Random idea, but could it happen? (taxes) Watch

Poll: Would you pay higher taxes so you would pay less for normal goods?
Yes - good idea. (0)
0%
No - looks like a con. (12)
80%
Maybe - as long as I got extra benefits. (2)
13.33%
Who cares? (1)
6.67%
im so academic
Badges: 13
#1
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#1
As well know, everything's getting expensive - even with all the sales.

Bills are going up as well, with some people going into fuel poverty.

Taxes don't help either.

But my idea is, even though taxes don't help with everything go up, would you be more relunctant to pay extra taxes, but you get a discount in everything you buy?

I.e. Pay more taxes, pay less goods?

Could this be the key to starting the economy back up?

(PS: Please don't post hateful comments, this is just an idea - not a Government proposition).
quote
reply
Degausser
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 years ago
#2
Depends whether the money I pay for the government is equal or less than the money I saved through cheaper prices.
0
quote
reply
Gooderz09
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 years ago
#3
surely your upsetting the price mechanism of the economy then? not helping it recover at all?
0
quote
reply
ste-ve
Badges: 0
#4
Report 9 years ago
#4
would this not be six of one and half a dozen of the other?
0
quote
reply
Lefty Leo
Badges: 10
#5
Report 9 years ago
#5
This would certainly make things more equitable (providing taxes were raised proportionally and not just per capita).

And it would things much cheaper for people.

However, the thing with sales taxes is that they can always be increased or decreased to affect the economy. Income taxes are almost impossible to raise (being a very hot topic politically) and if reduced are almost impossible to bring back up again (unless you're talking about the upper cohorts of the tax regime, in which case people are always happy to see the rich get taxed more).

There's really no point focussing on income taxes, no matter what the benefits, in my opinion. Ad velorum taxation offers far more flexibity to the government (especially for items that cause problems such as cigarettes and alcohol, or for items that are good but severely underconsumed, such as nicotine patches or healthy food).
quote
reply
quadruple_twist
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 years ago
#6
Nope, that's retarded.
0
quote
reply
JammyP
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 years ago
#7
Surely the only way that could happen would be to scrap VAT completely (to lower prices, also don't think we can do this due to having sort sort of minimum across europe), and then add that tax somewhere else?

But where would you add on more tax? Income is never going to be popular, petrol, booze, and cigs too.

Houses? Deaths?

Not sure where you would go with it.
0
quote
reply
AprilMay88
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 years ago
#8
Getting lazy unemployed *******s into work would be a better idea.
This country seems to have a habit of punishing the hard working people who have gained higher wages, in order to give hand outs to junkies and lay abouts.
God I know people who work outside the UK for half the year yet are taxed 40%. It's insane.
0
quote
reply
im so academic
Badges: 13
#9
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#9
(Original post by AprilMay88)
Getting lazy unemployed *******s into work would be a better idea.
This country seems to have a habit of punishing the hard working people who have gained higher wages, in order to give hand outs to junkies and lay abouts.
God I know people who work outside the UK for half the year yet are taxed 40%. It's insane.
Fair point.

But on your first sentence, what if there are no jobs for them to go into? Even highly skilled people are being laid off.
quote
reply
Keith_Dave
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 9 years ago
#10
Would it not be the same thing, just you paying a different entity instead?
0
quote
reply
mathill
Badges: 0
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
(Original post by Keith_Dave)
Would it not be the same thing, just you paying a different entity instead?
Exactly. We'd be paying the government as opposed to the oil company. The only way it'd be cheaper for the average joe is if the rich paid proportionally higher. This just acts as disincentive to earn for rich, and if higher taxes are levied upon the rich, they are more likely to escape to rich havens.

Lets not forget the disruption of the price mechanism. How would the government choose which oil company to discount? This would be susceptible to government failure, as companies that are not necessarily the most efficient are chosen.

And then there is the logistics of such an operation. The paperwork, wages and organisation. Just more wastage.

There is a reason that communism failed.
0
quote
reply
AprilMay88
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
(Original post by im so academic)
Fair point.

But on your first sentence, what if there are no jobs for them to go into? Even highly skilled people are being laid off.
Fair Enough. However even if their were jobs they're are still a large number of people who will choose to avoid working at all costs. It's those people I mean, not the ones who want to work but can't.
0
quote
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 9 years ago
#13
It would be a good idea (if hard to implement politically) if our problems were due to a lack of demand. But they are not: our problems are more to do with uncertaninty in the financial markets and the consequences of a property price bubble than anything else: we have more problems with investment and finance than we do with demand.

You could achieve the same result by getting rid of VAT and instead raising income tax.
0
quote
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 9 years ago
#14
(Original post by AprilMay88)
Fair Enough. However even if their were jobs they're are still a large number of people who will choose to avoid working at all costs. It's those people I mean, not the ones who want to work but can't.
The idea that there are people who avoid working at all costs seems to be a myth to me - most people who don't have a job want one - JSA is a tiny sum. Do you have a source for this?

Furthermore, even if you are right and there are lots of people in this category, then a change in attitude wouldn't achieve much unless the jobs were actually there for the taking - they are not.
0
quote
reply
AprilMay88
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 9 years ago
#15
No, no, no. I've met people who do not want to work.

One guy who even told me he didn't want a job because he was making more on the social. So it isn't a myth at all.

My Sisters ex, claimed he wanted a job badly. Three jobs later he had quit two and amazingly managed to get sacked from one, that was 6 months ago and he hasn't even bothered to visit the job centre yet. So clearly he can't be arsed to work.

Also I guy I know who left school at 16, and has only worked for three months since (He's 22 now) he only works when he wants something that his dole money doesn't cover & apart from that his Dad is too soft to kick him out the house.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (232)
27.46%
No (613)
72.54%

Watched Threads

View All