Governments tax certain foods and drinks heavily because they can use the mantra of health as an excuse to get as much money as possible. So alcohol is taxed heavily, whereas milk isn't. That is the nanny state.
Make up your mind, is it an excuse to grab money, or the nanny state making choices for you?
Governments tax certain foods and drinks heavily because they can use the mantra of health as an excuse to get as much money as possible. So alcohol is taxed heavily, whereas milk isn't. That is the nanny state. The government is arbitrarily taking it upon themselves to dictate what they think is best. Our huge 20% VAT rate also discriminates against the poor, as it pushes up the price of everyday goods for everyone.
This is why income tax should be substantially increased, and all the loopholes should be closed. VAT should be abolished and all tax on food and drink likewise. The same for fuel. Then, people will pay much more closely according to income, which is fairer for everyone. It also makes life more affordable for the retired. They have lower incomes, but goods and services would be cheaper.
Calling someone 'big mouth' does you no favours.
Saying that consumers get their money from businesses who employ them is the most idiotic statement. I wonder where all those millions of self-employed people get their income from?
A high tax on business serves only to restrict trade artificially. Businesses raise their prices; consumers buy less; less tax is raised. Everyone loses.
Alcohol vs Milk isn't a great example. Effects of Alcohol costs the country millions and is a profitable industry. Milk on the other hand doesn't have as costly effects and is a struggling industry that is economically better to support than loose. To protect the poor the 20% VAT is not charged on everything. Food, children's clothes, medicine are all exempt.
Do you think if tax on fuel was abolished, fuel would be cheaper? When fuel duty has been cut in the past it's taken a long time for this to be passed onto the consumer. The same as the reduction in gas prices to gas providers over the last couple of years still hasn't fully been passed onto the consumer. Consumers are willing to pay the price so there's no reason to lower it, the choice is if you think it's better for the company to make a few more millions or should it go to the government to invest somewhere.
Self-employed people are quite interesting because they get to follow different tax rules. Same with LLP's where partners are paid through fixed drawings from a profit share. Not only are National Insurance contributions are at a lower rate, but Income tax is also only due when the company makes a profit.
People and businesses are just entities in financial exchange. People being taxed on there income gives them less to spend. Business being taxed on profits gives them less to spend. In both situations though the burden is limited. People only pay tax on earnings over a certain amount. Businesses only pay tax on the money left once all there costs are taken into account. Businesses can avoid paying any tax if they want, they just have to spend all there money.
Governments tax certain foods and drinks heavily because they can use the mantra of health as an excuse to get as much money as possible. So alcohol is taxed heavily, whereas milk isn't. That is the nanny state. The government is arbitrarily taking it upon themselves to dictate what they think is best. Our huge 20% VAT rate also discriminates against the poor, as it pushes up the price of everyday goods for everyone.
This is why income tax should be substantially increased, and all the loopholes should be closed. VAT should be abolished and all tax on food and drink likewise. The same for fuel. Then, people will pay much more closely according to income, which is fairer for everyone. It also makes life more affordable for the retired. They have lower incomes, but goods and services would be cheaper.
Calling someone 'big mouth' does you no favours.
Saying that consumers get their money from businesses who employ them is the most idiotic statement. I wonder where all those millions of self-employed people get their income from?
A high tax on business serves only to restrict trade artificially. Businesses raise their prices; consumers buy less; less tax is raised. Everyone loses.
Consumers are willing to pay the price so there's no reason to lower it, the choice is if you think it's better for the company to make a few more millions or should it go to the government to invest somewhere.
Utterly wrong-headed argument.
Consumers have no choice but to pay for fuel. By your reasoning, the government should charge as much tax as possible for everything. And yes, companies should be free to make as much money as they wish. Government is a terribly inefficient vehicle. It doesn't invest money; it distributes our money to pay for essential services. The free market has taught us time and time again that it is better than the government for everything in which there is true competition.
Government can actually be a very efficient vehicle, and invests a great deal. Infrastructure is an investment. The NHS is very efficient.
The free market? The free market fails all the time. The free market is the environmental abuser, the health and safety abuser, the source of 9/10 problems that needs reigning in.
