"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
Care to run that by me again? You want to stop car use entirely?

No, link the tax they pay to the amount they *use* the vehicle and
thus the amount of pollution they cause - that means that the tax
should be on the fuel and not the *wish* to use the vehicle.

This would effect business users most and put up the cost of
virtually
everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is that
what
you want?


The haulage industry could use 'blue diesel' at some level of tax
rebate [1], as has been suggested many times, the only thing this
might affect is how much money HMG has to waste.

[1] this could even be stepped depending on what the business is.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article 47dc63b8@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-15 23:45:15 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
Care to run that by me again? You want to stop car use
entirely?

No, link the tax they pay to the amount they *use* the vehicle
and
thus the amount of pollution they cause - that means that the
tax
should be on the fuel and not the *wish* to use the vehicle.

This would effect business users most and put up the cost of
virtually
everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is
that
what you want?

So discount/rebate for essential business use. This is already
done
for agricultural diesel.

But you don't take a tractor to a filling station. Discounting fuel
from
an ordinary filling station for certain users would be a nightmare
to
implement and police.

Not a problem with vehicle fitted with tachographs, a simple
calculation on declared (recorded) mileage, this will be even easier
once all these vehicles have been fitted with the tamper proof
electronic version.

I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price of
fuel
even more to cover the loss of VED income.


Only amongst those who are clueless, putting extra duty on fuel will
mean that one only pays for what people use whilst being a far more
efficient way of making people think about fuel consumption than a
blunt tax on ownership/wish to use can ever be.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Agreed. Now taxing aviation fuel in the same way as the road variety
would
be a very good move.


Now that *would* penalise the NuLabour supporters wanting their 'two
weeks in Benidorm', three times a year!...

On 2008-03-16 10:05:36 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 47dcec04@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
But you don't take a tractor to a filling station. Discounting fuel
from an ordinary filling station for certain users would be a
nightmare to implement and police. I can just imagine all the moans on
here if they put up the price of fuel even more to cover the loss of
VED income.

I wasn't particularly suggesting there. This is something that could
easily be handled through the VAT system for road transport users.

But they already reclaim VAT on fuel?

Yes I know. Sorry I should have been clearer. The VAT processing
system - i.e. measuring and reporting of input and output taxes means
that businesses have to report their expenditure on fuel in order to
recover the VAT. That mechanism already exists. All that would then
be required would be for qualifying businesses to receive additional
refund for their fuel expenditure over and above what they paid in VAT.
This would have the effect of reducing their net fuel cost and
compensating for an increased duty in the general market.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these
words:

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
Care to run that by me again? You want to stop car use
entirely?

No, link the tax they pay to the amount they *use* the vehicle
and
thus the amount of pollution they cause - that means that the
tax
should be on the fuel and not the *wish* to use the vehicle.

This would effect business users most and put up the cost of
virtually
everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is
that
what you want?

I am not sure whether you are arguing that VED is a good deal for
low
mileage drivers on the basis that they would save because other
costs
would be so much lower or whether you think that equity has no
place in
taxation. If the later you are in tune with NuLabour who have gone
out
of their way to penalise those with taxable incomes below £15000 pa
(who
don't get tax credits) by abolishing the 10% band.

The overall taxation is a difficult thing to assess. Personal
allowances
have gone up as have child allowances etc.
But were you really expecting taxation reductions in the present
economic
climate?

Why ever not, after all didn't Mr Brown-Darling tell us all that
"We've never had it so good" only last week?...

Oh - don't expect them from the Tories either if they get in at
the next election, according to the news this morning. Only in their
second term. And just how they can predict world economics then...


No, they will be using the funds to buy back the family silver Mr
Brown-Blair sold off cheap...

Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What's wrong with rye bread toast

Ergot.

Is that similar to a faggot?

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price of fuel
even more to cover the loss of VED income.

Surely only from those who lost out.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Agreed. Now taxing aviation fuel in the same way as the road variety would
be a very good move.

I'm with you there.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I am not sure whether you are arguing that VED is a good deal for low
mileage drivers on the basis that they would save because other costs
would be so much lower or whether you think that equity has no place in
taxation. If the later you are in tune with NuLabour who have gone out
of their way to penalise those with taxable incomes below £15000 pa (who
don't get tax credits) by abolishing the 10% band.

The overall taxation is a difficult thing to assess. Personal allowances
have gone up as have child allowances etc.
But were you really expecting taxation reductions in the present economic
climate? Oh - don't expect them from the Tories either if they get in at
the next election, according to the news this morning. Only in their
second term. And just how they can predict world economics then...

