no vat on motorcycle clothing petition

[amarko5]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/MotorcycleSafety/

sign if you feel like it ;-)

i think its a rather good idea myself :D

[Stingo]

Done!! Too right. What about women's ahem 'toiletries' tho? Or have the bean counters already taken this one into account?:smt076

[tigersaw]

A good idea, but I doubt the price would change a jot. No VAT on childrens shoes either, but have you seen how expensive they are? The price always reflects what the market will bear.

[Richie]

I've signed, any saving is a good saving.

[neio79]

VAT is meant to be for luxury items (according to the government) so considering that the basic human needs are food, water, warmpth and shelter.

we should not pay VAT on any clothing, any heating bills, water rates, or food of any type.

[Miss Alpinestarhero]

We shouldnt pay VAT on anything in my opinion but I suppose the government has to make an income somewhere...(not that I am justifying VAT mind)

Maria

[Spiderman]

VAT is meant to be for luxury items (according to the government) so considering that the basic human needs are food, water, warmpth and shelter.

we should not pay VAT on any clothing, any heating bills, water rates, or food of any type.

Watching a repeat of QI the other night i was amazed to learn the following.

McVities had to prove that their Jaffa Cake product was actulay a cake an not a biscuit to avoid having VAT added to the product.

Why? I hear you all cry. Well according to the law a biscuit is VAT exempt...BUT dip it in chocolate and it becomes a luxury item and is subject to VAT. Cakes on the other hand are not subject to VAT.

Now, do we live in the dark ages where a choclate coated biscuit is seen as a luxury by any part of society FFS?
A Rolex, now thats a luxury item, a £3K Armani suit etc etc. A frigging choclate biscuit?!?!?!?!?

I hope our very own LynW see this thread as this is her chosen 'specialist subject' and i'd love to know her point of view on some of these issues.

[SoulKiss]

Income Tax was brought in to pay for the War Debt.

now I am sure I heard it on the TV the other month that we had finally cleared the bill with the US.

So time for the abolision of Income Tax methinks :)

[RhythmJunkie]

Have you heard about the american income tax scandal? Apparently its not written into the constitution so all the tax the americans have been paying should be refunded!
Their national debt is running into trillions and is spiralling out of control....what next? Currency crash by the richest nation on earth and we can all wave goodbye to our arsets. How do you fancy queueing for a loaf of bread next week folks?

[Lozzo]

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/MotorcycleSafety/

sign if you feel like it ;-)

i think its a rather good idea myself :D

Proper motorcycle clothing is zero rated for VAT purposes anyway. By law all you are required to wear is an approved safety helmet, and you won't pay VAT on it either. If you introduce things like VAT zero rating on all bike clothing then you're opening the door for more restrictive legislation regarding clothing. if it's regarded as safety wear then the govt will try to introduce the wearing of it as mandatory.

The other point I'd like to make is that there is an awful lot of very low quality motorcycle clothing out there, some of it no better than fashion clothing. If zero rating is to be introduced then I propose that it is only to be applied to m/cycle clothing that is CE approved, which so little of it is.

Maybe then the manufacturers will take the CE ratings seriously if people start looking for clothing that is approved.

[kwak zzr]

zero vat on bike gear is a good idea, VAT is a downer and but i dont mind paying it once but its when you pay vat on the same things more than once that gets me.

[embee]

Unless I'm mistaken (and according to here)

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_PROD_009533

fuel has it's basic price, then duty is applied, then VAT is charged. You pay VAT on duty! I guess the "value added" is that if you don't pay the duty you don't get the fuel. :smt097

[lynw]

*Sigh* I vowed I wasnt going to do any more VAT threads for the amount of grief I get, but Spidey, I have a lot of time for you so I will relent and post.

Done!! Too right. What about women's ahem 'toiletries' tho? Or have the bean counters already taken this one into account?:smt076

It has its gone down to 5%. Once a positive rate of VAT has been charged on an item, EC legislation states it can NEVER be exempted or zero rated again. So the Chancellor had to introduce the "reduced" rate of 5% to reduce the VAT on sanitary towels because he couldnt reduce it to 0%.

