-
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-
VAT flatter and then uprate benefits to help people, rather than cut the tax and have less cash in the treasury overall.
I do agree with this.
Although it initially seems inefficient to be giving with one hand and taking with the other instead of netting it out, it's often actually much simpler and cheaper to give benefits to all and then have ICT and CGT as the variable.
-
you give a non means tested benefit to everyone
I'm fine with this, means testing is often more expensive than just giving everyone stuff. The meaning of essentials is also important I guess.
hugo7
snottyotter
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.