|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on May 10, 2016 13:34:17 GMT
Our government has made us ALL into thieves.
Taxes on goods and services.
Governments have turned to taxing goods and services (GST), instead of taxing income to extract the funds they need from you and I to pay for their various programs. GST’s are regressive taxes, because as a person’s income decreases, his rate of tax increases.
In such a tax system, the less you earn, the more, as a percentage of your income, you pay into that tax system. For instance, if you earn $10,000 per year and pay a GST of 15%, you will pay $1,500 in tax. If you earn $20,000 per year, and buy the same amount of goods and services, you will pay the same $1,500 in tax, but as a percentage of your income, as compared to the poorer buyer, you will only pay ½ the amount of tax dollars, in terms of percentage of income. The higher your income, the less of a percentage of tax you will pay, as compared to those who earn less than you do.
That is why such goods and services tax are considered to be regressive taxes. They penalize the poor while benefiting the richer, on a sliding scale.
Poverty is the worst form of violence. – Ghandi
Each and every one of us is kicking those below us further into poverty thanks to our regressive GST tax system. The richer you are, the harder you are kicking the poor. Middle and lower income earners are not kicking the poorest as hard but we are getting our kicks in anyway.
The Golden Rule is considered by most to be the best moral rule that we know.
With our regressive GST tax system, we are doing the opposite of the Golden Rule by doing unto the poor what we would not want done to us if we are poor.
Should we all be proud of ourselves for doing violence to our poorer fellow countrymen?
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on May 11, 2016 7:35:38 GMT
Luckily, consumption taxes are not as regressive as this post suggests. The wealthy have more money and spend more, thus paying more GST. In the UK, we make food zero-rated, which further skews the balance towards the wealthy. Consumption taxes also catch spending capital which income taxes miss, and it is the wealthy who have the capital to spend.
Consumption taxes have other advantages. They are a tax on consumption, which is economically less damaging then taxes on work and saving (which is what income taxes are). They are generally harder for the wealthy to avoid than income taxes. And they keep the tax base reasonably broad, in that everyone pays something.
You would not want to raise taxes from consumption alone, but GST or VAT is a sensible part of any tax mix, which is why so many countries are now introducing it.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on May 12, 2016 0:59:42 GMT
Luckily, consumption taxes are not as regressive as this post suggests. The wealthy have more money and spend more, thus paying more GST. In the UK, we make food zero-rated, which further skews the balance towards the wealthy. Consumption taxes also catch spending capital which income taxes miss, and it is the wealthy who have the capital to spend. Consumption taxes have other advantages. They are a tax on consumption, which is economically less damaging then taxes on work and saving (which is what income taxes are). They are generally harder for the wealthy to avoid than income taxes. And they keep the tax base reasonably broad, in that everyone pays something. You would not want to raise taxes from consumption alone, but GST or VAT is a sensible part of any tax mix, which is why so many countries are now introducing it. Best wishes James So you basically do not care that the poor are targeted and end up paying more than the rich as a % of their income. Ok.
You are not thinking of or applying the Golden Rule.
Oh well.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 12, 2016 21:48:46 GMT
James and I generally have quite opposing views on political matters, but on this matter we are agreed. My nephew is a well respected economist here in Australia, and definitely quite leftist as I am (e.g. he was an economic adviser to Green politicians for a while). I have discussed this matter with him, and his view is that a mix of taxes and levies is the most sensible and fairest way to raise revenue.
I think to say "So you basically do not care that the poor are targeted and end up paying more than the rich as a % of their income. Ok. You are not thinking of or applying the Golden Rule." is a quite unfair and unproductive way of discussing a matter, and illustrates why some people here are wary or impatient of discussing with you. A good golden rule of discussion is not to impute bad motives (which can only be nasty speculation on your part) to the other person, as you have done here, but to simply respond with reason to the argument you disagree with. I have been a member of this forum for many years, and while James and I disagree about many things, I would never think he didn't care about the poor or didn't remember the Golden Rule.
