Policy Exchange – on budget – leaves £1,600 a year worse off, while the poorest tenth will be less than £200 worse off – do they understand proportionality? £200 for someone on low income is a much larger proportion than £1,600 to someone on a very high income!
I cant find the link right now but there has been plenty of commentators showing how regressive this tax is, and how it will affect low income people much more than any other tax rise.

I guess this is what we expect from the likes of Daniel “I hate the NHS” Hannan. There are several words I could use to describe him, but they would all result in my post being deleted, so I’ll leave it at that.

So everything the Taxpayers’ Alliance say is gospel now?

What I want to know is with so much unemployment at the moment how the fuck does this disgusting piece of maggot infested shit still have a job?

@3 – So everything the Taxpayers’ Alliance say is gospel now?

God I hate the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Filthy right wing think-tank hiding behind the front of representing us good honest and over taxed tax-payers. Well I pay tax and I don’t ever remember them asking me for my opinion. I get very annoyed when they turn up on TV shows and get treated like they were an official elected body or something. Their opinion has no more validity than mine.

@4 – How does [he] still have a job?

Because he’s an MEP, so short of murder, (with him as either the perpetrator or the victim), it’s virtually impossible to get rid of him. Every single person who voted Tory in the South East at the Euro elections (you know who you are) should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I realise your comment was tongue in cheek, but I really needed to get that off my chest.

Erm, not sure I see the problem here. This is merely perspective. Mr Hannan seems to have the strange point of view that VAT is only paid by those buying things (what do you mean that it is?). The point he is arguing against is the argument that it targets the poor (so why is Labour policy not reducing VAT and replacing it with income tax then?) unfairly, which it clearly does not in theory – it is dependent on the amount you spend, not the amount you earn.

What he is not considering is the figures, which suggest that on average the second poorest decile of households pay a higher proportion of VAT than anyone else, which might be considered regressive (although I wonder whether this does not reflect saving or investment by the rich, who do not need to spend as high a proportion of their income on consumption). But the tax may be regressive according to statistics, but by applying the same to everyone cannot be called regressive in theory.

S.Pill,
“What I want to know is with so much unemployment at the moment how the fuck does this disgusting piece of maggot infested shit still have a job?”

Did you check the linked article and note Mr Hannan does not like VAT. This is not in support of VAT (which he decries as undemocratic in this case, correctly) but rather against a line of attack he considers logically incorrect.

Mind you, if your right-wing hate figures are actually quite reasonable democrats, it kind of suggests you have a lack of real hate figures to concentrate on…

@7

Oh I wouldn’t worry Watchman, I’ve plenty of right-wing hate figures to focus my ire on. Hannan is a scum-sucking leech, as proven by his NHS comments to the far-right media in the US and now his economic illiteracy on VAT. As far as I can see, he’s not worthy of the taxpayer’s wage at all.

um, Watchman

It can be called regressive in theory, because theory includes spending patterns: The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income.

what matters is whether a tax is regressive in reality. Is you defense of Hannan that’s he’s say it may be regressive in reality but it isn’t in theory?

Mr S. Pill,

Good job he was elected by a system he opposes then (the list system) to an institution he wishes to abolish (the EU). He would presumably take the opportunity to vote himself out of existence.

But my point is that you fail to understand the man. He is not a rabid right-winger, but actually a liberal with little time for government control (but a long way from being a libertarian). The famous NHS comments were not about the concept but the execution, whilst here he is debating concepts not figures. It is probably a stupid idea to set Dan Hannan up as a hate figure, when he does not hold the views you ascribe him – it makes him look reasonable and you stupid if it ever comes to a head.

There are plenty of reactionary idiots out there, so go and gun for them, or pick your fights with libertarian bloggers, who do hold the views you think Mr Hannan holds. But by spitting ill-informed venom at someone who is not important anyway (other than as one of the leading philosophers of the current government programme) you waste your time.

Of course, you could always just explain why VAT is regressive as an idea, or why the NHS as constituted is not a mistake…

“but by applying the same to everyone cannot be called regressive in theory.”

It all comes down to a) The amount someone spends on VATable goods and b) how much the increased spend is as a proportion of their income.

When taking those in to account across different salary ranges the theory is not really that relevant.