Personal allowances and band boundaries have gone up by 4% but the
£15000 above is culled directly from a table in The Independent which
seems to ignore the need to compensate for inflation. On that basis most
people covered by The Independents many tables make modest gains but,
being the Independent those on annual incomes below £10,000 and
pensioners too young to receive their OAP are ignored. In the tables on
incomes from £10,0000 to £150,000 the biggest winner is a pensioner
couple aged 65 - 74 in the range £90,000 to £150,000 with a monthly gain
of £132 and the biggest loser a single pensioner aged over 75 on £10,000
with a monthly loss of £36.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
snip

the biggest loser a single pensioner aged over 75 on £10,000
with a monthly loss of £36.


Of which there must be a very large number, but being single and
possibly frail they are not going to do much more than pull another
blanket over themselves and sit a bit closer to the one bar electric
fire - so much for Nu(caring)Socialism...

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:05:36 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 47dcec04@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
But you don't take a tractor to a filling station. Discounting fuel
from an ordinary filling station for certain users would be a
nightmare to implement and police. I can just imagine all the moans on
here if they put up the price of fuel even more to cover the loss of
VED income.

I wasn't particularly suggesting there. This is something that could
easily be handled through the VAT system for road transport users.

But they already reclaim VAT on fuel?

Not by any means all of them.

DG

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:17:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is
tasteless rubbish.


I can't, there are no butchers round here, Farm Shop meat sells at a
premium price and it's quality is very variable.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED cornflakes,
and Muesli?

What do you have against muesli ? It's largely unprocessed grains.

What's wrong with rye bread toast (rye grows well in higher
latitudes) porage, and so on?

switch from baked beans to local mushrooms and tomatoes to go with the

Can't buy local mushrooms, and local tomatoes would only be available
2-3 months of the year.

local bacon and eggs..

You don't have to enforce this: just keep jacking up fuel prices and..

- people will stop commuting, because its expensive.
- they will have more time to cook,
- they will suddenly find local food is much cheaper.
- they won't be obese, because they will be walking to the local shop.


Then the family car becomes what it was in the 50's an expensive luxury
that you used once a week to go out in.

And the supermarket reverst to what it once was - a place where you got
PACKAGED food and manufactured goods cheap once a month..only.


DG

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:27:14 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Clot wrote:
This would effect business users most and put up the cost of virtually
everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is that
what you want?

I agree with what you are saying but are we not having a lot of
unnecessary transport anyway which could be reduced. The cost of spuds
goes up at Tosca due to being transported to a "central depot" for
washing and bagging before being returned to a store near you? Might
make farm markets and local shops more competitive. My view is that we
should be buying more seasonal goods and not freighting in food from
Kenya/ Honduras or wherever.

Agreed. Now taxing aviation fuel in the same way as the road variety would
be a very good move.

If you want cheap airlines stopping off in Nigeria or Chad to fill up
tax free, that is. Or flying on the vapour in their tanks to get to a
dodgy ****ehole of a fuel stop in a desert somewhere.

Hmmm, wonder whatever did cause both engines to stop simultaneously on
the BA Boeing inbound from Peking ? 2 engines, 2 furl tanks not empty,
2 fuel pumps damaged by cavitation (sucking at air), and all
independant.

DG

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:33:16 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


I am not sure whether you are arguing that VED is a good deal for low
mileage drivers on the basis that they would save because other costs
would be so much lower or whether you think that equity has no place in
taxation. If the later you are in tune with NuLabour who have gone out
of their way to penalise those with taxable incomes below £15000 pa (who
don't get tax credits) by abolishing the 10% band.

The overall taxation is a difficult thing to assess. Personal allowances
have gone up as have child allowances etc.
But were you really expecting taxation reductions in the present economic
climate?

According to Gordon Mc ****e-Features it's the strongest it's ever
been, More in employment than we've ever had yada yada yada, (More
immigrants than ever ? - Hush my lips).

And even if it's a ****ehole here all the other countries are worse
than us, (He thinks we've all got the stereotypical "TorreMolinos"
view of other countries).

Except they aren't which is why the pound 's plummetting against the
Euro like a set of wallies off of Blackpool Tower .

Oh - don't expect them from the Tories either if they get in at
the next election, according to the news this morning. Only in their
second term. And just how they can predict world economics then...

Sorry, not understood.

DG

Rod wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What's wrong with rye bread toast

Ergot.

