2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
It is consistently arbitrary.
1 -
"All those items in packaging with integrated handles are rated at 20%, while those without handles are not deemed fully portable and thus attract the 5% rate."
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I can see a case for different treatment where there are good reasons for the different treatment. However I don't think that politics of envy and/or appeasing the hard left are good reasons, which appears to be the case when it comes to paid for education.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are we? Good attempt to avoid the point, but not good enough.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You do seem to be a bit sad.
However you're the one who is digging in trying to avoid the issue. Now answer my question.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The question has been answered.
You just didn't like the answer
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
There was no point made that you didn't undermine with your later posts.
The affordability for parents is irrelevant
The point, which you mischaractised as nuance, has been comprehensively demolished.
As has your 'consistency' strawman
You're clinging to a wreckage
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I think.my personal favourite 'random exception' is the zero rating of angostura bitters on the grounds it's not a beverages
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Your attempt to answer was rubbish and I questioned the obvious flaw - which you haven't responded to.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nope, my point on the VAT treatment of paid for education services was clear. You have totally failed to counter that so stop making excuses and try to make your counter point.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You countered your own point
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
See. Like I said the question was answered, you just didn't like the answer.
Which is fine, you're just angry that vat is being added to private school fees.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
I have no skin in the game - have never paid private school fess and paid my last lot of (VAT free) uni fees earlier this month, so I have no reason to be angry.
However your reply failed to make a case for the different treatment other than your assumption that we should be trying to encourage tertiary education when there is growing evidence that too many people go to university rather than taking other options such as apprenticeships - and then claiming that it's 'cleared up' in your opinion: Quote below:
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/21102499#Comment_21102499
How much free at the point of delivery tax payer funded degree level education is there? (outside of Scotland). It's reasonable to assume that if there were enough, people would take those options.
Your reply: Then it shouldn't attract VAT if we're trying to encourage participation in third level education.
That's that cleared up.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don't worry Brian, if he can't make a better argument than 'you don't like the answer' then we can draw our own conclusions.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just just didn't like the answer.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Ah. I'm not making a case for different treatment for uni fees
I agree that private fees where a public fee-free alternative is available should be vat rated at 20%
You tell me there's no alternative, non fee paying degree level education available. Fine. Then Uni Fees remain exempt
Just don't like the clarity of that position as it doesn't suit your agenda.
I note you've abandoned the silly idea that school fees should remain exempt because parents were busting a gut to pay them as is. Quite right too. It was a silly position.
ETA. Worth noting too, that a case for different treatment being required because of a spurious demand for 'consistency' has been torn apart by multiple posters already
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Enjoying the idea that we should make Uni fees subject to 20% vat to stop people going to uni.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
You misunderstand. I oppose the imposition of VAT on private school fees becasue it is being done for 'politics of envy reasons', which you appear to support based on one of your first posts on the subject on this thread.
Also you have not clarified your statement about these fees beimg VATable where there is a free alternative. Care to give some examples? And explain why they should only be VATable in those circumstances, even though the underlying service is the same.
As for your claim about the consistency case having been 'torn apart', you seem to have only paid attention to those posts you agree with. If your read them properly there are some exceptions in other areas bit you still, have not made the case here.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Who said that? I think you're making things up again.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is just inventing the reason you want to hear. Is VAT applied to other professional service fees because of 'politics of envy'? Of course not. VAT is applied to all sorts of things on a pretty arbitrary and sometimes ridiculous basis (I've given examples). Why should teaching services be treated differently from legal or accounting, or even veterinary services? Obviously architectural services should be taxed into oblivion 😁.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Ah. Disavowing your own posts
Standard.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Further clarification is not required.
The point is clearly made.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It isn't "envy" Stevo, because that would suppose that people would want their own children to go to private school and can't afford it. It is a belief that the whole concept is bad and, as such, isn't worthy of VAT exemption.
My father could have chosen to send me to private school, and could have had me do the entrance exam to a grammar school. He could have had me put forward a year etc. He did none of these things, and even dissuaded me from applying for Oxford because he thought it was elitist and I wouldn't fit in.
He was always left wing, but not particularly extreme. So I can assure you that people with these ideas do exist.
0 -
Is considering something elitist and being envious really that different?
0 -
Depends what you mean by elite.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Either I've missed something or the world is going mad. (Either or both entirely possible.) There is "outrage" in the Torygraph about public sector employers being exempt from higher employer NICs, if employer NICs rises is one of Reeves' tax-raising wheezes.
Rachel Reeves to spare public sector workers from pensions raid
But other than internal accounting presentation, public sector employer NICs are surely just giving with one hand to take with the other. They don't raise money for the government, because they're just paid out of tax revenues / borrowing that is allocated to the relevant public sector budget.
0 -
Well why charge any income tax against public sector employees either then...
0 -
Completely, because envy is about wanting something. Elitism in that context is a pejorative, and so represents something that one does not want.
I'm not saying I agree, by the way. But nor do I feel strongly either way about VAT on fees.
There seems to be a general agreement though that it is an odd hill to die on, so I conclude that it's a dog whistle policy and nothing more.
0 -
Employees pay income tax and employee N.I. The government is basically charging itself for the employer's contribution. It could be £1 or £1m. Makes no difference to the employee or the government other from an accounting exercise.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1
