Danyel
Monday 21/3/05 13:42
- # -
|
I was just reading your blog, and I found this very interesting:
http://www.squandertwo.net/blog/...get-
elected.htm
Just to let you know, there are some major flaws in your suggestions.
> Scrap every single tax except for VAT (and raise VAT, if you like, but not above 20%).
VAT currently only brings in 16% of current UK Government revenue. Even if it was increased to 20%, scrapping all other taxes would give you less than 20% of what the current government has to play with. How do you intend to cut the Government's budget by over 80%? Even if you scrap the NHS and state-funded education (remember all those rebates and vouchers you've promised people), there's the massive defence spending increase, the civil service, transport, benefits system, law courts, foreign office etc etc.
By my (very approx) calculations, VAT would need to be somewhere between 80-100% for your system to work.
Later on, you say:
"In practice, income tax can be dodged with a decent accountant, and the more income you have, the better an accountant you can afford".
This applies to a small number of self-certifiers, with most of us being on PAYE, and the Inland Revenue successfully prosecutes income tax dodgers all the time. Scrapping income tax because a few people fiddle it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is it not? Or are you just trying to construct a plausible-sounding argument to justify your own personal view that income tax is rubbish cos rich people have to pay more?
By similar logic, there would be a massive increase in crime under your system, as heavily taxed consumer goods and luxury items would become even more of a 'bling' status symbol than they are just now, and the public would rather nick them than pay the 80%+ VAT.
> That's VAT: everyone can dodge it some of the time but no-one can dodge it all the time, and being rich doesn't enable you to dodge more of it or to dodge it more easily."
I worked alongside VAT inspectors for 18 months, and I never heard anyone say that ;-) VAT fraud is also carried out with the aid of accountants, so surely the same rules apply as in your income tax example above? Couldn't rich folk, who pay more VAT and have better accountants, cheat the system as well? If anything VAT is easier to cheat, because there are all sorts of ways to claim money back. VAT fraud biases the system even more in favour of the rich, as those with enough money coming in can register for VAT and claim expenses back, but the likes of me cannot.
Also:
"Claiming your VAT back on work expenses makes sense when you're going to be paying income tax as well, but if you're not, then it doesn't. "
I don't see the logic here. You think that people are going to stop fiddling the VAT system because income tax is abolished? "That nice Government have reduced my total tax, so I'll stop cooking the VAT accounts". That's crap. Why not try and introduce a system that's harder to fiddle, rather than using the fact that fraud currently occurs to justify a flawed tax policy.
Basing all taxation on consumption also penalises tourists and foreign students - people come here to visit our country, put money into our economy, and we sting them for tax, to fractionally reduce the burden on residents. Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"?
> Have a referendum on the death penalty. (I'd probably vote no, but I think there should be a referendum.)
Why should there be a referendum on that particular issue? Don't we elect politicians to make these decisions for us? If your politician doesn't vote the way you want, vote for someone else next time. I'd rather have someone who'd studied the issue enough to make an informed choice voting than members of the public, who're fed knee-jerk ultraconservatism daily by the likes of The Sun. Also, public referenda are expensive things (something you'd be wise to remember, given the massive shortfall in your Government's finances).
> Legalise all drugs.
Can't argue there. But will dangerous drugs still be required to carry health warnings? And is it a good idea to legalise, say, crack without taking away the social problems that lure people to it in the first place?
> Increase military spending to a similar percentage of GDP as the USA.
The US spends around 4.5% of its GDP on the military. The UK spends around 3%. You're suggesting we increase the defence budget by 50%? Why? Interestingly, 4.5% of combined US and UK GDP could feed, clothe and shelter the entire third world.
> Privatise universities.
That's effectively happening anyway. Will student fees be exempt from your 20%+ VAT?
> Reject the EU constitution.
I agree here. Ironically, I'd reject it because it's too right-wing, while you're rejecting it because it's not right-wing enough.