@9

Luis,

I think VAT is regressive and stupid (why tax transactions – thus making them more expensive and artificially limiting interaction), but it is not my logic I am setting forward. It was the logic in the original blog post by Mr Hannan, which Sunny failed to fully represent (by missing out the key point that the VAT rise is not a good thing). Your point actually engages with that problem at least, although my concerns about labelling a tax regressive on the basis on income and proportion of that income paid on that tax (which is the basis of all analysis I have seen) is that it does not address what happens to the rest of that income – should it not be the proportion of income spent on consumption that is analysed rather than income as a whole?

The problem with Labour mounting a strong critique of the VAT increase is that the Labour government itself increased VAT earlier this year when they ended the temporary 15% arrangement. People will quite reasonably ask why, given VAT is so regressive, they didn’t keep it at 15% and increase income taxes instead.

Almost every argument the left tries to make now can be countered by either “you did it too” or “you had 13 years and did nothing”.

This will go away in large part once the leadership election is over, But not entirely. That’s why not just a new leader, but a completely fresh approach (and one that acknowledges past failures) is needed.

Lee,

“It all comes down to a) The amount someone spends on VATable goods and b) how much the increased spend is as a proportion of their income.”

Major flaw here is that the amount someone spends on VATable goods is not the amount they spend on consumption, which is designed to be free of VAT for basic requirements (which apparently does not include adult clothing…). Since the poorest sections of society have less money to save or invest, then they spend a higher proportion on consumption anyway, and this will show up as a higher proportion of VAT compared to their income (assuming that non-VATable consumption increases at most proportionatly to income). But this is not to say that VAT itself is regressive: that would be assuming that the outcome is the cause. Rather, relative poverty means higher proportion of income spent on consumption; unless consumption patterns are radically different, this therefore means that higher proportion of income is spent on VAT.

VAT is regressive in that it reflects a structual inequality, but it is not the cause of this inequality, and in fact will be applied consistently across the board. It is only by missing out the key fact that VAT taxes consumption that you can make the argument that it is straight out regressive.

None of which to is to say VAT is not something that should be abolished.

So everything the Taxpayers’ Alliance say is gospel now?

Did I say that anywhere? I don’t think I did.

Now can we stop the knee-jerk reactionary crap?

“There’s only word for Hannan”

I dunno, Sunny, I can think of a few.

But Dan is an idioit so we can ignore his opinions.

Anyone who goes on Fox to get people to listen to him is a waste of space.

#10

“The famous NHS comments were not about the concept but the execution, whilst here he is debating concepts not figures.”

No Watchman, his objection was the entire concept. Have a look at the various videos of him on Glenn Beck and have a read of The Plan. Hannan is against the whole idea of the NHS. What’s more, when he was on Beck a year ago he justified his opinion with made up figures about NHS waiting lists and was cheered on by Beck. Incidentally the nonsense figures that Hannan used (cataracts 6 months, hip replacement 11 months, knee replacement 12 months) will be the norm in a years time, now that his nasty buddy Lansley has abolished the 18 week referral-to-treatment target. (That is, abolished the guarantee that you will be treated by the NHS within 4 1/2 months.)

But you are right about his dubious occupation. He has got himself a plum position on the Tory list in the South east which means that he has a guaranteed MEP job for life. If he had any political fire in his belly he would stand for a Westminster seat under the system favoured by his leader. But he doesn’t because he’s a sinecure loving coward.

Hannan’s comments about the NHS were like the line in the joke about the Irishman asked for directions: “Well, I wouldn’t be starting from here…..”

His point was that the US should not go down the route of heavy state involvement in healthcare.

That does not mean that he disagrees with his party on the NHS. We have ALREADY started from there….. and are some way down the road. And there’s no turning back.

#6 Agree entirely.

#15 One of the few times I will agree with you Sunny.

Labour’s reduction of VAT by 2.5% had very little impact, likewise, the Coalition’s increase by 2.5% will have little impact.

Hannan isn’t a bad guy. His NHS comment was taken out of context slightly, but as Watchmen implied, he was trying to make the point that there are BETTER, CHEAPER and MORE EFFICIENT ways to organise the health industry than the NHS.

