Why is VAT accepted?

FrostedNipple · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:47

I know it has recently gone down, but 15% on every item you buy is a lot. Just bought some speaker and the VAT was £1.20, seems silly as the speakers are only £7 without. I propose VAT be reduced to 5%.

Kenai · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:48

Good luck with that

Raumarik · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:48

Tax would have to be paid elsewhere, at least this way everyone has to pay tax on most things, not everything is subject to VAT.

Pilky01 · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:48

Okay.

bledd · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:49

Kenai said:
Good luck with that

quite an ocuk type post for a 'new' member?

rypt · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:51

Kami said:
Tax would have to be paid elsewhere, at least this way everyone has to pay tax on most things, not everything is subject to VAT.

Why would tax have to be paid elsewhere? Cut out the 40bn a year that is spend on the benefits system ... and you can scrap road tax (which generates 40bn a year), or you cut down the VAT rate instead on certain goods.
USA manages just fine with low (or none) sales tax rates

LordSplodge · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:52

People accept all sorts of taxes, especially in the UK. :mad:

FrostedNipple · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:52

Also, my speakers where the free 1st class royal mail ocuk thingymajigy first time i've used it i think, makes buying small purchases like that more worthwhile, who reckons it will be here tomorrow?

SlyReaper · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:53

rypt said:
Why would tax have to be paid elsewhere? Cut out the 40bn a year that is spend on the benefits system ... and you can scrap road tax (which generates 40bn a year), or you cut down the VAT rate instead on certain goods.
USA manages just fine with low (or none) sales tax rates

Because people on benefits can still vote.

rypt · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:53

SlyReaper said:
Because people on benefits can still vote.

Yes, and if all the major parties agreed on this, who'd they vote in?

Strife212 · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:54

rypt said:
Why would tax have to be paid elsewhere? Cut out the 40bn a year that is spend on the benefits system ... and you can scrap road tax (which generates 40bn a year), or you cut down the VAT rate instead on certain goods.
USA manages just fine with low (or none) sales tax rates

They don't have a national health system.

Pilky01 · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:54

rypt said:
Yes, and if all the major parties agreed on this, who'd they vote in?

No major political party would agree to scrap the benefits system.

Berserker · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:54

FrostedNipple said:
I propose VAT be reduced to 5%.

Why? I could propose VAT on speakers be increased to 50%. It's just as random.

Current government policy dictates that taxes must be increased. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's just a fact of life - all these billions being thrown around the economy must be repaid at some point.

FrostedNipple · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:55

It's not a silly thing i'm on about. Yes the government make lots of money on it, but where is the logic. I go to a shop, the shop sells me an item, the shop sourced the item for the makers. WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT GET MONEY OUT OF THIS.

meghatronic · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:55

lol dvdbunny.

Wait. Hold on.....

Personally, I think abandon ALL types of tax (VAT/income/council/car/green/fuel) and bring in one tax @ a fixed rate for everyone.

Raumarik · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:55

rypt said:
Why would tax have to be paid elsewhere? Cut out the 40bn a year that is spend on the benefits system ... and you can scrap road tax (which generates 40bn a year), or you cut down the VAT rate instead on certain goods.
USA manages just fine with low (or none) sales tax rates

Scrapping benefits system = increased crime, increased insurance and increased costs for policing and justice systems.

Scrap road tax = worse roads, increased car insurance and all of the other departments which road tax money is filtered into lose out too

So no, it's not as simple as that, lets remember the USA also doesn't have an NHS, or would you prefer to have a system where only those well off and who can afford health insurance get hospital treatement?

You cannot compare two countries tax systems, it's not that simple.

rypt · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:57

Strife212 said:
They don't have a national health system.

I specifically said BENEFITS system not WELFARE system.
the 40bn I mentioned is money spent on chavs to have more and more kids.
(as well as worthwhile things like people who truly are out of luck and have no job - but they are few and far between)

Pilky01 said:
No major political party would agree to scrap the benefits system.

And why is that? It is the right thing to do - or at least only make it for people who really need it not chavs.

Kami said:
So no, it's not as simple as that, lets remember the USA also doesn't have an NHS, or would you prefer to have a system where only those well off and who can afford health insurance get hospital treatement?

Again, at no point did I mention NHS.

SlyReaper · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:57

How else will MPs be able to afford 2 houses, 3 chauffeur driven cars and porn on pay-per-view?

MikeHunt79 · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:57

vat used to be on luxury items, now it's on almost everything...

Raumarik · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:57

meghatronic said:
lol dvdbunny.

Wait. Hold on.....

Personally, I think abandon ALL types of tax (VAT/income/council/car/green/fuel) and bring in one tax @ a fixed rate for everyone.

I'd love that to happen but how do you tax people who normally wouldn't pay as much as others?

How would government introduce all the daft little taxes that drive us up the wall either