"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 02:06:13 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 23:17:36 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 19:05:17 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 21:50, bert wrote:
In article , James Wilkinson
writes
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 23:24:50 +0100, bert
wrote:


Older people actually make a net contribution to the economy of
about
£58bn per year.

From what? They don't work.
http://www.goldagepensioners.com/research


Employers NI is no longer paid once you reach state pension age,
even if you keep on working. Since NI is just tax with a
cuddly name (and has been for decades), this loophole should be
shut.

It's high time that NI is merged with income tax, with
proper bands. THis would do away with all the nasty side-effects
of earning a bit more but ending up worse off. It would also
claw back some of the eye-wateringly excessive pensions that
14,000 retired civil servants are trousering. This group has
climbed the greasy pole and ended up with salaries of £100,000+
and in quite a few cases £200,000+ and are getting pensions of
£50,000+ per year. Many are still working yet once past 65 they
don't pay NI.

Agreed. In fact ALL taxes should be in income tax.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Makes a lot more sense to pay for roads using a tax on the fuel etc.

No, because that's twice as much trouble to collect.

It costs **** all to collect when its done on at the wholesale/refinery
level.

********. Every single business in the UK is having to do paperwork.

And wouldn't have to if it was charged at the wholesale/refinery level.

And the paperwork is completely automatic
anyway, that's what we have computers for.

And the tax office is having to process it and check for cheating.

Trivially easy to do that when done at the wholesale/refinery level.

Those that are richer will also be spending more,

But none of that spending will be taxed at all with just an income tax

They already paid the tax when they earned the money.

Not when they show no income they don't.

and the richer wont be paying any income tax either because
it is so easy for them to avoid showing any income.

Then close the loopholes.

Not even possible.

Apart from being fairer,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Why do you believe it's not fair?

Because it is so easy for the richer to avoid showing any income.

Much harder for the average wags slave to do that.

And it makes no sense for those whose entire income
is benefits to be paying income tax on what they receive
from the govt because that is in one pocket and straight
of the other.

They'd be below the lowest income tax bracket, as they currently are.

So they pay no tax at all and use most of the services
that govt provides. What is fair about that. With the
current system they do pay tax on what they consume.

And with my scheme, they'd stop having to pay VAT on stuff (which is as
you said, is in one pocket and straight off the other.")

So they wouldn't pay a penny in tax but are main users of govt services.

What is fair about that ?

All tax based n the ability to pay.

Not even possible with income tax.

It's the easiest way. How much do you earn? Then you pay x amount of
tax.

But so easy to claim you don't earn anything and pay no tax at all with the
rich.

Nothing even remotely like fair about that.

there would be so much less paperwork for businesses and the tax
office.

But is trivially easy to avoid showing any income, particularly with
businesses.

Most people aren't a business.

But you don't need to be a business to avoid showing any income.

Don't they have PAYE in Australia?

Corse we do, but the rich don't pay it, just like there. You
seriously believe that Liz and Phil and Big Ears pay PAYE ?