|
|
|
|
|
by miscreanity
2805 days ago
|
|
So complicate the tax issue which increases costs elsewhere and contribute to government managed funds that prove inept? Taking funds from a farmer growing crops successfully and giving them to the one nextdoor who still hasn't been able to get a seed to sprout is a textbook definition of idiocy, not to mention theft. None of that changes the fact that tax breaks will be greater in absolute numbers for wealthier individuals than for those earning less. Play games to fudge numbers so all is not equal as much as you want - those with resources avoid participating in socialistic wealth redistribution. No income tax is far simpler. Do you know what the cost for enforcement of individual income tax is? Hint: think astronomical. Go after about 140 million individuals vs working with approximately 28 million businesses? Do you think business or individuals are more professional? Who had the bright idea to create such a logistical nightmare? You can keep working with an insane system if you want but people with resources do what people without resources would eventually do in the face of direct taxation, whether financially or physically - leave. |
|
I do know what the cost of enforcement of individual income tax is, at least in a sane system with effective witholding and most people not submitting stupid tax returns every year: about 1.25% of money raised (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtr..., table 7).
And the simpler you make the system the cheaper it is (this is NOT flat rates - calculating graduated taxes on income is basically free) - you can see this from the "National Insurance Contributions" line on the same table, which is an effectively zero-complexity additional income tax which costs a third of a percentage point of money raised.
So not astronomical. Really quite efficient.