Reduce VAT from 20% ?

[KFC]

I've just spent £300 on fishing tackle and £50 of that was tax.

 

Now prices have risen so fast VAT at 20% is a hell of a mark up for HMG.

 

What's the chances of getting it reduced to the Swiss level of 8%?

[neillfrbs]

no hope,will prob go up ,rip off Britain

[aris]

Personally I'd rather see VAT go up in lieu of other taxes. VAT is an equitable tax that EVERYONE pays and very difficult to avoid. That includes non-dom's, the unemployed, tourists, etc. Basically a tax on consumption instead of earnings.

Edited April 27, 2014 by aris

[armsid]

as aris says unavoidable tax on consumables better to raise and get more revenue from those not paying income tax.

[mossy835]

why pay vat, when we pay tax on every thing any way, its just a rip off,

[Chris Bb]

no hope,will prob go up ,rip off Britain

 

http://www.vatlive.com/vat-rates/european-vat-rates/eu-vat-rates/

 

shows that most European countries pay the same or more than us. Plus they all pay VAT on food & other items exempted in UK.

 

As has been said, you only pay it if you spend it. Unfortunately, taxes have to be raised somehow.

[felly100]

One of the 'Canons of taxation' developed by Adam Smith said that a tax should be linked to 'ability to pay'. VAT does not tie in with this because the amount of VAT on a particular good will be the same for everyone, however much they earn. This means that VAT is regressive. In other words, the more people earn the less the proportion of their income they pay in tax. Regressive taxes will hit less-well-off people harder than the better-off.

[aris]

One of the 'Canons of taxation' developed by Adam Smith said that a tax should be linked to 'ability to pay'. VAT does not tie in with this because the amount of VAT on a particular good will be the same for everyone, however much they earn. This means that VAT is regressive. In other words, the more people earn the less the proportion of their income they pay in tax. Regressive taxes will hit less-well-off people harder than the better-off.

 

Yes, but the better off end up paying more - because they spend more. Everyone who takes out of the system, should put something back into it too. There should be no free ride.

[Gimlet]

Better to tackle taxation at source: reduce government spending so no-one has to pay so much.

[aris]

Better to tackle taxation at source: reduce government spending so no-one has to pay so much.

 

I was trying to be realistic

[Gimlet]

 

I was trying to be realistic

 

So was I. Other countries have done it and improved their economic prospects no end as a result. Its not the tax payers who need the reality check, its the tax spenders.

[aris]

 

So was I. Other countries have done it and improved their economic prospects no end as a result. Its not the tax payers who need the reality check, its the tax spenders.

 

Realistic means it might happen. The UK have accumulated too much debt, and have too many voters reliant on the state for a handout or to supplement their income.

[daz2202]

Vat should be 30%

Income tax should be nil.

 

A bit like fuel duty. Put fuel price up and abolish road tax.

 

Everything then paid on spending / useage

[Gimlet]

 

Realistic means it might happen. The UK have accumulated too much debt, and have too many voters reliant on the state for a handout or to supplement their income.

 

 

The problem is governments never use taxation to pay off debts. They spend it on their own expansion which requires ever more tax to be raised just to break even. You cannot eliminate overspending by raising taxes and fiscal drag, you have to spend less in the first place. There is no way to square this circle. In the 1990's Canada cut the size and cost of the state by 20%. Everyone said it was impossible; that such a contraction would destroy the economy and plunge the country into depression. In fact Canada staged one of the most remarkable economic recoveries of the twentieth century which it has maintained by keeping a rigorous control on spending. Put a lot of politicians, quangocrats and assorted public sector passengers out of work of course. But into every life a little rain must fall. Governments in Britain and Europe don't like to talk about Canada.

[aris]

 

The problem is governments never use taxation to pay off debts. They spend it on their own expansion which requires ever more tax to be raised just to break even. You cannot eliminate overspending by raising taxes and fiscal drag, you have to spend less in the first place. There is no way to square this circle. In the 1990's Canada cut the size and cost of the state by 20%. Everyone said it was impossible; that such a contraction would destroy the economy and plunge the country into depression. In fact Canada staged one of the most remarkable economic recoveries of the twentieth century which it has maintained by keeping a rigorous control on spending. Put a lot of politicians, quangocrats and assorted public sector passengers out of work of course. But into every life a little rain must fall. Governments in Britain and Europe don't like to talk about Canada.

