# Interesting films about Russia, essential viewing!



## Jacob (11 Nov 2022)

This is utterly gripping, a documentary consisting wholly of contemporary film footage right from the heart of Russian turmoils, with subtitled commentary. Essential viewing, historical, highly recommended! New Adam Curtis project lands on BBC iPlayer on Thursday 13 October
Just got to episode 3 and the collapse of communism and Ukraine independence.


----------



## baldkev (11 Nov 2022)

Hopefully episode 7 shows how they'll deal with putin..... maybe he'll fall out of a window like so many other high profile russians


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Hopefully episode 7 shows how they'll deal with putin..... maybe he'll fall out of a window like so many other high profile russians


Hasn't got to Putin yet but there's military/KGB coup, Yeltsin versus tanks, oligarchs stacking up bundles of roubles, so Putin must be just around the corner!
PS it also includes lots of footage of ordinary life, peasants struggling whilst s**t hits fans etc. They are a stoic bunch as by and large their lives have always been pretty s****y.. You can't help admiring and feeling sorry for them.


----------



## baldkev (11 Nov 2022)

Yep not good. I think ( from memory ) the average life expectancy of a man there is 68 and the retirement age was raised to 67 a couple of years ago  ( those numbers might be wrong )
You wouldnt wanna be a russian


----------



## johna.clements (11 Nov 2022)

The end of the USSR was f-ed up by people trying to turn it into the USA.
Nothing should have been sold off like it was as soon as possible.
They should brought in advisors from Sweden, Denmark and West Germany who could have told them the good and bad things about those countries.
Then slowly sold off stuff in smaller parts with restrictions on resale and total holdings. They should be still selling off stuff now.
Instead it was sold to the people who were in power before.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The end of the USSR was f-ed up by people trying to turn it into the USA.
> Nothing should have been sold off like it was as soon as possible.
> They should brought in advisors from Sweden, Denmark and West Germany who could have told them the good and bad things about those countries.
> Then slowly sold off stuff in smaller parts with restrictions on resale and total holdings. They should be still selling off stuff now.
> Instead it was sold to the people who were in power before.


Gorbachov was advised by Thatcher and Reagan with their heads full of free market nonsense, a tragic mistake. Like being advised by Truss and Farage.


----------



## clogs (12 Nov 2022)

I feel sorry for the general pop of Russia.....
shame they didnt stop this before it begun....but u cant in a Gulag....
mass revolt was needed but how would/could they organise it.....?

have met a few expat Russians here.......
quite a lot left years ago mostly because of the silly person in charge........
non of them are as far as I know are rich.....older houses n cars.....
Most are teachers etc....

man what a mess.....
like all tyrants it's just for the nutters at the top and his mates....

there's a milder version running the UK.....still better than being in Russia tho.....


----------



## Kittyhawk (12 Nov 2022)

When I first came ashore I worked as a supercargo for a shipping company and we had a Russian crewed ship on charter. Generally when a ship is alongside there will be the duty mate lurking about somewhere, usually in the ship's office and a couple of seamen on deck. So I would find one of the seamen, tell him that the stevedores were on their way and ask him to open Hatch no.3 or whatever and he would do so. On the Russian ship asking the same thing, the seamen would pass my request to the duty mate who would pass it go the chief mate who would pass it to the captain and eventually the order to open up would come back down by the same circuitous route. It drove me crazy trying go get anything done.
With all the stuff that I was involved in on board over many voyages it became obvious that russians are extraordinarily unwilling to take responsibility for anything. I believe the rationale is that if you don't take responsibility then you can't be held accountable and I wonder if this is part of the reason for the abysmal performance of their armed services.


----------



## clogs (12 Nov 2022)

I guess it's like a dog that keeps getting a beating, in the end they just give up....
n it's been going on for centuries.........

Cant be said of the Polish.....
worked with a load in heavy engineering over the years......couldn't want for better thinking/ workers/ mates....


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Nov 2022)

Jacob, just as a matter of interest - is there anything wrong anywhere in the world that isn't Margaret Thatcher's fault? I think we should be told.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Jacob, just as a matter of interest - is there anything wrong anywhere in the world that isn't Margaret Thatcher's fault? I think we should be told.


Good point! She just happened to be an egregious manifestation of a free-market fundamentalist ideology, which she didn't invent - that was Hayek and other so-called intellectuals. She survived longer than Truss because she wasn't quite that stupid.


----------



## johna.clements (12 Nov 2022)

clogs said:


> I feel sorry for the general pop of Russia.....
> shame they didnt stop this before it begun....but u cant in a Gulag....
> mass revolt was needed but how would/could they organise it.....?
> 
> ...


There were revolts and fighting. The interior ministry had their own troops.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

clogs said:


> I feel sorry for the general pop of Russia.....
> shame they didnt stop this before it begun....but u cant in a Gulag....
> mass revolt was needed but how would/could they organise it.....?


They did in 1991. Ordinary unarmed citiizens against the tanks.
See episode 3



clogs said:


> have met a few expat Russians here.......
> quite a lot left years ago mostly because of the silly person in charge........
> non of them are as far as I know are rich.....older houses n cars.....
> Most are teachers etc....


