On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 quid?

On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui




--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 31/05/2016 21:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui

Cat got your tongue?

On 31/05/16 21:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui




Current minimum excise rates

Petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 421

Unleaded petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 359

was what I quoted, Its not a question of maths, its a question of what
the data actually says.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 31/05/16 21:37, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 21:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui

Cat got your tongue?

I lost that accidentally whilest tryng to find te data I had alrfeadruy
posted,. I ssaif taht #

Current minimum excise rates

Petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 421

Unleaded petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 359

was what the excise was, and expressed that in cents per litre

Someone else misinterpreted that as pence, and someone else said I
couldn't divide by 1000.

Which is why I called them innumerate and illiterate, because 359 euros
per 1000 litres is 35.9 cents per litre.

etc.



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 31/05/2016 21:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui




Current minimum excise rates

Petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 421

Unleaded petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 359

was what I quoted, Its not a question of maths, its a question of what
the data actually says.

Have a look above at what you said.

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

Which is flat out wrong.

Petrol is 35.9c/litre, diesel 33.0c/litre, which comes out to the 27p
and 25p that I said.

Now, are you going to apologise for calling me innumerate when I got the
answer right and you completely failed to?

On 31/05/2016 21:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:37, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 21:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up
on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui

Cat got your tongue?

I lost that accidentally whilest tryng to find te data I had alrfeadruy
posted,. I ssaif taht #

It's past 9pm. How sober are you?

Current minimum excise rates

Petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 421

Unleaded petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 359

was what the excise was, and expressed that in cents per litre

Someone else misinterpreted that as pence,

No, Denis converted it to pence - and it looks like he did so accurately

and someone else said I couldn't divide by 1000.

That was me, because your 42c and 35c for petrol and diesel were wrong.

Which is why I called them innumerate and illiterate, because 359 euros
per 1000 litres is 35.9 cents per litre.

etc.

And that isn't what you said.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
writes
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
ARW wrote

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

That can't fly, even Australia got to be in the Eurovision contest.

God knows why, that is all I know about it, that it did...

It sells well in Australia,

Like hell it does.

Better than watching Neighbours or Home and Away.

On second thoughts I'll watch none of them and watch the football:-)



Even Wales and Ireland (either side)?


England.



--
Adam

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
writes
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

FFS it's the European Finals not the ****ing EU finals.


One of them is important


--
Adam

On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.



Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!

On 31/05/16 21:44, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 21:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up
on a
diet of socialism.

Care to wager on this? How much do you bet that your numbers are more
accurate than mine? 50 qui




Current minimum excise rates

Petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 421

Unleaded petrol (‚¬/1000 l.) 359

was what I quoted, Its not a question of maths, its a question of what
the data actually says.

Have a look above at what you said.

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

Which is flat out wrong.

Petrol is 35.9c/litre, diesel 33.0c/litre, which comes out to the 27p
and 25p that I said.

Now, are you going to apologise for calling me innumerate when I got the
answer right and you completely failed to?

M+NO, because you said I couldnt divide by 1000.


--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 31/05/16 22:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.



Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!

Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!

--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 31/05/16 21:47, Clive George wrote:


And that isn't what you said.


You know exactly what I said, and what I did.

I read the first two columns instead of the second and third.


YOU then turned that into an ad hominem attack to push the argument away
from the basic point, which is that at EU dictates minimum excise
levels, and its NOT up to the UK government what those are, because you
wanted that point to be forgotten

Lets recap. You said 'hint: excise duty is nothing to do with the EU'

And I proved you utterly wrong.

And then you start to nit pick.

You are wrong. End of. Man up.




--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:53:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Is there actually any reason why we can't zero rate it for VAT like we
do for kids clothing, etc.

Yes. The same as the reason that applies for the "tampon tax".

The list of zero-rated products is short. If something wasn't zero-rated
when the UK joined the EU in the '70s, then it stayed taxed - the
exemption that applied to those pre-existing zero-rated products
couldn't be applied to new products.

