|
double nine posted:this was a comment by rutte re: scrapping the dividend tax (to keep multinationals in NL) Actually it was a comment by rutte re: scrapping the dividend tax (to give more money to rich people, also gently caress you)
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Actually it was a comment by rutte re: scrapping the dividend tax (to give more money to rich people, also gently caress you) potatoes, tomatoes, nepotism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Does scrapping the dividend tax mean only abolishing the WHT aspect or does totally exempt dividends from being taxed income?
Randler fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Goons: "Abolish the sales tax! It's regressive and companies will always pass on the losses to consumers" Goons, also: "Let's have higher corporate tax rates! This will tax the rich and the companies will never be able to pass on the costs to consumers"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Goons: "Abolish the sales tax! It's regressive and companies will always pass on the losses to consumers" those arguments are not as self contradictary as you apparently think they are? Also perhaps you should replace "goons" with "respected economists" or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:those arguments are not as self contradictary as you apparently think they are? Actual views of economists, being the complete opposite of goons: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/why-economists-love-consumption-taxes/article1381083/ quote:An Economy Lab reader recently wrote: "I often find economic explanations simplistic rather than simplified. In that vein, could I ask to have someone explain why GST/HST/VAT is supposed to be a more efficient tax than Corporate/Personal income tax?" https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate quote:Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate) https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/tax-policy quote:Economists across the ideological spectrum agree about tax policy to a surprising extent. Can we get there from here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Actual views of economists, being the complete opposite of goons: you quoted one economist, a fantasy piece from a rag written by tory children, and an NPR piece quoting a libertarian. It still didn't back up your argument, but thanks for the Gordon piece I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Goons: "Abolish the sales tax! It's regressive and companies will always pass on the losses to consumers" If you tax corporations instead of consumers (in the right way), you disincentivise corporate hoarding of money and increase economic activity by making sure profits get spent on things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The main interest of the VAT is that it's also paid on imported products. So it doesn't give a disadvantage to local production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Actual views of economists, being the complete opposite of goons: What a load of loving bollocks. e.g. Corporation tax is on profits so by definition it isn't levied on companies that reinvest their surplus. One might also go further and say that certain sectors of the economy might produce surpluses that might not need much further investment, and so those surpluses would be better invested elsewhere in the economy. Hmmm, how might we achieve that? Edit: In fact, because economic agents are *so rational* profits are by definition the excess surplus beyond what should be rationally reinvested in a business. Ha ha. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Economists love the VAT from a purely technical standpoint because it's one of the most in-elastic taxes possible right alongside property tax. No one can opt out of buying food for instance. Economists then also hate the VAT for it's grander social implications. These are not contradictory positions academically speaking even if it may sound so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Economists love the VAT from a purely technical standpoint because it's one of the most in-elastic taxes possible right alongside property tax. No one can opt out of buying food for instance. Economists then also hate the VAT for it's grander social implications. Most food is zero rated FYI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Most food is zero rated FYI. For that very reason.  (Most nations has it pegged between 6% and 20+ for food, the UK and a few selects others being the big exceptions in the EU)
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I get 2 tiers of VAT, 9.5 and 22%, and there's no exempt. Food is 9.5, along with water, medicine, non-profit apartments, and similar things. Then everything else is 22.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:For that very reason. Oops sorry I thought I was replying in UKMT for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Germany is 0% for special protected professions and small business owners, 7% for basic necessities and 19% for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:Germany is 0% for special protected professions and small business owners, 7% for basic necessities and 19% for everything else. Medical services - and other stuff you're probably thinking of - are actually VAT exempt, which is actually different from being zero-rated (i.e. taxed at 0%). Most relevant point being, that you cannot deduct input-tax and it makes things more difficult for your suppliers. Which is, coincidentally, also the reason a lot of small business owners opt-out of their tax exemption. It's also the reason the British tampon producers were pushing a "The EU hates women" narrative to make their products zero-rated a while back instead of just lobbying parliament to make them tax exempt. Fakeedit: There are also goods and services not subject to tax, which are different from tax-exemptions and zero-rates both. VAT is fun like that.