Cogito ergot sum.

I am thinking of adding LSD-precursor...

MMM. Consciousness expansion of any sort is very non PC these days innit?

Keep em dumb..

I love Camerons new line

'WE will try not to make things WORSE'.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You don't have to enforce this: just keep jacking up fuel prices and..

- people will stop commuting, because its expensive.
- they will have more time to cook,
- they will suddenly find local food is much cheaper.
- they won't be obese, because they will be walking to the local shop.


Then the family car becomes what it was in the 50's an expensive luxury
that you used once a week to go out in.

Make up your mind. A couple of posts ago you want it to be cheaper.

NO: I want a so called green tax to achieve lower fuel consumption, not
higher prices for low mileage drivers and be irrelevant for high mileage
drivers or people who buy new luxury cars.

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:17:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is
tasteless rubbish.


I can't, there are no butchers round here, Farm Shop meat sells at a
premium price and it's quality is very variable.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED cornflakes,
and Muesli?

What do you have against muesli ? It's largely unprocessed grains.

You have to be kidding.
Try looking at the label on the box sometime. Mostly it's laden with
sugar, fats and imported fruits and nuts..

Anything but healthy.



What's wrong with rye bread toast (rye grows well in higher
latitudes) porage, and so on?

switch from baked beans to local mushrooms and tomatoes to go with the

Can't buy local mushrooms, and local tomatoes would only be available
2-3 months of the year.

Not with polytunnels mate. where do you THINK they come from? Holland
mainly;

Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
Care to run that by me again? You want to stop car use entirely?

No, link the tax they pay to the amount they *use* the vehicle and
thus the amount of pollution they cause - that means that the tax
should be on the fuel and not the *wish* to use the vehicle.

This would effect business users most and put up the cost of virtually
everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is that what
you want?

I am not sure whether you are arguing that VED is a good deal for low
mileage drivers on the basis that they would save because other costs
would be so much lower or whether you think that equity has no place in
taxation. If the later you are in tune with NuLabour who have gone out
of their way to penalise those with taxable incomes below £15000 pa (who
don't get tax credits) by abolishing the 10% band.

I've already proclaimed my attitude to tax: no tax but a consumption
tax. No tax on income, on savings, on capital,on deat or on ownership.
Only a tax on consumption, applied via duties and VAT.


And returned to the taxpayer to:-

(i) subsidise lower wage earners by offering a national pension to
anyone who is actually a provable citizen of this country.
(ii) free medical insurance, but privatise the NHS
(iii) re nationalise or at least subsidize the three crucial de facto
monopoly infrastructures - Railtrack,the National Grid and the Post
Office. Roads are already essentially nationalized.


That would encoiurage thrift, savings and capital accumulation, and
work, and discourage idleness, gross excessive consumption, and make
believe work as a substitute for production.

And remove a huge burden of form filling from most small businesses and
totally from sole traders, unless they need to register for VAT.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 47dcec04@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
But you don't take a tractor to a filling station. Discounting fuel
from an ordinary filling station for certain users would be a
nightmare to implement and police. I can just imagine all the moans on
here if they put up the price of fuel even more to cover the loss of
VED income.

I wasn't particularly suggesting there. This is something that could
easily be handled through the VAT system for road transport users.

But they already reclaim VAT on fuel?

Yes.. so you could increase VAT and reduce duty, if you wanted to
e.g.make private owners pay more. But releive stress on corporate
juggernauts.


The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.


You tax things you want to reduce.

That's why you tax work. To encourage people to go on the dole. ;-)

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:17:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is
tasteless rubbish.


I can't, there are no butchers round here, Farm Shop meat sells at a
premium price and it's quality is very variable.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED cornflakes,
and Muesli?

What do you have against muesli ? It's largely unprocessed grains.

What's wrong with rye bread toast (rye grows well in higher
latitudes) porage, and so on?

switch from baked beans to local mushrooms and tomatoes to go with the

Can't buy local mushrooms, and local tomatoes would only be available
2-3 months of the year.

Certainly where I live there are many varieties of mushroom in the local
area. Some even safely edible. I think (but would have to verify my
records) that I have now seen edible varieties in the wild in all twelve
months of the year.

snip

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:17:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is
tasteless rubbish.


I can't, there are no butchers round here, Farm Shop meat sells at a
premium price and it's quality is very variable.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED cornflakes,
and Muesli?

What do you have against muesli ? It's largely unprocessed grains.

