Sharpe's Opinion

Alprazolam Pharmacy No Prescription

Saturday 20th March, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Alprazolam Pharmacy No Prescription, For those of you who don't follow arguments as they go around the internet, some of the guys at 'evidence-based' blog Left Foot Forward caused a stir and an upset last week by writing a post titled 'Lib Dem tax policy “fails the fairness test”'. The post concerned a 'detailed analysis' of the Lib Dems' Best Policy Ever™ - raising the personal tax allowance to £10, Alprazolam online prescriptions, 000 - which argued that this policy was 'not fair', because people with higher household incomes would gain more from it than people with low incomes - and people who don't pay any tax don't stand to benefit from this tax cut at all.

Yes, alprazolam powered by phpbb, that sucking noise you heard was the whole internet gasping, Alprazolam overnight fedex shipping, as if a million voices cried 'No Shit, Sherlock' in unison, and were suddenly silenced, almee alprazolam.

Undeterred by the utter pasting the authors of the analysis took as the Mortimer Republic marched upon the comments thread with banners waving and trumpets calling, Alprazolam no perscription, they've now written a 'response to the responses' which seeks to justify the decidedly odd position that they have taken.

You might think this is an odd subject for me to comment on, being neither an expert in tax nor in the left-wing definition of 'fairness', temazepam as a metabolite of alprazolam. As regular readers know, however, I'm a keen student of Spinglish, and a paragraph in this post struck me as containing a quite remarkable and interesting example of the form, Alprazolam Pharmacy No Prescription.

Here is that paragraph:

We call a tax change ‘regressive’ when it gives more on average to households higher up the income distribution as a proportion of their net household income than it does to households lower down the income distribution.

First things first, Alprazolam 1 mg, it seems to be a truth universally acknowledged, at the very least among Labour, Lib Dem and Cameroon Conservative circles, alprazolam expired, that even though nobody can quite agree on exactly what 'progressive' means in general, Buy alprazolam online, 'progressive' policies are a generally good thing. Particularly when placed against their opposite, 'regressive', yellow alprazolam 2mg. Everyone likes progress, Buy alprazolam cheap, right.

So, let's take it as read for the moment that 'progressive' policies are generally superior to 'regressive' policies, drugs alprazolam. Alprazolam Pharmacy No Prescription, That's our first starting point.

Now, Alprazolam buy, going back to the definition above, the phrasing - especially 'gives more' - appears to imply that a reduction in taxation is exactly equivalent to giving money to taxpayers ((That is to say, that if every week I came into your house and took a pint of milk, alprazolam 2mg cheap over night, and then told you that from now on I was instead only going to take half a pint, Alprazolam buy carisoprodol, I have just started giving you half a pint of milk a week.)). As logically strange as that may appear, that's what they're arguing, alprazolam denmark.

If we accept that, Alprazolam td uk suppliers, then I can't for the life of me figure out how one can reduce tax without being regressive, according to the above definition. It's a fairly well-known phenomenon that tax changes will always affect people who pay more tax more, is alprazolam the same as lorazepam, because tax is paid as a percentage of income, Alprazolam manufacturers, not as a flat lump sum.

In other words, according to Tim Horton and Howard Reed any reduction in income tax is regressive, Alprazolam Pharmacy No Prescription. And if we are to accept that a progressive policy is better than a regressive one, any reduction in income tax is worse than an increase in income tax - because it will always benefit those on higher incomes more, alprazolam g 3719. What's more, Fedex alprazolam 2mg, if any one party were to increase taxation at any point, it would immediately become regressive to even partly reverse that increase.

This is the power of Spinglish, alprazolam hilton pharma, you see. Alprazolam without prescription, When terms are only ever loosely defined - especially if one of the terms is inherently negative and the other is inherently positive, as is the case with 'progressive' and 'regressive' - it allows for arguments to be defined in such a way that there is only one possible outcome, regardless of the evidence, alprazolam r 039. In this case the outcome is a ratchet effect, Online pharmacy with alprazolam dleivery, in which the only good taxes, are higher taxes.

That's progress for you.

⇐ Alprazolam Buy

Where Can I Buy Alprazolam ⇒

Comments

But actually I think by their “definition” you’re both wrong aren’t you? And it is this little difference that is the very reason for couching the policy in those terms.

Yes, raising the threshold raises that threshold for everyone, and everyone therefore gains a bit. But if they are saying that “progressiveness” is meansured by whether it makes more of a difference as a proportion of their net household income, then it definitely does most affect those on or about a £10,000 income who would have been paying some tax previously and now will not at all.

It only ever saves anyone £700. And that £700 is going to be a higher proportion for those at the lower end of the scale than those at the top.

Unless they are being really arsey and suggesting that the fact that it does not give people on today’s threshold plus one pound more than those already on the £10,000 new threshold, which, given that both are below the minimum wage for a full time year is a pretty stupid poibt to get worked up about.

Jock

March 20, 2010 at 7:46 pm

You know, I did wonder about that. I think you’re right, and I don’t know the specifics of how LFF created their graph but it seems suspect in itself. But Left Foot Forward are all ‘evidence-based’, and they make pretty graphs and PDFs and things, so I decided I probably shouldn’t try and argue in terms of the evidence itself.

Like I say – I’m not an expert on tax, I just find the logic highly peculiar, and the language deeply suspect.