Most people everywhere are just normal people, and harmless! The problem is the other boggers.


clogs said:


> man what a mess.....
> like all tyrants it's just for the nutters at the top and his mates....
> 
> there's a milder version running the UK.....still better than being in Russia tho.....


Putin's regime is capitalism red in tooth and claw. Money is the driving force.


----------



## Thingybob (12 Nov 2022)

So Jacob is there any communist country in the world that actually works or is it the old adage it's great in theory but not in practice you need every one behind the idealism or its doomed to fail and human nature being what it is there will always be some one who wants a bigger share of the spoils and sod the workers , And anyone speaking out against them takes up base jumping from multi story Windows.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> So Jacob is there any communist country in the world that actually works or is it the old adage it's great in theory but not in practice you need every one behind the idealism or its doomed to fail and human nature being what it is there will always be some one who wants a bigger share of the spoils and sod the workers , And anyone speaking out against them takes up base jumping from multi story Windows.


But what theories actually do work, in which countries?
My theory is that we don't need theories we just need to do what needs doing, and talk about theories afterwards, if anybody really wants to.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Nov 2022)

There are a number of definitions, but this seems reasonable starting point - a theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

If by our actions we desire a particular outcome (less poverty, better health, fairness etc etc), basing actions upon a theory should improve the probability of the desired outcomes being achieved. If the theory proves wrong, it provides an opportunity for learning and intelligence to improve future outcomes.

Acting from compassion, sympathy, fairness, dogma etc may be compelling or worthy. Sadly it may also waste a lot of energy and resource if poorly conceived or directed.


----------



## Thingybob (12 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> But what theories actually do work, in which countries?
> My theory is that we don't need theories we just need to do what needs doing, and talk about theories afterwards, if anybody really wants to.


Are you a politician that's the kind of dodge answer we expect from them you have dodged the question are there any communist countries that actually work i.e. that are following the manifesto written up in Rylands at Manchester


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> Are you a politician that's the kind of dodge answer we expect from them you have dodged the question are there any communist countries that actually work i.e. that are following the manifesto written up in Rylands at Manchester


You tell me, you seem to have read it.
n.b. it's only a little pamphlet and it talks mostly of the economic and political events of the time (1888). Hardly a theory at all - Marx never quite got it sorted, he was revising, rewriting right up to the end. It's all rhetoric. Marx seriously believed that "the revolution" was inevitable (for "scientific reasons") and imminent in 1888. 
Are there any countries which actually work and follow the free market fundamentalism of Hayek, Ayn Rand, Liz Truss, Putin, Lord Salisbury, etc. and so on?
If not, why not?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Nov 2022)

Answering a question with a question. You are a politician and I claim my £5.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Answering a question with a question. You are a politician and I claim my £5.


I'm not that interested in theories but we do need a working housing policy, health service, etc. Seems to be theories which get in the way of achieving these sorts of things.


----------



## Thingybob (12 Nov 2022)

No I haven't never found that kind of time to read something that I can't have an effect on , There seems to be no political ideology in the world that looks after all its people only ones i can think of are tribes deep in the rain forest who have never heard of us then again they have hereditary chiefs who are reveared , so no cant think of a perfect or near perfect ideology


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> No I haven't never found that kind of time to read something that I can't have an effect on , There seems to be no political ideology in the world that looks after all its people only ones i can think of are tribes deep in the rain forest who have never heard of us then again they have hereditary chiefs who are reveared , so no cant think of a perfect or near perfect ideology


Who needs ideologies and why?


----------



## johna.clements (12 Nov 2022)

I think we drive on the correct side of the road. it is also good to keep away from the kerb.


----------



## Thingybob (12 Nov 2022)

As Phil said you are a politician , Yes we do need a better system for Housing ,NHS , etc but quoting articles written by others dos not get things done I try to help in my adopted town but I don't think nationally I can make a big difference I don't know you Jacob but I respect your beliefs but most times you post you are quoting others beliefs and that's all . Come on be a cuddly Jacob we can all love


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Nov 2022)

An _ideology is a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which people, parties, or countries base their actions_. 

Without a set of beliefs to guide our actions we are simply wandering aimlessly - the outcome may be good bad or indifferent.

Were there a clearly articulated shared set of beliefs, all actions would (or should) deliver desirable outcomes.

That there are a diversity of beliefs means that for societies to function a compromise which most can accept is needed. That more extreme opinions are unable to accept compromise simply means that in the interests of society as a whole their views must be ignored or marginalised. 

Tough - but that's the way it is.


----------



## Thingybob (12 Nov 2022)

I'm sorry Jacob but I think I have sussed your tactics , Someone posts a thread with a slight political flavour you answer with a opposed view to which the poster responds defensively and the games afoot and then it becomes a platform for your beliefs . I think I have better things to do so I will let you win this post and take my wife shopping Best of luck in your next tactical endeavour


----------



## thetyreman (12 Nov 2022)

if you want to get into russian films watch solaris, andrei rublev and stalker by andrei tarkovsky


----------



## Fergie 307 (13 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Who needs ideologies and why?


Says the man who is so far to the left he has mounted the kerb and driving on the grass. Hilarious.