What's wrong with rye bread toast (rye grows well in higher
latitudes) porage, and so on?

switch from baked beans to local mushrooms and tomatoes to go with the

Can't buy local mushrooms, and local tomatoes would only be available
2-3 months of the year.

Not once you have covered all the fields in glass and put heating in them.
It is quite possible to have local produce most of not all the year around
if you can afford it.

The waste heat from a nuclear power station would make all year round salad
easy to do.


Anyway have you noticed its always the people living where you can buy local
stuff that think its a good idea.. they think stuff the 95% that live in
cities and can't buy locally produced stuff. They soon complain when there
are no buses or they can't get broadband or the ambulances take 34 minutes
to get there but want us to suffer so they can feel good.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:17:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is
tasteless rubbish.


I can't, there are no butchers round here, Farm Shop meat sells at a
premium price and it's quality is very variable.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED
cornflakes, and Muesli?

What do you have against muesli ? It's largely unprocessed grains.

You have to be kidding.
Try looking at the label on the box sometime. Mostly it's laden with
sugar, fats and imported fruits and nuts..

Anything but healthy.

Too right. My mate drowned in a bowl of muesli. He was pulled under by a
strong current.............



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 2008-03-16 18:56:01 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:17:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is
tasteless rubbish.


I can't, there are no butchers round here, Farm Shop meat sells at a
premium price and it's quality is very variable.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED
cornflakes, and Muesli?

What do you have against muesli ? It's largely unprocessed grains.

You have to be kidding.
Try looking at the label on the box sometime. Mostly it's laden with
sugar, fats and imported fruits and nuts..

Anything but healthy.

Too right. My mate drowned in a bowl of muesli. He was pulled under by a
strong current.............

What was the raisin for that?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.

--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article 47dda9cd@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Too right. My mate drowned in a bowl of muesli. He was pulled under
by a strong current.............

What was the raisin for that?

Is this going to turn into a cereal?

If so I can barley wait for the next episode.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-03-16 23:51:07 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.

Existence yes/no is (almost), but not rates.

Practically, childrens' clothes are VAT free but technically they are
zero rated.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 47dcec04@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
But you don't take a tractor to a filling station. Discounting fuel
from an ordinary filling station for certain users would be a
nightmare to implement and police. I can just imagine all the moans on
here if they put up the price of fuel even more to cover the loss of
VED income.

I wasn't particularly suggesting there. This is something that
could easily be handled through the VAT system for road transport users.
But they already reclaim VAT on fuel?

Yes.. so you could increase VAT and reduce duty, if you wanted to
e.g.make private owners pay more. But releive stress on corporate
juggernauts.

by ****, you're an illiterate ****

--
geoff

On 16/03/2008 10:24 :Jerry: wrote:

No, they will be using the funds to buy back the family silver Mr
Brown-Blair sold off cheap...

They sold *our* gold. At rock bottom prices after they told the markets
what they were about to do...

--
F

(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

In message , Steve Firth
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What's wrong with rye bread toast

Ergot.

Shhh ... the bugger's already on LSD

or some other hallucigen

--
geoff

In message , ":Jerry:"
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these
words:

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
Care to run that by me again? You want to stop car use
entirely?

No, link the tax they pay to the amount they *use* the vehicle
and
thus the amount of pollution they cause - that means that the
tax
should be on the fuel and not the *wish* to use the vehicle.

This would effect business users most and put up the cost of
virtually
everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is
that
what you want?

I am not sure whether you are arguing that VED is a good deal for
low
mileage drivers on the basis that they would save because other
costs
would be so much lower or whether you think that equity has no
place in
taxation. If the later you are in tune with NuLabour who have gone
out
of their way to penalise those with taxable incomes below £15000 pa
(who
don't get tax credits) by abolishing the 10% band.

The overall taxation is a difficult thing to assess. Personal
allowances
have gone up as have child allowances etc.
But were you really expecting taxation reductions in the present
economic
climate?

Why ever not, after all didn't Mr Brown-Darling tell us all that
"We've never had it so good" only last week?...

Oh - don't expect them from the Tories either if they get in at
the next election, according to the news this morning. Only in their
second term. And just how they can predict world economics then...


No, they will be using the funds to buy back the family silver Mr
Brown-Blair sold off cheap...

