Search results

That's a good question, but the answer may be simple: whatever rate it makes sense at. With a flat rate and minimal need for bureaucracy the rate can be varied with forethought and nimbleness.

No. But dithering and delaying and procrastinating were stock in trade of the Johnson, and I was merely reporting the ranter of R5 this morning. Other opinions are of course available :wink:

No. But, as you probably know, increasing the rate of tax reduces the tax take (apparently because British Talent moves abroad, and British wealth makers chose to create less wealth in order to take advantage of whatever wheezey tax loopholes exist). On the other hand, reducing the rate of tax...

Yep. Tax as you earn and tax as you buy things. Both parties need to stop using tax as a bribe or part of their culture war. It won't happen, though. Not until the influence of shit newspapers has gone. That said....we are heading towards the latter. After all, nobody who reads the Mail or...

Nailed it :bowdown:

And flat rate income tax as a % of income. Would save a fortune and as everyone pays according to their income, the same %, it is fair. Can add in some tweaks for finesse. However others violently disagreed with me on this on NSC when I suggested it, saying it is not fair that a rich may pays...