Maintaining a classic car involves a vast amount of stuff that attracts VAT. Even art works must require the occasional professional cleanup.If you want to enjoy your cash you pay VAT.
OK to simplify, if you are poor you have very little chance of avoiding VAT, on most things you pay for the government will collect VAT, as a proportion of your income it's much higher.
If VAt goes up by 5% then do you have a bugger choice about your spending if you a poor person or a rich one? Not buying the classic car etc. is not the same as replacing your worn out clothes or replacing a broken fridge or paying your fuel bill.
Edukator - blame your lecturers, it's a non debate based on a false premise. You might as well debate whether VAT is an orange or a tomato.
Daz - the gov is responsible for executing a decision delivered through a democratic process. A50 is being used to make all kinds of excuses. It shouldn't be. The gov made a mistake over the royal prerogative v AoP and simply need to address this, trigger A50, present the bill and move on.
It cannot be a win:win by defitnion, so we should stop pretending otherwise. We can only make it a slightly less lose:lose. Sadly there are powerful populist forces that make this unlikely and make more significant lose:lose much more likely. But that in itself cannot halt the democratic process.
OK to simplify, if you are poor you have very little chance of avoiding VAT,
Food will be a big part of your spend and that's zero rated. To take it to it's extreme if you were so desperately poor you could *only* afford food, you would 100pc avoid VAT.
[i]VAT hits the poor hardest, the system allows the rich to pay less VAT than the poor.[/I]
Absolute bo11ocks. Only last week we bought a new car, over £10k in VAT - how long would it take someone poor to generate £10k of VAT?
I've provided enough examples to show it's not a progressive tax,
I'm not arguing it's a progressive tax.
I'm arguing it's neither progressive nor regressive - you can argue it either way. Which is exactly what we're doing.
Daz - the gov is responsible for executing a decision delivered through a democratic process.
If we're being pedantic about process, then maybe they should point out the fact that the referendum was advisory rather than binding and they can, presumably with the support of parliament, decide that at this point in time, leaving the EU is not in the nations's interests, but they will pursue policies to enable it to happen in the future.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/27/what-has-become-of-conservatism-trump-farage-le-pen-brexit ]A Thoughtful, interesting and thoroughly depressing article by Nick Cohen[/url] on how traditional conservatism has been hijacked, and taken over by hard right populist nutjobs, and where on earth this is leading
As for the yachts the rick cruise the Med in you'd be a fool to think VAT had been paid even when they are owned by Brits because they might sometimes rent them out.
You're saying VAT is regressive because it can be avoided? So those guy all pay PAYE income tax, but not VAT?
VAT is a harder tax to avoid than income tax IMHO.
b r - Member
VAT hits the poor hardest, the system allows the rich to pay less VAT than the poor.
Absolute bo11ocks. Only last week we bought a new car, over £10k in VAT - how long would it take someone poor to generate £10k of VAT?
Missing the point (deliberately?)
you paid 10k to the tax man, how long would somebody on the living wage etc. take to earn enough money to pay that much VAT. You didn't have to spend that much on a car, you chose to, the point being at lower incomes you have very little spare income and anything except food and kids clothing is +VAT.
It's about the proportion of your income that goes in tax, income tax allows for the better off to pay a bigger proportion, VAT makes no such calculation.
In general the better off you are the easier it is to reduce your tax and maximise your wealth through investments in property etc. if your poor you get it taken off you no questions asked.
Pedantry works two ways. They promised that they would execute whatever decision was made, This was unequivocal. They even made that promise in writing to every household and at great expense. So they have a choice. Respect the democratic process or ignore/obstruct it. I hope that TM's faith (!) allows here to do the correct thing!!
VAT is a harder tax to avoid than income tax IMHO.
For the poor I agree. I'm saying VAT is regressive because it is not applied or applied at a lower rate to the most expensive, most luxurious items you can buy.
They promised that they would execute whatever decision was made, This was unequivocal. They even made that promise in writing to every household and at great expense. So they have a choice. Respect the democratic process or ignore/obstruct it.
Or the third choice of not doing it whilst saying they're engaged in doing it.
Or the fourth choice of delivering something called Leave that isn't whatever the people who voted Leave had in their minds at the time they voted.
This is fudgable, and it will be fudged.
I am beginning to think the £350m claim was absolute genius as the amount of time during the Campaign Remain spent complaining about it was totally wasted, a massive distraction. Most Leavers I spoke with didn't care whether the number was £100m, £200m or £350m a week. As per the Trump post election videos it has meant the losing side has clung to "we only lost as they lied" which is helpful for Leave as unless Remain acknowledge the real reasons they lost those campaign groups will go on to repeat their failures 8)
VAT: Progressive or not. Hard to generalise and of course depends on location. In France you have vat on food and utilities, in UK we have no vat on food and low rate vat on utilities. So in a uk context it's easier to argue vat is a prpgressive tax as it's paid mostly by the better off. for the least well off you have to add in the tax free welfare they receive too. Rent of course is free of tax. Also once again a focus on percentage of income is an excersize in smoke and mirrors and at the very least it should be looked at both as a percentage and on an absolute basis.