VAT is meant to be for luxury items (according to the government) so considering that the basic human needs are food, water, warmpth and shelter.

we should not pay VAT on any clothing, any heating bills, water rates, or food of any type.

Ah the luxury items ********. Sorry you are confusing how the government in 1973 "sold" the replacement of the Sales tax with VAT. The legislation has NEVER actually meant luxury items only. Its only the UK governments negotiations in '73 that achieved its exemptions and zero rating on non-"luxury" items.

Everyone else in Europe has been paying VAT on essential items such as food etc for years. We actually have one of the most lenient VAT systems in Europe ie we have the 5th LOWEST rate of VAT in the EC AND we have about the highest numbers of goods and services EXEMPT and Zero rated from VAT.

For the record, most power and water are supplied reduced rate. However, any service you pay for by the company supplying it will be standard rated. Most food you buy that are considered essential to survival IS zero rated from VAT - sweets, chocs, fizzy drinks etc are VATable. But your every day fruit, veg, meat arent.

The building and sale of NEW houses is also zero rated. The sale of existing houses is EXEMPT. Oh and childrens clothing IS zero rated too.

So in effect the bulk of what you say should be outside of VAT generally is. Its either exempt, zero rated or reduced rated.

We shouldnt pay VAT on anything in my opinion but I suppose the government has to make an income somewhere...(not that I am justifying VAT mind)

Its funny. People whinge about declining services, and whinge about paying tax. You cant have it for free you have to pay for it somehow.

The question is would you prefer 50% out your pay packet or to pay it on the goods you buy? The difference is people who work only pay tax on the direct PAYE scheme. EVERYONE pays VAT on goods bought [where they are subject to VAT of course]. To me, VAT is much more equitable than PAYE to some degree.

McVities had to prove that their Jaffa Cake product was actulay a cake an not a biscuit to avoid having VAT added to the product.

Why? I hear you all cry. Well according to the law a biscuit is VAT exempt...BUT dip it in chocolate and it becomes a luxury item and is subject to VAT. Cakes on the other hand are not subject to VAT.

Now, do we live in the dark ages where a choclate coated biscuit is seen as a luxury by any part of society FFS? A Rolex, now thats a luxury item, a £3K Armani suit etc etc. A frigging choclate biscuit?!?!?!?!?

I hope our very own LynW see this thread as this is her chosen 'specialist subject' and i'd love to know her point of view on some of these issues.

See above the urban myth ******** about VAT being a "luxury" tax. It isnt. It never was meant to be. It never really has been. However, vagaries of EC legislation, UK negotiations for exemptions and zero rated coverage etc means that generally things covered in chocolate are seen as non-essential food items and subject to VAT with the exception of cakes :rolleyes:

Its not entirely the governments fault - its poor legislative drafting, tribunal and court judgements and interpretations in light of the EC sixth directive and EC judgements themselves that result in the seeming inconsistencies.

The jaffa cakes case isnt the stupidest one either. I could regale you with the complexities of VAT liability of renovation of buildings. Depending on whether the building is listed or not, whether the building is going to be demolished or not, the liability could be anything. Being a VAT inspector was not the easiest job in the world I can tell you that much. :rolleyes:

Income Tax was brought in to pay for the War Debt. now I am sure I heard it on the TV the other month that we had finally cleared the bill with the US.

So time for the abolision of Income Tax methinks :)

Correct. However it was the Napoleonic wars it was introduced for. Nice try but tax has been around since time immemorial and there will always be some form of income tax. Prior to income tax there was a window tax - why do you think a lot of 18th century London buildings have bricked up windows? ;) :)

Proper motorcycle clothing is zero rated for VAT purposes anyway. By law all you are required to wear is an approved safety helmet, and you won't pay VAT on it either.