Stu

March 20, 2010 at 8:00 pm

You’re right about the word “progressive” being used to challenge anyone to defy them, such as “No, I’m not progressive, I’m backward actually”. So I detect in it a rather unpleasant hint of something. The sort of “If you don’t agree it’s because there’s something wrong with you”. But it isn’t just self-styled progressives who engage in that.

I suppose it’s universal, not confined to any on school of thought. Look at the “Patriot Act” in America. You wouldn’t say “Well, I’m not so much a patriot, I was always more of a traitor myself”. I was thinking about other examples of this but I can’t remember now. I’m sure you can come up with some yourself.

asquith

March 20, 2010 at 10:01 pm

I often wondered if the use of the English language especially some of the more lose terms or even in fashion terms effect peoples thinking and therefore government policy.

I wonder if other languages have the same problem. I believe that governments cant go back due to the language used. Its a bit like making a drug illegal means its so much harder to make it legal again.

Dazmando

March 20, 2010 at 10:50 pm

Jock, Stu is right. On their definition, any increase in tax thresholds is regressive.

The simple reason is that someone on £151k will be paying tax at a marginal rate of 50%, so they will feel the benefit of an increase in the threshold at 50% instead of 20%.

So no tax cut can be progressive, until all the tax rates are harmonised (at 50%, presumably).

patently

March 21, 2010 at 10:49 am

Really? The zero-rate threshold though is always part of the lower rate tax. The higher rate threshold is not changed by the policy, nor the fifty pence threshold. And they are not cumulative are they? They are absolute numbers aren’t they?

So anything that eats into the 20% band will only be worth the tax at 20% not at the marginal rate, surely?

Jock

March 21, 2010 at 10:56 am

Aquith – probably my favourite example is ‘positive liberty’ and ‘negative liberty’. The two concepts could easily be termed ‘freedom’ (negative liberty) and ‘opportunity’ (positive liberty), which would allow them both to be presented as Good Things. But the jargon is constructed in such a way as to make one sound preferable to the other, to the untrained ear. It’s weird.

Daz – I think it’s a problem with politics and arguments, not a problem with language. Languages ebb and flow and change and words are often loosely defined and flexible. The problems only come when they’re used to hide wooly logic.

Patently – “So no tax cut can be progressive, until all the tax rates are harmonised (at 50%, presumably).”

Harmonising the tax rates would, of course, be a regressive course of action in itself. Actually, the word ‘progressive’, I believe, came from tax banding – you pay a progressively higher tax rate as your income increases. By this definition, the proposed Lib Dem plans are actually just as progressive as the current situation – possibly more so, in fact, since low earners pay even less tax. They’ve just managed to warp the terms ‘progressive’ and ‘regressive’ by applying them to the change itself rather than to the start point and end point.

Jock – I’ve now had a skim of the report and I can’t really see exactly how they’ve made their graph. It is notable, though, that part of the reason higher income bands benefit more from the tax is that they’re going by household income, not personal. Therefore, dual income households (which will tend to be higher up the graph) can save almost £1,400, while single income households can benefit a maximum of, as you say, just under £700. So higher income household will tend to benefit more.

Stu

March 21, 2010 at 11:36 am

Oh – but leave “negative and positive liberty alone for now – I’m trying to come up with a clever mathematical ruse to prove that more -ves will be more +ve … or something!

Jock

March 21, 2010 at 11:45 am

Um, is this the right place to factor in Working Tax Credits,
.
.
.
.
and VAT on turnover >£68K?

ladytizzy

March 21, 2010 at 8:55 pm

Patently, a quick look at the HMRC rates site – http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm – appears to say that the amounts are fixed.

So, basic rate is payable, this year, on all earnings from £0-£37,400 except the amount of your allowance. I’m pretty sure that that does not mean that a standard allowance person would pay 20% on the £37,400 above £6475 whilst a 65 year old would pay 20% on £37,400 over £9640, but that the former pays 20% on £30,940 and the 65 year old on £27,760 then both pay 40% on everything above £37,400. Otherwise it does really make any sense.

Incidentally the reduction in the allowance kicks in not at the 50% rate (£150,000) but on incomes above £100k. So you’ve already lost all your allowance by the time you get to the £150k, evil capitalist accumulating pig that you are!

Jock

March 22, 2010 at 5:47 am

Tax Credits make the system more progressive in theory, yes – but I don’t think they apply in this particular argument because I don’t think the Lib Dems have any plans to change them.

Stu

March 22, 2010 at 8:20 am

And they are not cumulative are they? They are absolute numbers aren’t they?

No, they are mostly cumulative.

Now you mention it, the 50% rate is from a fixed level – so my example using that was indeed slightly wrong (but would become right if re-done at the 40% threshold). Oops. However, the lower rates and the 40% rate are in terms of the “first £x of income” being non-taxable, “next £x of income” at 20%, etc etc. Different people are entitled to different tax-free allowances*, so it has a real effect.

*except for people on the 50% rate who will steadily lose all tax-free allowances as their income rises above the 50% threshold. Because they’re evil capitalists, we hate them, we want them to leave, and they deserve it. Or something like that.

patently

March 22, 2010 at 8:56 am

patently – you’re right about the theory, but in the actual proposal, the Lib Dems are advocating a corresponding reduction in the size of the 20% tax band, so the 40% threshold would remain at its previous level and thus the cumulative effect you describe would be avoided. Except on household income.

Stu

March 22, 2010 at 9:08 am

My head hurts.

Letters From A Tory

March 23, 2010 at 9:38 am

Pedantry Box

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Older Posts

Sharpe's Opinion

Alprazolam Pharmacy No Prescription

Comments