-
It seems easier to me to accept some overlap and have people at the lower end paying vat, as long as benefits etc are enough that there aren't affordability issues for them, than drastically reduce VAT.
I don't think this is the case though, as there are many, many affordability issues and there aren't enough benefits, both as actual benefits or the people/businesses that should be paying, actually paying enough or that getting redistributed to where it's needed.
snottyotter-
If you make all essentials VAT free you give a non means tested benefit to everyone (so this is more expensive); if you leave VAT on some essentials then update benefits, it's more targeted.
I'm not saying benefits are enough as it is; I'm saying that if we're designing a system then I think it's simpler to make the VAT flatter and then uprate benefits to help people, rather than cut the tax and have less cash in the treasury overall.
I'm not really sure I know what you mean by the second half of your sentence though so sorry if I've misunderstood
andyfallsoff
I guess I view it in context - which is why I said above about a wealth tax being a nice complement to VAT, to make sure our tax system as a whole is still progressive (which as a whole it is, really sharply, until you get to a certain level where wealth matters more).
It seems easier to me to accept some overlap and have people at the lower end paying vat, as long as benefits etc are enough that there aren't affordability issues for them, than drastically reduce VAT.