No the ONLY zero rated motorcycle clothing is your lid. And that is ONLY zero rated IF it complies with the BSI standard or the EU standard and ONLY because it is COMPULSORY safety equipment. No other bit of your kit is compulsory ergo it isnt zero rated unless you buy a childs size. :p :lol:

Technically you buy a lid in the states and bring it in, because its neither standard approved its Vatable at 17.5%.

[Pedrosa]

Hey folks, how good is our Lyn,hey???:cool: ;)

Sorry I live in a country were just abpout everything imaginable is subject to IVA(spanish version of VAT) It makes me smile in exasperation at times when the oh so persecuted Brits bang on about taxes.:rolleyes:

[embee]

Hey Lyn, tough job you have there ;)

...anyway, VAT is "VALUE ADDED TAX", so how come it's applied to things where there has been no VALUE ADDED, just some middle-man has put his entrepreneurial margin on it......and as for VAT on duty.........

Let's face it, it's just TAX, plain and simple, I just wish it wasn't dressed up in some sort of pseudo-justification of calling it Value Added when it plainly isn't. Let's start a "call a spade a spade*" campaign and get it called "TAX" (same number of letters as VAT!)

*I guess spades are subject to 17.5% VAT.

[lynw]

Hey Lyn, tough job you have there ;)

...anyway, VAT is "VALUE ADDED TAX", so how come it's applied to things where there has been no VALUE ADDED, just some middle-man has put his entrepreneurial margin on it......and as for VAT on duty.........

Let's face it, it's just TAX, plain and simple, I just wish it wasn't dressed up in some sort of pseudo-justification of calling it Value Added when it plainly isn't. Let's start a "call a spade a spade*" campaign and get it called "TAX" (same number of letters as VAT!)

*I guess spades are subject to 17.5% VAT.

Because tax is not just TAX :rolleyes:

For starters you have the differentiation of direct and indirect taxes to contend with. And within those you have further different taxes.

For example, with direct taxes, PAYE is NOT the same tax or regime as Corporation tax or Inheritance tax. For indirect taxes, customs duty is NOT the same as excise duty or VAT.

And being pedantic over the English is pointless - the term is an economic/ accounting concept not what you interpret the everyday concept of added value.

Simply because you dont see it in that sense and the English suggests some value should be added and you cant see where it is doesnt mean its incorrect. Value is generally always added when goods are sold in that accounting concept of VAT.

If its not, the net effect is that the trader gets a refund of VAT. For example, you buy at £200 with VAT paid and claimable of £35. You sell eventually at £100 and pay £17.50. You get the difference of £17.50 back from HMRC :)

[Biker Biggles]

In life two things a certain---Death and Taxes.
Hence when the economy is totally fubared and we all reach hell in our handcarts,the undertakers and tax collecters will still have jobs.;)

[embee]

Hehe! just pulling your wire!

Because tax is not just TAX :rolleyes:
Money that the Chancellor takes from me as a result of my dealings with some third party, just because he can, is TAX. It waddles, it quacks, it's TAX.

For starters you have the differentiation of direct and indirect taxes to contend with. And within those you have further different taxes.
See above.

For example, with direct taxes, PAYE is NOT the same tax or regime as Corporation tax or Inheritance tax (ooooh, don't get me started on Inheritance Tax! :smt013 ). For indirect taxes, customs duty is NOT the same as excise duty or VAT.
How much do you earn? How much have you got left? Send it. It's TAX. My twenty pound notes don't have "direct" and "indirect" pounds written on them. What you do with it once you've taken it is your affair, but it goes out of my pocket, it's Tax.

And being pedantic over the English is pointless
damn right there when it's anything to do with politicians and/or civil service speak
- the term is an economic/ accounting concept not what you interpret the everyday concept of added value.
I'll remember that phrase to include in my Tax Return. Me not paying you Tax is an "economic/accounting concept not what you interpret the everyday concept of Income". Should do the trick.

Simply because you dont see it in that sense and the English suggests some value should be added (VALUE ADDED TAX?? :smt102 ) and you cant see where it is doesnt mean its incorrect. Value is generally always added when goods are sold in that accounting concept of VAT.
Trade description act ought to apply.

