New Suspension + VAT?

That's true...of the UK car industry and many others we used to have...the rest of the world's successful modern makers DO employ the folks who know how to do it, right at the top.

Steve

"The vast majority of work involved in governing the country is done by the civil service, with loose guidance from the politicians basically."

Agreed! Those in doubt, just go out and buy Yes Minister ... the truth is out there ;)

He's one of the few with a bit of 'hinterland'.

Depends on the web-site more than anything. If prices are listed ex. vat then there's one somple change to make and retail will be adjusted accordingly. Most sites that sell retail to end user don't do it that way which means taking an extra 2.5% off retail which (I think) works out at lowering the price more than it would be if VAT was adjusted beforehand as they're taking 2.5% off the net+17.5%

However... The VATman's letter said because of the very short notice and difficulties in implementing changes they would adopt a gentle aproach to any inaccuracies.

This seems to have been followed up today by sites doing a global price drop. In these days of suppliers and chains still secretly enforcing restrictive pricing a lot of stores are jumping on the price drop as a way of getting around pricing policies untill such time as the suppliers readjust their RRP and no doubt increase cost price to keep RRP as it was. Or, as we've found out today, use the VAT adjustment as a way of re-pricing the rrp to a much higher price to off-set the recent and significant dropping in value of both the $ and £

So, it could go either way. I think there will be a few weeks of mayhem at lower prices then the prices will actually go higher than they were before the announcement.

That's what I think will happen. As one of our suppliers has already announced price rises on gym equipment from Monday and lowered discounts putting all trade accounts of a very tight percent that will guarantee no-one will be able to offer discounts!

Times is very hard for everyone, not just the end purchaser. Sometimes shopping small with established family businesses is a safer bet than buying from large Ltd companies who will go to broke as they have nothing to lose as it's a Ltd liabillity company.

Look after the independants and don't try and screw them for more discount, not if you want to keep competition and supply healthy.

Now... if you want a cheap treadmill..... ;¬)

You've never heard of BT or EON perhaps? Anyway it wasn't my comment that brought up the question.

I never usually look for complications, it makes life complicated, too complicated for an average simpleton...... much better to spend time learning how to phrase correctly.

Martin

had a phone call today from someone i wanted to buy some stuff from online "I notice you saved your basket but haven't completed your order, what's the problem"

"No problem, just waiting for next week"

"Why"

"Your prices are ex vat"

"And?"

"VAT goes down this weekend"

"And?"

"It'll save me a few quid, so I'll finalise the order then"

"Oh. Goodbye!"

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

To reply direct rot13 me

bURRt the 101 Camper

200TDi Disco with no floor - its being fixed at last! 200 TDi Disco, "the offroader" 1976 S3 Lightweight

On or around Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:18:24 -0000, "Oily" enlightened us thusly:

well, speaking as a small-scale retailer in an area where markups ain't all they might be [1], I'd be tempted to try to recover some of the undoubtedly-bigger expenses that have been prevalent over the last 6 months, and a 2.5% increase in profit margin, gained by leaving the ticket price alone and upping the ex-vat price to make it be thus would certainly help. Perhaps that's what they mean by stimulating the economy...

[1] one supplier wants me to stock a range of pushbikes where, judging by their trade price which is ex-vat, and the RRP, I'd be lucky to make 20% markup.

LOL. If that was me I'd have just said "tell you what, I'll run the sale through at 15% VAT as the government said they'll be leanient"

:¬)

Strange sort of customer "service" ? you got there.

Pete

In article , Ian Rawlings writes

It has to be said there are other ways of raising tax. VAT is an EU imposition, and it is _extremely_ inefficient. There are two reasons it's used:

(a) it's imposed on us. An EU directive, 2006/112/EC, prohibits Dearie from dropping the 'standard' VAT rate below 15%. He is allowed lower bands, but he couldn't, for example, move everything into a band below

15% even if he wanted to. IIRC, VAT exempt products have also been abolished, although 'zero rated' (i.e. not yet fully taxed) products are likely to exist for a long time yet.

(b) the private sector become the tax collectors, and pick up the bulk of the huge administrative cost. Governments like this because the true costs don't show up in the accounts. VAT does contribute substantially to the public purse, it's true but it is so inefficient that more rational forms of taxation would allow much lower rates for the same revenue (for the exchequer).

The enormous effort required of retailers, to implement such an unplanned change as the present one, is a good example of how ghastly the whole scheme is. The big boys, with fully computerised stock control and pricing systems have it easy; pity the hardware store having to re-label everything, because of point-of-sale pricing consumer law. Bear in mind too that the VAT inspectors will be breathing down everyone's necks, with a view to making 'examples' of any poor unfortunates who screw up.

I'm not convinced VAT inclusive price labels *have* to change. The price= displayed is only an "invitation to treat" if you offer to buy at that price and the seller accepts then there is a contract of sale at that price but before that offer/acceptance there is no contract. Of course i= f the label prices don't change on Standard Rated goods after the 1st Dec =

the retailer gets more money in his till.

