what is classed as a 'luxury' makes the most sense.
I don't know how easy it'd be but they could set thresholds for things... for example. I would say buying clothes is a neccessity, but... buying say a £20 pair of trainers as a neccessity is not the same as spending £100 on a pair of trainers.

 

[JoshuaA]

Since income tax is the easier one to get right they should adjust that a bit more and get rid of vat.

But then those that tried to avoid 'luxuries' where possible will be in a worse off position than they were before.

I think adjusting what is classed as a 'luxury' makes the most sense.
I don't know how easy it'd be but they could set thresholds for things... for example. I would say buying clothes is a neccessity, but... buying say a £20 pair of trainers as a neccessity is not the same as spending £100 on a pair of trainers.

Good point 101, however then the question comes down to what makes the borderline between luxury at whatever. Perhaps VAT should be somewhat like PAYE tax and is only increased up to a maxiumum of 20/25% after a certain level of "Luxury". So say I buy a TV, a bog standard one very limited low screen size but useful for watching the news etc pretty much a required item in this day an age. Perhaps we say we pay 10% VAT as its a low band luxury moving up to the 42" sitting in my living I would suggest that would end up on the high end or stupid band of luxury paying up to 20/25% VAT.

With trainers though... if for example you need them for your job and you want a good pair which will last perhaps paying the £80 isn't so silly after all, my girlfriend buys countless pairs of the same shoe from primark because she knows they fall apart after a couple of weeks and even funnier if they get mucky she can just throw them out or donate... after all they only costed £3.

VAT is an unfair tax but if you were abolish it and introduce wage only tax then what happens to all the holidaymakers who come to the UK who don't end up paying VAT.

There is so many ways we could tackle this "Issue" but until Cameron takes his head out of his own #14### and removes the silver spoon between his lips I doubt we will see anything in the upcoming years.

 

[Curiosity101]

Well at the end of the day you're never going to please everyone and any type of banding wont be perfect for every situation (using trainers as an example). But the only way I can see to ever make VAT fairer is with something like you suggested JoshuaA, some sort of banding system so that low band luxeries are a lower rate of tax and higher band are higher...

But... it sounds tricky to implement unless it's done by sales price (or RRP price...), even then it still sounds tricky.

And I'm only approaching this with a limited knowledge of government finance and such. It's not something I've ever studied, just trying to apply a little bit of logic... amd I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my theory.

As for holiday makers, america are introducing a tourism tax of $14 to anyone going into the country. $4 for admin of paper work and $10 to the tourist industry.

 

[JoshuaA]

Is that on top of the Visa costs? Then the stupid system the Americans have of retail price not including tax until you get to the till. That just sounds like another silly thing Obama is doing, completely useless so far. I can't believe I watched the Health bill reform live and initially thought the senator that shouted out was ridiculous to later find out Obama had actually lied on national TV to the entire nation.

 

[Curiosity101]

Presumably. The charge is to fill out the previously free Esta (Electronic System for Travel Authorisation) form. Hence $4 admin (for the form) and $10 to the tourism industry.

 

[BethK]

shoes, clothes! Not as cheap as they use to be

VAT is a grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, everything is taxable in this day and age

 

[Curiosity101]

shoes, clothes! Not as cheap as they use to be

To be fair...inflation. Things don't tend to ever be 'as cheap as they used to be'

 

[BethK]

yeah, true I remb when I could buy a good pair of heels, top, trousers/skirt for £40. Be more like £90 these days

Mind you, I live in flipflops/sandles in the summer, which is cheap