- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on August 23, 1999 at 13:09:24:

In Reply to: MA posted by Gee on August 23, 1999 at 11:52:58:

: 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.

A hammer blow against an unarmoured person is just as strong as that against someone in armour, if society gives some people some armour, and some not....

: 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).

I don't think its that either, competition forces producers to keep their prces at market level- if someone is forced to raise their prices to cover the costs of GST/VAT then their competition might hold theirs down, to take advantage. 10,000% Would probably drive most business out of.

: 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!

But petrol duty isn't a VAT, because it is a flat rate duty, not a percentile, and so long as competition remains, there will be the market setting the prices for com,modities, so VAT doesn't effect prices that way neither.

: 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.

No, but they are getting it much cheaper than Rail freight has to buy it- plus most road tax actually isn't spent on roads or transport, it just swells Treasury coffers.

: 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.

Well, its either that pr fund public broadcasting direct from taxation, which lessens the 'arms-length principle'.

: What your MA about?

"The X-Files and International Symbolic Exchange."

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup