On 08/03/16 00:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/03/16 18:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

No - but apparently we cannot VAT exempt a class of items as we wish
(eg like books, children's clothes other "essential" items used to be
zero VAT rated).

As a matter of interest, why should books be zero rated?

Because it was viewed as an education item and therefore essential (in a
wider sense).

So is a TV then.

Well yes. But I did say it's a bit arbitrary and someone had to draw a
line, and they drew a line at books.

IMO reading books is more likely to enrich than a TV as it helps reading
skills, spelling and vocabulary even if the reader only buys fiction. A
TV has a lesser guarantee of educational enrichment.

They are hardly
an essential item. And why children's clothes?

Are all parents necessarily
poorer than adults who buy clothes?

If an adult goes without that's up to them, but the idea was that
children should not - or at least not due to taxation pushing the price
up.

Children buy their own clothes from their own income?

It's irrelevant who buys the clothes - the simple fact is "cheaper =
more likely the kid will get new clothes when needed".

Remember that it started out as a luxury purchase tax - an ethos I agree
with, although defining "luxury" vs "essential" is hard as you just
pointed out.

VAT is not the same sort of tax as purchase tax. In that it's levied on
services too.

Certainly, IMO, things like food, water, electricity, gas and
educational items should be zero rated.

If you reduce the tax on one thing it will have to be raised in another
way. Something most here don't seem to grasp.

Yes of course I see that. Which is why I think the VAT bands was the
right way - you make "essential" (for some definition) zero VAT, add
more VAT onto things people can manage without.

And I'm really surprised all the right wingers here don't seem to like it,
as it is proportionally unfair to the poor, and benefits the rich.