The issue with taxes, I believe, is not that a Consumption tax is bad, but that it can be set up in ways that make it either OK for the poor or bad for them, as can any other tax or levy. So the question becomes how the mix of taxes is set up. I have no knowledge of how well or badly the tax is set up in UK, so I'm not defending the present arrangements, just the principle that it is a good thing. One of the arguments for it is that the rich have ways of avoiding income tax (e.g. here in Australia, middle class wage earners like I used to be pay the highest percentage of their income in tax of anyone - many large multinational corporations pay virtually no tax, and many of the rich send their money to Panama as we are now discovering). If set up right, it is harder for them to avoid consumption tax. There are obviously arguments either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on May 15, 2016 23:43:58 GMT
James and I generally have quite opposing views on political matters, but on this matter we are agreed. My nephew is a well respected economist here in Australia, and definitely quite leftist as I am (e.g. he was an economic adviser to Green politicians for a while). I have discussed this matter with him, and his view is that a mix of taxes and levies is the most sensible and fairest way to raise revenue. I think to say "So you basically do not care that the poor are targeted and end up paying more than the rich as a % of their income. Ok. You are not thinking of or applying the Golden Rule." is a quite unfair and unproductive way of discussing a matter, and illustrates why some people here are wary or impatient of discussing with you. A good golden rule of discussion is not to impute bad motives (which can only be nasty speculation on your part) to the other person, as you have done here, but to simply respond with reason to the argument you disagree with. I have been a member of this forum for many years, and while James and I disagree about many things, I would never think he didn't care about the poor or didn't remember the Golden Rule. The issue with taxes, I believe, is not that a Consumption tax is bad, but that it can be set up in ways that make it either OK for the poor or bad for them, as can any other tax or levy. So the question becomes how the mix of taxes is set up. I have no knowledge of how well or badly the tax is set up in UK, so I'm not defending the present arrangements, just the principle that it is a good thing. One of the arguments for it is that the rich have ways of avoiding income tax (e.g. here in Australia, middle class wage earners like I used to be pay the highest percentage of their income in tax of anyone - many large multinational corporations pay virtually no tax, and many of the rich send their money to Panama as we are now discovering). If set up right, it is harder for them to avoid consumption tax. There are obviously arguments either way. I admit to being short with those whom I do not think are putting their minds in gear.
I gave an example of why I thought these taxes regressive and if a poster cannot refute that simple example then----
As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. - See more at: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/#sthash.TBT6EfmK.dpuf
If you want to, show how it is not regressive to tax the poorer in favor of the richer as a % of their income.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 17, 2016 1:40:46 GMT
I am not an economist, so I probably won't use all the right words, but i think there is a pretty clear answer to this. We can make a consumption tax beneficial to the poor in the following ways:
1. The rich, individuals and companies, have ways to minimise tax, and sometimes pay no tax at all. Some of what they do is illegal, some is legal but immoral, and some just prudent. But it happens. But a consumption tax is harder to rort, minimise or avoid. The cash economy allows small businesses (plumbers, electricians, etc) to offer reduced rates for cash, but it is harder for a big business to do that on a large scale. So they pay tax where they may not have before.
2. Because they buy much more stuff than the poor, they pay much more consumption tax than the poor. This is a good thing.
3. If that was it, then everyone would be worse off (if paying more tax is "worse"). But with all the extra revenue raised by a consumption tax, the government can offer higher pensions, better healthcare, raise the tax free threshold or simply give the poor a negative tax, all of which benefit them.
It all depends on what Government does with the revenue, but if they do it the way I have said, then the rich pay more tax and the poor get benefits. Everybody's happy!
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jun 13, 2016 16:46:08 GMT
I am not an economist, so I probably won't use all the right words, but i think there is a pretty clear answer to this. We can make a consumption tax beneficial to the poor in the following ways: 1. The rich, individuals and companies, have ways to minimise tax, and sometimes pay no tax at all. Some of what they do is illegal, some is legal but immoral, and some just prudent. But it happens. But a consumption tax is harder to rort, minimise or avoid. The cash economy allows small businesses (plumbers, electricians, etc) to offer reduced rates for cash, but it is harder for a big business to do that on a large scale. So they pay tax where they may not have before. 2. Because they buy much more stuff than the poor, they pay much more consumption tax than the poor. This is a good thing. 3. If that was it, then everyone would be worse off (if paying more tax is "worse"). But with all the extra revenue raised by a consumption tax, the government can offer higher pensions, better healthcare, raise the tax free threshold or simply give the poor a negative tax, all of which benefit them. It all depends on what Government does with the revenue, but if they do it the way I have said, then the rich pay more tax and the poor get benefits. Everybody's happy! If they did then this topic would not be here.
They do not and have stuck us with an immoral and regressive tax system that benefits the rich at the cost of the poor.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 13, 2016 22:13:08 GMT
They do not and have stuck us with an immoral and regressive tax system that benefits the rich at the cost of the poor. Yes I agree here, but it isn't a consumption tax per se that is to blame, but the whole system. But in saying I agree, it is also important to recognise that, while the details of any tax system are facts, our assessment of their morality are value judgments. There is no clear "right" level of tax burden for the rich and poor. Socialists will think all should earn and be taxed the same, a capitalist will think that each should earn according to effort and skill, and pay the same tax. So in saying I think tax systems currently (in Australia at least, and elsewhere quite likely) are unfair to the poor, that is a value judgment based on my conclusion that a moderate form of socialism is closer to Jesus' teachings than is capitalism. Someone like James, who has a different view, will naturally conclude differently. So I think it is wisest to avoid making our conclusions on the morality of the tax system as if they were statements of fact, as you have done, and always preface them with "I think" or equivalent indicating opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jun 17, 2016 19:16:58 GMT
I do not believe in political correctness or being soft in ones opinions.
Even Jesus preached that we should be either hot or cold.
There is a best system of taxation and if we are not hot or cold, we will not defend what is or seek a better way.
You may have noted that in a democratic government, if there is no opposition, the government will move some of it's members to the opposing side so that a worthy debate might be had so as to bring out any missed facts.
Regards
DL
|
|