So the list of products the UK charges zero-rate on was defined by the
UK government, and the list of products the UK charges VAT on was also
defined by the UK government - but things can't be moved from the taxed
list onto that zero-rate list.

Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what?
Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to raise
it on another.

But when Osborne raised it to 20% all the lefties went bananas claiming
it was hitting the poorest hardest. Was that just political posturing
using the poor as cannon fodder?
I would have thought you would welcome switching the burden to income
tax where the top 50% of tax payers pay 90% of the tax.
Of course if the government wasn't handing out grants, free this that
and te other to lefty****s, and inserter left money in peoples pockets
so they could buy the same things or better themselves, we wouldn't
need to tax everyone so much.

Taxation is there to support public sector make-workers who otherwise
would be jobless, and on the dole, where they would in fact cost less.



In the mad world of leftie economics paying them in the public sector
even on useless jobs is a good thing as it generates extra income tax
for the government.
--
bert

On 31/05/2016 23:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:47, Clive George wrote:


And that isn't what you said.


You know exactly what I said, and what I did.

I read the first two columns instead of the second and third.

Ah, you've finally worked it out. Well done - pity it took so long. If
you were a bit more careful about what you wrote, you might not make
quite such a fool of yourself so often.

YOU then turned that into an ad hominem attack to push the argument away
from the basic point, which is that at EU dictates minimum excise
levels, and its NOT up to the UK government what those are, because you
wanted that point to be forgotten

Nope. I used it to illustrate that the minimum duty rates you're talking
about are sufficiently lower than the UK rates that they are an
irrelevance. Your mistakes conveniently for you made them look higher
than they are - I corrected that.

Lets recap. You said 'hint: excise duty is nothing to do with the EU'

And I proved you utterly wrong.

No, the rates that they are currently set at are more than double the
minimum EU level. The EU does not mandate that, the UK does. The rates
have not been affected by EU rules at all.

And then you start to nit pick.

You are wrong. End of. Man up.

Y'know, you writing something doesn't make it true. Like Harry, you
might be able to persuade yourself, but that doesn't mean anybody sane
believes you.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 09:53, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Rod wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?
Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.
Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?


A simple return to the old standard of government by statute would
be nice.

Well it would be a start. No one pretends that they have a complete answer
to what political system is the right way to govern in the 21st century -
well except the EU of course - and that in essence is why we must leave,
so we can *have that debate*.

If we remain we are nailing our colours to the Brussels mast forever,
putting on the shackles and setting down to row under the slavemasters of
Strasbourg and Brussels. What they say, we are bound to do. And we can
neither remove them, nor change them nor affect their policies. Nor any
more leave.

Goodbye UK, welcome 12 irrelevant 'regions' in the new commissariat of
Europe.



Exactly. That is why this conservative government is promoting Mayors in
cities even though they know they will almost always be Labour candidates.
It is stepping stone to the City Regions or City States which will replace
national parliaments.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:53:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:


Is there actually any reason why we can't zero rate it for VAT like we
do for kids clothing, etc.

Yes. The same as the reason that applies for the "tampon tax".

The list of zero-rated products is short. If something wasn't zero-rated
when the UK joined the EU in the '70s, then it stayed taxed - the
exemption that applied to those pre-existing zero-rated products couldn't
be applied to new products.

So the list of products the UK charges zero-rate on was defined by the UK
government, and the list of products the UK charges VAT on was also
defined by the UK government - but things can't be moved from the taxed
list onto that zero-rate list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34649495


AIUI the tampon tax is back again as of last week.

On 31/05/16 23:24, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:53:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Is there actually any reason why we can't zero rate it for VAT
like we
do for kids clothing, etc.

Yes. The same as the reason that applies for the "tampon tax".

The list of zero-rated products is short. If something wasn't
zero-rated
when the UK joined the EU in the '70s, then it stayed taxed - the
exemption that applied to those pre-existing zero-rated products
couldn't be applied to new products.

