New Suspension + VAT?

yes, its hardly a massive market, he sells supplies for hockey umpires, and I needed some new stuff.

-- "For those who are missing Blair - aim more carefully."

To reply direct rot13 me

bURRt the 101 Camper

On or around Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:00:15 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig enlightened us thusly:

which is why I reckon many of the small fry will leave the ticket prices alone, and pocket the 2.5%. If it's priced inc. vat, then it's priced inc. vat, regardless of what the rate is. AFAIK there's no legal requirement to charge any particular ex-vat price. Were my good all priced up I'd not be inclined to change 'em all - wait 'til they sell and then alter it. For high-value items if the punter was being loud about it, you could offer a discount or refund on an ad-hoc basis - it's not hard to work out the required amount.

On or around Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:50:50 +0000, "

I'd not take the chance on something the government said unless it was in writing addressed to me personally.

A bit more than a smattering of people who used to be "engineers" of unknown types, a bunch of non-car-related ex-jobs, some chemists and a miner! Also no comparison of the kind of people who used to run the British car industry. Hardly proof that they knew what they were doing while the unmentioned british equivalents didn't.

They said they'd be lenient in a letter addressed to my company, although I'd still not trust them much! No point being totally paranoid, but no point throwing caution to the winds either.

Your comment was made to a small business and not to BT or EON. I couldn't comment on whether BT or EON rip their customers off without seeing their accounts and knowing a great deal more about their businesses than I currently do.

What you refer to as a complications can be real advantages. I can think of a number of local businesses that have gone under in the last month. If this change in VAT had increased their margins by a small degree over 50 jobs may have been saved, ISTM that keeping their incomes moving in the local economy would have been of real benefit to many businesses

On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:06:29 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

It's nominally supposed to be helping the poor, though, I thought. Nominally being the word.

in fact, if you look at the not-so-poor, it's still making sod-all difference. Sure, if I go out and buy a new telly for £300 I'll supposedly get it for £7.50 less. Big deal. moreover, unless the telly's shagged I'm highly unlikely to go and buy one JUST 'cos of 2.5% off the price. Our household does however spend around £100 a week on average on mostly-food, which is not being affected, some booze, which is not affected, and I for one spend about 80-90 quid a week on road fuel which is too also as well not affected.

So, between now and christmas, say, we'll spend say 7-800 quid on those things, plus we'll buy heating oil, which is another thing not affected, and that's gonna come to over 800 quid, unless we chance that the price will be lower next year and only buy part of a tank to get us through to the spring.

With all that, I rather doubt we'll have spare cash for any kind of spending spree with this marvellous reduction in VAT.

Although I am planning a new set of tyres, which I've pushed back to next week :-) but I'd have been buying them anyway, about this time of year - I've not decided to buy them early.

On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:08:18 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

quite. My answer would be "If you want 15% vat, come back next week" - OK, they might be lenient. But that might mean "we won't jump on people for charging 17.5% on monday morning".

Of course, there's nothing to stop one discounting the ex-vat by the appropriate amount to make the same effect: a bit like the Machine Mart lot and their "vat-free" sales - all they do is reduce the base price so that the new inc vat price is the same as the old ex-vat price. This is one time that it'd be beneficial to me to be registered, in that you then get a double saving as you claim the vat back as well. Trouble is I'd have to pay the vat on things I sell to the vatman. Also, I'd have to keep vat accounts and do returns wot are a pain.

No, that is the one transaction that doesn't end up with money being sen= t to HMR&C. All the other transactions between VAT registered entities dow= n the chain send the VAT element of their markup (Value Added) to HMR&C.

A buys widgets for =A350 + =A38.75 VAT. A sells widgets to B for =A3120 + =A321.00 VAT A sends =A312.25 to HMR&C

B buys widgets for =A3120 + =A321.00 VAT. B sells widgets to C for =A3150 + =A326.25 VAT B sends =A35.25 to HMR&C

C buys widgets for =A3150 + =A326.25 VAT. C sells widgets to D for =A3200 + =A335.00 VAT C sends =A38.75 to HMR&C

D is not VAT registered. D Pays =A335.00 VAT to C. D Doesn't send anything to HMR&C.

In article , Austin Shackles writes

It should never have had VAT on it in the first place!

Dearie CANNOT do this because of EU directives.

Hmm, I thought the idea was to ease the current financial crisis by keeping money washing about. I've not seen any interviews where it was mooted as helping the poor, but that's because I don't have telly so haven't seen any interviews at all!

The economy is supposed to shrink by about 1% next year, so keeping

It's a large-scale thing, not a small-scale thing, even if we personally don't see it as much of an advantage, there's 2.5% more cash in our hands than there otherwise was going to be, and given the expected shrinkage next year is also very small, it's likely to make a difference on an economic scale.

Zero-rated products were allowed to continue as zero-rated products, but it wasn't allowed to add new products. So before joining the EU, Major (or whoever it was who committed us to the EU) could have zero-rated domestic fuel but didn't. It wasn't forced on the UK, it was a choice made by a past administration.

You missed the point completely, lighten up man!

Of course D doesn't. It's C who sends it having first deducted what he has paid out to his suppliers, as do B and A and the man who supplied the steel to A and the man who supplied the iron ore to the steel maker and the haulier who transported it etc etc. It's a massive amount of paperwork ( or computer work) for what is effectively a sales tax on the single final transaction.

In message , Ian Rawlings writes

No . it's because it *wasn't* targetted to help the poor - which is the point I originally was making.

And ISTR that once done can't be undone.

In message , Austin Shackles writes

You can price goods inc of Vat at whatever you like. What you can't, or shouldn't do is a false return which would arise if you "accidentally" logged a sale at 15% when you'd actually charged 17.5% and similarly you claimed 17,5% on a purchase on which you only paid 15%. (Hopefully I've got that the right way round - it's a while since I did a Vat return)

The "proof" of what you charged is on the invoice/receipt assuming you have issued one.

I think by being "lenient" they are being pragmatic and recognising that they haven' a cat in hells chance of checking up on this.

I've made my case. Argue against it with some facts, your previous statement stands blown out of the water.

Steve

You are wrong in both principle and detail:

Heath committed us to the EU (ultimately). VAT on fuel WAS an EU imposition, and recent, as was the insurance tax.

As I stated (carefully), 'zero-rated' is not synonymous with 'tax free'. It only means tax (above zero) hasn't yet been applied. The driving principle behind VAT is that _every_ transaction should be taxed. This hasn't been implemented because it is politically unacceptable, but with increased 'harmonization' we will become powerless to stop it.

This is a stupid and ridiculous situation, and it's a simple fact that the present crisis is made worse by it.