----------



## Fergie 307 (13 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> I'm sorry Jacob but I think I have sussed your tactics , Someone posts a thread with a slight political flavour you answer with a opposed view to which the poster responds defensively and the games afoot and then it becomes a platform for your beliefs . I think I have better things to do so I will let you win this post and take my wife shopping Best of luck in your next tactical endeavour


Likewise, I can't be bothered with the soap box antics so now just ignore any thread he becomes involved in.


----------



## Scruples (13 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Good point! She just happened to be an egregious manifestation of a free-market fundamentalist ideology, which she didn't invent - that was Hayek and other so-called intellectuals. She survived longer than Truss because she wasn't quite that stupid.


Good old Maggie was a force to be reckoned with. A religious person with an aim to make the country great. She did, in a way, too. She was one of the first to realise that to gain votes she had to get more people owning their homes and less 'social' housing. Make more people want to keep their assets and build on them. There weren't many at home, of abroad, who could take her on. In the end, it took a concerted effort by her own party to get her out.


----------



## Jameshow (13 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> Good old Maggie was a force to be reckoned with. A religious person with an aim to make the country great. She did, in a way, too. She was one of the first to realise that to gain votes she had to get more people owning their homes and less 'social' housing. Make more people want to keep their assets and build on them. There weren't many at home, of abroad, who could take her on. In the end, it took a concerted effort by her own party to get her out.


Sadly though she destroyed much of the manufacturing industry and left us exposed to imports and inward investments without the balls or capacity to finance, design or build anything. 

Ding dong ....comes to mind!


----------



## Jameshow (13 Nov 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Says the man who is so far to the left he has mounted the kerb and driving on the grass. Hilarious.


I do wonder if he's worked out who is going to pay for his 60% tax take!!


----------



## John Brown (13 Nov 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Likewise, I can't be bothered with the soap box antics so now just ignore any thread he becomes involved in.


You can ignore people without having to tell them you're ignoring them.


----------



## Jones (13 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Putin's regime is capitalism red in tooth and claw. Money is the driving force.


It's not a capitalist country at all. Force is the driving force.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2022)

Jones said:


> It's not a capitalist country at all. Force is the driving force.


Oligarchs are the driving force Russian oligarchs - Wikipedia


----------



## DerekJohn (13 Nov 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Jacob, just as a matter of interest - is there anything wrong anywhere in the world that isn't Margaret Thatcher's fault? I think we should be told.


She did get *one* thing completely right; she actually read the proposed Maastricht treaty and saw that it was a pile of poo, i.e. multi state federalism.
"No, No and no" - the rest of Thatcher's "policies" were as daft as Liz Truss's policies.
Trickle down economics has never ever worked (read Galbraith in 1992) and she even motivated Deng Xiaoping to become a capitalist tyranny.
So yes 1 out of 100 ;-)


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2022)

DerekJohn said:


> She did get *one* thing completely right; she actually read the proposed Maastricht treaty and saw that it was a pile of poo, i.e. multi state federalism.
> "No, No and no" - the rest of Thatcher's "policies" were as daft as Liz Truss's policies.
> Trickle down economics has never ever worked (read Galbraith in 1992) and she even motivated Deng Xiaoping to become a capitalist tyranny.
> So yes 1 out of 100 ;-)


----------



## Skydivermel (13 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> An _ideology is a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which people, parties, or countries base their actions_.
> 
> Without a set of beliefs to guide our actions we are simply wandering aimlessly - the outcome may be good bad or indifferent.
> 
> ...


Societies can only function if their fair. Their not, and never will be.


----------



## D_W (13 Nov 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Jacob, just as a matter of interest - is there anything wrong anywhere in the world that isn't Margaret Thatcher's fault? I think we should be told.



You just don't know how idyllic life was in the USSR, that's all.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2022)

Skydivermel said:


> Societies can only function if their fair. Their not, and never will be.


Societies can only function if it deals with issues rather than hoping a theory, ideology or magic formula will solve anything. "Communism" and free market fundamentalism fail in similar ways, but communism at least has a moral basis. Trussonomics does not.
"Fairness" is just for kids arguing over sweets.


----------



## dannyr (13 Nov 2022)

I tend to stand somewhat left of centre on these issues (wishy washy liberal?) but hey?

to change the tune, but stay with J's title --- any interesting Russian archive film on workshop practice, crafts etc? - like the old Nordic and German archive film


----------



## Jameshow (13 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Societies can only function if it deals with issues rather than hoping a theory, ideology or magic formula will solve anything. "Communism" and free market fundamentalism fail in similar ways, but communism at least has a moral basis. Trussonomics does not.
> "Fairness" is just for kids arguing over sweets.


Only if it has moral operators!!