So the list of products the UK charges zero-rate on was defined by the
UK government, and the list of products the UK charges VAT on was also
defined by the UK government - but things can't be moved from the
taxed
list onto that zero-rate list.

Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what?
Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the
things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to
raise
it on another.

But when Osborne raised it to 20% all the lefties went bananas claiming
it was hitting the poorest hardest. Was that just political posturing
using the poor as cannon fodder?
I would have thought you would welcome switching the burden to income
tax where the top 50% of tax payers pay 90% of the tax.
Of course if the government wasn't handing out grants, free this that
and te other to lefty****s, and inserter left money in peoples pockets
so they could buy the same things or better themselves, we wouldn't
need to tax everyone so much.

Taxation is there to support public sector make-workers who otherwise
would be jobless, and on the dole, where they would in fact cost less.



In the mad world of leftie economics paying them in the public sector
even on useless jobs is a good thing as it generates extra income tax
for the government.

But not as much as the added cost of keeping them in a job rather than
on the dole.

Frankly I think we should put huge amounts of people on the dole, but
remove the idea of income tax. And abolish the minimum wage. That's what
the dole would be. A safety net guaranteed for everyone working or not.

Since there would bne no minimum wage, not penalties for hiring and no
penalties for firing and no income tax and no national insurance, people
would work when and if they could on anything that paid. Guess what?
that work would be work *someone wanted done* because they qwere
prepar3ed to pay to have it done.

Need for taxes would be lowered, because although you need to guarantee
the 'national pensions' the public sector has been reduced to almost
nothing beyond the bare minu8m that cant be done any other way.

And you get the taxes on every purchase transaction that's made. You
don't tax work, you don't tax assets, you don't tax death, you do9nt tax
houses, you don't tax businesses, you tax spending.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 31/05/16 23:36, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 23:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:47, Clive George wrote:


And that isn't what you said.


You know exactly what I said, and what I did.

I read the first two columns instead of the second and third.

Ah, you've finally worked it out. Well done - pity it took so long. If
you were a bit more careful about what you wrote, you might not make
quite such a fool of yourself so often.

YOU then turned that into an ad hominem attack to push the argument away
from the basic point, which is that at EU dictates minimum excise
levels, and its NOT up to the UK government what those are, because you
wanted that point to be forgotten

Nope. I used it to illustrate that the minimum duty rates you're talking
about are sufficiently lower than the UK rates that they are an
irrelevance. Your mistakes conveniently for you made them look higher
than they are - I corrected that.

Lets recap. You said 'hint: excise duty is nothing to do with the EU'

And I proved you utterly wrong.

No, the rates that they are currently set at are more than double the
minimum EU level. The EU does not mandate that, the UK does. The rates
have not been affected by EU rules at all.


Again you are refusing to admit that excises rates are set to a minimum
by the EU, that means they are something te EU is very involved in, like
VAT, and it limits flexibility.


That is not 'nothing to do with the EU' at all.

And then you start to nit pick.

You are wrong. End of. Man up.

Y'know, you writing something doesn't make it true. Like Harry, you
might be able to persuade yourself, but that doesn't mean anybody sane
believes you.

I should repeat that word for word. You said that excise rates are
nothing to do with the EU,. I showed you that the EU has complete
control over excise rates across the whole EU. The fact that Britain
chooses to set them about 40% higher than the EU demands does not alter
the fact that ultimately if the EU wants them at a quid, thats where
they would be set.

Let's re-examine the context of where we started. The propositin was
made thet VAT and tax on road fuel could be lowered to make smaller
vehicles cost effective,. I said the EU wouldn't allow it and you said
that fuel tax was nothing to to with the EU. I showed you that it was.

Then unwilling to admit you mistake - or blatant lie - whichever - you
pretended that what you meant was that the current levels of road tax
were a UK government decision. A very different thing, because we were
not talking about current levels of tax, We were talking about our
ability to get rid of tax to make fuel cheaper.

It was a cheap weasel, and if anyone is still reading the thread they
know it.



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/16 23:24, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:53:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Is there actually any reason why we can't zero rate it for VAT
like we
do for kids clothing, etc.

