From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Record shops (LPs)
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:10:33 GMT
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 1il2dkINNpc9@morrow.stanford.edu, mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop) writes:
[deleted earlier thread]
>>Well we could start by removing the subsidy from central taxes
>>to local government. At the last budget that put 2.5% on VAT
>>to reduce poll tax for those individuals who didn't like
>>having to pay for local services. 
>Ahh you mean the community charge (close kin of the deceased Papua
>New Guinean hut tax, killed off after the local powers deemed it
>regressive [urban legend?]). You might not have noticed this but
>a flat rate tax where everyone pays the same regardless of income
>is regarded by most people as grossly unfair and exists in no other 
>civilised country. The British public had next to no say in this
>matter it was just dumped on them. The sole beneficiaries were people
>with large expensive properties who strongly equate with those of higher
>incomes, many of whom also disagreed with this tax. Later, after massive
>non-payment the govt. admits that maybe they were wrong.
>Forgive my cynicism but do you really believe they'd have bothered
>to do this if everyone had paid up? If a policy is forced on people
>that is unpopular and unfair their only recourse (and a very justifiable
>one at that) is disobedience.

You forget we live in a democracy another (legal) form of objecting
is through the ballot box. If you are correct, and the poll tax
as so unpopular BUT there hadn't been the campaign of law breaking
surely the government would have lost the last election if they
still supported it?

Don't misinterpret me though: I am no great fan of the poll Tax -
personally I have always believed in a local income tax to pay
for local government. It just annoys me to see law breaking
being supported.

>>                                  The other subsidies from Central
>>to local government account for between 2% and 5% on VAT (depends
>>on whether you consider paying for Education and the Police
>>to be central government's job, or local governemnt's), that
>>gets us to about 10% VAT. Next abolish the NHS, there goes the
>>rest of VAT and a bit of direct tax. Voila we have US tax levels.
>>
>>Did I hear you say politically unacceptable? Surely not.
>>
>>Or we could put up Direct Taxes to replace VAT: takes us
>>to average Direct Tax rates (including Income Tax, personal
>>National Insurance and Employers NI contribution) of over
>>50%. Next we remove all duties on imports (sod the E.C
>>and GATT), that takes us out Direct Taxes well over 50%:
>>but we have got US level indirect taxes.
>>
>>Did I hear you say politically unacceptable? Surely not. 
>
>Strange that a few years ago that most of the tax revenue came from
>income tax and very little from VAT. Then there came the tax cuts where
>the small earners got an extra fiver a week and granny's new hip
>went from a 12 to an 18 month wait. If you were a high earner you made
>thousands. Sadly the Con govt. needed more revenue so they slapped it on
>VAT. Let's try and figure who gets penalised by this? Why those citizens
>who spend a larger proportion of their income of VATable items. Who would
>that be? Why it's the low to middle incomes. The tax burden on the average
>person increased from about the mid 30% mark (36%?) to 39% during the 1980's
>the tax burden on higher income brackets reduced. Shifting taxation from
>income to goods taxes is regarded by many economists as regressive.
>So I stand by my statement shift the tax burden back on the higher 
>earners (surely if market economics are true it won't matter how much
>surplus income the wealthy have the market merely adjusts to it? The
>wealthy still stay wealthy; then again maybe market economics don't
>really work that well). Politically unacceptable you say, well so
>is artificially induced inflation in the form of VAT, the only reason
>that higher income tax is less politically acceptable than high
>VAT is it hurts the rich and powerful more and sadly they're the ones
>who control/are the politicians. (Or did you mean yet another embarassing
>U turn in the form of raised taxes would be politically unacceptable?)

Politically unacceptable means just that: politician won't do something
because they believe it would affect their chance of re-election, or
would upset vested interests in their own party. As you correctly
point out the current government are not going to make hugh changes
in the rate of direct taxes: any increases will come from less obvious
means like increasing the VAT base. Labour looks like it too would
avoid commitment to large direct tax increases, again for electorial
reasons.

Personally, I favour raising government revenue via an *honest*
direct taxation system. By that I mean one that admits that our
basic rate of tax in the UK is actually 44% not 25% (i.e. 25%
Income Tax, 9% NI, 10% Employers NI contribution). I also don't
agree with "progressive" tax: why should I keep less of each
pound I earn the more I earn? Having go the Tax system fair and
honest I then think Tax should be as low as possible: in general
I believe in trusting individuals to make decisions about their
own money, rather than assuming the government can spend it better
than they can.

There ends the lesson from the "Independence for East Anglia in Europe
but only if they fix the ERM, give more power to the European
Parliament, and reduce Taxes" Party.

Now back to the original show...

---
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.french