<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tax Incidence Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/</link>
	<description>It is all obvious or trivial except...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 06:14:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zorro</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8797</link>
		<dc:creator>Zorro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:39:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8797</guid>
		<description>Mark, I normally agree with you 100% but I fail to understand this. Can you explain why &quot;quite clearly the taxes are borne by the vendor.&quot;? In simple words please, I&#039;m just a simple tory!

Z.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark, I normally agree with you 100% but I fail to understand this. Can you explain why &#8220;quite clearly the taxes are borne by the vendor.&#8221;? In simple words please, I&#8217;m just a simple tory!</p>
<p>Z.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlacquesJacquesShellacques</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8794</link>
		<dc:creator>BlacquesJacquesShellacques</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8794</guid>
		<description>Mr. Wadsworth, you are wrong. I don&#039;t know what you do for a living but I run a small building and development company, in, you know, the real world, like.

I assure you I do everything in my power to pass on all my costs and a huge profit to all of my business associates including both employees and customers. Only an idiot would do otherwise, whataya think I do this for, my health?

Often I am successful in passing on costs, including taxes and tax increases, to the employees. I don&#039;t lower wages to a particular employee., but I raise them as little as possible and sometimes I lay off an employee and hire new ones at lower rates.

I would far rather pass on costs to staff than customers.  Did I read somewhere that the costs get allocated between staff and customers 70-30? That seems about right to me. Staff have much less power than customers, who can go elsewhere more easily than staff.

Do you people have any idea of how a business really runs, or do you make this stuff up out of moonbeams and thin air?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Wadsworth, you are wrong. I don&#8217;t know what you do for a living but I run a small building and development company, in, you know, the real world, like.</p>
<p>I assure you I do everything in my power to pass on all my costs and a huge profit to all of my business associates including both employees and customers. Only an idiot would do otherwise, whataya think I do this for, my health?</p>
<p>Often I am successful in passing on costs, including taxes and tax increases, to the employees. I don&#8217;t lower wages to a particular employee., but I raise them as little as possible and sometimes I lay off an employee and hire new ones at lower rates.</p>
<p>I would far rather pass on costs to staff than customers.  Did I read somewhere that the costs get allocated between staff and customers 70-30? That seems about right to me. Staff have much less power than customers, who can go elsewhere more easily than staff.</p>
<p>Do you people have any idea of how a business really runs, or do you make this stuff up out of moonbeams and thin air?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Wadsworth</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8756</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Wadsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8756</guid>
		<description>To be fair, the Tories are just as stupid. They have often said that higher Council Tax and Stamp Duty Land Tax &#039;hit the first time buyer&#039; when quite clearly the taxes are borne by the vendor.

In the case in hand, corporation tax is basically income tax paid on behalf of shareholders. If this rate were the same as flat-rate income tax deducted from salaries, we would arrive at a least-worst position.

To argue that corporation tax hits employees is stupid as well. Seeing as employees work for their net wages, an increase in income tax means that corporate profits go down, so it&#039;s six of one half a dozen of the other AFAICS.

