Budget Day 22 June 2010

zygurat789

robin_banks wrote: »

Not comfortable with VAT on food, since when was it a 'luxury', plus it smacks of being a bit a 'nanny state', which is hardly in line with ConDem ethos.

This is nothing like the "nanny state" this is government taxing what it perceives to be detrimental, like gigarettes, can't argue with that.

robin_banks

zygurat789 wrote: »

This is nothing like the "nanny state" this is government taxing what it perceives to be detrimental, like gigarettes, can't argue with that.

But how do you decide ?.

Example a pint of Guiness has less calories than a pint of orange juice.

A tesco healty living 'low-fat' pie can still be high in salt for example.

Perceptions are a funny thing.......

Pennywise

robin_banks wrote: »

But how do you decide ?.

Example a pint of Guiness has less calories than a pint of orange juice.

A tesco healty living 'low-fat' pie can still be high in salt for example.

Perceptions are a funny thing.......

Could be very easy.

All raw foods, basics and staple items remain zero rated - anything else is standard rated. So your fruit & veg, fish, meat, etc are zero rated - but once you do "something" to them, VAT is added, i.e. pre-cooked, ready meals, processed, etc. So raw peas in a pod or frozen peas would be zero, but tinned peas would be VATable. A piece of fresh fish would be zero rated but a pre-packed meal of fish & chips would be vatable, etc etc.

It's actually illogical the way it works now. If you buy a ready meal fish & chips in Tesco, you don't pay VAT, but if you buy the same meal at the chippy, you've paid about 60p in VAT as part of their price which makes them look far more expensive.

This logic would also fit in with recycling etc to encourage less tins, cartons, packets, etc and would also be good for health as it would avoid the intake of preservatives, colourings, etc. All in all, a bit of "joined up" thinking.

Get your definitions right in the first place and it's easy. Trouble with marshmallows, teacakes, biscuits, etc is that the original wording of the law was badly drafted (like most modern day law) and didn't take into account the reality of the products on sale.

RabbitMad

NowWhat wrote: »

I certainly hope that note left by his predecessor "Dear Minister - There's no money left" is an example of a joke in extremely poor taste/supreme !!!!!iness to his successor. If it's a statement of fact - then......anyone got a life raft?

he said it was a joke but many a true word etc

nickmason

Pennywise wrote: »

Could be very easy.

All raw foods, basics and staple items remain zero rated - anything else is standard rated. So your fruit & veg, fish, meat, etc are zero rated - but once you do "something" to them, VAT is added, i.e. pre-cooked, ready meals, processed, etc. So raw peas in a pod or frozen peas would be zero, but tinned peas would be VATable. A piece of fresh fish would be zero rated but a pre-packed meal of fish & chips would be vatable, etc etc.

It's actually illogical the way it works now. If you buy a ready meal fish & chips in Tesco, you don't pay VAT, but if you buy the same meal at the chippy, you've paid about 60p in VAT as part of their price which makes them look far more expensive.

This logic would also fit in with recycling etc to encourage less tins, cartons, packets, etc and would also be good for health as it would avoid the intake of preservatives, colourings, etc. All in all, a bit of "joined up" thinking.

Get your definitions right in the first place and it's easy. Trouble with marshmallows, teacakes, biscuits, etc is that the original wording of the law was badly drafted (like most modern day law) and didn't take into account the reality of the products on sale.

Exactly right. It has the benefit of making sense - and being easily understood; a "good law".

A._Badger

nickmason wrote: »

Exactly right. It has the benefit of making sense - and being easily understood; a "good law".

Wouldn't an even better law be no law at all? I, for one (and I suspect I'm not alone) am sick to death of being nudged, nannied, chivvied, cajoled, prodded, poked, bottom-inspected and generally bossed around by politicians following the whining of single issue obsessives.

Having just watched the 'five a day' shibboleth finally receive the scientific rubbishing that should have accompanied its birth, it seems to me that a period of silence on Nanny's part might be well advised.

I know! How about a 'leave us the hell alone' law?

mbga9pgf

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Not really - even in years 2006-2008 debt as a % of GDP was roughly 35%

Obviously we should have been running a surplus in these years (as a recession comes along eventually), but pretty difficult to have predicted the extent of the recession.

Plenty on HPC got the scale. Plenty of letters sent to the then chancellor,asking why he was refusing to heed advice from the IMF stating he should get the deficit under control.

Labour tw@ did what all labour tw@'s do, spend all the money then run