Randler fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You'd think the Germans would be able to keep meticulous records on some poo poo no matter how impractical. Unfortunately, German records have this weird tendency to end up shreddered when they are to be reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:you quoted one economist, a fantasy piece from a rag written by tory children, and an NPR piece quoting a libertarian. As opposed to all the economists you quoted? Lord of the Llamas posted:What a load of loving bollocks. e.g. Corporation tax is on profits so by definition it isn't levied on companies that reinvest their surplus. I know there are all kinds of investment exemptions in corporate taxation, but given your  comment on how corporation tax isn't levied on companies that reinvest their surplus, I'm just wondering, do you know what a profit is? If a company buys a factory, how does it affect their P&L?Lord of the Llamas posted:Most food is zero rated FYI. That's also a really dumb policy that favors the rich more than the poor (because the rich buy more food) and creates all sorts of distortions. There should be one band and then redistributive policies if needed. But of course, the government tends to prefer 0-cash policies, even if they're bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:That's also a really dumb policy that favors the rich more than the poor because the rich buy more food hahahahha holy lmao do you listen to yourself when you speak? like there's a preview reply button on this forums just use it lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
I Love Annie May posted:hahahahha holy lmao do you listen to yourself when you speak? like there's a preview reply button on this forums just use it lol You actually think the poor spend more money on food than the rich? Are you retarded?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You actually think the poor spend more money on food than the rich? Are you retarded? You are retarded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
As well as pedantic, anal retentive assfuckface, but besides that I'm having a hard time actually believing you seriously do not grasp the concept of relativity, instead being intentionally dense. So maybe GP gets off on everybody thinking he's an intellectual buttplug? Idk
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
lollontee posted:As well as pedantic, anal retentive assfuckface, but besides that I'm having a hard time actually believing you seriously do not grasp the concept of relativity, instead being intentionally dense. So maybe GP gets off on everybody thinking he's an intellectual buttplug? Idk Ok, so now that you accept that a VAT cut on food mainly saves money for rich people (or basically not poor people), let's see if we can logically walk you through the next steps of why a lower VAT band is a bad idea. Let's say revenue because of the lower band falls by €1 billion. That means consumers have €1 billion more, divided so that the poorest 20% get let's say 14% of the savings. That's completely hypothetical, the only point there is that they get less than their "proportional" share because they spend less money than the rich. But government revenue is down €1 billion. What percentage of that €1 billion do you think would normally have gone to the poorest 20%?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You actually think the poor spend more money on food than the rich? Are you retarded? you just don't get it do you? it kinda makes me want to spell it out for you but gently caress you wouldn't get something a grade schooler would understand lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You actually think the poor spend more money on food than the rich? Are you retarded? Combnied they do as there is an upper limit on consumption per person, and there's a hell of a lot more poor people than rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:What percentage of that €1 billion do you think would normally have gone to the poorest 20%? All of it or none it, what's your loving point? I'm calling you a retard for thinking that VAT hurts the rich more than the poor and none of your pretend budgetary genius is going to change that. Like holy gently caress are you ideologically blinkered or what
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Ok, so now that you accept that a VAT cut on food mainly saves money for rich people (or basically not poor people), let's see if we can logically walk you through the next steps of why a lower VAT band is a bad idea. Having a lower VAT on food saves money for both poor people and rich people. For poorer people, food is a big part of their budget so they save a lot of tax (as a % of income), which helps them a lot. Richer people might spend more money on food in absolute terms, but they spend a lot less relatively to their total income. The tax they save on food might reduce their VAT burden on an average yacht-buying month from 20% to 19.8% Some of the money that could be raised from the rich by taxing food at a higher rate might find its way to welfare programs for the poor, but it's extremely unlikely that it would outweigh the big benefits they (the poor) currently enjoy with the lower rate. poty fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:That's also a really dumb policy that favors the rich more than the poor (because the rich buy more food) and creates all sorts of distortions. There should be one band and then redistributive policies if needed. But of course, the government tends to prefer 0-cash policies, even if they're