Should VAT go to 20%

kennyboy66_2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

You don't recognise that the cost of a "fix as unpleasant this time as last" will be far higher than the savings? Large scale prolongued untempered unemployment for some reason has rather a damaging effect on the facbic of society, scars that cost money for decades after the cost savings liquidated from the job losses have been banked.

I'd have thought that we'd learned that lesson the hard way. Apparently not...

"If its not hurting, its not working.................."

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

You don't recognise that the cost of a "fix as unpleasant this time as last" will be far higher than the savings? Large scale prolongued untempered unemployment for some reason has rather a damaging effect on the facbic of society, scars that cost money for decades after the cost savings liquidated from the job losses have been banked.

I'd have thought that we'd learned that lesson the hard way. Apparently not...

The unlearned lesson for me was that the Government can't be the Employer of Last Resort. Most adults need to be employed in productive jobs producing things that people or companies want to buy.

Once the Government destroys that, mass unemployment can be the only eventual outcome.

kennyboy66_2

Landprofits wrote: »

Perhaps more intelligent and sensible decisions as to how and where Taxpayer's money is spent would be a better solution?

Well perhaps it should be the private sector who run stop smoking programs and individuals should pay for them rather than the NHS (afterall plenty of people go to Weghtwatchers).

Or should the NHS pay for fertility treatment.

Or should the NHS offer "alternative medicine" (ie it doesn't actually work) like homeopathy.

Rochdale_Pioneers

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Well perhaps it should be the private sector who run stop smoking programs and individuals should pay for them rather than the NHS (afterall plenty of people go to Weghtwatchers)

The fag companies should pay for stop your smoking addiction programmes using the profits made from their start your smoking addiction programmes.

I have absolutely no problem with individuals choosing to smoke themselves to death - its a free country. But those of us not dim or suicidal shouldn't have to pay - either in health by breathing in their fumes, or in money by paying for their treatment to stop.

As a student friend of mine put it, he became an expert at stopping smoking as he did so for the 5th time.....

cogito

I can cope with such a statement. We all know that there is room for efficiency savings in the civil service, which were they run privately would have been weeded out long ago.

Loads of room but according to your beloved government, they don't need to be made until next year. I wonder why.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Well perhaps it should be the private sector who run stop smoking programs and individuals should pay for them rather than the NHS (afterall plenty of people go to Weghtwatchers).

Or should the NHS pay for fertility treatment.

Or should the NHS offer "alternative medicine" (ie it doesn't actually work) like homeopathy.

It's the problem of a welfare state.

Why not smoke when the 'Government' will cure you of cancer?

Why work when you'll get paid indefinitely anyway?

Why have a child whilst you're still fertile when you can have a career and have the 'Government' pay for you to have a baby?

It's crazy but everyone votes for it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

cogito wrote: »

Loads of room but according to your beloved government, they don't need to be made until next year. I wonder why.

Because as already noted dumping 1m more people onto the dole queue in one big purge (a suggestion I keep reading on Toryhome) would have a catastrophic effect on society and cost you more in the long run.

Incidentally has any government actually managed to successfully downsize the state? Thatcher talked about it but actually increased it, Labour have happily increased it - how did Heath/Callaghan/Wilson/SuperMac etc get on?

lemonjelly

I'd be thinking this is more of an ok idea if business' had passed on the cut in the first place when it came in. Most did't. and therefore big business has made a tidy sum where possible. My concern, will be the amount they will put prices up by.

One other thing, how would this affect inflation?

The point made above is also a good one - will this increase people working cash in hand?

cogito

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Because as already noted dumping 1m more people onto the dole queue in one big purge (a suggestion I keep reading on Toryhome) would have a catastrophic effect on society and cost you more in the long run.

Incidentally has any government actually managed to successfully downsize the state? Thatcher talked about it but actually increased it, Labour have happily increased it - how did Heath/Callaghan/Wilson/SuperMac etc get on?

The Canadians managed it quite successfully a few years ago, reducing government spending by 20%. We should try it here.

ziknik

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

...
So instead of Income Tax or business rates, how about VAT? Put it up to 20% and we raise £12.5bn a year more than putting it back to 17.5% as planned. Thats a decent slug of money for something that won't be noticed by most people (shop prices move up and down anyway with exchange rates and inflation) once the Daily Express headlines about the End Of Civilisation die away....

I don’t think the UK can put VAT above 19%. I believe EU Law limits VAT to between 15-19%.

We will go to 17.5% on New Years day and then 19% soon after the next election in an emergency budget

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...
The VAT cut was a complete waste of all our time, political time and also a waste of money.
...

It wasn’t a waste of time. The VAT cut chopped a couple of percent off CPI. This allowed the HMG to claim we’ve got deflation on the cards and thus opened the debate for money printing.