Tax Credits

antrobus

zagfles wrote: »

I don't know (nor really care) about the specifics of Green party policy. ....

So why did you say that

zagfles wrote: »

It is sensible, probably their only sensible policy!

if you neither know nor care about their policy?

zagfles wrote: »

...I was suggesting a particular form of CI which combines with a flat rate income tax. NI is basically a tax, so why not just admit it and call it one? As above. Don't care about Greens policy - CI combined with a flat rate tax is what I was talking about. That was 20 years ago, it would be nowhere near 70% now particularly with conditionality attached as I said above. ..

You're guessing. You need to do the maths.

zagfles wrote: »

...If you include conditionality, the current tax & benefits system is pretty much identical to having a CI, but instead of flat rate income tax there's a much higher "tax rate" (ie including benefit withdrawal rates) on the poorest, those with big families etc......

The problem you have is this, by definition a "Citizen's Income is an unconditional and nonwithdrawable income paid to every individual as a right of citizenship." Hence what you are describing is not Citizen's Income.

It's unclear to me what exactly it is, but I suspect you are just using the label of 'Citizen's Income' to promote this idea of a flat rate tax.


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

N1AK

setmefree2 wrote: »

Do posters think that tax credits are a good use of tax payers money??? Or a waste of money because they are a subsidy to business to the tune of £30 billion which ends up as dividend payments?

The rhetoric sounds good, the issue most people opposed to the changes have is that the government wants to pull the tax credit rug out from under the poorest people's feet a few years before they make employers pay the difference.

But I suppose they can't afford not to hurt the poor if they want to keep feathering the nests of their wealthy elderly voters with inflation busting pension increases and government subsidised savings bonds.

Sapphire

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I would prefer more tax on consumption and lifestyle - just me being selfish but I earn 'ok' but spend little living well within my means; I'd like to see more 'wealth' tax but on the spending eg much higher council tax for higher value homes and higher vat, especially on luxury goods and even a punitive 'decadence' tax for pointless tat like jewellery and tattoos.

When I run for pm I might keep this stuff quiet.

I'd certainly include second homes and investment properties in this. I agree there should be higher VAT on goods that people think are necessary in life, but definitely are not, like expensive handbags and electronic goods, and things that have a very short life because the buyer wants to rather than needs to replace them. This also might help in squandering less of the world's resources…

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

I'd certainly include second homes and investment properties in this. I agree there should be higher VAT on goods that people think are necessary in life, but definitely are not, like expensive handbags and electronic goods, and things that have a very short life because the buyer wants to rather than needs to replace them. This also might help in squandering less of the world's resources…

Who gets to decide?

For example would alcohol, gambling and tobacco be on the essentials list? For most they aren't essential but for the few that rely on them they absolutely are.

antrobus

Sapphire wrote: »

... This also might help in squandering less of the world's resources…

One person's squandering is someone else's livelihood.

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

One person's squandering is someone else's livelihood.

and one persons necessary is another persons not

(Meat vs Vegetarian, Tea Bags vs plain Water).

CLAPTON

Sapphire wrote: »

I'd certainly include second homes and investment properties in this. I agree there should be higher VAT on goods that people think are necessary in life, but definitely are not, like expensive handbags and electronic goods, and things that have a very short life because the buyer wants to rather than needs to replace them. This also might help in squandering less of the world's resources…

of course you would explicitly be discouraging more expensive but 'made to last' products.

better not to micromanage : just have a neutral flat rate for all products and service.
let people decide for themselves

Dird

I liked this statement from Question Time a few episodes ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0eFMQ67EU0

Time to remove the duvet

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

better not to micromanage : just have a neutral flat rate for all products and service.
let people decide for themselves

Better is subjective, and that is a clear example of something I would consider worse. Cigarettes bring in £12 billion in tax revenue, and I'm not remotely persuaded that vastly dropping the tax on them, and increasing it on other products including things like fruit, vegetables, and medication is an improvement.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

One person's squandering is someone else's livelihood.

One persons murder could be someone else's livelihood, but we don't lose too much sleep for the plight of the paid assassin.