And the need to provide an alternative illustrative example does not make an argument a straw man.
That was never the claim. The claim was that financially engineering your business to avoid tax by exploiting loopholes for reasons they were not intended to be used for is abusive. Not illegal, not a crime, but abusive.
Yes the domestic violence was a straw man.
Following the tax laws as laid out is not a crime or is it abusive. It is smart.
I can only assume that you don't know what a straw man argument is. It is when a debater substitutes another argument for the argument being made to their favour. I did no such thing. I do not claim that SpamSandwich was making any argument about domestic violence, I merely used domestic violence as an example of the word abuse being used where illegality is not assured. To prove that abuse and illegality are not interlinked. That is all. SS Was saying that abuse = illegal. The best way to disprove that is to show an instance where abuse != illegal.
It is not a straw man, it is basic logic.
Suffice it to say, you don't seem to grasp how businesses operate. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">As the cost to manufacture a product goes up, a business has few choices. They can look for ways to lower costs, they can increase prices or they can stop selling a product that is un</span>
profitable<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. </span>
The<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> reason many companies move production off-shore is to lower the cost of both labor and taxes.The driver for this is to make their products more competitive in their market. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Corporate tax is no different to a businesses bottom line than the cost of electricity or the cost of labor. As I said, Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them for governments. Consumers are the source of the money so they are paying the tax and seldom are aware of it.</span>
The cost of manufacturing an iPhone is not affected by paying corporation tax in the UK. Did you buy the degree online?
I can understand a tax of 5% or less, but 25%? That's insanity! Is the U.K. wanting to put the companies out of business while sitting on their fat, lazy arses?
A wannabe American calling people in the UK fat and lazy!
Now that is ironic (not the thing that your fellow Canadian Alanis Morrisette believes is irony).
Well that's a joke. Apple prices in the UK are in £ and pretty much the same number for what you pay in $ so you pay $100 we pay £100.
Let me educate you good US citizens. The new 13" retina MBP is priced at $1299 on the US Apple site and £999 on the UK Apple site. £999 at current exchange rates is $1481. So when you pony up and pay what we do for the same product you can criticise our tax code.
More than 100% of the price difference US vs UK is VAT and import duties, so blame your government. Once you subtract out all taxes Apple products are slightly cheaper in the UK than the US.
Whether he owns a business or not is irrelevant...
That he (or she) evidently has no functioning business experience is completely relevant. Unless one has direct experience in the matter at hand, one is unqualified to judge the reality of the situation.
Government can actually be a very efficient vehicle, and invests a great deal. Infrastructure is an investment. The NHS is very efficient.
The free market? The free market fails all the time. The free market is the environmental abuser, the health and safety abuser, the source of 9/10 problems that needs reigning in.
(Italics mine)
That's a fantasyland view of government, which is notoriously inefficient and rife with corruption. Competition among businesses weeds out corruption and non-competitive businesses because the bad ones fail... not so with Washington.
That he (or she) evidently has no functioning business experience is completely relevant. Unless one has direct experience in the matter at hand, one is unqualified to judge the reality of the situation.
You made the ridiculous statement. Since you obviously don't, that would mean that anything you have to say on the subject would be irrelevant (according to you).
I am against all taxes, however I think a flat tax (specifically, the FairTax) is a realistic alternative to the current tax code. The problem is that those in power seldom volunteer to give up their power voluntarily (if the FairTax was enacted, the IRS could be eliminated). It would take another massive economic collapse or widespread taxpayer revolt to get it implemented. Alternately, a constitutionally-minded president could conceivably expend all of their "political capital" to do so.
Police are a state matter, not a Federal matter and the states are free to pass whichever measures their people want to pay for "public services" or infrastructure, no matter how misguided. The Federal government has a simple charter, which has grown and grown and grown beyond its original purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Taxation is theft.
How would you pay for anything then including items that were part of its original charter? Printing more currency to do so would just be a stealth tax anyway, due to increased inflation.
You made the ridiculous statement. Since you obviously don't, that would mean that anything you have to say on the subject would be irrelevant (according to you).
