Paradise Papers
This topic contains 110 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by steveosnakeeye 6 years, 4 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 14, 2017 at 1:52 pm #1557290
Jay, “even if we do get too excited about spreadsheets to be considered normal” ha, ha, brilliant mate.😊
November 15, 2017 at 4:02 am #1557457@jay Belfast – The discussion comes about because posters were looking to reduce tax on higher earners. Clearly if tax revenue is reduced there must be either [a] taxes elsewhere [b] reduction in gov spending [c] related economy growth.
I suggested a purchase tax as option for [b]. The objections should be for moral reasons. However you and others assert it is not technically feasable. giving countless spurious reason eg.
- Companies would need to treble the number of accounts. [haha]
- Its not possible to define or decide what is a luxury. [they decide everything else]
- HMRC cannot cope with different taxes on different products. [they could with technology]
- It would be impossible to classify products. [its done already]
- UK silk producers would be hard hit. [are there any]
- Parliament would need a bill for every product. [not true]
The answer in most cases is, it is possible, governments do it all the time. The EU classifies goods, imposes different import duty for different product types along with all manner of rules. We had import duty based on strategic interests. We had purchase tax which was a luxury tax. Countries around the world have it – read the wiki for luxury tax.
In November 1991, The United States Congress enacted a luxury tax and was signed by the former President George H.W. Bush.
Between October 1940 and March 1973 the UK had a consumption tax called Purchase Tax, which was levied at different rates depending on goods’ luxuriousness.
To argue that it is not technically possible is as ludicrous as claiming a company can not establish different profit margins for different products. The methodology of determining tax rate for different products is no different from deciding tax allowances or import duties.
If you think its not possible for a government to raise taxes on whatever the hell they feel like then fair enough. I am not going to waste my time responding to all these “how can you do this” .. “how can you do that” type questions. They are time wasters !
999 may be right, contributing to topics in this section is a waste of time and pointless.
November 15, 2017 at 7:50 am #1557470mac so much of the above is horse shit. sad part is you know it is but would prefer to churn out said horse shit instead of just holding your hands up and admitting your idea is not desirable nor feasible you
Still waiting for your easily defined luxury shoe classification?
November 15, 2017 at 7:58 am #1557474Mac – you appear confused. How would a luxury tax help scenario b ([b] reduction in gov spending), unless the idea is to reduce tax revenues?
Often, to cover the fact that someone cannot reply to a well put argument they will simply dismiss the argument under some spurious reason. It seems likely that you are doing the same.
You fail to understand even the most simple point.
I doubt you have read and understood the US luxury tax, which is quite different to the one you are proposing. The US luxury tax was a simple tax; 10% additional tax on cars over x, boats over y etc. There were about 5-10 goods identified and a tax was applied over certain thresholds. This was simple to apply as everyone knew what the goods were and what the criteria was.
It was not the same as your tax idea, so it’s disingenuous to try and claim that because the US had a luxury tax your luxury tax will work. Incidentally, the US luxury tax was abolished after a couple of years as it flopped (ironically, it went towards pushing the US government towards scenario b!)
You claim that you would classify luxury items by using: materials, features & purpose. It has been explained to you that this is highly subjective. If you want to show an example of a scheme where this happens then please do so, but remember, you are doing this for every single item sold in the UK, not just a handful of items.
November 15, 2017 at 8:00 am #1557476Macguffin, just for the sake of accuracy what I actually said was in relation to specifically what was driven out of this thread on the “Paradise Papers” which then became a thread about the total restructuring of the UK tax system and was “If people have lots of time to waste as some seemingly have on here there’s no harm in it but as you rightly say though nothing said on here will be implemented.”
Perhaps you should have taken your own advice “I admit I know next to bugger all about UK tax so perhaps should not be talking.”
November 15, 2017 at 11:17 am #1557572Lots of time to waste, nothing will be implemented? Doesn’t that go for every single thread on the whole of your say? This complete section could be classed as a waste of time.
November 15, 2017 at 12:28 pm #1557615definately your posts for sure 🙂
November 15, 2017 at 3:09 pm #1557690Steveo – zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
November 16, 2017 at 6:45 am #1557805good job ignoring me and another great post form the brentmeister 🙂
November 16, 2017 at 8:16 am #1557823Steveo – Never said I was ignoring, I told you to ignore me if it upsets you, I would ignore you IF your petty little obsession and gutter sniping didn’t make laugh so much.
November 16, 2017 at 8:05 pm #1558149I think we agree on something! Keep it up 😂
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply this topic.