And my point is that there's no point in raising the tax rate just for the sake of raising it.
Well, of course. The same logic would apply to any form of taxation. Why do we have taxes at all? To fund public services obviously. And everybody knows that the government currently collects less money than it needs to spend which is, of course, problematic. So you have to make choices about how to balance the scales. You could, for example:
1. Cut your spending
2. Increase income tax
3. Increase corporation tax
3. Close loopholes and exploits within the taxation system
Now, the right answer is probably a bit of all of the above in moderation and targeted in the right way. For example, number 2 doesn't seem fair to expand an income tax band to encompass the very poorest in society, but does seem fairer to ask the uber-rich top 5% to pay a little bit more out of their vast sums of wealth.
We've seen from the last 7 years what happens when you only go after number 1. It doesn't work. Things have a breaking point. So the answer must be that you need to boost your income somehow.
So again, I ask you, is the right way to do that to go after the 'pennies' with things like the bedroom tax and abolishing cash-in-hand payment,
OR go after more substantial revenues by increasing taxation on corporations who both already exploit the system and currently enjoy a significantly reduced tax rate compared to our G7 peers?
How can you defend NOT doing that? How is that raising taxes purely for the sake of it?
