22,000 reasons England should have a flat tax system

**sunnysan** · 16 January 2006, 12:36

Taxing

The thing is that complicated tax law and stuff liek tax credits and any other added beaurocracy create employment.

If IR was just about a simplicity and fair taxation then yes, it would be justified, but I believe that complicated tax laws increases revenue owing to the fact that their are many more caveats and grey areas that the average business just does not have time or resources to contest. The fact that a bloated IR exists to administer this is neither here nor there as its created state employment which amounts to more Labour voters.

Meanwhile while the barriers to entrapeneurship grow here, places like UAE and S Korea are setting up trade free zones, no red tape, low taxation etc with very little emplyment regulation and the like.

Countries like Estonia are setting up flat tax regimes and with the relative cost of skilled labour are becoming more attrctive places for "hard" investment regardless of language barriers.

Therefore while the modern world moves towards lower regulation and less state intervention the UK seems to be rapidly moving the other way.

**AtW** · 16 January 2006, 12:41

Income flat-tax can often be misleading - in Russia there is a 12% flat-rate income tax... sounds great but equivalent of NI is ... 40%+!

**Mailman** · 16 January 2006, 12:53

For a flat rate system to work there can be no other "additional" charges like what you mention AtW.

I also believe that if a flat rate system was ever introduced in this country that we would end up with a similar system where there is in fact a low flat rax rate but this would be negated by a higher NI charge.

Andy Sunny, you are right. The current tax system creates employment but that also makes a mockery of Gordos stated aim of reducing public service numbers (perhaps he should start at the top and work his way down?

).

Mailman

**Sergeant Apone** · 16 January 2006, 14:25

Plus, of course, the last thing any big spending government wants is taxpayers knowing how much tax they pay.

**DodgyAgent** · 16 January 2006, 14:38

Originally posted by Sergeant Apone

Plus, of course, the last thing any big spending government wants is taxpayers knowing how much tax they pay.

Just think of the numbers of labour voters who are employed by the tax gathering Industry (including EDS and accountants)

**ASB** · 16 January 2006, 14:38

Originally posted by Sergeant Apone

Plus, of course, the last thing any big spending government wants is taxpayers knowing how much tax they pay.

Bollocks. The figures are in the public domain. Frightening but available.

2006/7 projected spending is slightly under 600 bln. A mere 10k average per man woman and child. Nice to know the government are so generous.

Can't be arsed to find the figure for prejected receipts. It'll be less though.

Of course the fact that this means that the average collection as a result of each households labours is about 35k is best not thought about

**Sergeant Apone** · 16 January 2006, 14:48

Originally posted by ASB

Bollocks. The figures are in the public domain. Frightening but available.

Tell you what, ASB, you take a walk down any High Street and ask Joe Public how much tax he pays. Bet you a chip to a bagful he doesn't know. The fact that the "average person" pays £x doesn't matter to me. How much tax do I pay?

There is a big difference between the information being available to any moderately intelligent person who wishes to find that information and the information being in your face because the only tax you pay is a flat 20% of all your income (or whatever).

**ASB** · 16 January 2006, 15:25

"Tell you what, ASB, you take a walk down any High Street and ask Joe Public how much tax he pays."

One will get a depressingly inaccurate answer. But that is a different point surely?

You seemed to be suggesting that the numbers were somehow hidden. That is not true. Is it really the governments fault that the population in general are completely apathetic? [probably is]

The government do seem to have cynically explioted this apathy by "tax credits". This does tend to distort the tax one appears to pay downward (how strange).

Quite why a large proportion of people then totally ignore NI Er's NI Council Tax, VAT etc is beyond me.

Of course we haven't even started to consider the tax paid by others as a result of ones labour (or spending).

The numbers are obscence, and they are obviously collected from the population (rising PSBR excepted). But the information is freely available, which is where we started.

**ASB** · 16 January 2006, 15:32

Originally posted by Sergeant Apone

There is a big difference between the information being available to any moderately intelligent person who wishes to find that information and the information being in your face because the only tax you pay is a flat 20% of all your income (or whatever).

Personally I'd be quite in favour of a flat tax. I've never accepted the premise that rates should be graduated.

One thing does bother me though. Thats the rate.

NI raised 80 bln last year. IT raised 180 bln. Haven't even included VAT, or any of the other things some people like to roll into it.

It seems to me that just to cover NI and Income tax the rate is going to need to be 42% (premise those earning at the higher rate equal the allowances of those at the standard rate or below which could very easily be wrong).

I suspect that when accurately costed the number would be such that it might become much less popular. (even though the overall impact is the same)

22,000 reasons England should have a flat tax system