3 ms·

Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. In the UK we have two different kinds of in

Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. In the UK we have two different kinds of income tax; one is called National Insurance, but it's not insurance at all. It's there so that the government can brag about reducing income tax. When the UK joined the EU, we had to introduce sales tax (VAT). Part of the VAT receipts were to fund the EU. Note that VAT is much higher than US sales taxes (20%). Now we're out: whoopee! No more VAT! Oh, hang on...

forrestthewoods 4y ago
> Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. It's only unfair if the collected tax revenue isn't used to benefit the poor. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet. Sweden has one of the most regressive [1]. A tax being regressive or progressive doesn't make it inherently bad or good. And if a country can't effectively utilize tax revenue then it doesn't matter who foots the bill. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-not-the-solution-to-inequality https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-...
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  As a matter of cross-party practice over many years, UK sales tax (VAT) just goes into the government's general funds, same as income tax, national insurance, road tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and so on. There is a strong aversion here to hypothecation. That is: sales taxes are not used to benefit the poor, particularly. They are used to finance defence expenditure, tax cuts for bankers, and fees for pharma and consulting companies, same as other tax revenues. I think the only exception is local property tax ("Council tax"), which partially props up the funding of local government. But that's capped, and most local authorities charge the maximum. So it might as well be paid by central government, out of the general fund. [Edit] I take your point about regressive/progressive. The Vox article didn't use the term "progressive"; they said "broad-based". It's right that a tax-hike should hit everybody; but it's also fair that it should hit high earners harder than the poor, roughly in proportion to what they earn. Wealth tax, as a tax on savings and property, is iniquitous.
  - forrestthewoods 4y ago
    WRT the Vox article. The infographic the x-axis is from "least progressive" to "most progressive" with the United States most progressive and Sweden/Denmark as least progressive. That's what I was directly referring to. The y-axis is "least redistributive" to "most redistributive" with US least and Sweden/Denmark most.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      Hmmm. Perhaps I'm using one or more of these terms incorrectly.

forrestthewoods 4y ago

> Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. It's only unfair if the collected tax revenue isn't used to benefit the poor. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet. Sweden has one of the most regressive [1]. A tax being regressive or progressive doesn't make it inherently bad or good. And if a country can't effectively utilize tax revenue then it doesn't matter who foots the bill. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-not-the-solution-to-inequality https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-...

denton-scratch 4y ago
As a matter of cross-party practice over many years, UK sales tax (VAT) just goes into the government's general funds, same as income tax, national insurance, road tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and so on. There is a strong aversion here to hypothecation. That is: sales taxes are not used to benefit the poor, particularly. They are used to finance defence expenditure, tax cuts for bankers, and fees for pharma and consulting companies, same as other tax revenues. I think the only exception is local property tax ("Council tax"), which partially props up the funding of local government. But that's capped, and most local authorities charge the maximum. So it might as well be paid by central government, out of the general fund. [Edit] I take your point about regressive/progressive. The Vox article didn't use the term "progressive"; they said "broad-based". It's right that a tax-hike should hit everybody; but it's also fair that it should hit high earners harder than the poor, roughly in proportion to what they earn. Wealth tax, as a tax on savings and property, is iniquitous.
- forrestthewoods 4y ago
  WRT the Vox article. The infographic the x-axis is from "least progressive" to "most progressive" with the United States most progressive and Sweden/Denmark as least progressive. That's what I was directly referring to. The y-axis is "least redistributive" to "most redistributive" with US least and Sweden/Denmark most.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Hmmm. Perhaps I'm using one or more of these terms incorrectly.