Richard,

“But you are right about his dubious occupation. He has got himself a plum position on the Tory list in the South east which means that he has a guaranteed MEP job for life. If he had any political fire in his belly he would stand for a Westminster seat under the system favoured by his leader. But he doesn’t because he’s a sinecure loving coward.”

Might be worth remembering his co-author, friend (and conpater, for those who like technical terms) Douglas Carswell is an MP. This is not a coincidence – I think they deliberately set out to ensure their viewpoint had representation in both parliaments. And since Mr Hannan would vote to abolish his own job (we can only go on what he says, writes and continually repeats here) I doubt ‘sinecure-loving coward’ is accurate therefore.

More to the point, Richard, why is Mr Hannan, who supports free healthcare at the point of delivery (the concept of the NHS as far as I know), any worse than you with your stupid and unsupported assumptions about what waiting lists will be? I’d be quite surprised if he didn’t have evidence to back up his statements, which since waiting lists vary accross the country shouldn’t have been difficult to pick. You however are just assuming the worst on no evidence – at best, this is exactly what you accuse Mr Hannan of doing.

I note that Daniel Hannan MEP is an an anagram for: Anal? Hand Mine Pen!

What if anything this means I am not sure.

Well i just happened to come across this debate about VAT and I have to say – tories nasty? What a nasty lot most of you are with your sanctimonious and vicious attack on one person whose crime is miniscual in comparison to others. There are some of us who actually prefer to have our wage in our pocket before it is whisked away by the government and then choose what we buy. Much rather have increase in VAT and leave the control to me.

Get off your high horse about right wingers – they are probably more controlled, articulate, thoughtful than any of you could possibly be – as I said popped in, I like to debate with those who know their own flaws and weaknesses not so bigoted as to state that all right wingers are some hideous creatures. You are totally ignorant of what this means and I cant be bothered to spell it out to you.

Phew whatever next – those who like to make a profit should be hanged?

Not au revoir but goodbye

No, not “goodbye”, but “good riddance”. Get yourself back to the Daily Mail comments page or ConservativeHome where you belong ….

See what I mean – You have no idea what politics I have or what I read. I rest my case.

No-one can take your sort of comments seriously. Real intelligent people do not dismiss any views or make assumptions based on one point of view – they debate, try to influence and use proper logic. You lack any of these and are a disgrace to lovely caring liberals everywhere. Being left or right does not mean you cannot digress into other areas on certain subjects. You may agree with the right on one issue but lean a bit more to the left on another. it is not a black and white contract.

However in ALL cases sanctimony and bigotry are horrible unnattractive traits………..

Hang on a minute!!! You said “Not au revoir but goodbye” in your post, which I assumed meant you weren’t coming back. But then here you are. Are you a sucker for punishment, or just lacking a sense of humour, (a regular trait in right wing people I often find)?

But I never left in the first place – however I am now – never to return – you still haven’t come up with a single, worthwhile arguement about anything.

Goodbye.

So, you randomly post some sanctimonious drivel to a thread that was finished and done with three weeks ago, get offended at a little light hearted goading, and then complain that no-one is debating with you? If you wanted a discussion you should have been here three weeks ago when it was current. The only reason I’m responding to you is;
a) I’m in an odd mood today and thought I’d have some fun and
b) I accidentally left the “inform me of updates to this thread” option switched on. To be honest I’m probably the only person on this site even reading your posts. Everyone else is on today’s threads.

If you are really serious about debating with the people who populate this site then head to the home page where there are a few interesting threads going on at the moment, Cameron distorting crime figures and the relaunched BNP Youth movement spring to mind.

Otherwise, take a chill pill mate and calm down, you’ll burst a blood vessel.

That’s better
I’m not in the least bit angry or offended. We Italians always seem more dramatic than we actually are!
I literally came across it as i was searching for something else and couldnt believe how nasty some of the comments are – usually descriptions of people who have committed a great crime.
So many people that this sort of vitriol could be directed at, like murderers for instance.
I wasn’t commenting for anyone in particular to read. i dont normally do forums so thought I’d try it hence the name poppedin.
The debate will come up again so it’s here in readiness for the next stream.
Wish you well and hope your odd mood brings you an interesting day!