My comments come from the point of view of a business owner. If you have neither business, nor government experience what are you contributing here?
How would you pay for anything then including items that were part of its original charter? Printing more currency to do so would just be a stealth tax anyway, due to increased inflation.
How? All questions are answered here: www.FairTax.org ...see the FAQ section.
That's a fantasyland view of government, which is notoriously inefficient and rife with corruption. Competition among businesses weeds out corruption and non-competitive businesses because the bad ones fail... not so with Washington.
If businesses are failing, then they're not so efficient, are they? To be in a constant state of competition is also to be in a fragile environment, where price trumps quality, and which can be conducive to critical mistakes getting made. The free market is not perfect, and it is rarely free either.
Plus, government has scale, and a wealth of in-house experience and specialism on its side. It can be very efficient (obviously it is not always so, I never claimed that). See the NHS, which delivers healthcare at a far cheaper rate per head than in almost every other Western country.
Comments
Complete rubbish.
Governments tax certain foods and drinks heavily because they can use the mantra of health as an excuse to get as much money as possible. So alcohol is taxed heavily, whereas milk isn't. That is the nanny state. The government is arbitrarily taking it upon themselves to dictate what they think is best. Our huge 20% VAT rate also discriminates against the poor, as it pushes up the price of everyday goods for everyone.
This is why income tax should be substantially increased, and all the loopholes should be closed. VAT should be abolished and all tax on food and drink likewise. The same for fuel. Then, people will pay much more closely according to income, which is fairer for everyone. It also makes life more affordable for the retired. They have lower incomes, but goods and services would be cheaper.
Calling someone 'big mouth' does you no favours.
Saying that consumers get their money from businesses who employ them is the most idiotic statement. I wonder where all those millions of self-employed people get their income from?
A high tax on business serves only to restrict trade artificially. Businesses raise their prices; consumers buy less; less tax is raised. Everyone loses.
Alcohol vs Milk isn't a great example. Effects of Alcohol costs the country millions and is a profitable industry. Milk on the other hand doesn't have as costly effects and is a struggling industry that is economically better to support than loose. To protect the poor the 20% VAT is not charged on everything. Food, children's clothes, medicine are all exempt.
Do you think if tax on fuel was abolished, fuel would be cheaper? When fuel duty has been cut in the past it's taken a long time for this to be passed onto the consumer. The same as the reduction in gas prices to gas providers over the last couple of years still hasn't fully been passed onto the consumer. Consumers are willing to pay the price so there's no reason to lower it, the choice is if you think it's better for the company to make a few more millions or should it go to the government to invest somewhere.
Self-employed people are quite interesting because they get to follow different tax rules. Same with LLP's where partners are paid through fixed drawings from a profit share. Not only are National Insurance contributions are at a lower rate, but Income tax is also only due when the company makes a profit.
People and businesses are just entities in financial exchange. People being taxed on there income gives them less to spend. Business being taxed on profits gives them less to spend. In both situations though the burden is limited. People only pay tax on earnings over a certain amount. Businesses only pay tax on the money left once all there costs are taken into account. Businesses can avoid paying any tax if they want, they just have to spend all there money.
Utterly wrong-headed argument.
Consumers have no choice but to pay for fuel. By your reasoning, the government should charge as much tax as possible for everything. And yes, companies should be free to make as much money as they wish. Government is a terribly inefficient vehicle. It doesn't invest money; it distributes our money to pay for essential services. The free market has taught us time and time again that it is better than the government for everything in which there is true competition.
The free market? The free market fails all the time. The free market is the environmental abuser, the health and safety abuser, the source of 9/10 problems that needs reigning in.
Not everywhere.
And the need to provide an alternative illustrative example does not make an argument a straw man.
That was never the claim. The claim was that financially engineering your business to avoid tax by exploiting loopholes for reasons they were not intended to be used for is abusive. Not illegal, not a crime, but abusive.
Yes the domestic violence was a straw man.
Following the tax laws as laid out is not a crime or is it abusive. It is smart.
It is not a straw man, it is basic logic.
