If you remember back to the early '90s, this is exactly what the Labour opposition proposed during the election campaign against a pretty unpopular Tory government - and lost the election. Hence sticking with - and extending - indirect taxation. It's apparently what the electorate want. Of course, at least it means those who fiddle their income tax - at both ends of the affluence scale - can't escape paying taxes.
Far to easy to fiddle. You can't stop cash payments for 'casual' workers, and 'legitimate' expenses for the higher paid.
Yes, but then you'd have ignored the energy used (and CO2 consequently generated) to prepare & fertilize the ground, plant, weed, harvest, pack, distribute, sell and cook the potatoes. Its a lot more complicated than you suggest - and it isn't energy or CO2 neutral.
Cheers Andrew
Transport and carriage costs go up, guess who pays for that in the end?
The tax I think we should be moaning about is Road Fund Licence for classic cars. IMHO 'Historic Vehicle' exemption should cover vehicles 25 years old and over. It's really not fair that post-'72 owners lose out and many otherwise keepable '70s and '80s cars are neglected. I am however as guilty as most people of this opinion because I haven't got my act together and written to my MP about it. There is a group I came across at shows in the past, organising some action on this matter - does anyone know their web address?
Jonathan ======
1 x '60s classic :-) 1 x '80s classic :-(
You can blame Gordon Brown for that. Originally vehicles over 25 years old were tax exempt. When Labour came into power, their first budget redefined the tax exempt class to a fixed date of manufacture. With a 24 1/2 year old car at the time, I wasn't best pleased!
As my MP is a Lib-Dem fiercely anti-car, I won't waste my time. Happy for others to lobby though.
Jim
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
And I would prefer far more indirect taxation, and a flat rate of income tax (no tax-free offset) of 20%.
Taxing ones money before you even see it is an abomination.
That's regressive.
It's no different to taxing it after you've seen it.
So? (Actually, what do you left-wing types mean when you use the word 'regressive' in this context?)
But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and therefore what to pay tax on.
Not the consumer.
For example:
I deliver 7000 frozen chickens, which is one trailer full, to a Tesco RDC which uses 200 litres of diesel. Add the recent rise of 2p/litre and you've upped the cost of the diesel for that load by £4. Now divide that £4 equally over those 7000 chickens.
Now supposing it was 26 pallets of baked bean tins...
No because it takes a greater proportion of a poor persons income to feed clothe and house themselves allowing the more affluent to be taxed lower proportional to their earnings.
Having said this a fair and equitable tax system will never exist as people are human and will try and benifit themselves while they set up the system.
Ewan
That would certainly be the case if they were only on luxuries - like petrol. ;-)
On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:41:04 +0100, Conor enlightened us thusly:
but the prices all go up, even if only by a little bit.
On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:32:27 +0100, Chris Morriss enlightened us thusly:
what, like fuel to go shopping, books, doubtless food before long...
right...
In message , Austin Shackles writes
Yes, why not?
Not due to the cost of the transport...
In which world?
If it's a supermarkets own trucks then they are directly incurring the additional cost and you had better believe they will pass it on to the customer.
If it's a contract trucker they will absorb the cost until they can't afford to any more and then the cost will go up to the supermarket at the next contract negotiation.
Don't believe for a minute that increasing fuel prices don't cause an increase in haulage costs and an increase at the point of sale. It may take
18 months for the costs to be passed on, but they will be.As they say "If you got it, a truck brought it" and trucks and truckers have to operate at above cost to stay in business. This means if the costs go up so do the charges in the long run.
P.
On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:53:51 +0100, Conor enlightened us thusly:
yebbut, eventually, if the fuel price continues to rise, the transport rates will rise, and so will the prices, unless some form of subsidy keeps 'em down. Granted in the short term, your profit drops by £4 per load, but looking over the longer term we now have for example fuel prices about 8 times higher than they were in the early 70s, around the time of the "oil crisis" then.
Mind, everything else goes up in parallel, roughly. I dunno how the price of fuel equates in terms of mars bars with the price of chickens.
On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:21:35 +0100, Chris Morriss enlightened us thusly:
bloody unfair on those who have a low income, though, isn't it. Just as a purely income-based tax would be unfair on those with a high income. and if, for example, you live in a rural area where the housing costs are cheap etc., then you don't always have the option of not using a car.
Yes I know. I perposely chose potatoes as they require less processing (than for example wheat) and could concivably be grown yourself. However, oil also needs to go through a lot of processing, and is probably transported further that most staple foods. This "added CO2 debt" I would imagine would be at least comarable, if not significantly less for staple foods as for oil.
BTW, I would never claim it is energy neutral. If you find somthing that is, publish it imidiatly as you have disproven the 2nd law of thermodynamics ;-).
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required