The most powerful argument for VAT imo is that it's paid by everyone, those working, retired and by tourists. Also VAT at least collects some taxes from untaxed / black market income
As this is an EU thread we should remember the EU has repeatedly sought to "align" VAT meaning the UK would have been forced to tax food, childrens's shoes and clothes and fullt tax gas/electric and water supply.
I am a bit lost as to the rationale for a VAT rise from Fillon (euro debt/gdp limits forcing him to raise taxes ?) as that's going to lose votes from left and FN have policies to appeal very much to that portion of the electorate. Removal of the wealth tax is perhaps more classically Republican, no mention of the 66% employers tax for €1m+. 500,000 reduction in state sector jobs maybe too agressive if he wants to avoid driving people to FN.
For the poor I agree. I'm saying VAT is regressive because it is not applied or applied at a lower rate to the most expensive, most luxurious items you can buy.
True, on the other hand you could equally argue that VAT is progressive, because wealthy people buy tons of VATable stuff, and poor people don't.
You can argue it either way. Which is what I said.
It's a negotiation. We don't know for sure what the result will be except that it will be worse than the status quo. But the turkeys have voted
But the turkeys have voted
Why is that the end of it? I'm sure I don't have to repeat the well rehearsed reasons for revisiting, amending or even ignoring what the people apparently want. It's all very well asking the people their opinion on something, but if that opinion is based on a something that simply isn't possible, then it's worthless. They could've asked the people whether we should all emigrate to the moon, just because they might say 'yes, that's a great idea' doesn't make it possible.
Why is that the end of it? I'm sure I don't have to repeat the well rehearsed reasons for revisiting, amending or even ignoring what the people apparently want. It's all very well asking the people their opinion on something, but if that opinion is based on a something that simply isn't possible, then it's worthless. They could've asked the people whether we should all emigrate to the moon, just because they might say 'yes, that's a great idea' doesn't make it possible.
That's exactly my take. It's not binding. We'll only leave if the political fallout from Brexit is worse than the political fallout of stalling/delaying/not leaving at all. Which means either we won't leave, but if we do leave the Civil Servants will have worked out leaving won't be too bad.
I am beginning to think the £350m claim was absolute genius as the amount of time during the Campaign Remain spent complaining about it was totally wasted, a massive distraction. Most Leavers I spoke with didn't care whether the number was £100m, £200m or £350m a week. As per the Trump post election videos it has meant the losing side has clung to "we only lost as they lied" which is helpful for Leave as unless Remain acknowledge the real reasons they lost those campaign groups will go on to repeat their failures
so lying is the best way to win votes?
so lying is the best way to win votes?
Didn't work for remain. 😮
5thElefant - Member
so lying is the best way to win votes?Didn't work for remain.
nah its just that their lies werent big enough/ written on a bus......
does it also tie in with leave voters having much lower education levels (on average) than remainers ?
either way, even the Brexit Bugle reckoned leave told more porkies!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-fact-checking-the-big-claims1/
does it also tie in with leave voters having much lower education levels (on average) than remainers
You can argue that. Equally you can argue they were more sophisticated and understood that you can't take campaign promises literally. Especially if they're on average older - they've been around a bit and heard Politicians promises before.
[I]It's about the proportion of your income that goes in tax, income tax allows for the better off to pay a bigger proportion, VAT makes no such calculation[/I]
Except it isn't that simple in the UK due to zero-rated food, childrens' shoes & clothing and 5% energy.
Consequently I would suggest that the better off pay a higher percentage of their income in VAT than the poorest.
so lying is the best way to win votes?
You know very well that it wasn't a lie
It may well have been the less than transparent application of an officially published government figure, without the associated caveats... but it most certainty was [b]not[/b] a lie. No more than it was a promise either.
Still, keep holding on to that figleaf of victimhood if it assuages your sense of butthurt.
😆
teamhurtmore - Member
It's a negotiation. We don't know for sure what the result will be except that it will be worse than the status quo. But the turkeys have voted
Democracy doesn't have a for better or worse, till death do us part clause. If it's worse you can actually go to the polls and get a divorce.
You just need people to support that call for a poll.
"It may well have been the less than transparent application of an officially published government figure, without the associated caveats... but it most certainty was not a lie. No more than it was a promise either."
...and it's been revised upwards so we can all keep taking about it.
As the cost of Brexit becomes clearer, the Government plans to cull the elderly in order to save money on social care in order to fund the diplomacy and bureaucracy required to extricate the country from EU.The cull will initially be purely voluntary, and volunteers will be sought amongst the millions of elderly Brexit voters.