Or even the gold reserves that Brown sold off for some inexplicable
reason (well, we do know, don't we kids) a few years ago - now worth
three times the value then


--
geoff

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:53:32 GMT Geoff wrote :
Or even the gold reserves that Brown sold off for some inexplicable
reason (well, we do know, don't we kids) a few years ago - now worth
three times the value then

If chancellors were as clever as some people think they should be,
whoever held that post in 1980 should have sold off our gold when the
price (in cash terms) was not very different to now, and we would have
got 25+ years interest on the proceeds. And interest rates during a
lot of that period were a lot higher than in recent times.

One has to ask why he rushed to sell off those 3G licences when he did
... if only he'd waited g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 17/03/2008 01:04, Tony Bryer wrote:

One has to ask why he rushed to sell off those 3G licences when he did

Didn't all the mobile companies make huge losses for the year or two
after buying the 3G licences and threfore write-off the costs against
tax, effectively clawing it back from the treasury?

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:53:50 UTC, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 47dda9cd@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Too right. My mate drowned in a bowl of muesli. He was pulled under
by a strong current.............

What was the raisin for that?

Is this going to turn into a cereal?

If so I can barley wait for the next episode.

And the stuff costs an almond a leg.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47ddb852@qaanaaq...
On 2008-03-16 23:51:07 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.

Existence yes/no is (almost), but not rates.

Practically, childrens' clothes are VAT free but technically they are zero
rated.


Close ..; but no cigar

In accordance with EU regulation/ Directives VAT _must_ be levied by member
states with a portion of the 'take' being remitted to Brussels.

Furthermore; the EU - in furtherance of an ever closer Union- wishes to have
VAT rates "harmonised" across the EU and has stipulated the bands and the
rates at which they can be applied by member states. The end-goal of the EC
is 'full-harmonisation' collectively the EU 'suffers' from 'Partial
Harmonisation'

AIUI, member states have permission to vary the rates levied each within a
narrow range.

The EU declares that certain items are EXEMPT from VAT, (mainly medical
items. prosthetics etc...). all non-exempt goods and services should then
'Attract' the impost (no kidding, they actually use such language) at a
low-medium-high rate of VAT.

The member state decides what category of items to assign to the bands.

The UK , according to its critics, 'cheats' by establishing a rate of ZERO
percent as it's LOW band and bundles children's clothes, books, magazines,
papers and food, This could change today/tomorrow at a stroke of the pen of
Brown's Darling.

--

Brian

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.


That would be why Brown was prevented from *removing* VAT on domestic
fuel (rather than just lowering it to 5pc) back in 1997 at his first
budget, at the time it was made clear that such fuel could not be zero
rated due to EU tax regulations.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:53:50 UTC, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 47dda9cd@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Too right. My mate drowned in a bowl of muesli. He was pulled
under
by a strong current.............

What was the raisin for that?

Is this going to turn into a cereal?

If so I can barley wait for the next episode.

And the stuff costs an almond a leg.


You're all bananas...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.

So talk to the EU. I dont think it is actually.

Duty certainly is not.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

So talk to the EU.

Better still perhaps, get out!

On 2008-03-17 09:38:14 +0000, "Brian Sharrock" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47ddb852@qaanaaq...
On 2008-03-16 23:51:07 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.

Existence yes/no is (almost), but not rates.

Practically, childrens' clothes are VAT free but technically they are zero
rated.


Close ..; but no cigar

In accordance with EU regulation/ Directives VAT _must_ be levied by member
states with a portion of the 'take' being remitted to Brussels.

Furthermore; the EU - in furtherance of an ever closer Union- wishes to have
VAT rates "harmonised" across the EU and has stipulated the bands and the
rates at which they can be applied by member states. The end-goal of the EC
is 'full-harmonisation' collectively the EU 'suffers' from 'Partial
Harmonisation'

Ever closer union.... Hmm... I wonder if there is VAT on KY jelly.


AIUI, member states have permission to vary the rates levied each within a
narrow range.

The EU declares that certain items are EXEMPT from VAT, (mainly medical
items. prosthetics etc...). all non-exempt goods and services should then
'Attract' the impost (no kidding, they actually use such language) at a
low-medium-high rate of VAT.

The member state decides what category of items to assign to the bands.

The UK , according to its critics, 'cheats' by establishing a rate of ZERO
percent as it's LOW band and bundles children's clothes, books, magazines,
papers and food, This could change today/tomorrow at a stroke of the pen of
Brown's Darling.

This is basically what I said. Childrens clothes do carry VAT, thus
techncally complying, but zero rated.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:46:35 -0000, ":Jerry:"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
snip

So talk to the EU.

Better still perhaps, get out!

HEAR HEAR!

--
Frank Erskine