If its not, the net effect is that the trader gets a refund of VAT. For example, you buy at £200 with VAT paid and claimable of £35. You sell eventually at £100 and pay £17.50. You get the difference of £17.50 back from HMRC :)
If a buyer buys "stuff" (a trading concept) for £1000 he pays £175 in VAT. He then sells the same "stuff" to me for £2000 and I pay £350, but it's the same "stuff", there is no v-a-l-u-e a-d-d-e-d. In this case VAT is an accounting concept of getting more money from me as a result of my deal with a third party, back to square one. It's not "Value Added Tax", it's "Increased Price Tax".


I guess one of the things that's annoyed me recently is the latest budget ruse of abolishing the 10% rate of income tax and reducing the "standard" rate to 20% (?). Sounds great except that on my meagre income I'll be worse off. Great. That wonderful chap Ed Balls was on the box trying to defend this situation. His defence was that "it only affects a few thousand people" (his very words). Great.
I don't get Tax Credits, handouts, benefits or any other term they might go under. I pay TAX.
When Council Tax replaced Community Charge ("Poll Tax") we were told "initially no-one will pay more under the new system". My bill increased from £299 to £435. When I asked for a refund I was told that the actual wording was "on average no-one will pay more", so tough. Weasel words. Honesty is just a philosophical concept it would seem, not what you would interpret the everyday concept of "honesty" .

Bah, humbug.

Sorry, that rant went right off the rails, please ignore me (especially when it comes to Tax).

[Lozzo]

<Lozzo said>
Proper motorcycle clothing is zero rated for VAT purposes anyway. By law all you are required to wear is an approved safety helmet, and you won't pay VAT on it either.



No the ONLY zero rated motorcycle clothing is your lid. And that is ONLY zero rated IF it complies with the BSI standard or the EU standard and ONLY because it is COMPULSORY safety equipment. No other bit of your kit is compulsory ergo it isnt zero rated unless you buy a childs size. :p :lol:


You're missing my point. I was stressing that a helmet is the only item you currently wear on a bike that is defined as protective - it's also compulsory and therefore zero rated. Even CE approved suits, boots and gloves are still liable for VAT because they are not compulsory, which I find galling.

Believe me, I know enough about bike clothing and helmets to know what is zero rated and what's not - I was a shop manager for Hein Gericke and sales rep for two major manufacturers of bike clothing and helmets for many years. Bike safety clothing is one of my pet topics, I've been pushing for higher standards of bike kit and for CE approved bike kit to be officially recognised as zero rated PPE for years.

[2mths]

Pleasure to read your posts lynw.

[MiniMatt]

Pleasure to read your posts lynw.

Seconded :D

I'd have to wonder whether zero rating motorcycle clothing could actually end up increasing the price paid by the consumer. As has been noted already, there would have to be some sort of definition as to what constitutes protective clothing. Manufacturers would look to classify fashion clothing as protective clothing, to do this they'd hire tax specialists, adding to their own costs which would push up end price. To tackle this, the government hires more tax inspectors to catch people wriggling through loop holes, the effect of this is that we pay more tax in other areas to pay for them. To tackle the loop hole, the government decides on a rigourous independent testing method all clothes must pass before being labelled as protective clothing, the cost for this testing must be borne by the manufacturer, who passes it on to the consumer. Complicating tax law often seems to have the effect of raising prices even if the desire was to lower them.

That said, like everyone else, I'm in favour of less taxation (though as also pointed out, I'd like better public services too please!).

[timwilky]

Vat is unfair as the definitions are too loose

When my 8 year old daughter required new sandals for school we were told £35. What for a pair of school sandals. No it is because she is in "Ladies" sizes.

Who decides what is childrens clothing and what is a childs. When the girls were a little older and required "support". VAT on their underwear. To me a 14 year old is still a child.