----------



## PhilipL (14 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> Good old Maggie was a force to be reckoned with. A religious person with an aim to make the country great. She did, in a way, too. She was one of the first to realise that to gain votes she had to get more people owning their homes and less 'social' housing. Make more people want to keep their assets and build on them. There weren't many at home, of abroad, who could take her on. In the end, it took a concerted effort by her own party to get her out.


And now young people can't own and will vote Labour. Tory members are old and dying off.


----------



## Scruples (14 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Sadly though she destroyed much of the manufacturing industry and left us exposed to imports and inward investments without the balls or capacity to finance, design or build anything.
> 
> Ding dong ....comes to mind!


I don't see it like that. She saw that some industries weren't going to survive, in the long term, without massive government funding. The unions were strong and fought any changes she made which resulted in the inevitable closures. One thing she was determined about was that she wouldn't let the country be held to ransom by the unions. 
She did, though, create more home owners and reduce the burden on the taxpayer at the same time. Good times.


----------



## Jameshow (14 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> I don't see it like that. She saw that some industries weren't going to survive, in the long term, without massive government funding. The unions were strong and fought any changes she made which resulted in the inevitable closures. One thing she was determined about was that she wouldn't let the country be held to ransom by the unions.
> She did, though, create more home owners and reduce the burden on the taxpayer at the same time. Good times.


I agree the unions were there own worst enemy, creating conditions that allowed her to kill them off. 

However the percentage of manufacturing Vs services dropped massively and we are now beholdened to China and turkey etc for manufactured goods.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> I don't see it like that. She saw that some industries weren't going to survive, in the long term,


They are surviving still but foreign owned and in many cases foreign state run industries. Complete madness.


Scruples said:


> without massive government funding. The unions were strong and fought any changes she made which resulted in the inevitable closures.


The unions fought to keep industries going.


Scruples said:


> One thing she was determined about was that she wouldn't let the country be held to ransom by the unions.


Exactly. The unions represent the interests of working people. Thatcher was not on their side.


Scruples said:


> She did, though, create more home owners


And fewer council houses to rent. She also created more homelessness and inadequate housing. We now have a whole generation who are unlikely to get on "the housing ladder".


Scruples said:


> and reduce the burden on the taxpayer at the same time.


reducing the tax burden on the better off by reducing the quality of life for the less well off. They often call it "austerity" as though it's necessary, but only apply it to the less well off. We will be hearing more of this from the current govt.


Scruples said:


> Good times.


For some but not for all.








Pay of FTSE 100 chief executives rose an average of 23% in 2022


Campaigners and TUC say rise to almost £4m is unjustifiable during cost of living crisis




www.theguardian.com




Trussell Trust sees 81% increase in food bank usage across its network


----------



## clogs (14 Nov 2022)

it'seems the moral of get off ur 



and go to work has been forgotten....
I got nothing from my parents except decent morals and the desire to get out of their rut...
My father was born a cripple.....can u still use that word....??

my wife and I have both worked 2 jobs most of our lives and often 7x7 to get where we are now......
anyone can do it.......
.our 2 girls,we could only help em out a bit but the desire to succeed.......and they have done it....

Best that we just cut the benefits except for very needy and the rest, force em to work....

should be noted..... 
it's not a right to have wide screen TV's, I phones and leather sofa's whilst claiming benefits....

Unions have had their day, now if u have a bad employer vote with ur feet....
plenty of jobs out there.....

buying a house was difficult even in the good old days.....it's not a shame to want ur own castle.....

and for the commies out .....
give a hundred people £100's and within 2 weeks the money will have got to the top 25%....
It's just the way of life....

most don't look to the future they want a good time NOW.....
survival of the fitest......
of Course it was Darwins fault, because he was prob a Concervative.....hahaha.....


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

clogs said:


> buying a house was difficult even in the good old days.....i


not true, compared to incomes they've effectively doubled in 50 years
UK House Price to income ratio and affordability - Economics Help
In London have tripled



clogs said:


> t's not a shame to want ur own castle.....


Nobody said it was.
But it is a shame that people are homeless or can't afford rents and adequate housing


clogs said:


> ....
> give a hundred people £100's and within 2 weeks the money will have got to the top 25%....
> It's just the way of life....


True (ish).
And taxation is the way it is brought down again, to keep the wheels turning.
What goes around comes around.


----------



## Rodpr (14 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I do wonder if he's worked out who is going to pay for his 60% tax take!!


It's always the people who do the work who pay, even if the profit from their efforts is first siphoned off by others. Nothing wrong with some of it coming back instead of disappearing to Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.


----------



## Phill05 (14 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> not true,
> 
> I have to disagree with you there!! when My mum and dad got a house in late 1930's dad had to work 7 days a week on two jobs and after he got home at night he went out sweeping chimneys to help, as a kid if I asked for something I was told we could not afford it and had to do without, as I got older I was given an old bike and on a weekend used to do shopping for old folk down the road anything I got I gave halve to mum and the rest was mine, you never hear that today it is have as much as you can as soon as you can.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I do wonder if he's worked out who is going to pay for his 60% tax take!!


