On 18/02/2015 20:32, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 18/02/2015 15:55, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 18/02/2015 10:54, Capitol wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:54:09 +0000, Capitol wrote:

The sooner we replace VAT the better. An administrative nightmare.

You ever run a VAT-reg business? If your accounting software's even
quarter-way competent, it's a piece of ****.

Yes. VAT is an unneccessary administrative nightmare. Purchase tax
required a workforce of 30 people, ...

We had that many in one office of one importer to deal with it. It was
far more complicated than VAT.


You did, but HMRC didn't. Importers/exporters always have a more
compliced life. I know, I've dealt with it.

So, your proposal is that we should replace a very simple system with
one that is far more complex, in order to put a large number of people
out of work and that this is somehow a good thing.


No, my suggestion is that we should put a lot of pen pushers and
civil servants out of work by using a much simpler tax system.

So you do want to put a large number of people out of work and introduce
an undefined tax system that is somehow simpler than having just three
rates of tax.

--
Colin Bignell