• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

How much of a drag

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How much of a drag

    How much of a drag on a country is a complicated tax regime ?

    The negatives are a vast bureaucracy , an army of accountants, constant disruption to business

    The positives would be, social justice, fine tuning, political expediency



    I think a flat rate would be better. what do youse think ?
    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

    #2
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    How much of a drag on a country is a complicated tax regime ?

    The negatives are a vast bureaucracy , an army of accountants, constant disruption to business

    The positives would be, social justice, fine tuning, political expediency



    I think a flat rate would be better. what do youse think ?
    I think the word 'social' in social justice is redundant. When people use it it makes me think they have something else in mind other than justice.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
      I think the word 'social' in social justice is redundant. When people use it it makes me think they have something else in mind other than justice.
      yes, but it wasn't the SJW who said it, it was me.
      and I am aware, concerned but not a SJW


      so try again
      (\__/)
      (>'.'<)
      ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

      Comment


        #4
        And flat rate would be pretty much as low as you can get, and zero tax would result in best standard of living for both rich & poor, IMO. So low as you can get is closest to zero - so I also think flat rate would be best.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
          And flat rate would be pretty much as low as you can get, and zero tax would result in best standard of living for both rich & poor, IMO. So low as you can get is closest to zero - so I also think flat rate would be best.

          Yes, I sort of agree. but then you lose loads of jobs
          in the tax office, accountants etc

          so my question is one of overall benefit
          (\__/)
          (>'.'<)
          ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
            yes, but it wasn't the SJW who said it, it was me.
            and I am aware, concerned but not a SJW


            so try again
            I wasn't accusing you. Just implying that the most just kind of justice wouldn't need to be called 'social' justice. I think there will always be a place for charity - and real justice dictates that charity is recognised as charity, and not a faux 'social' justice.

            I think that state of affairs would be better for both the givers & receivers of charity.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
              Yes, I sort of agree. but then you lose loads of jobs
              in the tax office, accountants etc

              so my question is one of overall benefit
              Balls... I edited my post instead of quoting it. Here's it roughly again...


              Those are jobs that are net consumers of wealth, so they aren't jobs worth existing.

              I.e. if a tax man earned 25k a year doing the job of impoverishing us (or, for the sake of argument, was net wealth production neutral), we would be better off paying him 25k a year to pick litter.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by SpontaneousOrder View Post
                Balls... I edited my post instead of quoting it. Here's it roughly again...


                Those are jobs that are net consumers of wealth, so they aren't jobs worth existing.

                I.e. if a tax man earned 25k a year doing the job of impoverishing us (or, for the sake of argument, was net wealth production neutral), we would be better off paying him 25k a year to pick litter.

                Does that make sense? because I've always been confused about the debate on this point. The whole broken window fallacy & Bastiat's "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" thing. **edit** not that I read that in french. I can't.

                Comment

                Working...
                X