And neither tax is as bad as VAT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair, the Tories are just as stupid. They have often said that higher Council Tax and Stamp Duty Land Tax &#8216;hit the first time buyer&#8217; when quite clearly the taxes are borne by the vendor.</p>
<p>In the case in hand, corporation tax is basically income tax paid on behalf of shareholders. If this rate were the same as flat-rate income tax deducted from salaries, we would arrive at a least-worst position.</p>
<p>To argue that corporation tax hits employees is stupid as well. Seeing as employees work for their net wages, an increase in income tax means that corporate profits go down, so it&#8217;s six of one half a dozen of the other AFAICS.</p>
<p>And neither tax is as bad as VAT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkS</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8748</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8748</guid>
		<description>I reckon a psychologist would have a field day examining the people behind TJN. They were obviously abused or bullied by rich kids at school. Either that or they&#039;re evangelical types with a passion for train spotting and collecting used bus tickets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I reckon a psychologist would have a field day examining the people behind TJN. They were obviously abused or bullied by rich kids at school. Either that or they&#8217;re evangelical types with a passion for train spotting and collecting used bus tickets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Bennett</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8747</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8747</guid>
		<description>I wonder if any of these fools thinks that lease on buildings and purchase of raw materials are not paid by customers. Tax is just another line in &#039;cost of sales&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if any of these fools thinks that lease on buildings and purchase of raw materials are not paid by customers. Tax is just another line in &#8216;cost of sales&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dearieme</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8739</link>
		<dc:creator>dearieme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8739</guid>
		<description>cigar-puffing, top-hatted, champagne-swilling, tache-twiddling, servant-girl-bonking, monocle-manipulating rentier swine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>cigar-puffing, top-hatted, champagne-swilling, tache-twiddling, servant-girl-bonking, monocle-manipulating rentier swine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GeoffH</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8738</link>
		<dc:creator>GeoffH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8738</guid>
		<description>&quot;The idea that the tax incidence might be shifted, in some circumstances, from shareholders to workers or consumers,&quot;

It&#039;s not that taxes on business &#039;might be shifted&#039; - that&#039;s a sleight of hand argument, typical of the TJN shysters - but that although the Company Finance Director might sign the cheque to the Revenue, the funds to back the cheque have come from employees, customers, suppliers and shareholders and nobody else.

The fact that they don&#039;t recognise this tells you all you need to know about them.  Marxists , the lot of &#039;em.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The idea that the tax incidence might be shifted, in some circumstances, from shareholders to workers or consumers,&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not that taxes on business &#8216;might be shifted&#8217; &#8211; that&#8217;s a sleight of hand argument, typical of the TJN shysters &#8211; but that although the Company Finance Director might sign the cheque to the Revenue, the funds to back the cheque have come from employees, customers, suppliers and shareholders and nobody else.</p>
<p>The fact that they don&#8217;t recognise this tells you all you need to know about them.  Marxists , the lot of &#8216;em.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GeoffH</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8731</link>
		<dc:creator>GeoffH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8731</guid>
		<description>Lord, what a gruesome lot the TJN are.  At root the only idea they have is; Everyone, companies and individuals, should pay more tax.

Any system that can currently - and even more so after tomorrow - take more than 50% of each additional pound earned can never b e just.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lord, what a gruesome lot the TJN are.  At root the only idea they have is; Everyone, companies and individuals, should pay more tax.</p>
<p>Any system that can currently &#8211; and even more so after tomorrow &#8211; take more than 50% of each additional pound earned can never b e just.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kay Tie</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8729</link>
		<dc:creator>Kay Tie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8729</guid>
		<description>&quot;cigar-puffing, top-hatted, champagne-swilling rentier swine.&quot;

You left out the waxed moustaches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;cigar-puffing, top-hatted, champagne-swilling rentier swine.&#8221;</p>
<p>You left out the waxed moustaches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dearieme</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/comment-page-1/#comment-8725</link>
		<dc:creator>dearieme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/2008/03/10/tax-incidence-again/#comment-8725</guid>
		<description>Suppose that the tax incidence is not shifted from shareholders to workers or consumers.  It still leaves company taxes being a lousy idea, since you should obviously instead tax the shareholders directly, thus imposing suitable tax rates variously on charities, widows and orphans, and cigar-puffing, top-hatted, champagne-swilling rentier swine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suppose that the tax incidence is not shifted from shareholders to workers or consumers.  It still leaves company taxes being a lousy idea, since you should obviously instead tax the shareholders directly, thus imposing suitable tax rates variously on charities, widows and orphans, and cigar-puffing, top-hatted, champagne-swilling rentier swine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 297/297 objects using disk: basic

Served from: timworstall.com @ 2012-05-24 07:43:07 -->