My son at age 15 was wearing size 11 shoes. Still a child but being asked to pay VAT on his clothing stunk. To be fair, parents should be able to claim back the VAT the spend on childrens clothes irrespective of the size.

[Ceri JC]

Good idea, particularly when you consider that as our healthcare is state sponsored (NHS) it's in joe public's interests that we wear good kit. Even if you only need medical treatment once in your life as the result of a crash, chances are it will cost a great deal more than the money from the VAT of all the leathers you'll ever own, never mind if it's a several weeks in hospital crash...

[lynw]

You're missing my point. I was stressing that a helmet is the only item you currently wear on a bike that is defined as protective - it's also compulsory and therefore zero rated. Even CE approved suits, boots and gloves are still liable for VAT because they are not compulsory, which I find galling.

Believe me, I know enough about bike clothing and helmets to know what is zero rated and what's not - I was a shop manager for Hein Gericke and sales rep for two major manufacturers of bike clothing and helmets for many years. Bike safety clothing is one of my pet topics, I've been pushing for higher standards of bike kit and for CE approved bike kit to be officially recognised as zero rated PPE for years.

Well dur yes I am going to miss your point when you phrase it so vaguely. :p

You phrased it "proper motorcycle clothing is zero rated for vat anyway". That could be misleading to a new rider who doesnt know about VAT. They would wonder why their gear other than the lid has VAT on it. If you only meant the lid then say it. Something like "The lid is zero rated for vat" not a vague "proper motorcycle CLOTHING".

Plus it doesnt convey the reason why the zero rating applies ie it is deemed safety equipment and is compulsory. No other item of clothing matches that criteria [compulsory safety gear] so again leaving it vague with "proper motorcycle clothing" comes across as misleading and inaccurate. Imho that is ;)

Indulge me, you dont know me as youre new here looking at your join date and I havent been about much, but as a VAT inspector for 13 years [so I do know wtf I am talking about here :p ;)] I dislike reading things that can be misleading for other people and I apologise, I do have a tendency to get all pedantic and corrective on this subject :oops: :oops: :p ;) :D

Btw, the notion of getting safety gear zero rated is not one I would support. Why? Because to get it zero rated you would have to extend it to become compulsory. To me, making any more gear compulsory is going to be detrimental to kids starting out who can, like I did, only buy their gear bits at a time starting with the essentials. Most people buy their gear and get better and better stuff over time. I think making gear compulsory to get the zero rating will not be a good thing.

Zero rating can only come from that compulsory requirement. That IS VAT legislation. It can not as currently positive rated be dropped and added into the zero rated schedule of the VAT act. The best the government could do is reduce rate it ie drop it to 5%.

Sorry if its blunt and no offence intended if you take it the wrong way - this is my normal to the point posting style. Also, for some reason this forum induces a massive soh failure for me these days. I dont have this on visordown or maximumbikes or the CBF forum, only here. Odd. :(

[lynw]

Complicating tax law often seems to have the effect of raising prices even if the desire was to lower them.

Thanks guys for the comments.

Minimatt, Im giggling reading this... tax law by default is complicated. Simplifying it has only the effect of complicating it further in my experience.

For Spidey, another example of the insanity of VAT law thanks to legislation drafting, EC law, tribunal decisions.... buying lunch...

But a sandwich to take back to your desk - zero rated. Eat it in cafe, 17.5%. Buy hot food take away or eat in, standard rated [17.5%] UNLESS its hot because its just come out the oven from being cooked. If the food is to be kept hot, then it will be standard rated. If its there and cooling down, but you buy it hot, then its zero rated. Oh and if you buy cold food that you put in microwave in say a garage, standard rated. :rolleyes:

I recall an argument with Burger King at Waterloo one evening why they were charging me on my take away milk shake which should have been zero rated [cold take away]. Apparently because I bought it on what was BR property rented to BK, and was going to drink it on the train which was still BR property I never technically left the premsises :rolleyes: I argued that was ******** and I noted a while later they werent charging VAT on their take away cold stuff :D

Still the complexities of VAT kept me in a job for a long long time :D

[Lozzo]

Well dur yes I am going to miss your point when you phrase it so vaguely. :p

Yeah, my bad. <slaps wrist>

You phrased it "proper motorcycle clothing is zero rated for vat anyway". That could be misleading to a new rider who doesnt know about VAT. They would wonder why their gear other than the lid has VAT on it. If you only meant the lid then say it. Something like "The lid is zero rated for vat" not a vague "proper motorcycle CLOTHING".

