- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on August 23, 1999 at 11:52:58:

In Reply to: Ahhhh.... posted by Red Deathy on August 20, 1999 at 22:21:45:

: But its the proprtion that actually indicates how much sting is held in a tax, hence with a poll tax, if its set at a flat 200 for everyone, then them as only have 250 are badly stung. Regressive taxes hurt teh poor most.

A hammer blow might only break your finger, but it kills a mouse. Still the same hammer blow however much I agree with its consequences.

: No, because a sales tax doesn't put prices up, they can't traise the price because competition forces them to hold it down- none of the VAT hikes have increased inflation over here.

Think about that a moment. A 10,000% VAT rate wouldnt raise prices? Then appreciate that sales taxes are levied to skim and 'get away with it' they raise prices by negating increasing efficiency (lower prices), and in some cases the raise is more notable (petrol).

: Most producers can handle the profit, if they can't they go bust, and other producers remain who can pay the profit, and take over the rest of the market. producers can't just slap on a mark up- its defined by the actual *objective* tendancies of the market.

It can raise the prices by squeezing out said competitors. Some politicians no doubt claim that VAT keeps firms efficient by forcing more cost cutting. In some fields (petrol) the tax is so much higher than the cost of the product that competition might be intense, margins miniscule but the price high. They cant come down to what prices would be without tax. In the UK it would be about -20p a liter!

: Thats not VAT, thats a duty. Further, it has to be noted that 'Private Transport' and road freight are heavilly and silently subsidised-

By private and companies paying said taxes and road taxes and insurance tax, all the VATs they pay on car parts and maintenance can also be said to be part of it etc etc. theyre hardly getting a free ride.

: I believe if you disable your capacity to recieve BBC the courts buy that now- however, the Public Service Broadcasting System has prevented the worst depravations of the US market, and actually protected a quasi-pluralist culture (strangely the BBC is an important part of my Masters dissertation right now...;) )- because the Law of Central dendancy means that marginal voices are easilly lost from commercial television.

None of which is an excuse to impose a TV tax. A straight bill for watching the BBC is sufficient. To even demand that you pay to disclude the BBC from your reception is an insult.

What your MA about?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup