Operation of VAT and taxes

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79295
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11028




by Christophe » 21/10/10, 16:20

It's not the chaos that scares (there are accountants for that), it's
a) the cost of production linked to the standard of living
b) social security and employer contributions
c) levels of income tax
... which cause us to relocate or that certain productions are simply not viable here.

We could add to it: the subsidies which grease certain unscrupulous companies during the subsidy contract and which break just after ...

And if we relocate, it is good for inflating the margins and therefore, consequently, boosting the VAT inflows for the State ...

VAT is therefore a gain on imported products at the coef. high commercial levels and the State is therefore happy ... because it is making money ... But deindustrialization is an economic scourge in the medium and long term ... and if we make the overall socio-economic assessment, not sure that l 'State is a winner in the long term ... it is even certain that it is a loser ...
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 21/10/10, 16:46

Christophe wrote:
Did67 wrote:3) the fair tax, accepted by all, paid with a good heart, we are still looking for it.


ISF paid by all ... the rich : Mrgreen:


not even: it is enough to have a house completely overvalued in a place where the property is too expensive to find yourself with isf even with a low income insufficient to pay

conclusion they invented the tax shield: the little victim of the isf is therefore not completely bled, but only half bled ... basically she is forced to sell! leave the area prohibited for the poor!

and the tax shield is applied to all the big income which definitively shelters them from any tax increase

if the income tax increases there is only the low income who will pay: the big ones limited by the shield laugh!

the tax system is really a complicated thing that no one fully understands
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79295
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11028




by Christophe » 21/10/10, 16:48

: Mrgreen: = irony

It was ironic humor.

For the rest agree with you

: Cheesy:
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 21/10/10, 17:19

For "stupid" taxes: remember, without going back to the salt tax, there was the window tax or the grants at each entry into town, before the fuel vehicles which blew up these taxes !!

VAT is a little better ????
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 21/10/10, 18:44

chatelot16 wrote:that's why I find it unfortunate that the income tax has become derisory: while it is the one that could be the fairest


You forget one thing: all "gray" income!

We were talking about cheating the taxman, favorite sport.

So black work ...

But with what you have earned, you will consume and ... pay VAT.

Even the drug money ends up paying VAT as soon as the guy buys a BMW (well, maybe he steals it?).

And finally, you "contribute" up to your consumption! It's not that bad already.

But I am not against the progressiveness of the IRPP. Of course.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 21/10/10, 18:47

Christophe wrote:
Here is a subsidiary question: if you sell at a loss, do you have a VAT credit? :)
...


It seems to me that it is theoretically prohibited! [I never thought about why! It is because the State does not see and repudiate. In the case of "sales", etc., yes ... As you said, when we invest we are reimbursed for VAT. It is really the Added Value that takes precedence; if it is negative, I think we will reimburse you).
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 21/10/10, 19:01

chatelot16 wrote:

not even: it is enough to have a house completely overvalued in a place where the property is too expensive to find yourself with isf even with a low income insufficient to pay

conclusion they invented the tax shield: the little victim of the isf is therefore not completely bled, but only half bled ... basically she is forced to sell! leave the area prohibited for the poor!



I think you're getting a little tangled up there:

- indeed, the case of a property which takes a crazy value and makes the owner liable to the ISF exists (Île de Ré, and some similar cases); it's all the same some cases... (that the media love!)

It is rather the rigidity of the tax authorities that raises questions there.

- the shield reimburses you your taxes if you pay more than half of your income

So imagine a good of x million euros, you owe 150 € of ISF (I say anything, I am not taxable with the ISF, I do not know the scale)

In addition you earn € 45 per year and you owe € 000 IRPP.

Your taxation cannot exceed half of € 45 (your income), or € 000. So the state will reimburse you € 22 - € 500.

Certainly, if you don't get any income from your home at x million euros, it will be hard. I agree with that.

From there to make you complain ... Of course, it is the house inherited from your parents and you have trouble leaving it ... There's plenty of argument ... Of course all you want ... While not being rich, you can no longer stay in this "paradise" ... But not being rich, you do not have a private jet either, you do not stay in a suite at the Georges V, etc. ... So there's a lot of injustice ...

But give me your house, I'll take care of it.

No, frankly, there are thousands and thousands of people who are just laid off, who are evicted because they no longer reimburse their monthly payments, or no longer pay their rents ...

You want me to give an even more dramatic situation: you get cancer, you have a long illness, you are not a civil servant; Contrary to what everyone thinks, the employer has the right to fire you! You find yourself alone if your family does not insure! Your little house, you're going to leave it. Palliative care is not fully supported ...

There, yes, I accept that we cry.

Let us remain objective and measure our words!
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 21/10/10, 19:50

my goal was not to cry on those whose only misfortune was to have an overvalued house! but to say that it was the starting point of the tax shield! not even a good solution for this problem but a boon for those who really benefit!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79295
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11028




by Christophe » 07/01/11, 17:28

An interesting "fable" (well almost) found in an old mailling from 2007 (a useful mailing which tells no nonsense or illusions is rare enough to be noted and disseminated!):

Imagine that every day, 10 friends meet up to drink a brand beer and that the total bill amounts to 100 euros. (Normally, this would be 10 euros per person).

But our ten friends decided to pay this bill according to a distribution which is inspired by the calculation of income tax, which gave roughly this:

· The first 4 (the least wealthy, that is to say the poorest), would pay nothing.
· The fifth would pay 1 euro
· The sixth would pay 3 euros
· The seventh would pay 7 euros
· The eighth would pay 12 euros
· The ninth would pay 18 euros
The last (the richest ?!) should pay 59 euros.


The ten men met every day to drink their beer and seemed quite happy with their arrangement. Until the day when the tenant placed them before a dilemma:
"As you are good customers," he said, "I decided to give you a discount of 20 euros on the total bill. So you will now only pay your 10 beers for 80 euros. "

The group decided to continue paying the new amount the same way they would have paid their taxes. The first four continued to drink for free. But how were the other six, (paying customers), going to divide the 20 euros discount evenly?
They realized that 20 euros divided by 6 was 3.33 euros.
But if they subtracted this sum from their sharing then the 5th and 6th man would have to be paid to drink their beer, which was absurd.

The bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce the addition of each by a percentage of the same order, so he did the math.

Which gave something like this:

· The 5th man, like the first four no longer paid anything. (one more poor!)
· The 6th paid 2 euros instead of 3 (33% reduction)
· The 7th paid 5 euros instead of 7 (28% reduction)
· The 8th paid 9 euros instead of 12 (25% reduction)
· The 9th paid 14 euros instead of 18 (22% reduction)
· The 10th paid 50 euros instead of 59 euros (16% reduction)

Each of the six “payers” paid less than before and the first 4 continued to drink for free.

But once outside the bar, everyone compared their economy:

"I only got 1 euro out of the 20 euros discount", says the 6th, he pointed to the 10th "he got 9 euros".

"Yeah! says the 5th, I only had 1 euro saved "

" That is true ! "Exclaimed the 7th," why would he have 9 euros when I only had 2? The richest had the biggest reduction "

"Wait a minute," shouted the 1st man in unison, "the four of us didn't get anything at all." The system exploits the poor. ”

The 9 men surrounded the 10th and insulted him.


The following night the 10th man (the richest, or the least poor!) Did not come. The nine others sat down and drank their beer without him. But when it came time to pay their bill, they discovered something important: they didn't have enough money to pay even half the bill.

And that, my dear friends, is the strict reflection of our tax system. The people who pay the most taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax the strongest, accuse them of being rich and they may not show themselves anymore. In fact, they could start going to drink abroad where the atmosphere is ..., how to say, ... more friendly!

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who did not understand, no explanation is possible.
0 x
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 07/01/11, 18:46

Christophe wrote:(a useful mailing and which tells no nonsense or illusions)


Without going as far as humbug, there is indeed a certain smoke in the measure or even a "RMiste" pays part of the bill for "beers" contrary to what is said in the "fable". :|
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 94 guests