Never been a problem in the past. Thatcher 1979, top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.
Probably would have been better to keep it high as low tax doesn't produce any particular benefits other than making the wealthy even better off.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

> I have to disagree with you there!! when My mum and dad got a house in late 1930's dad had to work 7 days a week on two jobs and after he got home at night he went out sweeping chimneys to help, as a kid if I asked for something I was told we could not afford it and had to do without, as I got older I was given an old bike and on a weekend used to do shopping for old folk down the road anything I got I gave halve to mum and the rest was mine, you never hear that today it is have as much as you can as soon as you can.


According to this, housing was very affordable in the 1930s.
Current level is a 120 year high.








What 175 years of data tell us about house price affordability in the UK


What we've learned from nearly 200 years of housing data - and is property really a better investment than a pension?



www.schroders.com




My parents bought in about 1947. £900. 
Apparently there was a post war scheme to regulate house prices but it might have been just local. It helped that a million new houses were built between 1945-55
We were totally skint too!


----------



## Thingybob (14 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> You can ignore people without having to tell them you're ignoring them.


Who said that


----------



## Thingybob (14 Nov 2022)

dannyr said:


> I tend to stand somewhat left of centre on these issues (wishy washy liberal?) but hey?
> 
> to change the tune, but stay with J's title --- any interesting Russian archive film on workshop practice, crafts etc? - likwe the old Nordic and German archive filw





dannyr said:


> I tend to stand somewhat left of centre on these issues (wishy washy liberal?) but hey?
> 
> to change the tune, but stay with J's title --- any interesting Russian archive film on workshop practice, crafts etc? - like the old Nordic and German archive film


War Factories on Yesterday tv and two films I enjoyed Klashnicov and T34


----------



## Thingybob (14 Nov 2022)

When working class people were given the offer to buy their homes for £5 grand, not long after along came a nice chap to offer them £8 grand they had never seen this amount of money in one fail swoop so they sold but now fewer council housing so private renting from a chap with a portfolio of properties 
Same with buying shares in utilities as soon as they went up after purchasing them they sold em off they didn't reinvest profits they had a foreign holiday bought a new car, big tv . And like now Universal credits give them all thier allowances in one payment each month so they can pay thier own bills . All these things are fine if you can understand money and budgets but if your not shown how to play the capitalist game you go out and blow the lot and are left with nothing Hence higher povity levels in the nation ( But that's what I believe )  but before its replied "who needs beliefs"


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

dannyr said:


> I tend to stand somewhat left of centre on these issues (wishy washy liberal?) but hey?
> 
> to change the tune, but stay with J's title --- any interesting Russian archive film on workshop practice, crafts etc? - like the old Nordic and German archive film


Just google "Russian archive film on workshop practice, crafts"
This turned up: Search Russian Archives


----------



## Thingybob (14 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Just google "Russian archive film on workshop practice, crafts"
> This turned up: Search Russian Archives



Nigella has let herself go a bit hasn't she


----------



## thetyreman (14 Nov 2022)

I thought this was about russian films? none of you can stick to subjects very well, now you're talking about politics, universal credit, and we've got the very worst of hard left and hard right here in the same room, you're doing yourself no favours all you old men, surprised none of you have had a heart attack yet.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

thetyreman said:


> I thought this was about russian films? none of you can stick to subjects very well, now you're talking about politics, universal credit, and we've got the very worst of hard left and hard right here in the same room, you're doing yourself no favours all you old men, surprised none of you have had a heart attack yet.


Feel free to stick to the subject if you really want to! I'm sure nobody would mind at all.


----------



## kinverkid (14 Nov 2022)

I binge watched them over two days finishing last episode last night. I found it very interesting. I had not heard of the series but thanks for letting me know.


----------



## John Brown (14 Nov 2022)

thetyreman said:


> I thought this was about russian films? none of you can stick to subjects very well, now you're talking about politics, universal credit, and we've got the very worst of hard left and hard right here in the same room, you're doing yourself no favours all you old men, surprised none of you have had a heart attack yet.


That's a big assumption.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2022)

kinverkid said:


> I binge watched them over two days finishing last episode last night. I found it very interesting. I had not heard of the series but thanks for letting me know.


I'm doing it one at a time. Episode 4 next.


----------



## PhilipL (14 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Never been a problem in the past. Thatcher 1979, top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.
> Probably would have been better to keep it high as low tax doesn't produce any particular benefits other than making the wealthy even better off.


VAT was 15%. It affects the lowest income group most at its current rate. Also a high rate encourages cash usage to avoid the 20%.

We tax income and expenditure but not wealth. Why not?


----------



## Scruples (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> They are surviving still but foreign owned and in many cases foreign state run industries. Complete madness.
> 
> The unions fought to keep industries going.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Scruples (15 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> I don't see it like that. She saw that some industries weren't going to survive, in the long term, without massive government funding. The unions were strong and fought any changes she made which resulted in the inevitable closures. One thing she was determined about was that she wouldn't let the country be held to ransom by the unions.
> She did, though, create more home owners and reduce the burden on the taxpayer at the same time. Good times.





