VAT cut to 8%!!!

[Deleted User]

most retailers would take the opportunity of vat reduction to just increase prices,the otherside of the coin of course is that a massive reduction in vat would lead to deflation(if prices were lowered)something to be avoided at all cost when the country owes money

MrRee_2

Linda_D wrote: »

Highly regarded? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You're the joke of the forum that everyone laughs at. If you didn't spend so much time trolling this message board you might actually go out and get a job instead of being the unemployed waste of space you are.

Dearest Linda

I didn't say where I was highly regarded .....

Keep the rest of your venom to yourself, you do yourself no favours.

Mr._Pricklepants

All this sniping and ad-hominem attacks on Mr. Ree, but in the end....he's right, as always.

Of course you base your VAT on net price.

So for all the simpletons on here, here we go again:

30K x 20% = 6K
30K x 8% = 2.4K
Saving: 3.6K

paulmapp8306

JasonLVC wrote: »

Sorry, the VAT rate cannot be reduced to that level, not even if it was the will of the government.

An EU agreement was agreed in 2010 to set a minimum standard rate of VAT at 15% across all member states. This agreement is up for review in 2015.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/index_en.htm
About halfway down, just above the heading "Other Documents on VAT Rates"

So until then, the lowest the standard rate of VAT can be is 15%. The EU also determines what goods and services can be sold at the standard rate, the nUk cannot suddenly say everything can be sold at the reduced rate.

The other rate of VAT (5% reduced rate) is similarly controlled by rules which determine what the lowest rate it can be and equally, the rules are very specific as to what can and cannot be sold under the reduced rate heading.

Actually, the UK government could do anything it liked - It would just need to come out of the EU. Not a bad thing in my book.

paulmapp8306

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

vat @ 8% and increase the tax threshold for earners over £60,000 to 60p in £ , the wealthy need to pay for the mess

What a stupid statement.

Im not wealthy by any means, but seriously. Why do they NEED to pay for the masses? Or is this just another example of the "Im entitled" attitude of this deluded country.

paulmapp8306

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

if someone earns more they should pay more in taxes

See - thats what really pi**es me off. People just dont get it.

You are CORRECT. If you earn more - you should pay more Taxes. BUT If you earn £30k you DO pay more tax's compared to someone earning £20k, and someone earning £60k pays twice as much as that perison earning £30k - as you pay a % of your income.

So - as you earn more - you pay more Taxes. What you MEAN is if youearn more you should pay a greater % of yourincome in Taxes. That is NOT the same thing - and the question is in that case WHY?

FWIW - I earn £24k so NOT ritch.

MrRee_2

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

All this sniping and ad-hominem attacks on Mr. Ree, but in the end....he's right, as always.

Of course you base your VAT on net price.

So for all the simpletons on here, here we go again:

30K x 20% = 6K
30K x 8% = 2.4K
Saving: 3.6K

It's no good mate .... I fear we may drown in a pool of half-wits! :rotfl:

MrRee_2

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

See - thats what really pi**es me off. People just dont get it.

You are CORRECT. If you earn more - you should pay more Taxes. BUT If you earn £30k you DO pay more tax's compared to someone earning £20k, and someone earning £60k pays twice as much as that perison earning £30k - as you pay a % of your income.

So - as you earn more - you pay more Taxes. What you MEAN is if youearn more you should pay a greater % of yourincome in Taxes. That is NOT the same thing - and the question is in that case WHY?

FWIW - I earn £24k so NOT ritch.

That's right ..... people earning more pay more tax ... normally.

When you hit £42,000 you jump to 40% tax ... so, again, those getting paid more pay more in tax.

If you increase this to penalise those who have worked hard and grafted to earn more it'ss madness and will not reward hard work.

dlk

MrRee wrote: »

WHAT?

It's a £30,000 car ........ the TAX isn't a car!

Good grief, I'm surrounded by simpletons .... no wonder I can earn a packet when the alternatives are so daft ... long may it continue!

I'm glad you don't own a pound shop Mr Ree, by your logic it would have the very uncatchy name of '83 pence land'

bankhater_1965

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

What a stupid statement.

Im not wealthy by any means, but seriously. Why do they NEED to pay for the masses? Or is this just another example of the "Im entitled" attitude of this deluded country.

the wealthy have just had a tax cut , the people at the lower end have had benifit cuts , our military our nhs our councils are all being cut ,,should i go on and on and on to pay for the mess of our so called higher educated people that have caused it and the top 100 ftse greedy people have had a rise of 49% compared to a downfall of 4.4% for the normal working class , please explain what you meen by my so called stupid statement ????
the wealthy have very little impact regards to economy in everyday purchases , whatever the financail postion is of the country they can afford there bentlys ,there £500 shopping bill from marks & spencer to there holidays in barbados, its the normal average workers that needs the encouragment and confidence to part with there monies and they are the backbone to this country
please be abit more constructive when disagreeing with comments or post your solutions ideas to the thread !