You haven’t addressed my point. We don’t tax posts on Bluesky, and if we did it wouldn’t be viable - is it an unviable businesses because of this “subsidy”?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Taxing posts on Bluesky is of course nonsense as there is no financial transaction of a good/service. Fair enough it’s not a “subsidy” in the conventional sense. You haven’t answered my point: if a company needs a special carve out to exist it’s not a good company.
We tax plenty of stuff for being activities not inherently for being financial transactions (and there’ve been proposals to tax emails for eg). Your argument springs from a presumption that the natural state of all things is to be taxed, so not being taxed is special treatment/subsidy. It’s mistaken
But we’re talking about VAT which is a tax on financial transactions. My starting point is that if we are going to impose VAT on the clothes that I wear then a luxury good like private education (which pricing has markedly outstripped inflation) should be taxed too.
VAT is a tax on the supply of a specified list of goods and services. Not a tax on all financial transactions. The above just means your view is that you think education should be taxed - that’s already evident, and legitimate to argue for - but the argument it’s some breach of a natural law isn’t.
Sorry I am tweeting after a long set of on calls. I of course know tax is levied on goods/services rather than financial transactions - was just trying to say it’s pointless to talk about other things we levy taxes on right now. May I ask why you think private education shouldn’t be taxed?
For what it’s worth I’d want to overhaul the whole VAT regimen but you don’t know my personal political views because you made a judgement based on a post.
With respect, I haven’t assumed your personal political views, I’ve just engaged with the argument you chose to present here. Suspect we’d agree about various aspects of overhauling VAT.
Comments