> Re-legalise guns.
What good would this achieve? Not only do you want to increase military spending to US levels, you also want to increase violent crime to US levels.
> While acknowledging that criminals have rights (not to be beaten by the police, for instance), make it
> clear that they do not include the right to a safe working environment or a compliant victim, and that
> victims’ rights are always ascendant over criminals’.
Yep. Can't argue with that.
> Try to teach the Europeans what “free trade” actually means.
You can't really blame the EU - they just model themselves on America, the biggest protectionist of all.
> parish – yes, parish – councils.
Isn't the idea of a parish council an anachronism in our multicultural age?
> These powers include running the police force and other emergency services.
How would these be paid for? You've already said VAT would be the only tax. Remember that something like 80% of current council budgets come from central government. Also, you don't think that private police forces are a bad idea, and go against the liberal ethos you supposedly have? The results of privatisation in the prison service (Group 4, Reliance), plus the failure of PFI in the health service don't fill me with confidence.
Surely the more you de-centralise the Police, the easier it is for criminals to escape detection by simply moving to another 'parish'. Your private law enforcers wouldn't bother chasing them once they were in someone else's jurisdiction – it wouldn't be cost-effective.
> Privatise all schools
Presumably these private schools would have the power to set their own fees, and choose which pupils they take on? You don't think that would create a two-tier system, based entirely on wealth? Or is that the aim?
> Make national insurance both optional and worthwhile.
That's another form of taxation alongside your VAT. I don't understand - you're suggesting a Health Service that people can opt out of paying for, and presumably being treated by? If someone is unconscious after a car crash, do the paramedics refuse to treat them until evidence can be found that they pay NI contributions?
I don't drive - in your system, would I be able to opt out of paying VAT that was being used to maintain the road network? I don't think Northern Ireland should be part of the UK - in your system, would I be able to opt out of paying VAT that was being used to administer Northern Ireland?
> Get rid of all pointless bureaucratic rules that people currently have to obey in order to claim
> benefits (e.g. "You’re not entitled to unemployment benefit because you didn’t sign on when you were
> between jobs for three weeks two years ago.").
I work for the DWP, and have also claimed benefit on many occasions. What pointless bureaucratic rules are these? The forms are pretty simple. I'm sure you wouldn't want to see money going to those who're not entitled.
Would you be increasing benefits to take into account the huge increase in the cost of living caused by your astronomical VAT increase?
> Have MPs’ salaries decided by a referendum two years after every general election.
Again, another expensive referendum. Why not just cut MPs salaries, then tie them to inflation? It'd be a lot cheaper.
> And have general elections occur on the same date every five years.
I'm with you here, though.
> Make the Lords half elected, quarter appointed, quarter inherited, and disallow political parties and
> whips from the Lords.
Why should unelected peers have a say in the running of the country? Why have The Lords at all? Not only do you want to protect inherited wealth, but you want to protect inherited power.
What a scary world you paint, a kind of cross between "Daily Mail Island" and the "Mad Max" films. A Britain where wealth and power would stay forever in the hands of a tiny few, with laws designed to keep it that way. Where poor people get poor people's healthcare and poor people's education, and the ones who don't kill each other with guns can sign on - their ultra-simple benefit forms giving them more time to press their noses against the windows of shops, looking at bling items they can't afford, and will steal later, before disappearing into prison forever (unless they get the death penalty). The rich meanwhile, would hide away in their self-regulating gated communities, fiddling their VAT returns, and bribing their local private police to keep them happy. A country where a Reaganomic government refuses to tax the population fairly, and then wastes the massively insufficient revenue they do bring in on dick-waving defence spending and public referenda on knee-jerk subjects like the death penalty (hang Paedos on the Lottery programme!). Where paramedics make accident victims sign a Direct Debit mandate with their one remaining arm before treating them. I can't think of anyone that would benefit from this system, except the aristocracy, gangsters and possibly survivalists.
|
|
