We're not talking about helping the poor, we're talking about alleviating the coming financial crisis as soon as possible. A financial crisis won't help the poor at all, however there's not enough poor for their spending to be significant, and if they're poor they've got sod all to spend, so don't feature in the VAT decrease story.
It's not supposed to! And no-one suggested it was as far as I can remember.
Only by the kind of standards of "proof" that satisfy water diviners and tarot card readers!
You haven't made your case at all.
In article , hugh writes
It used to be that way. Now they want scapegoats.
The culture of the revenue (which used to be pragmatic and fair) has changed to "results uber alles". They are now working hard to make tax _avoidance*_ illegal, and they have such deep pockets, litigation is impossible to win (you can't get legal aid against the tax man!).
Regards,
S.
*defined as the rational behaviour of an honest person to arrange his affairs so as to minimise his tax bill.
Hmm, are we talking about the same thing? I understood Austin to mean Domestic Fuel as domestic heating fuel, rather than road fuel. Even now heating fuel is rated at a rate lower than the EU's minimum of 15% VAT. I believe that it could be lowered as it's one of the things that was in place before the actual commitment to the EU was made.
Was it Heath who actually finalised it and signed the forms that made membership and all that it entailed actually apply though, I thought that was Major but I'm not that interested in such things so reserve the right to be wrong and not care ;-)
I've got a potentially large tax bill coming up and am going to put that before paying the mortage on the basis that the mortgage company is likely to be more lenient than the government I pay for :-(
On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:31:25 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
I was indeed. and as you say, VAT on DOMESTIC fuel is a new thing (relatively) compared to VAT as a whole, which dates back in the current form to 1973.
If it was Major, the VAT on domestic fuel post-dates that too, ISTR.
I'm damned sure they could reduce VAT on domestic fuel *if they wanted to*. They clearly don't.
As for EU directives, there are plenty of examples of EU legislation not being followed by other EU countries if they don't happen to want to. This is in fact one of the main failings of the EU - it doesn't harmonise and unify ENOUGH. To succeed, it needs to be the United States of Europe, which it ain't, by a long way.
Note, I'm not saying I want, or don't want, the EU to become the USE, or for Britain to be or not be part of the USE. Just that it's not going to succeed unless it is.
On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:22:25 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig enlightened us thusly:
while not actually breaking the law.
On or around Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:33:30 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
this is true. It has rightly been said that it's better to rob the bank than to fail to pay the revenoo.
There's nothing wrong with serious thought and discussion. If you don't like it don't join the discussion ;)
Well, just to confirm my expectations... All our suppliers have been beavering away upping prices.
Horizon Omega 509 - todays rrp = £899 Horizon Omega 509 - mondays rrp = £1199
Same right across their range.
So far the ONLY company that have dropped rrp in line with VAT reduction is WaterRower and the price reduction is more to do with keeping rrp nicely rounded. so an £899 rrp today becomes £875 on Monday.
Don't say I didn't warn you. :¬)
That's because it's the vendors job to send it. The transaction generates VAT which C sends in. The crucial factor is that D isn't eligible to claim VAT back so the taxman gets to keep it.
All of that without any or little effort/involvement by HMR&C hence extremely efficient return on investment by HMR&C!
If an ex-soldier became PM people would start fretting about the army getting favoured or conflicts being more likely and so on. You can't have someone who has done all the jobs in the country, what you have are expert negotiators running teams of experts in given fields. The results are sometimes a bit odd but far better than a situation where all the research, calculations and decisions are made by one person.
The UK has been around for a long time and is a wealthy country, I'd say it's doing OK, considering that there's no credible alternative.
No, you suggest the alternative, I'm fine with things as they are, and I'm puzzled as to why you're asking me that question as it's you who's dissatisfied with things as they are, not me.
Oh please. If I don't agree with you I must be "one of them"? You're in a worse state than I thought.
The scottish MPs of course being models of probity!
It's also the assumption that "they've all got their snouts in it" that I find ridiculous. While I don't particularly trust MPs, most of what you hear about them comes from journalists, and I trust them even less.
They're a lot better now that their expenses are fully in the public domain and a lot lighter in the pocket. The costs to the Scottish voter have plummeted.
Yes, the Westminster politicians have something to worry about and we should demand the transparency that does not at present exist.
Maybe they might make up for the ludicrous costs of the holyrood building which was entirely unnecessary but they insisted on having. It would also have been nice if they didn't bribe companies like Stagecoach to give whopping great big donations to the SNP.
And the idea that expenses are the be-all and end-all of fiddle potential is crazy. It gets the headlines *occasionally* and it would be nice if some of the MPs didn't abuse the system but extrapolating the behaviour of a few bad eggs out to them "all having their snouts in the trough" is very lazy and indicative of the contempt that people have for politicians, which doesn't seem to be deserved. I don't claim they're saints, but people do go to the extreme all to readily. If the wild claims of the "wise" were even partially true we'd be in a far greater mess than we are. Italian and French politicians are the ones who have the really bad reputations, ours are relatively speaking pretty damned good.
Granted, which is why I mentioned earlier that the head of a particular department ought to have relevance (on a practical level) in that field. There is nothing wrong with taking advice, but there is a lot wrong with having "advisors" permanently on the payroll. That is simply "jobs for the boys". And yes, the Scottish Parliament has indeed improved with increased transparency, even if we really don't need it in the first place!
Oh, ok, and how many £billion are we in debt? The country is up to its neck in debt yet the current government seems to think it can just borrow, borrow and borrow some more and all will be well.... eventually!
I do not know or claim to know of an alternative to the current financial problems, but then I have no experience of finances at that sort of level. My gut instinct, however, tells me it is wrong to do what is currently being done. I could rant on about stealth taxation on the motorist in the name of the environment, when one of the obvious items required is to get traffic flowing - if traffic gets from A to B quickly and free-flowing, it emits less pollution than if it has to sit static with engines running in a multitude of jams and snarl-ups. That is but one example, there are no doubt endless analogies but there's no point in me ranting on about them because I wouldn't be saying anything new, or anything that most readers here haven't already thought about at some time.
Lol. A tongue in cheek comment, yet I seem to have struck a nerve! You must admit though, your posts do seem to set a general tone of defending them... and you haven't actually denied it..... ;-)
Badger.
In message , JacobH writes
Yes but a burden on every organisation in the chain, hence inefficient.
You are correct - I suggested that any tax cuts should have been.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required