1. No one has said it is a crime (that's close to being a straw man)
2. It's perfectly possible to be abusive as well as smart.
The cost of manufacturing an iPhone is not affected by paying corporation tax in the UK. Did you buy the degree online?
No he went to college and thumbed through case studies for a whole year.
Do you seriously think things are good or "fair" right now? Are you kidding me? The tax code is a goddamn mess!
When did I say that things were fair? When did I say that the tax code is just fine as it is?
I can understand a tax of 5% or less, but 25%? That's insanity! Is the U.K. wanting to put the companies out of business while sitting on their fat, lazy arses?
A wannabe American calling people in the UK fat and lazy!
Now that is ironic (not the thing that your fellow Canadian Alanis Morrisette believes is irony).
Well that's a joke. Apple prices in the UK are in £ and pretty much the same number for what you pay in $ so you pay $100 we pay £100.
Let me educate you good US citizens. The new 13" retina MBP is priced at $1299 on the US Apple site and £999 on the UK Apple site. £999 at current exchange rates is $1481. So when you pony up and pay what we do for the same product you can criticise our tax code.
More than 100% of the price difference US vs UK is VAT and import duties, so blame your government. Once you subtract out all taxes Apple products are slightly cheaper in the UK than the US.
Whether he owns a business or not is irrelevant...
That he (or she) evidently has no functioning business experience is completely relevant. Unless one has direct experience in the matter at hand, one is unqualified to judge the reality of the situation.
Government can actually be a very efficient vehicle, and invests a great deal. Infrastructure is an investment. The NHS is very efficient.
The free market? The free market fails all the time. The free market is the environmental abuser, the health and safety abuser, the source of 9/10 problems that needs reigning in.
(Italics mine)
That's a fantasyland view of government, which is notoriously inefficient and rife with corruption. Competition among businesses weeds out corruption and non-competitive businesses because the bad ones fail... not so with Washington.
That he (or she) evidently has no functioning business experience is completely relevant. Unless one has direct experience in the matter at hand, one is unqualified to judge the reality of the situation.
Do you have direct experience in government?
Do you have direct experience in government?
Do you? If so, that might explain a lot.
Do you? If so, that might explain a lot.
You made the ridiculous statement. Since you obviously don't, that would mean that anything you have to say on the subject would be irrelevant (according to you).
I am against all taxes, however I think a flat tax (specifically, the FairTax) is a realistic alternative to the current tax code. The problem is that those in power seldom volunteer to give up their power voluntarily (if the FairTax was enacted, the IRS could be eliminated). It would take another massive economic collapse or widespread taxpayer revolt to get it implemented. Alternately, a constitutionally-minded president could conceivably expend all of their "political capital" to do so.
Police are a state matter, not a Federal matter and the states are free to pass whichever measures their people want to pay for "public services" or infrastructure, no matter how misguided. The Federal government has a simple charter, which has grown and grown and grown beyond its original purpose.
Taxation is theft.
How would you pay for anything then including items that were part of its original charter? Printing more currency to do so would just be a stealth tax anyway, due to increased inflation.
You made the ridiculous statement. Since you obviously don't, that would mean that anything you have to say on the subject would be irrelevant (according to you).
My comments come from the point of view of a business owner. If you have neither business, nor government experience what are you contributing here?
How would you pay for anything then including items that were part of its original charter? Printing more currency to do so would just be a stealth tax anyway, due to increased inflation.
How? All questions are answered here: www.FairTax.org ...see the FAQ section.
(Italics mine)
That's a fantasyland view of government, which is notoriously inefficient and rife with corruption. Competition among businesses weeds out corruption and non-competitive businesses because the bad ones fail... not so with Washington.
If businesses are failing, then they're not so efficient, are they? To be in a constant state of competition is also to be in a fragile environment, where price trumps quality, and which can be conducive to critical mistakes getting made. The free market is not perfect, and it is rarely free either.
Plus, government has scale, and a wealth of in-house experience and specialism on its side. It can be very efficient (obviously it is not always so, I never claimed that). See the NHS, which delivers healthcare at a far cheaper rate per head than in almost every other Western country.