ED209 wrote:Strontium Dog wrote:VAT is progressive. The IFS is quite clear on this.
An outright lie, I have already reproduced the graph from IFS data above.
Astonishing the lengths you will go to to grind that axe.
Let's remind ourselves again what the IFS says:
We believe that increasing the standard VAT rate in the current system is mildly progressive when examined on a lifetime basis. The intuition for this is that, over a lifetime, poorer households spend a higher proportion of their (lifetime) income on goods that are zero or reduced rated in the current VAT system, such as food, children’s clothes and domestic fuel and power, and hence a lower proportion of their lifetime income on items that are subject to the standard VAT rate.
The common perception that VAT is regressive largely comes from noting that households with low current income often spend a lot – and therefore see a big cash rise in their living costs – relative to their income. But as explained in the previous answers, this is a weakness of looking at a snapshot of income.As I said, the IFS is clear that increasing VAT is progressive, and anyone stating otherwise probably ought to ask themselves why they are twisting the truth.
ED209 wrote:Your own channel 4 link judges osborne's "VAT is progressive" claim - parroted here, surprise surprise - to be a lie.
The Channel 4 link does no such thing, because THAT'S NOT THE CLAIM THEY ARE DEALING WITH ON THAT PAGE.
What Channel 4's Factcheck is examining is the claim that VAT rises are better (more progressive) than increasing NI or income tax. NOT the claim that VAT is progressive, which is universally accepted as a truth (except for some small pockets of reality denial, of course).
Jesus fuck. If you can't even get something as basic as that right, you have no business participating in this thread.