“We’re reasonably confident that a voluntary cull will be a success,” said a spokesperson for the government.
“After all, we are talking about the wisdom of age here. I can’t imagine a great many old people would actually want to see the state of the country after Brexit, so they’ll be quite happy to be culled.”
The cull will take place over a fortnight at Wembley Stadium with entertainment from the Strictly Come Dancing dancers and comedy from Christopher Biggins.
The volunteers will be given a nice cup of tea and a Marks and Spencer biscuit before having a bolt shot into their brain.
“Would I prefer Brexit or a bolt in the brain?” said pensioner Simon Williams.
“I may be old, but I’m not a fool. I’ll take the bolt in the brain.
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/28/elderly-face-cull-to-pay-for-brexit/
I'm still in favour of remaining, I've seen nothing that's been put forward to convince me otherwise.
I'm still in favour of remaining, I've seen nothing that's been put forward to convince me otherwise.
Why on earth would anyone feel the need to put things forward to convince you? We've already voted,
Why on earth would anyone feel the need to put things forward to convince you? We've already voted
There are some bewilderingly stupid/insensitive/out of touch things said on this thread but this wins for today at the very least. Unless you are just being unnecessarily nasty again.
I mean, why would the government want to explain to get the country working in unity towards a common goal rather than splitting it in two even further.
Why on earth would anyone feel the need to put things forward to convince you? We've already voted,
In an advisory referendum which appears to have asked a very stupid question to which very few understood the consiquencies.
So where is the 350M for the NHS? If it didn't exist then it is lie, no ifs no buts. As leave made it a central plank of their campaign it matters, and it's not like your average election where we get to vote in 5 years. This is a one off, leave and their is no going back. IMO ever, 40 years of bullshit.
On more positive notes looks like pension age is being revised up again. What joy no NHS, no pensions.
ninfan 🙂
As highlighted by Farage today this Sunday is another potentially significant day.
Re-run of Austrian Presidential election (50.1/49.9 Green/Far Right last time). Far Right candidate has said he wants to hold an EU Referendum, also quite likely he would call a general election as his party is riding high in the polls.
Italian consitutional reform referendum, Prime Minister likley to resign if he loses (expected ?).
In an advisory referendum which appears to have asked a very stupid question to which very few understood the consiquencies.
Simple and clear question
Extraordinarily obnoxious to suggest Leavers didn't understand the consequences. They absolutely understood we would leave the EU, the single market and that there could be an initial cost which would be a fraction of the Armageddon predicted by Cameron/Osbourne/IMF etc
Don't get too excited there Jamby you might do yourself an injury. Not sure anyone could see a positive in political uncertainty in Europe though, benefits nobody.
They absolutely understood we would leave the EU, the single market and that there could be an initial cost which would be a fraction of the Armageddon predicted by Cameron/Osbourne/IMF etc
Dare we ask for evidence....
So where is the 350M for the NHS? If it didn't exist then it is lie, no ifs no buts. As leave made it a central plank of their campaign it matters, and it's not like your average election where we get to vote in 5 years. This is a one off, leave and their is no going back. IMO ever, 40 years of bullshit.
[img] 
[/img]
350M for the NHS. Where is it?
The little girl up there seems to understand.
You know very well that it wasn't a lieIt may well have been the less than transparent application of an officially published government figure, without the associated caveats...
🙄
when the reality is several million less for the NHS I think its fully worthy of a veruca salt tantrum!
Norway's Ambassador has announced they will soon begin trade "policy" discussions with the UK.
Don't get too excited there Jamby you might do yourself an injury. Not sure anyone could see a positive in political uncertainty in Europe though, benefits nobody.
My point is twofold. Firstly eurosceptism is very strong and growing throughout Europe, the project is fundamentally broken and deeply unpopular. Reform of the EU is in Britain's interest even as a non-member.
We're be alright for pickled herring then?
Thats a relief
Reform of the EU is in Britain's interest even as a non-member
Which as a non member we have no input into.
Brexit: making us smaller and less significant by the day !
Extraordinarily obnoxious to suggest Leavers didn't understand the consequences. They absolutely understood we would leave the EU, the single market and that there could be an initial cost
None of the leavers I have spoken to had any idea there would be any cost (especially not a cost that is higher than if we stayed in)
They seemed to think we would just be £350MM a week better off. Can't think what led them to believe that.
They also have no knowledge of single market and implications around that.
There will be less immigrants though won't there?
None of the leavers I have spoken to had any idea there would be any cost (especially not a cost that is higher than if we stayed in)
They seemed to think we would just be £350MM a week better off. Can't think what led them to believe that.
They also have no knowledge of single market and implications around that.
There will be less immigrants though won't there?
I think this says a fair bit about your social circle and contributes no arguments for/against EU membership.
