Fecking mess

[Churchill]

The problem with a flat-tax would be the mass unemployment it would create.

 

[Dundeegeorge]

Could you explain that one please

Could you explain that one please

The problem with a flat-tax would be the mass unemployment it would create.

Who would be unemployed? Only the halt and the lame (civil service), so where's the loss?

 

[Rebecca Loos]

even the best flat rate tax systems have got exemptions which make it not a real flat rate tax
Anyway, there are too many vested interests in this country (and in many other countries) that have no interest in a simplified flat rate of tax. The Accountancy profession in the UK is well established, prosperous and influential so rest assured that any move to simplify the tax system will be vigorously resisted.
I am usually against this kind of establishment but on this one, my wallet swings the other way the more complex it is the happier we all are.

 

[Churchill]

Who would be unemployed? Only the halt and the lame (civil service), so where's the loss?

There's fecking hundreds of thousands of the bastards!

 

[expat]

This is another perfect example of why a flat rate tax system, of say 20% on earnings over £29k with 0% on everything below that, has to be introduced.

That would make this tax credit system obsolete and would certainly have saved several billion pounds in lost taxes!

Mailman

So you propose a system on the sole ground that it would be much simpler; but you do not address the question of whether it does what the people want? Yes, you want to pay less tax and less accountant's fees (so do I), but maybe others want other things out of the tax system, e.g. to graduate taxation according to other factors?

Many would probably feel that those with large families should be hit less hard, for example. You might not agree; but that's a democratic discussion, not a given just because you don't want to discuss it.

There is much more to taxation than government revenue; and the discussion about whether this should be true or not, is itself a discussion within politics (i.e. we may disagree but it is a question of democratic choice), not a discussion about logic (where one of us is correct and the other in error).

 

[Mailman]

Actually under my system the people who will gain the most are those who are already earning the least. They will not be burdened by the tax system until they start earning over £29k.

Families are the big winners here, especially those who have suffered under the current tax credit system when they have received payments they should not have and have then been hounded by the IR for the money back.

Accept it, I am right and everyone else is wrong

Mailman

 

[tim123]

But the problem with your scheme Mailman is that it simply wouldn't collect enough tax.

You'd be collecting about 20% of the amount that is currently collected and even with the savings that you make in collecting you'd still be 75% down. The maths doesn't come close to working out.

tim

 

[IR35 Avoider]

Only problem is...there is still an incentive to avoid paying tax under your suggestion.

Whereas, having ONE tax band makes the system a hell of a lot simpler and more importantly means there is no benefit gained from trying to avoid paying tax because the tax band starts so high.

More importantly your tax credit system is still over engineered and there will have to be an entire army of mandarins (or maybe oranges?) to administer it.

You see under my system there is no point in syphoning payments from your company to you through dividends because the tax on dividends will be 20% (but this wont kick in until your TOTAL income from ALL sources exceeds £29k) etc.

What you have in essence pushed is nothing more than the tax system we have at the moment. My system is fairer on everyone and more importantly treats everyone fairly

No! To everything you said! You've completely misunderstood me. Everything you say about your system above applies to mine, only more so as far as simplicity is concerned. My system is a flat tax system, it does have company rates at the same rates as personal rates (though I thought this was to obvious to mention) and it is simpler than yours because it has one band (yours has two bands, it has a zero percent band as well.) In your system people would have to pay different rates of tax depending on which of two bands income fell in, and would have to add up income from different sources to calculate their tax bill, neither of these is true in my system.

The only extra bureacracy in mine is administering payments to people who don't work and don't claim benefits. On the other hand, in yours everyone earning to little to pay tax would have to make an effort (possibly fill in a tax return) to claim back tax on income other than from their main job. Almost everyone in the country would be affected if the zero percent band was big as you suggested. In my system only maybe (wild guess) one hundredth as many people would have to take any action to get their tax bill right. My system is not only less work for taxpayer and IR than yours, it will also save paperwork in the benefits system as households whose tax credits collectively add up to more than their benefits will receive no benefits and only claim the easier to adminster credits instead.

To put it another way, my system is identical to yours except that in mine people receive the cash equivalent of tax relief on the zero percent band regardless of whether or not they have enough taxable income. (A different rate for the flat tax and a different size for the zero-percent band isn't a systemic difference.)

 

[Dundeegeorge]

Zg

Zg

My tax system is the best.

I take all of your money & keep it in a big cardboard box under the bed.

Works for me...

You forgot to sign it 'Gordon Brown'.
What? It's not all under his bed? Well, where the **** has it all gone?

 

[Mailman]

But the problem with your scheme Mailman is that it simply wouldn't collect enough tax.

You'd be collecting about 20% of the amount that is currently collected and even with the savings that you make in collecting you'd still be 75% down. The maths doesn't come close to working out.

tim

Not true, case studies of all countries with flat rate taxes has shown that tax collection has increased since the introduction. However, if you read the paper released by Gordo, where he had all the good points about flat rate systems removed, you would think flat rate tax systems are a bad thing

Mailman