Premium Bonds - NUMBER 10 Petition

adambro

Fella wrote: »

Cue slashed interest rates, pointless cuts in VAT, £2K of taxpayers money per traded-in banger etc etc etc.

I can accept the VAT cut was pointless but you should note that Gordon Brown doesn't set interest rates and nor are the taxpayers contributing £2k for old cars traded in, it is £1k.

isofa

adambro wrote: »

I can accept the VAT cut was pointless but you should note that Gordon Brown doesn't set interest rates and nor are the taxpayers contributing £2k for old cars traded in, it is £1k.

Whilst the government don't technically set the rates, the BoE does, I think it's fair to say there is some discussion and pressure from the government, especially over recent months to ensure they plummeted... it's all highly political, despite what the populous are told.

RayWolfe

adambro wrote: »

I can accept the VAT cut was pointless /QUOTE]
Who says? Well, the Daily Mail, the Tory Party and everyone who wants to mouth off.
However the Retail Consortium actually thinks it's been quite helpful AND retail sales have not plummeted as some people forecast. Just read the cries in other forums that are complaining about not getting their 2.5%, just wait to see the rush to buy as the scheme comes to an end, just add the 2.5% perk to the £2K perk on the car scheme, just think what people will say if VAT goes UP by 2.5% a la Mr Lawson. I presume none of you minded that.
In other words just think before you post ... fortunately parrots can't use a keyboard.

opinions4u

adambro wrote: »

I can accept the VAT cut was pointless

I think it probably stopped a bad situation being worse.

but you should note that Gordon Brown doesn't set interest rates

I believe the Chancellor nominates 5 of the 9 on the panel, so there is Government control over the independent committee.

and nor are the taxpayers contributing £2k for old cars traded in, it is £1k.

True. The other £1k will never really be seen as most new cars are discounted in various forms anyway.

85% of cars bought in the UK are made overseas. So this is a tremendous way of moving taxpayers funds in to securing jobs in other countries.

adambro

RayWolfe wrote: »

Who says? Well, the Daily Mail, the Tory Party
and everyone who wants to mouth off.

Erm, okay, well I was just stating my personal opinion as I thought would be obvious. Most of the people who I've talked to about it didn't think it would motivate them to go out and spend. It is a shame you simply brand my opinion as "mouthing off".

I'm afraid that the British Retail Consortium or anyone else for that matter saying it has been helpful isn't conclusive, a Federation of Small Businesses survey apparently found that 97 per cent of companies experienced no impact on their trade at all. You can find statistics to support pretty much anything so I'll retain my right to comment even if you can find something which contradicts my opinion.

Cool the attitude.

CLAPTON

The important point about the vat cut was not that people would rush out and buy something because it was a little cheaper, but rather that the average familiy was about £25 per month better off.

This was because people were paying less VAT for things they were anyway buying.

So it was the £25 per month that was helping the retail trade and not the little bit off a specific product.

dunstonh

a Federation of Small Businesses survey apparently found that 97 per cent of companies experienced no impact on their trade at all.

Thats a good thing. Remember the forecasts were that retail sales were going to fall off a cliff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/12/vat-cut-boost-cebr

adambro

CLAPTON wrote: »

The important point about the vat cut was not that people would rush out and buy something because it was a little cheaper, but rather that the average familiy was about £25 per month better off.

This was because people were paying less VAT for things they were anyway buying.

So it was the £25 per month that was helping the retail trade and not the little bit off a specific product.

You make a good point. That is probably a better way to view the impact of the reduction but I remain suspicious about its value, not least because of the number of companies which either didn't pass on the cut, or did so but soon after returned their prices to the previous level. I can accept there will have been a benefit as a result of the VAT reduction but suspect it will be rather minor in the grand scheme of things.

CLAPTON

adambro wrote: »

You make a good point. That is probably a better way to view the impact of the reduction but I remain suspicious about its value, not least because of the number of companies which either didn't pass on the cut, or did so but soon after returned their prices to the previous level. I can accept there will have been a benefit as a result of the VAT reduction but suspect it will be rather minor in the grand scheme of things.

I can't remember the size of the fiscal stimulus but even if some of the retained by then retainers then it helped them instead.

If it was a small stimulus then it was at a small cost.

Quite different from car scheme where most of any benefit will flow abroad as most of car bought here are foreign made.

RayWolfe

£13 Billion.
... a mere bagatelle.