Point taken.

Btw, the notion of getting safety gear zero rated is not one I would support. Why? Because to get it zero rated you would have to extend it to become compulsory. To me, making any more gear compulsory is going to be detrimental to kids starting out who can, like I did, only buy their gear bits at a time starting with the essentials. Most people buy their gear and get better and better stuff over time. I think making gear compulsory to get the zero rating will not be a good thing.

I covered this in my original post. i'm against the wearing of approved bike kit being made compulsory, but it would be an advantage to all if more bike kit was properly made and tested. If that kit was classed as PPE then zero rating should be applied and this would in turn make it more attractive to the buyers. Moving on from that we then end up with manufacturers trying to be more competetive and prices moving to reasonable levels for good quality kit. It would weed out the rubbish that is sold under the banner of motorcycle clothing and hopefully put people into kit that will actually save them when it's called upon to do so.[/quote]

Zero rating can only come from that compulsory requirement. That IS VAT legislation. It can not as currently positive rated be dropped and added into the zero rated schedule of the VAT act. The best the government could do is reduce rate it ie drop it to 5%.

The fact that VAT legislation only allows zero rating on compulsory requirement is fair enough, and even a 5% rate would help to get things moving forward with regard to PPE coming down in price and becoming more competetive in the market place. My main beef is that there is a hell of a lot of crap sold out there under the misleading banner of "bike kit", and it's as good as useless in an accident. Something needs to be done to eradicate this crap and bring safety standards up. A change in VAT rate would be a big help, but that can only happen if it's classed as PPE.

Sorry if its blunt and no offence intended if you take it the wrong way - this is my normal to the point posting style.

I'm big enough and ugly enough not to be upset by constructive criticism. No offence taken :)

[Jester666]

Done!

[rob13]

Personally, I'd rather see the government scrap PAYE tax and increase the tax on sales. This would maybe stop some of the lazy layabouts who sponge off the state having so many nice goods. The amount of ridiculously sized TV's in houses where there are no earning parties is quite staggering!

[Ceri JC]

Personally, I'd rather see the government scrap PAYE tax and increase the tax on sales. This would maybe stop some of the lazy layabouts who sponge off the state having so many nice goods. The amount of ridiculously sized TV's in houses where there are no earning parties is quite staggering!

That's a good idea. I'm all for a single point of taxation (I shudder to think that some proportion of my tax actually goes to pay for taxing me!) and I reckon a high sales tax on goods would be one of the best ways of doing it. I think part of the reason the govt. wouldn't do it is if we actually saw the real amount of tax we are charged, we'd be rioting. :D

[MiniMatt]

The trouble with single taxation systems is the inequalities it produces. All systems have inequalities but single systems seem more pronouced.

EG. £50,000 per year manager still has to eat the same amount of food and water to keep alive as the £10,000 per year cleaner, they both need a fridge and a washing machine, and hell, let's be honest, in today's society a computer too. Who should pay more total tax? Currently the manager pays a bit more in VAT due to more expensive tastes but a lot more in income tax. Put the entire burden onto sales tax and the poor end up paying a far greater proportion of their income in tax, and it would be entirely possible for a rich man of modest appetites to pay exactly the same amount of tax as a poor man of modest appetites.

Not to say there isn't room for improvement in our current system or any system.

[lynw]

I think part of the reason the govt. wouldn't do it is if we actually saw the real amount of tax we are charged, we'd be rioting. :grin:

Yep right up until you realise we actually have one of the better tax systems around. It may not seem like it but theres an awful lot of stuff you arent VATted for where you are everywhere else in Europe. We also have a fairly lenient PAYE system.

