What taxes do you prefer?

[petros]

Why is it a problem?

 

[captain morgan]

Why is it a problem?

Everyone paying equally is the problem.

... Some folks are a little more equal than others I guess

 

[petros]

We copied GST from the Vikings and now India is copying us. It must be unfair if India is doing it.

 

[Machjo]

Everyone paying equally is the problem.

... Some folks are a little more equal than others I guess

How is taxation any different from the free market? For example, if we go to a restaurant, and I order a cheap chana masala and you order an expensive dish prepared by a specially-qualified chef, are you suggesting that we should pay the same because if you pay more for your dish and I less for mine, that somehow I become more equal than you? What kind of logic is that? What if the cook had to invest much more time in preparing your dish than in preparing mine, and what if your chef also had to spend more time and money to get the necessary qualifications to prepare blow fish than mine did to prepare a simple chana masala?

i see no difference between that and taxation.

 

[JLM]

Yes, everyone pays the GST equally, and that is part of the problem.

I don't follow your logic- G.S.T. applies to the item purchased not the purchaser!

 

[taxslave]

Not necessarily. But instead of taxing the haircut itself, why not tax the specific product.

to take an example, in Mexico they'd introduced a sugar tax if I remember correctly. The problem though is that this sugar tax is not charged on sugar only but also on sugary drinks. Should the drink containing less sugar be taxed as much as the one containing more sugar? The solution would be to not tax the drinks at all and instead to just increase the tax on sugar producers at the source. This means that a beverage producer would have to pay more for the sugar he buys to make his beverage. This creates a direct incentive for him to either reduce the quantity of sugar in the drink or pass the extra cost down to the consumer in the price of the drink itself, not through a separate tax.

By taxing the drink itself, we eliminate the incentive to reduce the sugar content since the drink will be taxed the same way past a certain minimum sugar content regardless of how much sugar is added beyond that.

So instead of taxing the hair cut, why not tax steel? The steel producer would then have to include the tax in his overhead costs and so pass it down to the scissor manufacturer in the cost of the steel. The scissor manufacturer would be paying that tax indirectly through the cost of the steel it uses to manufacture the scissors and then pass that cost down to the barber who buys the scissors. This gives the barber an incentive to care for his scissors. The longer the scissors last, the less tax he pays.

The same can apply to other hair products. That way, the barber would have a direct incentive to cut back on more expensive products and so indirectly pay less tax. The less tax he indirectly pays, the less he needs to pass down to his client who wants to get a hair cut.

In the case of a VAT like the GST or HST, no such incentive exists since no matter how responsible the barber is, he'll pay the same tax anyway?

So let's introduce a tax on non-renewable resources and a sin tax, raise the taxes as high at the market can bear, and then scrap the GST, HST, QST, and other VATs.



If there's a harmful product in that, then tax that, not the hair cut itself.

Unfortunately, the GST is totally nonsensically indiscriminate in its application and therefore eliminates any incentive to promote responsible spending habits.

The barber does not pay GST. The customer does.

 

[Machjo]

The barber does not pay GST. The customer does.

But he's paying it on a service that the barber is providing.

I don't follow your logic- G.S.T. applies to the item purchased not the purchaser!

But the purchaser is paying it.

 

[taxslave]

Yes, everyone pays the GST equally, and that is part of the problem.

Wrong. Natives don't. Low income get it back which is the same as not paying.

But he's paying it on a service that the barber is providing.



But the purchaser is paying it.

Which part of Value Added Tax don't you get?

 

[JLM]

But the purchaser is paying it.

Isn't that the way it was set up to work?

 

[taxslave]

It really doesn't matter how you word it the customer is always paying the tax.

 

[captain morgan]

How is taxation any different from the free market? For example, if we go to a restaurant, and I order a cheap chana masala and you order an expensive dish prepared by a specially-qualified chef, are you suggesting that we should pay the same because if you pay more for your dish and I less for mine, that somehow I become more equal than you? What kind of logic is that? What if the cook had to invest much more time in preparing your dish than in preparing mine, and what if your chef also had to spend more time and money to get the necessary qualifications to prepare blow fish than mine did to prepare a simple chana masala?

i see no difference between that and taxation.

The free market doesn't subsidize the losers

As for the restaurant example, I have no clue where you got this from but the relative costs involved are nothing more than the cost of the inputs and that is nothing more than perceived value from the buyer's perspective

 

[Curious Cdn]

How is taxation any different from the free market?
I generally can't shop around and check out the competitors for the best value-added tax rate. I am stuck handing my money over to an oligopoly of different levels of government in cabal with each other.

 

[Machjo]

It really doesn't matter how you word it the customer is always paying the tax.