 

Correct - but where do you cut the fat? Have a look here:

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

 

Our biggest outgoings:

 

Pensions £149.6 billion

Health Care £132.6 billion

Education £87.8 billion

Defence £42.9 billion

Welfare £113.1 billion

 

Cut any of those, and you lose votes.

[ack-ack]

I blame natural england.

[clakk]

nah its the BBC..S fault that countryfile costs tooo much

[Gimlet]

 

Correct - but where do you cut the fat? Have a look here:

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

 

Our biggest outgoings:

 

Pensions £149.6 billion

Health Care £132.6 billion

Education £87.8 billion

Defence £42.9 billion

Welfare £113.1 billion

 

Cut any of those, and you lose votes.

Well here's two that spring to mind straight away:

EU contributions and costs: £65 billion

Overseas aid.......................£10 billion

Plenty of scope there.

And the loss of votes doesn't seem to have stopped them cutting defence.

Opinion polls show that cutting welfare is actually a vote winner.

[woodcock11]

Personally I'd rather see VAT go up in lieu of other taxes. VAT is an equitable tax that EVERYONE pays and very difficult to avoid. That includes non-dom's, the unemployed, tourists, etc. Basically a tax on consumption instead of earnings.

What you and Chris Bb are saying is absolutely spot on.......

 

At least with VAT, there is an option.

 

However, I think that is tough that new build housing is zero rated and alterations and repairs to existing houses - even those that are listed - are taxed at the standard rate.

 

Oh & by the way, I think it is the Sunday Times today that is extolling the virtues of Marmite vodka - some sort of extreme bull-shot perhaps??!!

[aris]

 

Well here's two that spring to mind straight away:

EU contributions and costs: £65 billion

Overseas aid.......................£10 billion

Plenty of scope there.

And the loss of votes doesn't seem to have stopped them cutting defence.

Opinion polls show that cutting welfare is actually a vote winner.

 

 

It is a vote winner for people not on welfare3. People on welfare vote too. As for the EU - I don't disagree with you - but where do you get that figure? From what I can see it is more in the 17/18 billion range.

[Gimlet]

 

It is a vote winner for people not on welfare3. People on welfare vote too. As for the EU - I don't disagree with you - but where do you get that figure? From what I can see it is more in the 17/18 billion range.

 

Spending should be calculated by available income divided by need, not by how many votes might be won or lost. That puts the lunatics in charge of the asylum and the staff are feeble minded enough as it is.

On the EU: Civitas, The CBI, ONS. Plenty of others put the figure much higher but I've avoided purely political sources because that would derail the thread. £11 billion net membership fees the rest in regulation implementation costs. Doesn't include loss to productivity from same regulations to avoid political argument. But in any case that wouldn't really count as it isn't a direct spend.

[chady]

If they scrapped VAT would we really save??

 

Or would every one just put there prices up??

Edited April 27, 2014 by chady

[aris]

If they scrapped VATt would we really save??

 

Or would every one just put there prices up??

 

Taxes would go up elsewhere to compensate.

[aris]

Spending should be calculated by available income divided by need, not by how many votes might be won or lost. That puts the lunatics in charge of the asylum and the staff are feeble minded enough as it is.

On the EU: Civitas, The CBI, ONS. Plenty of others put the figure much higher but I've avoided purely political sources because that would derail the thread. £11 billion net membership fees the rest in regulation implementation costs. Doesn't include loss to productivity from same regulations to avoid political argument. But in any case that wouldn't really count as it isn't a direct spend.

 

If you put regulation/implementation costs into the mix, then you need to put the benefit costs into the mix too - like how much inward investment the UK has had because we are in the EU. Don't get me wrong, i'm no big fan of the EU as it currently stands, but the EU isn't a scapegoat for our spending.

[chady]

Yep agreed.

 

And the business will take the fact that we are prepared to pay the with VAT price and just put there price up.

 

So your no better of if not worse off

 

 

Taxes would go up elsewhere to compensate.