Can The State Increase Taxes

[CarbonBasedLifeform]

total tax revenue on uk gdp is currently 39%.

brown & co have bailed out the financial sector at a cost currently exceeding £1 TRILLION.

this will have to be paid for by increased taxes or public spending cuts or a combination of the two.

we have had higher base rates of taxation in the past than we have now, but a large number of stealth taxes have been introduced to ensure that treasury income has remained remarkably stable.

the problem with this is that once introduced the stealth taxes are unlikeley to be abolished.

this gives the state the possibility to rase the base rates of taxation and argue that they have previously been set at these higher levels (TRUE BUT MINUS THE STEALTH TAXES !!!) and therefore increase tax revenues beyond previous levels as a proportion of gdp.

my question is this will this see revenues increase? there is obviously a tipping point at wich tax increases have a negetive effect on tax revenue, as consumer spending will decrease leading to knock on effect for businesses ,more job losses therefore less revenue from businesses and loss of income tax from employees made redundant as a result, also the corresponding increase in benefit payments to these extra unemployed plus the fact that they will no longer be able to consume as much after unemployment leading to more business failure etc and on and on.

i have a feeling that the state has already been taxing us plebs at the optimum return rate ( why wouldn,t they?)

so how are they going to pay for all these bailouts and state borrowing?

seems like the only option is savings in public spending, but will tis not produce job losses and the above problems?

i think we are f***ed.

printy printy?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

total tax revenue on uk gdp is currently 39%.

brown & co have bailed out the financial sector at a cost currently exceeding £1 TRILLION.

this will have to be paid for by increased taxes or public spending cuts or a combination of the two.

we have had higher base rates of taxation in the past than we have now, but a large number of stealth taxes have been introduced to ensure that treasury income has remained remarkably stable.

the problem with this is that once introduced the stealth taxes are unlikeley to be abolished.

this gives the state the possibility to rase the base rates of taxation and argue that they have previously been set at these higher levels (TRUE BUT MINUS THE STEALTH TAXES !!!) and therefore increase tax revenues beyond previous levels as a proportion of gdp.

my question is this will this see revenues increase? there is obviously a tipping point at wich tax increases have a negetive effect on tax revenue, as consumer spending will decrease leading to knock on effect for businesses ,more job losses therefore less revenue from businesses and loss of income tax from employees made redundant as a result, also the corresponding increase in benefit payments to these extra unemployed plus the fact that they will no longer be able to consume as much after unemployment leading to more business failure etc and on and on.

i have a feeling that the state has already been taxing us plebs at the optimum return rate ( why wouldn,t they?)

so how are they going to pay for all these bailouts and state borrowing?

seems like the only option is savings in public spending, but will tis not produce job losses and the above problems?

i think we are f***ed.

printy printy?

We passed that point a long long time ago.

[XswampyX]

Yep, we can print it and then borrow it at a later date. So we are borrowing from out future borrowings which will be paid back at a much later date after we have paid back our borrowings from today, our future borrowings (because we will be in the future) and then our future future borrowings(that we have printed today).

This will all happen when things are better and I am dead.

[Injin]

total tax revenue on uk gdp is currently 39%.

brown & co have bailed out the financial sector at a cost currently exceeding £1 TRILLION.

this will have to be paid for by increased taxes or public spending cuts or a combination of the two.

we have had higher base rates of taxation in the past than we have now, but a large number of stealth taxes have been introduced to ensure that treasury income has remained remarkably stable.

the problem with this is that once introduced the stealth taxes are unlikeley to be abolished.

this gives the state the possibility to rase the base rates of taxation and argue that they have previously been set at these higher levels (TRUE BUT MINUS THE STEALTH TAXES !!!) and therefore increase tax revenues beyond previous levels as a proportion of gdp.

my question is this will this see revenues increase? there is obviously a tipping point at wich tax increases have a negetive effect on tax revenue, as consumer spending will decrease leading to knock on effect for businesses ,more job losses therefore less revenue from businesses and loss of income tax from employees made redundant as a result, also the corresponding increase in benefit payments to these extra unemployed plus the fact that they will no longer be able to consume as much after unemployment leading to more business failure etc and on and on.

i have a feeling that the state has already been taxing us plebs at the optimum return rate ( why wouldn,t they?)

so how are they going to pay for all these bailouts and state borrowing?

seems like the only option is savings in public spending, but will tis not produce job losses and the above problems?

i think we are f***ed.

printy printy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The modern state is well aware of the laffer curve problem - but the thinking has been that if they can not "tax" but "charge for services" by basically dividing up their take in hundreds of tiny bites that amount to a huge chunk all told the problem can be avoided.

So..instead of taxing at 76% or whatever it is they need, they'll tax at 45% and make the rest of it up with licences, fines, inflation, parking tickets etc etc

Guess what?

