If VAT is only to be paid on luxury items then why do we as adults have to pay VAT on clothes. When you think about it, childrens clothes are VAT exempt, yet adult clothes are not. If children clothes are classed as necessity why not adult clothes. Afterall, if we dont wear clothes as adults we get arrested for indecency. Therefore we have to buy clothes, rendering them a non luxury or a necessary item that should be vat exempt. If the government issued each citizen with a standard issue of clothes or could buy them vat free then we could at least have choice of paying the vat or not. This means that the government is extrorting money by menace (if you dont put on clothes that are taxed then we will arest you). Should this be allowed? Why are we being held to ransom in this way. I know people will say buy second hand clothes etc but why should we? There is no choice
2006-09-21 01:27:03 · 11 answers · asked by hairyhaggis_uk 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
VAT is really the most socially unjust tax, because the lower your income, the more (in percentage) of it you'll have to spend on things that have VAT on them.
It was the great idea of Thatcher's neo-cons to lower income tax and increase VAT, to make people believe in the "low tax economy",
when the taxes only got low for the rich, but actually higher for everybody else.
I've always wondered why nobody ever seems to have pointed this out.
2006-09-21 03:04:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Vat is yet another tax along with Income Tax, National Insurance, Council Tax, Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty (as was the Road Fund Licence - except they do not spend it on roads now) Television Licences and so on and so on.
They all make the high level of tax look less. If all taxes were lumped together and applied to wages there would be a strike or preferably the Chancellor would get lynched!
For any earnings in excess to £40,000 /annum the total tax rate is in excess to 70%. Less than 40K and it is in excess to 50%.
RoyS
2006-09-21 03:48:29 · answer #2 · answered by Roy S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who said VAT was only to be paid on Luxury items ?
You frustration is based on a false premise. If you're going to have a heart attack at least make it based on the thruth !
VAT is paid on any product or service where value is added between the manufactuurer and end user. This value add could be transport/ modification / installation etc.
The end user pays the VAT
Some stuff, as you point out, is exempt
Its nothing to do with luxury.
2006-09-21 01:38:15 · answer #3 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea that VAT is only paid on "luxury" items went out with the split rate.
It's nominally a tax on "value added", so should really only be charged on manufactured goods and services - but that doesn't stop them charging it on, say, natural gas.
But these days it applies to pretty much everything with a few exceptions (kids' clothes, books, food ingredients etc). It would be better to use the American terminology and call it a "sales tax".
2006-09-21 01:33:58 · answer #4 · answered by gvih2g2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a better idea if the income tax was reduced. Economists generally agree that it is better for the economy if the government taxes spending rather than income. That way everyone is oncouraged to work for an income and people only pay tax on products and services that they want and can afford.
2006-09-21 02:00:00 · answer #5 · answered by George 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ha! In Latinamerica we have VAT even on bread and milk. The reform project currently in the parliament in Uruguay is going to create a rent tax to be calculated on the gross revenue, not net, and keep the VAT.
So, is there space for me in your country?
T4d2
2006-09-21 02:39:20 · answer #6 · answered by Carlos Sosa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely right!!!
It's disgusting the way that we are held to ransom in every area of our lives.
It's not just clothes- it's food - (what constitutes luxury food - jam perhaps?) - transport (public or otherwise) oh god I could go on for hours about this
2006-09-21 01:32:01 · answer #7 · answered by trebs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the goverment abolished VAT, how would Mrs Blair afford her own personal hairdresser, or John Prescott afford his complimentry luxury homes, or Ministers afford drivers or... well you get the gist
2006-09-21 01:31:35 · answer #8 · answered by Simon E 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If more people smoked and paid more tax that way, then the rest of us would not pay that much tax since more people would die faster, reducing the need for the huge expense.
2006-09-21 03:19:13 · answer #9 · answered by Mai C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting observation!
2006-09-21 01:37:55 · answer #10 · answered by Out of Africa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