What will have to change are labels that show both VAT exclusive and inclusive amounts, like you find in Makro or CostCo.

For on going supplies the cost depends on what the contract says, if it =

says words to the effect of =A3x/month or =A3x/month fully inclusive of = all taxes then that is the price that has been agreed and should be paid no =

matter the rate of VAT. If the VAT rate goes down the seller wins, if it= goes up he loses. How ever if the wording is more like =A3x/month + VAT = at

17.5% or + VAT at prevailing rate then the cost should fall when the VAT= rate falls, it would also rise should the VAT rate rise.

It's a mine field for sure and I don't think the ordinary consumer will =

see any long term reduction in prices. Retailers like the psychological =

effect that =A3599 is not =A3600 and some use the pence to distinguish b= etween new stock, old stock, offers, sale and/or discontinued items.

"Ian Rawlings" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...

And, in my opinion, a valid point.

Yes, but they aren't in a position to be "attempting" to run the country, telling us all what's best for us when they don't understand the real-world implications of the decisions they make! That may be a small point, but it's a very valid one in the context of this thread.

And therein lies the biggest financial issue! For example:- IF the minister for defence actually knew anything about defence (an ex-military person would have a much more credible level of background knowledge on which to base his or her decisions) then the minister in question could make informed decisions with some degree of confidence regarding any successful outcome, without wasting £000000000's of taxpayers money on unnecessary committee's, sub-committee's and steering groups! It's all about a corruption-bred culture of "jobs for the boys" (relatives, friends and any other hangers-on!) instead of actually making the highly-paid individual and their respective office juniors responsible for making the decisions that WE, the taxpayers, are paying them to make! This analogy can be applied to virtually every ministerial department within the government, where you will find a worrying degree of repetition. We pay more in tax now than we ever did, yet the level of services provided continually drops proportionately to the rising costs of such services, this is because of the costs incurred just to run the bloody government. Speaking as a Scot, I detest having a Scottish parliament - it's a prime example of "jobs for the boys" if ever there was one - yet another layer of red tape that has to be paid from taxation. We survived long enough without it, I see no need for it now. The fact that so many ministers have roots based in the legal profession shows - look at the way they all seem to think that the solution to any given problem is to introduce more legislation, tying the police up in so much red tape that they can't get out and do their jobs properly, instead of simply applying the laws that already exist? Madness. Sheer bloody blinkered madness.

Make the ministers make decisions, that's what they're bloody paid to do. Simplify all the red tape and let the police get on with beating up crims whilst no-one is looking. Stop ministers and MP's eating into the money-pot with all their second house allowances (buy one hotel in central london and give each minister a room, it'd be so much cheaper!!!) Use the massive ammount of money saved to improve schools, medical care, the military and transportation!

Think about it......!

Badger.

In message , Austin Shackles writes

Doesn't make any difference. The Vat they PAID on their stock is reclaimed by offsetting against the Vat they have collected on sales. The rate is immaterial - apart from creating a book keeping nightmare for the changeover.

In message , SpamTrapSeeSig writes

You are absolutely right yet how many times do you here ministers claiming Vat is an efficient tax. The only Vat transaction which actually raises any revenue is when a non Vat registered person or business is the purchaser.

A somewhat sweeping statement with no actual grounding in reality..

See my other posts on this, i.e. they don't run the country, they just guide it to an extent.

Wonderful, make the job so shit that no-one with any talent will want to do it, that's the way to get good people running the place!

He's right though, if you charge VAT on top then you charge the new rate of VAT on top, not the old rate. It's all explained in a letter that you should receive or should have received. You charge the new rate, but claim back the old rate if you bought your stock at the old rate. If you charge the old rate on goods sold after 1st December then you might get a slapping from the vat man.

Apparently not, it's targetted at the lower income groups as they're the ones who spend the most as they save very little of their income, and there's so many of them. Higher income groups aren't often very relevant as there's not many people in the upper brackets. Even those above £36,000 are a tiny tiny potion of the population.

Potion? Now that's magic!

What, apart from The owner of BMW and its MD, the MD of Volkswagen as well as Daimler. Toyota rather let the side down, but their honorary chairman (Toyoda) did a Phd in fuel injection, and grew Toyota immensely

- his economist successor has been a bit less successful. Honda is run by a chemical engineer. Peugeot seems to be run by a mining engineer !

I think the guy who owns Hyundai- Kia is also an engineer. Tata's nominal head is a structural engineer - the other Tatas seem to have been engineers too.

Ghosn, chairman of Nissan/Renault is an engineer.

The heads of GM, Ford and Chrysler are Economics, History and business graduates.

The Chinese Politburo, of whom I also spoke are ALL electrical/electronic, civil or mechanical engineers.

How much reality do you need Ian ?

Steve