bad. Poor people spend near 100% of their income on food, rent, and bills. Increasing VAT on food will make them more miserable. Rich people only spend a tiny portion of their income on these basic things, even though they buy more expensive food, and the places they rent are hundreds of times more expensive than poor people's lodgings. That's because they're rich. So, even with a 2000% VAT on food, you're not going to get enough rich people money to pay for the soup kitchens you'll need for the poor (and middle class). Don't be absurd. It's more interesting to tax more the kind of stuff only rich people buy, like yachts and bizjets. But of course then they'll just create shell companies in the Isle of Man to defraud the VAT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/astroehlein/status/929661882054660097 err, Poland, what are you doing? Cut it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
double nine posted:https://twitter.com/astroehlein/status/929661882054660097 the piss, uh, PIS party are trying to install themselves as eternal rulers of authoritarian right wing agristate Poland is what's happening
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
It would be nice if the EU had a proper constitution that would ban things like that. Or at least unified media that would call it the stupid loving idea it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:It would be nice if the EU had a proper constitution that would ban things like that. no you see it would be unfair to call a significant minority of the electorate stupid fuckers just because they're stupid fuckers
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:It would be nice if the EU had a proper constitution that would ban things like that. "Unified media" sounds like it would be terrible. Some Rupert Murdoch or Sheldon Adelson would buy it and usher in an eternal era of reactionary brainwashing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Unified media" sounds like it would be terrible. Some Rupert Murdoch or Sheldon Adelson would buy it and usher in an eternal era of reactionary brainwashing. I suppose. There still should be some way for people from other parts of the EU to show their disapproval. Plus lot of the media is already owned by shitheads anyway, with some exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You actually think the poor spend more money on food than the rich? Are you retarded? % double nine posted:err, Poland, what are you doing? Cut it out. I was in Krakow a couple of months ago. Beautiful city, great square, good food, nice people, except for the roving gangs of uniformed paramilitary types and gatherings of young men with more Polish flags than people. Seriously, Poland isn't going in a healthy direction. Oh also ask me about the white power graffiti in the town of Oświęcim. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
If I was an in-any-way liberal/modern/reasonable Pole I'd be extremely happy that they're in the EU right now. Without the EU's moderating influence both Poland and Hungary would both be on a fast track to right-wing extremist governments running hog wild with their countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Blut posted:If I was an in-any-way liberal/modern/reasonable Pole I'd be extremely happy that they're in the EU right now. Without the EU's moderating influence both Poland and Hungary would both be on a fast track to right-wing extremist governments running hog wild with their countries. As apposed to the moderately fast track currently? (I get what you're saying)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
poty posted:Having a lower VAT on food saves money for both poor people and rich people. The only way for the bolded statement to be true is if the government spends more money on the rich than the poor (in absolute terms). The only way a tax cut with the properties that a lower VAT-base for food has will help the poor is if the alternative is even more money being spent on the rich. The relative spending on food is a complete red herring, it doesn't make sense to look at this question in relative terms. Yes, a lower VAT-base increases the relative spending power of poor people more than rich people. However, government spending also disproportionately benefits poor people, and it can actually be targeted towards poor people (though most left-wingers here like to classify everyone up to the upper middle class as poor*, and some politicians do too, making it a bit less effective) *some UKMT guys were calling people in the 90th percentile of income poor, as an example Cat Mattress posted:Poor people spend near 100% of their income on food, rent, and bills. Increasing VAT on food will make them more miserable. In your nonsensical rant, you managed to (accidentally) give two reasons for why VAT is a good type of tax: It's almost impossible to avoid on most items (such as food or lodging) Rich people are the best-placed to avoid most taxes (however, other than on weird stuff like yachts and jets, they mostly can't)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You actually think the poor spend more money on food than the rich? Are you retarded? In the US, the highest income group spend around 7 times less of their income on food compared to the lowest income group. For the poorest, food can be an expense that consumes as much as 40% of their income. Changes in expense will be huge for that group, will for the rich (spending around 5%) it is irrelevant. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58372
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 14:47
|
|