PhilipL said:


> VAT was 15%. It affects the lowest income group most at its current rate. Also a high rate encourages cash usage to avoid the 20%.
> 
> We tax income and expenditure but not wealth. Why not?





Scruples said:


> .It applies to all but affects those on lower incomes. Taxing incomes and purchases means everbody contributes to the state coffers. Although taxing the wealthy would contribute a little more, it might also reduce their ability for expansion in the business and employment. Not something the government would want.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

PhilipL said:


> VAT was 15%. It affects the lowest income group most at its current rate. Also a high rate encourages cash usage to avoid the 20%.
> 
> We tax income and expenditure but not wealth. Why not?


Thatcher increased VAT from 8 to 15% in 1979. A simple move to shift the tax burden to the less well off whilst massively reducing income tax for the wealthy A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT.



> Scruples said:
> .It applies to all but affects those on lower incomes. Taxing incomes and purchases means everbody contributes to the state coffers. Although taxing the wealthy would contribute a little more, it might also reduce their ability for expansion in the business and employment......


They didn't do that - they stashed it away and/or bought assets, especially housing, hence the historically high prices.
Best way to encourage investment is to increase corporation tax. It's not taxed if it's re-invested and it discourages crude profiteering


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT.


Are you saying that a greater proportion of the spending of someone lower down the income scale than the spending of someone higher up goes on VAT?

Utterly preposterous....... you really have missed your calling as a politician or more likely a spin-doctor.....


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Are you saying that a greater proportion of the spending of someone lower down the income scale than the spending of someone higher up goes on VAT?
> ......


Yes exactly that.
It's well known and often commented upon. Check it for yourself it's not difficult.

_"....the poorest fifth of people paid 22.9% on indirect taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) compared with 9.1% for the richest fifth of people in FYE 2021..."._









Are Indirect Taxes Regressive?


The broad answer in the UK is yes according to new data published for 2021.




www.tutor2u.net









Low-income households hit by indirect tax rises | Poverty and Social Exclusion


Latest research and findings on poverty in the UK and internationally using direct measures of deprivation and social exclusion. PSE 2011 is a major ESRC research project.




www.poverty.ac.uk


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> When working class people were given the offer to buy their homes for £5 grand, not long after along came a nice chap to offer them £8 grand they had never seen this amount of money in one fail swoop so they sold but now fewer council housing so private renting from a chap with a portfolio of properties
> Same with buying shares in utilities as soon as they went up after purchasing them they sold em off they didn't reinvest profits they had a foreign holiday bought a new car, big tv . And like now Universal credits give them all thier allowances in one payment each month so they can pay thier own bills . All these things are fine if you can understand money and budgets but if your not shown how to play the capitalist game you go out and blow the lot and are left with nothing Hence higher povity levels in the nation ( But that's what I believe )  but before its replied "who needs beliefs"


The benefit system incentivises spending money rather than saving. 

You’re currently allowed £6000 of savings, it was less back in the 80s. They are "taxed" on the amount over this allowance of £4.35 every month for every £250 they have over £6000. The person with £8000 would loose £34.80 per month or £417.60 per year.

If you are in a job that is cyclic or are getting older and you may have to stop working a manual job a rainy day fund could be a bad idea.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's well known and often commented upon. Check it for yourself it's not difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another attempt to dodge. 

It's simple maths: 

Most food is zero VAT rated, rent is almost always zero VAT rated, mortgage payments do not attract VAT, energy for heating is 5% VAT rated. These by definition will be the principle expenditures of those on low income.

Unless your "rich person" buys solely zero rated items with their excess expenditure, it is impossible for your statement, "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT" to hold true.

Generally these threads cause me to merely chuckle, but blatant disinformation a.ka. BS, p***** me off.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Another attempt to dodge.
> 
> It's simple maths:
> 
> ...


So are you saying the links above are telling lies? 
Or have you got the maths wrong?
Hint - it's not about_ the absolute sum_, it's about _the proportion_ of income.
Hope that helps.
The video explains it well:


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Another attempt to dodge.
> 
> It's simple maths:
> 
> ...


What maths you have not shown any. 

Bottom 20% spend 10% of dispoable housahald income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.



https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> So are you saying the links above are telling lies? Or have you got the maths wrong?
> Hint - it's not about_ the absolute sum_, it's about _the proportion_ of income.
> Hope that helps.


Hint- I'm fully aware of how the mathematics works:

If it were about the _absolute sum, _your statement would be correct given that those on higher incomes will generally spend more. 

You clearly stated that the _proportion _paid by those on lower income was higher.

I repeat, that is a mathematical impossibility unless those on lower income spend none of that income on the zero and lower VAT rated expenditure mentioned above.

Nowhere in the links you provide does it state "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT."


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> What maths you have not shown any.
> 
> Bottom 20% spend 10% of dispoable housahald income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.
> 
> ...


Disposable income does not equal total income.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Disposable income does not equal total income.


Yes disposal income is after direct taxes. The bottom 20% pay twice as much as the top 20% after direct tax.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

That's it


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Yes disposal income is after direct taxes. The bottom 20% pay twice as much as the top 20% after direct tax.


Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition. 

Most accepted definitions of disposable income are that it's what is left after you have kept yourself alive.

If you spend, for example, £800 of your £850 income on zero or reduced VAT rated items to stay alive then the rest on "luxury" full VAT rated items, you have either spent 20% or thereabouts of your "income" on VAT or about 2.5%.

I imagine that those in the higher income brackets would have to be dead to spend less than 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the sentiments being expressed, but twisting already highly dubious statistics should be left to politicians.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition.
> 
> Most accepted definitions of disposable income are that it's what is left after you have kept yourself alive.
> 
> ...


Who has twisted anything and what is dubious about the figures? Are you saying the links I quoted are lies?


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> That's it


That's not it.

You stated _expenditure._

Disposable income, whatever the definition, is highly unlikely to equate to expenditure at higher income levels. It will be saved.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> That's not it.
> 
> You stated _expenditure._
> 
> Disposable income, whatever the definition, is highly unlikely to equate to expenditure at higher income levels. It will be saved.


Splitting hairs. 
Saving is one way of spending your money. Maybe there should be a tax on savings expenditure? There are arguments for direct wealth taxes.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Who has twisted anything and what is dubious about the figures? Are you saying the links I quoted are lies?


Ok, here goes.......

You said _expenditure_, the statistics refer to _disposable income, _not the same thing at all, however you try to swing it.

Lower incomes are likely to spend nearly all their income whether you call it blue, pink or spotty. 

Higher incomes may spend a very low percentage of their income.

So yes, by using the word _expenditure, *you have twisted the facts*, _such as they are


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Splitting hairs.
> Saving is one way of spending your money. Maybe there should be a tax on savings expenditure? There are arguments for direct wealth taxes.


Oh, splitting hairs......


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Ok, here goes.......
> 
> You said _expenditure_, the statistics refer to _disposable income, _not the same thing at all, however you try to swing it.
> 
> ...


er - I didn't use the word "expenditure" at any point in the above.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> er - I didn't use the word "expenditure" at any point in the above.


I apologise, you used the word _spending........_

Mea culpa.....


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I apologise, ....


Accepted. You missed that "spending" referred to disposable income after tax, which was the whole point. An easy mistake.


----------



## Lefley (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> not true, compared to incomes they've effectively doubled in 50 years
> UK House Price to income ratio and affordability - Economics Help
> In London have tripled
> 
> ...



Yes in 1950 house prices were 2.5 x yearly income. Now they are about 9x yearly income.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Accepted. You missed that "spending" referred to disposable income after tax, which was the whole point. An easy mistake.


I didn't miss anything. 

You said "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT."

That is quite simply not true.

Twisting words again.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I didn't miss anything.
> 
> You said "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT."
> 
> ...


Don't worry about it, just untwist them!  
The gist of what I was saying is true apparently, and nothing you have said changes this.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Don't worry about it, just untwist them!
> The gist of what I was saying is true apparently, and nothing you have said changes this.


I couldn't care less what the 'gist' of what you were saying 'apparently' is.

What you actually did say is untrue.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I couldn't care less what the 'gist' of what you were saying 'apparently' is.
> 
> What you actually did say is untrue.


But did you get the point I was trying to make?


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> But did you get the point I was trying to make?


I understand that you are trying to say that taxes such as VAT disproportionately affect those on lower incomes.

It's a somewhat fallacious argument. They are equally disadvantaged by having a low income in the first place......chicken and egg situation.....

If VAT was lowered, abolished, whatever......what replaces it? Higher taxation on higher earners doesn't really work beyond a certain point. 

You would probably end up with a similar tax or several taxes by a different name......

I don't have the answers.....just don't like the way the arguments are sometimes phrased.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I didn't miss anything.
> 
> You said "A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT."
> 
> ...


The government states that the bottom 20% spend 10% of their income after direct taxes are taken on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.

Most people accept that 10% is a bigger proportion than 5%.



bansobaby said:


> Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition.
> 
> Most accepted definitions of disposable income are that it's what is left after you have kept yourself alive.
> 
> ...


I assume that you mean £850 per month after direct taxes.

The UK government state that 10% of this goes on VAT, for the bottom 20%, which is £85 per month.

VAT is taxed at 20% and 5% (plus 0%). Tax is tax. I just purchased a light bulb which had 20% VAT, which you describe as a "luxury".

If there was no 5% rate the bottom 20% would be paying VAT on half there spending or on £425 (20% of £425 is £85(government stated 10% of total)

You state, with no evidence, that they only pay 20% on £50 the rest at 5%. 

20% of £50 is £10. £85(government stated 10% of total) less your stated portion raised at 20% of £10 leaves £75 to be raised on spending at 5%.

£75/5% is £1500. Or £1500 has to be taxed at 5% to make £75.

Your claimed spending VAT spread is clearly mistaken as you can not raise £75 of VAT at 5% on £800.


