Just seen the news of this on the Yahoo page and am most disappointed. I was really hoping they would allow for this, but at the same time, didn't think the governement would let £16bn a year slip through their fingers. What does anyone else think?
2006-11-22 23:41:59 · 14 answers · asked by Paul B 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Taxes ➔ United Kingdom
It's annoying, but I think it is probably only a temporary refusal. The EU is gradually becoming a true single economy which will mean common taxation in all forms. Economic theory suggests this outcome is pretty much inevitable - NAFTA, ASEAN and the EU will become the only three global economic entities and we will get cheap booze and fags through larger scale competition and common economic policy.
'Course it will be at the expense of self-government ...
2006-11-22 23:52:33 · answer #1 · answered by johninmelb 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are people on here so ignorant (with the exception of Michael H)? This is nothing whatsoever to do with the Government. This was a ruling by the totally-independent European Court of Justice (which before any of you anti-Europeans start ranting, is a seperate body from the European Union).
Stop criticising the Government for everything and try finding out facts before shooting your brain-dead answers off.
The ruling by the European Court of Justice is excellent; it will help to protect small shops who are already suffering at the hands of tobacco and alcohol smugglers. It also has environmental benefits as it means that lorry-loads of alcohol and cigarettes will not be travelling from all over Europe and further congesting British roads just so as you sad people can get tanked up at Christmas.
2006-11-23 07:53:43 · answer #2 · answered by Timothy M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you need to read the news again, just like the other people that have posted the same question today.
This was an EU decision based on a case brought by the Dutch against french importers.
Nothing to do with "the government " as you say. It was a pan european ruling.
2006-11-23 07:50:59 · answer #3 · answered by Michael H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would have been really great but there again if they were losing all the tax on them the Government would just put it on something else so we'd still end up paying anyway. People who don't drink and smoke would have to make up the shortfall by paying the extra tax as well and I don't think this is fair on them.
Yes it was the EU Government that made this ruling but it is the British Government that put the tax on cigs and drink so if there was no tax to pay on imported ones the British Government would have to make up the lost revenue from them by taxing something else.
2006-11-23 07:47:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're going to get a lot of emotional responses to this, both pro and anti. The arguments supporting this decision are economically and politically unsound. You can achieve everything in terms of preserving tax-revenue, protecting jobs etc., WITH internet purchase of "naughty things". It would take a couple of thousand words to convince anyone WITHOUT the underlying maths, but even with the maths/graphs/charts the arguments hold.
The governments of europe have hidden agendas, even on things as trivial as this, and we are all stupid.
Don't believe me? Challenge Gordon to a 1v1 televised debate with me.
Their agenda is purely political.
2006-11-23 08:02:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wasn't the UK government, was the European court, and it was the UK government laws that were on trial, seems they made a good enough case for the EU to rule in favour of the status quo.
2006-11-23 08:20:28 · answer #6 · answered by mike-from-spain 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its a good decision, because if the goveremnt lost that £7bn that they would have lost from lost taxe revenues then they would have looked some where else to get the money from, now just those who drink are paying.
2006-11-23 07:49:15 · answer #7 · answered by yamahaqi 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have to be realistic & accept that our goverment (and the others heavily taxed) weren't going to 'lose' that money. They'd have found the 16bn somewhere else otherwise maybe taxing the air we breath?
2006-11-23 07:51:14 · answer #8 · answered by madbrew2000 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think living 23 mins from Dover has its advantages. if you bring it back yourself then you are just restricted to the customs limits.
and P & O do a £20 return fare if you time it right
so the answer is easy - move to kent
2006-11-23 11:29:23 · answer #9 · answered by alatoruk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are F#*Kers. Anything to keep ripping us off in taxes. Don't they realise how much they lose in taxes with people traveling to the continent and all the black market ciggies. These days it is really easy to get cheaper wine and fags so the government are still losing whereas if they brought the tax down somewhat they would gain!
2006-11-23 07:52:02 · answer #10 · answered by sharon m 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