Yes. The same as the reason that applies for the "tampon tax".

The list of zero-rated products is short. If something wasn't
zero-rated
when the UK joined the EU in the '70s, then it stayed taxed - the
exemption that applied to those pre-existing zero-rated products
couldn't be applied to new products.

So the list of products the UK charges zero-rate on was defined by
the
UK government, and the list of products the UK charges VAT on was
also
defined by the UK government - but things can't be moved from the
taxed
list onto that zero-rate list.

Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what?
Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the
things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to
raise
it on another.

But when Osborne raised it to 20% all the lefties went bananas claiming
it was hitting the poorest hardest. Was that just political posturing
using the poor as cannon fodder?
I would have thought you would welcome switching the burden to income
tax where the top 50% of tax payers pay 90% of the tax.
Of course if the government wasn't handing out grants, free this that
and te other to lefty****s, and inserter left money in peoples pockets
so they could buy the same things or better themselves, we wouldn't
need to tax everyone so much.

Taxation is there to support public sector make-workers who otherwise
would be jobless, and on the dole, where they would in fact cost less.



In the mad world of leftie economics paying them in the public sector
even on useless jobs is a good thing as it generates extra income tax
for the government.

But not as much as the added cost of keeping them in a job rather than on
the dole.

Frankly I think we should put huge amounts of people on the dole,

Of course there is nothing socialist about that approach, eh ?

but remove the idea of income tax. And abolish the minimum wage. That's
what the dole would be. A safety net guaranteed for everyone working or
not.

That wouldnt be the dole, that would be an
insanely socialist handout from the govt.

Since there would bne no minimum wage, not penalties for hiring and no
penalties for firing and no income tax and no national insurance, people
would work when and if they could on anything that paid.

Why would they bother when they get a govt handout regardless ?

And no way to fund that the govt handout for everyone either.

Guess what? that work would be work *someone wanted done* because they
qwere prepar3ed to pay to have it done.

But they wouldnt have anything to pay for what they wanted done.

Need for taxes would be lowered,

Bull**** it would with everyone entitled to a handout from govt.

because although you need to guarantee the 'national pensions' the public
sector has been reduced to almost nothing beyond the bare minu8m that cant
be done any other way.

And you get the taxes on every purchase transaction that's made.

That is there already. And it can only fund handouts for everyone
if it was a tax at a much higher rate than it currently is.

You don't tax work, you don't tax assets, you don't tax death, you do9nt
tax houses, you don't tax businesses, you tax spending.

Completely off with the ****ing fairies, as always.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what? Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to raise
it on another.

Can you kindly arrange the increased tax to be on luxury items rather
than necessities?

What increased tax? This was about reducing an existing one. And to a non
car owner petrol might be considered a luxury.

Mind, I thought fuel tax was also targeting CO2 reduction as well as
simply raising revenue.

That sort of thing is always a good excuse for any tax. But at the end of
the day the government will raise the money they need anyway. For some
reason, many seem to think indirect taxation more fair.

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

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

On 31/05/2016 23:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 22:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.



Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!

Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!


Repeating things when you are wrong just ensures people know you are
insane.
You are more like harry everyday.

On 01/06/16 12:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 23:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 22:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 20:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/16 16:24, Clive George wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/05/2016 15:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And we couldn't lower it even if we wanted to below their minimum
levels

Petrol and diesel are currently subject to 57.95p a litre excise
duty.

The EU minima are 42 and 35 cents a litre respectively.

So there is not that much scope for cutting it.

Only to about 32p for petrol and about 27p for diesel.
Quite a lot really.

As per my other reply, actually 27p, 25p - TNP can't divide by 1000
accurately or identify fuel types.

Looks like Clive George cant tell a British pence from a European
cent.,

But that's what you expect from, thick innumerate ****s brought up on a
diet of socialism.



Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!

Chucking the insults about again even though its you that is wrong!!


Repeating things when you are wrong just ensures people know you are
insane.
You are more like harry everyday.

See above dennis.



