Breaking News: £1000 married tax allowance

grizzly1911

zagfles wrote: »

Measured against spending, VAT isn't regressive (since the poorer you are the more you'll spend on VAT free stuff such as most food, rent, second hand clothes or low VAT stuff such as domestic fuel).

So poor people should buy second hand clothes so VAT doesn't apply?

I guess they must wash, clean the clothes, use loo roll, probably by a good deal of "processed" food and snacks all attracting VAT. "Fill up" the tank hit by VAT.

Doesn't matter who increased NI it still applies to the equation.

zagfles

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So poor people should buy second hand clothes so VAT doesn't apply?

They are more likely to, for obvious reasons. Nothing wrong with second hand clothes anyway, especially kids clothes and they often grow out of them while they are still perfectly OK. We've bought sack loads for £25 or so.

I guess they must wash, clean the clothes, use loo roll, probably by a good deal of "processed" food and snacks all attracting VAT. "Fill up" the tank hit by VAT.

But proportionally they'll spend more on VAT free stuff, therefore the overall % they pay in VAT is lower than someone who spends more. So not regressive.

Excise duties on the other hand are very regressive, including petrol tax (the amount you drive doesn't proportionally increase with income, in general).

The most regressive of them all is cigarette tax, as poorer people are more likely to smoke so they pay a larger actual amount in tax, so a much larger % than richer people. Yes, it's voluntary, but that's a different issue to it being regressive.

Doesn't matter who increased NI it still applies to the equation.

Well at least the NI rate rise was progessive. People earning under £20k benefitted (from the increased threshold) and people on over £20k lost out.

Kennyboy66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Only. Then targeted correctly the most deserving. When I hear people say it's only a couple of hundred pounds. You realise that people have become detached as to well off they actually are. While there's , like in the USA, a growing underclass.

1 in 7 Americans now use foodbanks. A staggering statistic for one of the wealthiest countries on the planet.

I doubt have a problem with targeted benefits (as long as they are cheap to administer).

I do find it laughable that people praise it while lambasting Gordon Brown for doing the same thing, albeit on a larger scale, and trying to make out it is a simplified approach.
This is exactly the kind of thing that Gordon Brown would do 18 months before an election.

We still have a colossal deficit - but clearly not so such that the Lib Dems can dole out universal free school meals and the Tories can introduce new means tested benefits.

You are right to point out that Gordon Brown has left a hugely complicated welfare budget, but seem utterly blind when other parties expand it.

grizzly1911

zagfles wrote: »

They are more likely to, for obvious reasons. Nothing wrong with second hand clothes anyway, especially kids clothes and they often grow out of them while they are still perfectly OK. We've bought sack loads for £25 or so.

I am not denigrating the use of second hand clothes. My argument was against people being expected to utilise them to mitigate a real tax increase.

Working in the black economy also helps them - should this be promoted?. All part of the game of life I accept.

zagfles

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am not denigrating the use of second hand clothes. My argument was against people being expected to utilise them to mitigate a real tax increase.

I doubt the VAT increase made much if any difference to the decision - new clothes go up 2% whereas second hand are 75% cheaper?

Besides it was a minor point in the overall argument that poorer people spend a greater proportion of their money on VAT free stuff (or low VAT stuff), making VAT progressive, at least when measured against spending.

Working in the black economy also helps them - should this be promoted?. All part of the game of life I accept.

Another argument for VAT - these people may be defrauding the income tax and benefits systems, but VAT is harder to avoid...

zagfles

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

I doubt have a problem with targeted benefits (as long as they are cheap to administer).

I do find it laughable that people praise it while lambasting Gordon Brown for doing the same thing, albeit on a larger scale, and trying to make out it is a simplified approach.

This change clearly won't simply things, quite the opposite.

A fully transferrable allowance plus getting rid of tax credits (which wouldn't be needed with a family based tax system like in France) might simplify things overall, but this isn't that.

This is exactly the kind of thing that Gordon Brown would do 18 months before an election.

We still have a colossal deficit - but clearly not so such that the Lib Dems can dole out universal free school meals and the Tories can introduce new means tested benefits.

You are right to point out that Gordon Brown has left a hugely complicated welfare budget, but seem utterly blind when other parties expand it.

Universal credit will simply things to some extent - all the different benefits with different tapers and thresholds are a nightmare in the current system. Moving in and out of work or doing casual work and declaring it just causes so much hassle people either don't bother or do it on the black market.

But it is strange that despite setting out to simplify taxation (and they have done in a few ways), they come up with complications like this and the child benefit tax.

TruckerT

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I am for anything that promotes marriage: if this is heterosexuals or homosexuals, then that's fine.

I believe that marriage encourages stability (I am also for easy divorce, having lived through the 50's and 60's when it was a farce). I hope that David Cameron's extension of the same-sex civil partnership to marriage will encourage people of all types to make that commitment to each other.

It is probably true that, traditionally, marriage encourages stability. That is why, traditionally, divorce was not an easy option. You can't have it both ways.


TruckerT - I think most people would disagree with your last paragraph. I can't understand why you wouldn't be able to call a man forcing his penis (or an implement) into someone else's body anything but rape. So what words would you use for this?

I'm not sure that there is any need at all for a special word for a forced intrusion into somebody else's body. It's just another form of assault, and the penalty should be related to the amount of trauma and/or injury which the victim suffered (rather than the lurid technicalities of what actually took place).

antrobus wrote: »

Because s1(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as follows:-

"A person (A) commits an offence if — (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

You need a new dictionary.

What was the definition of rape before 2003, and why was it changed?

TruckerT.....

sharnad

It's funny how people think
Someone who has known someone for six weeks and got married is in a more committed relationship than someone who has been living together for 10 -15 years