Of course. The difference is, what tax and on what? Should the responsible consumer pay as much tax as the irresponsible consumer for example?

How is taxation any different from the free market?
I generally can't shop around and check out the competitors for the best value-added tax rate. I am stuck handing my money over to an oligopoly of different levels of government in cabal with each other.

Exactly. Under a more user-pay system, you could shop around for the best tax rate. For example if there is no GST but a gas tax, then if you spend on a hair cut, you'll pay less tax, and on gas more tax. If we scrap HST but further raise the tobacco or alcohol tax, you could avoid tax to a degree by shifting your spending. under a user-pay system, you can shop around for the best tax rate just like you can shop around for the best-priced dish at a restaurant. Under an indiscriminate tax system, you can't shop around for the best tax rate.

 

[JLM]

Of course. The difference is, what tax and on what? Should the responsible consumer pay as much tax as the irresponsible consumer for example?

What is the definition of a responsible consumer? One who doesn't buy drugs or beer?

 

[Machjo]

The free market doesn't subsidize the losers

As for the restaurant example, I have no clue where you got this from but the relative costs involved are nothing more than the cost of the inputs and that is nothing more than perceived value from the buyer's perspective

I wasn't talking about government expenditure, but rather about government revenue. As for government expenditure, I might actually agree with you on many points. The government needs to reduce its spending. But on the revenue side, taxes need to be more relevant. The one who makes an effort to take care of his health and not clog our highways should not be paying the same tax as the one who goes out of his way to ruin his health or clog our highways and pollute our cities.

What is the definition of a responsible consumer? One who doesn't buy drugs or beer?

Mind-altering, unhealthy non-prescription drugs including alcohol is certainly a start. I think there is an alcohol tax if I'm not mistaken. I don't buy alcohol. But I say raise it even more. Same with tobacco taxes and gas taxes. But scrap the GST, HST, etc.

 

[captain morgan]

I wasn't talking about government expenditure, but rather about government revenue. As for government expenditure, I might actually agree with you on many points. The government needs to reduce its spending. But on the revenue side, taxes need to be more relevant. The one who makes an effort to take care of his health and not clog our highways should not be paying the same tax as the one who goes out of his way to ruin his health or clog our highways and pollute our cities.

taxes exist solely to fund gvt expenditures.

 

[Machjo]

taxes exist solely to fund gvt expenditures.

But government expenditures aren't random. They are focused on specific objectives. health care, environmental protection, social assistance, education, for example. So why not make taxes more geared towards these same objectives? If government spends on health care, then let's tax alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc.

If government spends on infrastructure, then let's tax gas for example.

Why tax apples when those have little to no relation to what government spends money on?

 

[captain morgan]

Easier to set up gvt to provide a baseline fundamental set of services equally accessible to everyone. Anything that people want above and beyond comes out of their pockets... Incorporate a minimum income standard for receipt of said services, but enough of this horse sh*t on how gvts pick winners and losers

 

[Dixie Cup]

You've got to be REALLY, REALLY poor to not pay any taxes. If you put them in a cider press and flatten them out, you will wring no spare change out of them. If you don't provide a minimum of services to them, they may end up preying on you, as their survival needs will force them to do so. It's a good deal for you. It's a good deal for rich people, too except that we are led by rich people for the most part and, of course, they are going to give themselves a better deal. The Middle Class is starting to fail, having had a little too much harvested from them by Capitalists and Socialists alike.

Yeah, under about $22,000 and you don't pay any taxes.

The barber does not pay GST. The customer does.

Actually he does; he pays the difference between what he collected and what GST he paid for supplies; the balance goes to the government!

Yeah, under about $22,000 and you don't pay any taxes.





Actually he does; he pays the difference between what he collected and what GST he paid for supplies; the balance goes to the government!

Unless, of course, he purchases supplies that total more GST paid than collected in that case he would get a refund but I doubt that would happen on a regular basis and if it did, I'd wonder what kind of business person he was....

Yeah, under about $22,000 and you don't pay any taxes.





Actually he does; he pays the difference between what he collected and what GST he paid for supplies; the balance goes to the government!





Unless, of course, he purchases supplies that total more GST paid than collected in that case he would get a refund but I doubt that would happen on a regular basis and if it did, I'd wonder what kind of business person he was....

And again, I suppose he doesn't actually pay - you're right - he just passes on what he collected. I was taking you literally - sorry!! He claims what he pays in GST against what he's collected so you're right. I was simply thinking that he pays the difference but technically he's just passing on the remaining GST left over to the government. My bad!!!

 

[JLM]

Yeah, under about $22,000 and you don't pay any taxes.





...

How does that work- how does the Wino buying a bottle of cheap "rot gut" avoid paying the alcohol tax?