--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what? Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to raise
it on another.

Can you kindly arrange the increased tax to be on luxury items rather
than necessities?

What increased tax? This was about reducing an existing one. And to a non
car owner petrol might be considered a luxury.

Mind, I thought fuel tax was also targeting CO2 reduction as well as
simply raising revenue.

That sort of thing is always a good excuse for any tax. But at the end of
the day the government will raise the money they need anyway. For some
reason, many seem to think indirect taxation more fair.

Leftie governments do indeed raise as much money as possible including
borrowing because they can always find an endless list of things to
spend it on.
Before you say something is fair or not first you must define what you
mean by fair.
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 23:24, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/05/16 20:53, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:53:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Is there actually any reason why we can't zero rate it for VAT
like we
do for kids clothing, etc.

Yes. The same as the reason that applies for the "tampon tax".

The list of zero-rated products is short. If something wasn't
zero-rated
when the UK joined the EU in the '70s, then it stayed taxed - the
exemption that applied to those pre-existing zero-rated products
couldn't be applied to new products.

So the list of products the UK charges zero-rate on was defined by the
UK government, and the list of products the UK charges VAT on was also
defined by the UK government - but things can't be moved from the
taxed
list onto that zero-rate list.

Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what?
Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the
things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to
raise
it on another.

But when Osborne raised it to 20% all the lefties went bananas claiming
it was hitting the poorest hardest. Was that just political posturing
using the poor as cannon fodder?
I would have thought you would welcome switching the burden to income
tax where the top 50% of tax payers pay 90% of the tax.
Of course if the government wasn't handing out grants, free this that
and te other to lefty****s, and inserter left money in peoples pockets
so they could buy the same things or better themselves, we wouldn't
need to tax everyone so much.

Taxation is there to support public sector make-workers who otherwise
would be jobless, and on the dole, where they would in fact cost less.



In the mad world of leftie economics paying them in the public sector
even on useless jobs is a good thing as it generates extra income tax
for the government.

But not as much as the added cost of keeping them in a job rather than
on the dole.
Simple mathematics but beyond the wit of our socialist friends. Their
answer is to increase the amount you pay on the dole by classifying
everyone as disabled.!!

Snip
--
bert

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Perhaps you'd care to speculate how many
private memember's bills get passed in the UK?

ALL the legislation that gets voted on in parliament has
been initiated by MPs and ministers who have instructed
civil servants to draft that legislation and the legislation
is debated and amended by MPs in the parliament.

Including all the bad laws of which the UK has many.

Neither system is perfect.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

ALL the legislation that gets voted on in parliament has
been initiated by MPs and ministers who have instructed
civil servants to draft that legislation and the legislation
is debated and amended by MPs in the parliament.

Including all the bad laws of which the UK has many.

But with the British system, if they **** up badly enough,
as Blair and the brown one did, they entire govt can be
given the bums rush at the ballot box and the voters
get to see if the alternative crew can do any better.

Nothing like that is possible with the EU, you're stuck
with what unelected bureaucrats have decided to do.

Neither system is perfect.

One is a much better approach than the other
and much more democratic. And arguably
invented by Britain in modern times too.

bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Does it really make that much difference what VAT rate is applied to
what? Unless you never buy that product.

The government determines how much income it needs to pay for the
things
it does. So if you reduce a tax on one thing, they'll just need to
raise
it on another.

Can you kindly arrange the increased tax to be on luxury items rather
than necessities?

What increased tax? This was about reducing an existing one. And to a
non
car owner petrol might be considered a luxury.

Mind, I thought fuel tax was also targeting CO2 reduction as well as
simply raising revenue.

That sort of thing is always a good excuse for any tax. But at the
end of
the day the government will raise the money they need anyway. For some
reason, many seem to think indirect taxation more fair.

Leftie governments do indeed raise as much money as possible including
borrowing because they can always find an endless list of things to
spend it on.
Before you say something is fair or not first you must define what you
mean by fair.
The word #fair# when spoken by a politician always means MORE TAX!