flipper wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:50:08 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:06:44 +0100, Chris Jones
wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Income tax makes no sense. There should be only one tax, on
consumption, and it should be fully visible, as sales taxes are in
the US, not hidden like VAT.

John

Agreed, but the last thing the government would want is for you to be
constantly reminded of how far they have their hand into your pocket.

Imagine that instead of the 5 to 7% that most of us pay in state
sales/use
tax that it was, say, 29% I think that might be a bit of a shocker.

Also, taxes on consumption are by nature highly regressive. The poor
by pay a greater proportion of their income to buy consumables (like
food, clothes, transportation and shelter) than do the rich.... I'm
not saying that is necessarily a bad thing... but I think it would
cause a revolution.

-Chuck

What about tax sales at a somewhat higher rate than you were thinking
of, then give every citizen an equal sized lump sum every month, that is
going to be proportionately more for lower earners so will un-regresive
it, or instead, maybe not a lump sum but free health care or
something...

I don't like taxes on services, it encourages the "throw-away society"
where the tax means it isn't worth fixing anything so there are no
repair shops with technicians who know how to fix things, just shops
selling new crap with knowledgeless sales droids, and it isn't worth
knowing how to fix anything so nobody bothers learning.

You must be thinking of electronics because, for example, there are
still plenty of auto mechanics. But the propensity to replace rather
than repair electronics has nothing to do with taxes. It's that
technology makes them so cheap to make that it's uneconomical to
repair.

Part (but admittedly not all) of the reason why it is uneconomical to
repair is that when you've paid for the parts and the labour then you have
to pay the tax and the repair tech has to pay his income tax, and probably
some kind of tax on the building where the repair was done, etc. etc.

Chris

Judging from other posts it sounds to me like you're trying to
accomplish one goal by 'inventing' a new 'principle' and you're mixing
apples and oranges as all the taxes you list would apply anyway,
except for the one 'service': the labor. I.E. a part is a part and not
a 'service'. But if you're also proposing to change all of the others
as well then why does the brick and mortar 'service' building get away
without property taxes when the sales outlet pays them, other than
your unrelated desire to reduce dumpster fill? And why would a repair
technician get the privileged status of 'tax free wages' when other
workers don't?
No, someone else suggested that they would abolish income tax. I do not
seriously expect that to happen but was discussing what would that might be
like.

You pay all those taxes when something is 'made' as well and there's
no 'special burden' on 'repair' other than the fact it sometimes costs
more to repair than to make the things to begin with, but it isn't
because of 'taxes'. It's because the dramatic reduction in
manufacturing costs comes from labor savings. Or, put another way,
productivity.
Well, I think there is a difference these days because most consumer
products seem to be made in China whereas we don't ship stuff there to
repair, as far as I know. Therefore, repair services incur the tax system
and wages of one country whereas manufacturing incurs the wages and income
tax system of a different country.


The only way to achieve your goal is to artificially increase the cost
of things to where it's more economical to repair than buy. Or, in
other words, increase poverty.
In Australia, there used to be a sales tax, on sales. Then they changed it
to a "goods and services tax" which also applied to services. The tax on
sales went down from 22% to 10% I believe, whereas the tax on repair
services went from 0% to 10% as far as I know. In both cases I am not
mentioning the income tax and indirect taxes that also apply. The
government did have some freedom to change the relative tax cost of
manufacturing and repair, and they changed it, in the direction that
discouraged repair.

Chris