But whenever people look at tax systems they never look at others which are worse, they always look at tax havens and want the UK to be like that. Thats not feasible for a country this size with this population really. Want to live in a tax haven? move to one. Because I can tell you there are fewer of those around that ARE better tax wise than the UK than countries where you would actually be paying MORE tax.

Like Pedrosa said earlier... for some reason the Brits seem to think theyre persecuted tax wise when in reality, live elsewhere and you really will appreciate it really aint that bad here. :)

Nice post MiniMatt btw... no one system is equitable so the fact ours is split is probably as good as it gets. Yes there are flaws and inequalities - hell any system has those. But its pretty balanced overall between the direct/indirect taxation.

[JediGoat]

Well.....much as I personally do not approve of making motorbike clothing compulsary......I'd love it to be zero rated.......then I would get back a few hours of my life every 3 months, instead of glaring at the computer trying to get my VAT return done :compcrash:

Jo

[rob13]

The trouble with single taxation systems is the inequalities it produces. All systems have inequalities but single systems seem more pronouced.

EG. £50,000 per year manager still has to eat the same amount of food and water to keep alive as the £10,000 per year cleaner, they both need a fridge and a washing machine, and hell, let's be honest, in today's society a computer too. Who should pay more total tax? Currently the manager pays a bit more in VAT due to more expensive tastes but a lot more in income tax. Put the entire burden onto sales tax and the poor end up paying a far greater proportion of their income in tax, and it would be entirely possible for a rich man of modest appetites to pay exactly the same amount of tax as a poor man of modest appetites.

Not to say there isn't room for improvement in our current system or any system.

Matt my point entirely! The current system does not encourage people to work as there are too many people with low aspirations they are happy to take money from the state and avoid working. The more kids they have the better as they get larger handouts. While it seems wrong to have a class divide (which there already is) getting bigger, the current system is far too left wing, and does not reward those who work hard.

[toonyank]

We shouldnt pay VAT on anything in my opinion but I suppose the government has to make an income somewhere...(not that I am justifying VAT mind)

Maria

On the contrary I believe. VAT is a consumption tax and the only tax that is justifiable because you're taxed for what you use. Income tax on the other hand punishes the ambitious.

I still ticked the box though, It's for health and safety.

[MiniMatt]

Matt my point entirely! The current system does not encourage people to work as there are too many people with low aspirations they are happy to take money from the state and avoid working. The more kids they have the better as they get larger handouts. While it seems wrong to have a class divide (which there already is) getting bigger, the current system is far too left wing, and does not reward those who work hard.

Ok, I'm a manager (not anything like a £50,000 one mind). I sit at a desk and do managery stuff. Lately I've been working from home a lot, so I don't even have to leave the house and have decent coffee and nicotine on tap. The office cleaner looks after her daughter's kids during the day so her daughter can work (presumably not earning enough to be able to afford childcare), she then comes into the office from 7-9ish and cleans our office. After that she cleans another office on the same park till about 11. And at weekends she does double shifts at the pub. Who works harder? She does, undoubtedly. Who earns more? That'd be me. Who should pay more tax? That'd be me too. Who still comes out with a lot more disposable income after tax. That's still me.

Aspiration and work ethic is very rarely directly proportional to income. "Consumption" taxes are all well and good until you realise there are certain things we all need to consume. By saying that the low paid deserve to be taxed harder (as a proportion of their income) because they don't have the aspiration to earn more just means you can say goodbye to teachers, nurses, bin collectors, etc.

