Reply to: Anxious life of the 'Ipod' generation

[Lucifer Box]

I think another GB trick is to subtract all the tax credits from the total take, and quote the net figure as the overall tax take, which is utterly specious bollocks - Tax is any compulsory levy, regardless of whether some is redistributed.

Another dirty accounting trick that raised eyebrows at the IMF was removing all PFI spending from the balance sheet on the grounds that "it's not really spending".

[Dundeegeorge]

To get back to the thread (do keep up)

Youngsters nowadays, don't know they're born.
When I were that age I had to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning, work a full day in the pits etc.
(Cue pointless cut'n'paste of reams of Python material (did you notice that I capitalised Python, that's interesting, I wonder what that means, I wonder if I really shouldn't get out a bit more!!!))

Sorry to break into your fascinating pissing contest, boys, off you go again.

[OwlHoot]

I think another GB trick is to subtract all the tax credits from the total take, and quote the net figure as the overall tax take, which is utterly specious bollocks - Tax is any compulsory levy, regardless of whether some is redistributed.

[Lucifer Box]

Interesting addendum. If you actually look at the OECD figures, Germany, which is always presented as a high tax country ("at least we're not as highly taxed as France and Germany", you often hear), has a lower ratio than the UK (i.e. government spending is a smaller proportion of German GDP than UK spending is of UK GDP). Even more interesting, the proportion collected in German indirect taxes is fully 10% less than the UK, meaning the gap between the two is almost certainly wider in real terms.

[Lucifer Box]

I do not disagree that GB has imposed very high indirect taxes in this country - but surely Denmark has got indirect taxes too? Even if less, when combined with the exhorbitant income tax, then surely Denmark has got a much higher level of taxation than the UK?

Sure, but the IFS and IoD dispute the "much" bit, as the basis on which the two are compared (GDP/Spending ratios) is deeply flawed, flattering high indirect tax tax countries (the UK) and penalising high direct tax countries (Denmark). The case that (for example) airport duties are consumer spending is a weak one indeed.

[Rebecca Loos]

I do not disagree that GB has imposed very high indirect taxes in this country - but surely Denmark has got indirect taxes too? Even if less, when combined with the exhorbitant income tax, then surely Denmark has got a much higher level of taxation than the UK?

[Lucifer Box]

For those who are interested, here's the OECD breakdown of UK taxes for 2001, the latest for which detailed figures are available:

Income tax - 30.2%
Corporation tax - 9.5%
Employees NI - 6.8%
Employers NI - 9.6%
Indirect Taxes - 43.9%

As the figures are currently calculated, things like excise duty, air passenger levy and so on are being counted as consumer spending (thereby increasing GDP and lowering the GDB/Spending ratio compared to high direct tax countries such as Denmark (where income tax represents 52.7% of the tax take). The IFS opinion is still out as to how much of a difference it would make to the relative positions, but it certainly would make a substantial difference.

[Churchill]

So other than Council Tax, what else would constitute and indirect tax?

Customs duty

Customs duty is charged on importation of goods into the UK from outside the EU (since 1993 there has been no import duty within the EU). There is a detailed list of the rates of duty, known as the Tariff. Less than straightforward areas include deciding where various items fall within the Tariff and the application of various reliefs from duty.

Excise duties

This is generally a tax on production rather than consumption for betting, alcohol, tobacco and hydrocarbon oils. Stricter controls have been introduced to control the storage and transportation of excise goods whilst they remain in duty suspension.

Air passenger duty

APD is charged on transport in an aircraft from the UK to Europe (at £10, with a reduced rate of £5), or the rest of the world (at £40, with a reduced rate of £20).

Landfill tax

Landfill tax is a tax on the disposal of waste by way of landfill. Its aim is to encourage recycling or more environmentally friendly methods of waste disposal. Following the 2005 budget, the standard rate of landfill tax has been increased from £15 to £18 per tonne with effect from 1 April 2005, and the intention is to raise it to £35 per tonne in annual incremental stages. The lower rate of £2 per tonne for inactive waste is unchanged.

Climate change levy

CCL is a single-stage sales tax on the supply to businesses and the public sector of some forms of energy,which are described as "taxable commodities". It is an environmental tax, which aims to encourage the more efficient use of energy in the non-domestic sector. It distinguishes between different forms of energy by taxing some energy products and not others. "Good" forms of energy are untaxed. In this way, CCL encourages people to switch to more environmentally friendly forms of energy. It also treats electricity (a single product) differently depending on how it was produced.

Aggregates levy

Aggregates levy is a tax on the commercial exploitation in the UK of rock, sand and gravel (and whatever occurs or is mixed with it). There is one basic rate of £1.60 per tonne.

Business rates

Business rates are chargeable on the occupation of non-domestic property - they are collected by local authorities but are paid over to central government and are not included in local authority budgets.

Stamp taxes

Stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax are the three stamp taxes. The first is chargeable on documents, the second on share dealings where there is no document and the third on land transactions. Stamp duty land tax replaced stamp duty on land transactions with effect from 1 December 2003.

[sunnysan]

Indirect Tax

So other than Council Tax, what else would constitute and indirect tax?

[Lucifer Box]

even taking all that into account, HUGE taxes in Scandinavia

The gap is much narrower than the headline figures suggest. According to the IFS, economies like the UK, where hidden or stealth taxes represent a large part of the take, dramatically under report their GDP/Spending ratio, which is the usual measure of this sort of thing, compared to countries such as Denmark where the majority of the tax take is a straightforward, albeit high, tax on income. The reason being, of course, that indirect taxes artificially (and falsely) increase GDP and therefore misleadingly lower the GDP/Spending ratio.

I'm sure you will not be surprised to hear that Gordon Brown blocked an attempt to revise GDP calculations by excluding indirect taxes from the size of the economy.

[Rebecca Loos]

even taking all that into account, HUGE taxes in Scandinavia

[sunnysan]

Denmark

Well UK loves to bleat about the fact that the lucky populace "enjoy" the lowest taxes in Europe.

As has been discussed here, I am sure once you add in all your "Contributions" and "Indirect Taxes" we would have a taxation rate that compares with most Scandinavian countries.

I think it would be also "fair" (Lovely word isnt it) to assess the quality of services available against the tax paid for them.

I would think that the UK would not fare so well if all this was taken into consideration.

[Rebecca Loos]

can you repeat without laughing "lower taxes of Denmark"?




Rebecca in "Shaun" mode

[threaded]

Oliver: Agree there, still make plenty of money in the UK. Just prefer the lower taxes and higher standard of living in Denmark.

[oliver]

“But young people today have a lot more commitments and it is much more difficult for them to raise their incomes and generate wealth. This really is a very big issue for the country.”


no sh1t Sherlock, why do you think the rest of us have left ?

Milan.

Not everyone has difficulty raising their income and generating wealth and most of us wouldn't consider fleeing the country in the face of our inability to do so.