- Oct 23, 2006
See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
the tax collection has more than doubled over the past 10 years, inflation has not resulted in the doubling of general prices
therefore you are wrong
Can you stop writing in selective ***damn caps like a 6-year old.Please
Indicate then WHERE this doubling of tax collection has happened ?
WHO was responsible for it ?
Better tax collection on the part of SARS ( although I doubt it seeing all the disasters that have been going on there )
More people / companies being added to the pool from which tax can be collected
Curious people would like to KNOW ....
Indeed which is pretty much my point, a decrease in fuel could well see the economy doing somewhat better. The economy performing better could see an increase in overall tax collection without actually changing any other tax brackets or amounts.The fuel levy can be painlessly decreased by about R2/l by simply getting rid of the RAF and making third party insurance mandatory for all vehicles. The vast majority of cars on the road already have insurance, so most people are not going to get impacted.
Tax is tax. Whether it is VAT or fuel levy or the carbon tax. Different names, but all going to the same dark hole.One problem I have with the fuel levy, is it is a non-productive tax. It creates no jobs. It is simply a levy added to the price, which the big oil companies pay over to Government in one fat cheque.
If the fuel levy was removed, and instead VAT or other tax duty was increased, people would spend the fuel tax money they saved on VATed goods and services.The goods and services would result from economic activity (jobs) like farming, industry, logistics and services. In effect, Government collects the same revenue, but now more people are employed to meet demand for goods and services to collect this tax.
Or am I completely wrong?
I have no idea how to interpret what you're saying. Maybe you could clarify for me? Did you mean:LOL, it is used to put emphasis on a word. Like you would if you were speaking - do you speak in monotone? Well you don't have to when you write either. Amazing the things you learn isn't it.......
That is one load of kak you just typed out for the world to see.I have no idea how to interpret what you're saying. Maybe you could clarify for me? Did you mean:
LOL, it is used to put EMPHASIS on a word. Like YOU would if YOU were speaking - do you speak in MONOTONE? Well you DON'T HAVE TO when you WRITE either. Amazing the THINGS you learn isn't it.......
LOL, it is USED to put emphasis on a word. Like you would IF you were SPEAKING - do YOU speak in monotone? Well YOU don't have to when you write EITHER. AMAZING the things you learn isn't it.......
Please clarify if you could. Nothing makes sense without the emphasis.
It is meant as eMpHaSiS as he explained to me. R u Nt abl 2 folw his psts?
Totally off-topic:LOL, it is used to put emphasis on a word. Like you would if you were speaking - do you speak in monotone? Well you don't have to when you write either. Amazing the things you learn isn't it.......