Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Its impossible to calculate how much of your income is taxed indirectly, but 60% doesnt sound that unreasonable. Taxation as a %ge of GDP is 46%, but that doesnt include the myriad of subtle forms of taxation we have including things like inflation, the minimum wage, and expensive state trains/tube systems. Then you have the indirect role that government policy plays in driving up prices in areas it subsidises. 60% may be slightly too high, but probably not by much.
It really depends how you want to slice things up though, and theres probably no objective way of doing it or calculating the monetary effects that policies have. Should the criminalisation of marijuana be counted as an indirect subsidy of the alcohol industry for instance? How much does that cost the average person each year?
|
I believe that when the minimum wage was introduced, around 5% of UK workers would actually have be affected by its introduction (that is to say that they did not already earn more than the minimum wage level of £3/3.60). That 5% doesn't include people who weren't entitled to the minimum wage anyway. In addition, it seems reasonable to suggest that those 5% of people were responsible for less than 5% of total GDP at the time, though that's speculative on my part. As such its effect on a person's everyday life in terms of increased prices is probably minimal.
I think calling inflation a form of tax is a bit of a push. Wages tend to minimally rise with inflation, especially if we're considering this ficticious £30k a year person who is more likely to be eligible for bonuses, more likely to own his own home and the like. This almost factors-out the transport-system question as well, although obviously the cost of running a car is probably pretty inefficient in duty/tax terms.
I agree entirely though that there are a never-ending multitude of minor costs that will add-up, but this 70% number that was pulled from the air seems excessive without some kind of plausible explanation.