How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more
savings!

Simples

In message , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:02:58 +0100, Gordon H
wrote:

In message , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)

I didn't vote for him either ;-)

I think it's daft to have separate taxation and benefits systems. It's
less effecient a more prone to error.

Define a minimum income. Anything above this gets taxed. If income
is lower the rest is made up by applying a negative taxation rate.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 16/06/2010 10:58, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:02:58 +0100, Gordon H
wrote:

In , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)

I didn't vote for him either ;-)

I think it's daft to have separate taxation and benefits systems. It's
less effecient a more prone to error.

Define a minimum income. Anything above this gets taxed. If income
is lower the rest is made up by applying a negative taxation rate.

Trouble is, there's no incentive to work if you get an income
regardless. That's why we've got so many scroungers, particularly from
abroad.

And shouldn't high earners pay more tax proportionately? If not, will we
ever get the deficit down?

Rob Graham

"johnboy" wrote in message
...
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise
be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Child benefit is and always has been paid regardless of income.

What you probably mean is child tax credit.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits
to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even
more
savings!

Simples

Yup. None of them will ever do it though. It would mean a very large
rise in income tax rates which all governments seem obsessed with
lowering because people are stupid enough to think low income tax
rates means low taxes. Even after Gordon the moron proved them wrong
again and again with all his stealth taxes.

--
Andy

"Rob Graham" wrote in message
news
On 16/06/2010 10:58, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:02:58 +0100, Gordon H
wrote:

In , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would
otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other
benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) -
even more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)

I didn't vote for him either ;-)

I think it's daft to have separate taxation and benefits systems.
It's
less effecient a more prone to error.

Define a minimum income. Anything above this gets taxed. If
income
is lower the rest is made up by applying a negative taxation rate.

Trouble is, there's no incentive to work if you get an income
regardless.

No, there's no incentive to work if you don't gain anything from
working because you lose all your benefits. Means testing discourages
work. What the OP proposed was not means testing benefits, so those
who get up off their arse and get a job will be better off than the
"scroungers".

--
Andy

"Gordon H" wrote in message
...
In message , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise
be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits
to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even
more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)

Nor did Gordon, so I presume you didn't vote for him either then. Nor
did Nick. Nor did any other party I'm aware of propose it. So, who did
you vote for?

--
Andy

On 16/06/2010 13:14, Andy Pandy wrote:
"Rob wrote in message
news
On 16/06/2010 10:58, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:02:58 +0100, Gordon H
wrote:

In , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would
otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other
benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) -
even more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)

I didn't vote for him either ;-)

I think it's daft to have separate taxation and benefits systems.
It's
less effecient a more prone to error.

Define a minimum income. Anything above this gets taxed. If
income
is lower the rest is made up by applying a negative taxation rate.

Trouble is, there's no incentive to work if you get an income
regardless.

No, there's no incentive to work if you don't gain anything from
working because you lose all your benefits. Means testing discourages
work. What the OP proposed was not means testing benefits, so those
who get up off their arse and get a job will be better off than the
"scroungers".

--
Andy



My reply was to Mark rather than the OP. Mark's suggestion WAS a means
testing of a sort because you get above or below a minimum income and
this then determines an addition or a subtraction from your income.

Rob

In message , Andy Pandy
writes

"Gordon H" wrote in message
...
In message , johnboy
writes
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise
be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits
to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even
more
savings!

Simples

But he won't, and that is why I didn't vote for him. ;-)

Nor did Gordon, so I presume you didn't vote for him either then. Nor
did Nick. Nor did any other party I'm aware of propose it. So, who did
you vote for?

Andy

I voted for my local MP.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

"johnboy" wrote in message
...
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

I don't think that there is the slightest chance of it being means tested by
income for precisely this reason.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more
savings!

Because there would be a ('n even larger than there already is) subset of
people who would decide that there was no need to work for a living

tim