Pie Tax horror announced in Budget

[I1L2T3]

Typical how the rightwingers try and drag out a thread about tax on hot food and try to spin it in a well rehearsed topic they feel comfortable arguing with.

 

What is this well-rehearsed topic? They currently seem to be attacking the decisions of their own bosses.

 

The key thing is that EU law allows certain goods and services to attact a lower rates of VAT. Individual countries get to select which goods and services will attract a lower rate. This is merely a case of a country making a decision to continue to support a certain industry through that mechanism. Obviously not all industries can be supported in this way but some can. And long may it continue.

 

Obviously if people have a problem they can talk to their MP. Or maybe vote for a different party :hihi:

[HeadingNorth]

My arguments are the same as the ones that persuaded the Treasury to backtrack.

 

Then let's hear them! So far you have presented nothing except for special pleading.

[HeadingNorth]

The key thing is that EU law allows certain goods and services to attact a lower rates of VAT. Individual countries get to select which goods and services will attract a lower rate. This is merely a case of a country making a decision to continue to support a certain industry through that mechanism. Obviously not all industries can be supported in this way but some can.

 

Which brings us back to the question you still haven't answered yet. Why do caravan manufacturers deserve special treatment?

[I1L2T3]

Which brings us back to the question you still haven't answered yet. Why do caravan manufacturers deserve special treatment?

 

I've answered already. Because there is currently no VAT and introducing it at 20% would have caused significant damage to the caravan manufacturing industry and tourism. And the damage would have been particularly bad in an already economically depressed area. The Treasury agrees with these arguments.

[I1L2T3]

Then let's hear them! So far you have presented nothing except for special pleading.

 

This link contains the thrust of the arguments against. KPMG compiled the report.

 

http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/Tourism-jobs-risk-Osborne-8217-s-caravan-8216-tax/story-16217991-detail/story.html

[quisquose]

I've answered already. Because there is currently no VAT and introducing it at 20% would have caused significant damage to the caravan manufacturing industry and tourism. And the damage would have been particularly bad in an already economically depressed area. The Treasury agrees with these arguments.

 

Again, you're just presenting us with special pleading that we favour one industry over another. If we are to apply differential and complicated VAT rates to products based on where some of them are made, then there are plenty of other products I would choose ahead of caravans.

 

At best you make a case for a stepped change in the VAT rate, so rather than moving it to 20% straight away it is moved there over a number of years. I think such a change would be sensible, and perhaps that is what will happen.

 

It is still plainly obvious that the many conservatory manufacturers in Humberside, who have to charge 20% on their product, suffer an unfair disadvantage to their peers who manufacture caravans who only have to charge 5%, whilst competing for the same sales revenue from a similar customer base.

[quisquose]

This link contains the thrust of the arguments against. KPMG compiled the report.

 

http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/Tourism-jobs-risk-Osborne-8217-s-caravan-8216-tax/story-16217991-detail/story.html

 

What's quite laughable about that report is it's emphasis on the cost to holiday parks.

 

It would cost holiday parks nothing because they would be able to recover the VAT. The only people who would pay the VAT are those that buy a caravan for their own personal use, as a luxury item.

 

I accept that it may impact on their sales due to increased prices to the end user, but any lost sales would be spent on other areas of the tourism industry that are currently struggling, such as hotels, who do have to pay 20% VAT on the costs of running their businesses.

[I1L2T3]

Again, you're just presenting us with special pleading that we favour one industry over another. If we are to apply differential and complicated VAT rates to products based on where some of them are made, then there are plenty of other products I would choose ahead of caravans.

 

Please explain how my neighbour's recent £35k purchase of their German built caravan has helped the constituents of Humberside by virtue of it being zero rated?

 

At best you make a case for a stepped change in the VAT rate, so rather than moving it to 20% straight away it is moved there over a number of years. I think such a change would be sensible, and perhaps that is what will happen.

 

It is still plainly obvious that the many conservatory manufacturers in Humberside, who have to charge 20% on their product, suffer an unfair disadvantage to their peers who manufacture caravans who only have to charge 5%, whilst competing for the same sales revenue from a similar customer base.

 

As I said above static caravans are already at 0% VAT. That may be right. It might be wrong. But that is how it is. That is the situation now. Increasing to 20% would have caused economic damage. That is the argument in it's simplest terms. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.

 

The economic benefits you describe of increasing the VAT on caravans are hypothetical. The dangers highlighted in the KPMG report are very real. The government was wise to take a step back.

[I1L2T3]

What's quite laughable about that report is it's emphasis on the cost to holiday parks.

 

It would cost holiday parks nothing because they would be able to recover the VAT. The only people who would pay the VAT are those that buy a caravan for their own personal use, as a luxury item.

 

I thought you said you did logic?

 

Who would they have to recover the costs from? And how would that affect demand for their business? Think it through.

 

I'm glad you found the report funny. Is regional economic destruction what floats your boat?

[quisquose]

I thought you said you did logic?

 

Who would they have to recover the costs from? And how would that affect demand for their business? Think it through.

 

I'm glad you found the report funny. Is regional economic destruction what floats your boat?

 

The holiday park would recover the VAT on the manufacturer's invoice directly from HMRC when they submit their VAT return. They would have to add VAT to any sales of static caravans, so the cost would be with the end user.

 

It would have no effect on holiday rentals and timeshares.

 

I find it funny because I find it unbelievable. It takes an exaggerated doom-laden view of one side, but ignores to positive aspect of the other side of the economic balance. People aren't going to stop holidaying in Cornwall if VAT is added to caravans, which is what the article suggests.

 

Your repeated use of ad-homs is a bit tedious.