I'm a self confessed liberal lefty but I'm a product of my times. First part of my childhood was very well off (father was a lawyer), second part of my childhood, following divorce, was extremely tight, living in a very rough part of Nottingham (the news will tell you that the rough parts of Nottingham are no joke), with my now single mother struggling for every penny. Yes, we did get child benefit, and income tax relief or whatever it was on my mother's **** poor paid clerical job, and at the same time the Thatcher government was demonising single mothers in a very similar way as attitudes seem to be shifting again now. The thing is, it's all fine for people to say "ah well, your family was the exception that proves the rule, you were the genuine poor ones, the rest are the scroungers", but in my experience the vast majority of people out there are the genuine ones and there's a few out there that make the headlines that are the scroungers.

[RhythmJunkie]

Its funny. People whinge about declining services, and whinge about paying tax. You cant have it for free you have to pay for it somehow.

What about road taxes and fuel duty which are spent on...erm...what exactly cos they aint spent on the roads as my cars suspension will testify, also my aching arthritic joints!
I'm sure people don't mind paying more taxes if they see things improving and getting done but all they see is things getting progressively worse! Then listen to the politicians lie!

80% of a scroungers money gets paid back in tax anyhow, they live on the high taxables, petrol, fags & beer but its the working 'and' scrounging that I hate, but is that any worse than big industry greed?? Why is one mans greed any worse than anothers? The bigger problem has to be "WASTED TAX"!
Just look at the way local government waste your hard earned and feel the anger!!!:mad:

[lynw]

What about road taxes and fuel duty which are spent on...erm...what exactly cos they aint spent on the roads as my cars suspension will testify, also my aching arthritic joints!

It all goes to the treasury and the government people vote in, or in most cases now allow in through apathy and non-voting, decide how it gets spent. Dont like how its spent? vote, and vote differently next time you may find a party that will prioritise spending differently.

Either way, the treasury pays the money back out to various agencies some of which goes to road repairs and building.

80% of a scroungers money gets paid back in tax anyhow, they live on the high taxables, petrol, fags & beer but its the working 'and' scrounging that I hate, but is that any worse than big industry greed?? Why is one mans greed any worse than anothers? The bigger problem has to be "WASTED TAX"!
Just look at the way local government waste your hard earned and feel the anger!!!:mad:

But local government again is down to who people vote in. Dont like it? answer is for someone to get off their **** and stand as a councilor. Problem with this country tbh is too many people happy to whinge yet ask them to do something about it, they wont. ;) :p :)

[RhythmJunkie]

Hi Lyn....learned a lot about tax today 'speshly VAT thanks! :) .....
.....but.....
do you honestly think voting makes any difference to who gets in power?

Thats fairy stories News at 10 stuff, the truth is there is a heirarchy, a pecking order and the ones who are chosen to represent the people are the ones you will see on screen, the ones who are making their way up the ladder. The illusion of power thats all the voter has nothing more.

The people who are chosen to sit in parliament are chosen behind closed doors not by you & me.
Do you think Bush was actually 'voted' in for a second term in office?
The Americans may be many things but they aint stupid! ;)

The troops have to follow orders or lose their place in the system.
When you get a situation where the available funds to repair the roads are depleted so badly by people claiming for damage to their cars that there aren't enough funds left to maintain the roads then you start to realise there must be a hidden agenda.
The roads won't be properly repaired until we pay per mile to drive thats what the poor roads are all about, driving people insane by using severe discomfort and having their cars smashed to bits that they will happily accept the new way, another stealth tax yes but they will make it look so sweet and desirable everyone will say yes!
Its all to do with control. The roads are getting cluttered and the UK is a bit on the small size so something seriously radical has to be done to control the motorist. Petrol prices didn't work so the price of driving itself has to go up proportional to the miles driven, its the only way to force motorists to stay at home!!
They better make bikes exempt too cos they don't cause congestion! :-dd
The government are no different to big business and use the same tactics. Destroy what people have to stimulate a need then supply that need and they will pay. Its been happening that way for decades!

Its no good blaming the voters or the apathetic because they are blameless. It wouldn't make any difference if 40 million people all rushed out and voted conservative at the next election because believe it or believe it not the decision has already been made who will be in power....you know....the pretend political party's, the ones who scream at each other in the house and then buy each other whiskey afterwards....its all a charade.