Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

buy tortilla chips (no VAT) instead of crisps (VAT)
buy unshelled peanuts (no VAT) instead of shelled (VAT)
buy "millionaires shortbread"-shortbread covered in caramel and chocolate (no VAT, ironically) rather than chocolate covered shortbread (VAT)
fresh fruit and veg has no VAT, processed food generally does so if you buy oranges and squeeze them yourself for juice, then theres no VAT, if you buy a carton of freshly squeezed orange juice you do pay VAT
buy flapjacks (no VAT) instead of cereal bars (VAT)
buy fish for eating (no VAT)
buy butchered or complete carcasses of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Chicken, Horse, Ostrich, Kangaroo or Crocodile (no VAT)
buy live Fish (no VAT) but not Koi Carp (VAT)
buy live animals like cows, pigs, sheep (no VAT) but not horses (VAT)


hope this helps 

[aaronjb]

I chuckled this morning at the radio when they were saying how the VAT increase would 'hit the poorest the hardest' and then pointed out that staple foods and children's clothing has no VAT..

So if you're poor, shouldn't most of your money be going on .. staple foods and clothes for your kids, anyway?

[Kevin Wood]

I think my neighbours will be mightily impressed when I've finished converting my garage into an abattoir so I can have VAT free steak. 

Kevin

[Kevin Wood]

I chuckled this morning at the radio when they were saying how the VAT increase would 'hit the poorest the hardest' and then pointed out that staple foods and children's clothing has no VAT..

So if you're poor, shouldn't most of your money be going on .. staple foods and clothes for your kids, anyway?

Often booze and fags are higher priority, sadly.

Kevin

[Banjax]

I chuckled this morning at the radio when they were saying how the VAT increase would 'hit the poorest the hardest' and then pointed out that staple foods and children's clothing has no VAT..

So if you're poor, shouldn't most of your money be going on .. staple foods and clothes for your kids, anyway?

it might reduce spending money on processed junk and have more people buying fresh fruit 'n' veg - but probably not 

trouble with VAT increases are that its a regressive tax, it cares not whether you're a billionaire or on benefits, it won't change the way people shop, it'll just mean that theres less money left at the end of the month, or you run out of money sooner - either way there'll be less money spent in shops and hence its of little good to the economy and raising £13bn from this seems a tad optimistic if you ask me 

[geoffr70]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

[Banjax]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

[Chris_H]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

How very true and relevant.

Nice OP BTW BJ.

[Mysteryman]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.

And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.

'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

buy tortilla chips (no VAT) instead of crisps (VAT)
buy unshelled peanuts (no VAT) instead of shelled (VAT)
buy "millionaires shortbread"-shortbread covered in caramel and chocolate (no VAT, ironically) rather than chocolate covered shortbread (VAT)
fresh fruit and veg has no VAT, processed food generally does so if you buy oranges and squeeze them yourself for juice, then theres no VAT, if you buy a carton of freshly squeezed orange juice you do pay VAT
buy flapjacks (no VAT) instead of cereal bars (VAT)
buy fish for eating (no VAT)
buy butchered or complete carcasses of Beef, Lamb, Pork, Chicken, Horse, Ostrich, Kangaroo or Crocodile (no VAT)
buy live Fish (no VAT) but not Koi Carp (VAT)
buy live animals like cows, pigs, sheep (no VAT) but not horses (VAT)




hope this helps 

Why buy whole or live animals unless you have an enormous appetite!  There is no VAT on meat, fish, and most non-processed food items

[Banjax]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.

And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.

'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.

so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? 
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do 

[Banjax]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

How very true and relevant.

Nice OP BTW BJ.

thanks 

what does OP mean again? 

[jonnycool]

Original post  :question

[Mysteryman]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

Yeah. Like the cleaner will pay £10 a week out of £200 (10%) and Sugar will pay £80,000 out of a million (8%). What a load of crap is talked at times.

And, of course, if this cleaner happens to have a sprog or two, they will get more tax back than they pay.

'Proportionally' is great in theory. But you could probably build a new hospital wing on what Sir Alan pays each year. You'd be lucky to build a sandcastle on what his cleaner pays.

so if i have £10 to my name and give it to charity thats the equivalent of Lord Sugar giving £10 then? 
not picking on Sugar - i like the fellow - any super rich person will do 

I thought you weren't religious. You sound just like a quote from the bible about the poor person and the rich person in the temple.

Anyhow, I've stated what I believe to be true. No good harping on.

[geoffr70]

But then why should someone with more money be taxed at a higher rate? They shouldn't. It's not fair. There are always exceptions to the rule, but people generally have more money for a reason. That is that they have worked for it and deserve it so shouldn't unfairly be taxed at a higher rate that people call progressive.

As society progresses, the range and costs of services provided by the state goes up, who pays for it? We do. The standard of living goes up so does everyones expendable income, yet they don't want to pay more for these services provided by the state. I agree with the VAT increase and think it should stay.

but they're not, Geoff, Alan Sugar for example pays less proportionally in tax than his cleaner does, theres always imperfections, and to say having more money means you must be working harder is an insult to most hard-working wage slaves, we dont live in a meritocracy, so some will work harder for less, some work less and have more. i dont think you can judge how hard a person works by their bank balance, its a common mistake and completely spurious in my opinion 

I think you are picking out certain parts of what I saying again and twisting it. Yes I am well aware that many in society work the hardest, for the least and are looked down on.

I'm not knocking anyone, every worker makes a valuable contribution to our great society, but you mention a cleaner. General cleaning is unskilled light work that the vast majority of people can do. Therefore due to the way our society works, supply and demand, the wages are low. This is not a judgement or approval/disapproval, just an observation.

You mention that Alan Sugar pays less tax proportionally than his cleaner. I don't know the ins and outs of Amstrad, but what I do know is that yes, large organisations pay lots of money to clever accountants to find tax loopholes. Is that not because the feel aggrieved at being taxed at a higher rate tha lower earners?

The country needs this small amount of people with entrepenerial (I think that's how you spell it - probably not!) skills to generate wealth. They can then employ the rest of us.

I'm not saying that's right or that's the way it should be, nor am I knocking it, but that's the way it is. There are many systems we could use to run our society, and they all have their faults, as does capitalism, but I believe that is the best system we have found so far.

Also, you mentioned about not living in a meritocracy. Well I touched on it earlier, but again I'm not knocking anyone, but you could argue that a business man at the top of his game who is generally unstressed at work, merits more than a cleaner, despite the fact the cleaner might do back breaking and unpleasant work all week. As said, most people can do that, not everyone has the skills like money makers do, and like them or not, we all need them.

So as in my example, the businessman would earn more, which would suggest we do live in a meritocracy.