It's ********. The problem the laffer curve describes is basic disentivisation of activity. If the wealth was repeatedly destroyed by an unavoidable hurricane, the same fall off in effort would occur because why make what you can never keep?

And of course people simply aren't that dumb either.

Printy printy, printy printy - until boom.

[CarbonBasedLifeform]

We passed that point a long long time ago.

yes i know we have entered the printy printy stage, but they have not tried to increase taxes or enforce public spending cuts on a large scale yet have they.

so you didn,t really try to answer the question.

[CarbonBasedLifeform]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The modern state is well aware of the laffer curve problem - but the thinking has been that if they can not "tax" but "charge for services" by basically dividing up their take in hundreds of tiny bites that amount to a huge chunk all told the problem can be avoided.

So..instead of taxing at 76% or whatever it is they need, they'll tax at 45% and make the rest of it up with licences, fines, inflation, parking tickets etc etc

Guess what?

It's ********. The problem the laffer curve describes is basic disentivisation of activity. If the wealth was repeatedly destroyed by an unavoidable hurricane, the same fall off in effort would occur because why make what you can never keep?

And of course people simply aren't that dumb either.

Printy printy, printy printy - until boom.

so the answer to the question is no

printy printy it is then

[CarbonBasedLifeform]

Yep, we can print it and then borrow it at a later date. So we are borrowing from out future borrowings which will be paid back at a much later date after we have paid back our borrowings from today, our future borrowings (because we will be in the future) and then our future future borrowings(that we have printed today).

This will all happen when things are better and I am dead.

do you live in number 11 by any chance?

[XswampyX]

Who wants that job?

If they can't put taxes up, they will have to invent new ones....... or rigorously enforce the ones they have, like copyright protection (think file sharing), tax havens (are being clamped down on now) and tax avoidance. (tut tut.)

A new tax I would like to see is 90% on second homes.

[mightytharg]

yes i know we have entered the printy printy stage, but they have not tried to increase taxes

Get help.

60% income tax rate?

[Mick Dundee]

I think an increase in Income Tax is a foregone conclusion, however I dont think any party would be publishing any decision before the next General Election. I also think that VAT will increase to fall in line with the Eurozone also, but again not before the the Election either.

[Guest absolutezero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The modern state is well aware of the laffer curve problem - but the thinking has been that if they can not "tax" but "charge for services" by basically dividing up their take in hundreds of tiny bites that amount to a huge chunk all told the problem can be avoided.

So..instead of taxing at 76% or whatever it is they need, they'll tax at 45% and make the rest of it up with licences, fines, inflation, parking tickets etc etc

Guess what?

It's ********. The problem the laffer curve describes is basic disentivisation of activity. If the wealth was repeatedly destroyed by an unavoidable hurricane, the same fall off in effort would occur because why make what you can never keep?

And of course people simply aren't that dumb either.

Printy printy, printy printy - until boom.

I'm surprised Injin believes the Laffer Curve exists as he doesn't believe much else exists....

From the wikipedia article:

The Laffer curve is an economic concept used to illustrate the theory that increases in the rate of taxation do not necessarily increase tax revenue.

This isn't a theory like the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity.

This is an economic theory and has no basis in fact.

Economics is not a science.

I fell out with economics when I read a teaxtbook about it once.

The first sentence said something along the lines of "Economic principles assume that people behave rationally."

I closed the book at that point.

[the end is a bit nigher]

The best way to increase tax revenue is to introduce a lower flat rate. They won't do it though because of the jealousy and greed of the lower paid.

[Injin]

I think an increase in Income Tax is a foregone conclusion, however I dont think any party would be publishing any decision before the next General Election. I also think that VAT will increase to fall in line with the Eurozone also, but again not before the the Election either.

The point is you can increase income tax (in fact any tax at all) and beyond a certain point you'll actually get less revenue.

[Injin]

Who wants that job?

If they can't put taxes up, they will have to invent new ones....... or rigorously enforce the ones they have, like copyright protection (think file sharing), tax havens (are being clamped down on now) and tax avoidance. (tut tut.)

A new tax I would like to see is 90% on second homes.

Again, they do that and they'll get less revenue.

[Injin]

I'm surprised Injin believes the Laffer Curve exists as he doesn't believe much else exists....

From the wikipedia article:

This isn't a theory like the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity.

This is an economic theory and has no basis in fact.

Economics is not a science.

I fell out with economics when I read a teaxtbook about it once.

The first sentence said something along the lines of "Economic principles assume that people behave rationally."

I closed the book at that point.

You were right to do so.

Shame you didn't open another one that was based on something more sensible though, eh?

[Guest absolutezero]

You were right to do so.

Shame you didn't open another one that was based on something more sensible though, eh?

I picked one up about parallel universes once.... Ones where countries and forests don't exist and tax is really theft.

How I laughed.

I might even read it one day.