You also ignore the fact that tax is tax.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I understand that you are trying to say that taxes such as VAT disproportionately affect those on lower incomes.
> 
> It's a somewhat fallacious argument. They are equally disadvantaged by having a low income in the first place......chicken and egg situation.....
> 
> If VAT was lowered, abolished, whatever......what replaces it? Higher taxation on higher earners doesn't really work beyond a certain point.


Never touched 100% but seemed to work at these levels:
_"The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.
In the 1970s, the highest rate of income tax on earned income was 83 per cent. Margaret Thatcher’s government reduced it to 60 per cent in 1980 "_
In view of austerity and other current maybe we should revert to the very moderate level chosen by Thatcher (60%) and see how we go? Not least because in Climate Change we face a much bigger crisis than WW2 and should have been on a "war" footing from some time ago


bansobaby said:


> You would probably end up with a similar tax or several taxes by a different name......


That's always been the way - if one tax doesn't get you another one will. Casting a wide net.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

Further to my post above.
If you raise 10% VAT on the bottom 20% and maximise the take at 5% VAT rate, only one third could be taken at the 5% VAT rate.

You need to take two thirds at 20% plus the one third at 5% to make 10% overall.


bansobaby said:


> It's simple maths:


yes it is

For someone on £850 after direct tax the least they could pay at 20% VAT is £56.67 on £283.33. Slightly more than £50 you thought. That would leave £28.33 VAT at 5% raised on £566.67. That leaves no spending at the zero rate.

Obviously most food is zero rate therefore the bottom 20% must be paying tax at the 20% VAT rate on even more than £283.33.

If 0% VAT was paid on £100 then someone on £850, after direct tax, would have to pay tax at 20% on £316.67.

You belief that the 20% VAT is only paid on £50 just does not add up.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The government states that the bottom 20% spend 10% of their income after direct taxes are taken on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.
> 
> Most people accept that 10% is a bigger proportion than 5%.
> 
> ...


Twisted statistics:

_The government states that the bottom 20% spend 10% of their income after direct taxes are taken on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT._

Income, not expenditure......not all income is spent.

_I just purchased a light bulb which had 20% VAT, which you describe as a "luxury"._

I put _luxury _in quotes as that is how the powers that be originally framed the VAT. I am fully aware that certain VAT qualifying items are not luxuries.

_You state, with no evidence, that they only pay 20% on £50 the rest at 5%._

I qualified it by the means of trying to use it as an example. Try reading it.......

_You also ignore the fact that tax is tax._

Really? Where?

You can batter on about it as much as you like, the simple fact is that the original statement that I took issue with was untrue. It is a mathematical impossibility.

Subsequent ramblings and obfuscations do not change that.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> ..... the simple fact is that the original statement that I took issue with was untrue. It is a mathematical impossibility.
> 
> Subsequent ramblings and obfuscations do not change that.


No it was your _misinterpretation_ of the original statement which was untrue. Why keep rambling on about it?
What do you think of 60% for top rate of tax? Looks quite sustainable?


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> No it was your _misinterpretation_ of the original statement which was untrue. Why keep rambling on about it?
> What do you think of 60% for top rate of tax? Looks quite sustainable?


Your statement was untrue.
No argument.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Twisted statistics:
> 
> _The government states that the bottom 20% spend 10% of their income after direct taxes are taken on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT._
> 
> ...


If I lease a car to get to work I pay VAT at 20%.
If you buy shares in a car leasing business you don't pay VAT.
You are correct that some things that you do with your money to make more money are regarded differently.
Or are you implying that people with more money bury it in the back garden, so that it is not spent.

You decided to use the word luxury. You did not have to use the word luxury. You could have just stated 20% VAT rate.

Your statement that people would only pay tax at 20% on £50 is clearly wrong. You did not do the simple maths.

You pretend that tax at 5% tax is not a tax. This ignores the fact that most of the money raised contrary to your belief has to be raised at the 20% VAT rate.

It is you who makes the mathematically impossible statements. see my posts above.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition.


The OECD definition

Disposable income is closest to the concept of income as generally understood in economics. Household disposable income is income available to households such as wages and salaries, income from self-employment and unincorporated enterprises, income from pensions and other social benefits, and income from financial investments (less any payments of tax, social insurance contributions and interest on financial liabilities). ‘Gross’ means that depreciation costs are not subtracted. For gross household disposable income per capita, growth rates (percentage change from previous period) are presented; these are ‘real’ growth rates adjusted to remove the effects of price changes. Information is also presented for gross household disposable income including social transfers in kind, such as health or education provided for free or at reduced prices by governments and not-for-profit organisations. This indicator is in US dollars per capita at current prices and PPPs. In the System of National Accounts, household disposable income including social transfers in kind is referred to as ‘adjusted household disposable income’. All OECD countries compile their data according to the 2008 System of National Accounts (SNA 2008). 









Household accounts - Household disposable income - OECD Data


Find, compare and share OECD data by indicator.




data.oecd.org


----------



## Scruples (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Thatcher increased VAT from 8 to 15% in 1979. A simple move to shift the tax burden to the less well off whilst massively reducing income tax for the wealthy A higher proportion of the the poor's spending goes on VAT.
> 
> 
> They didn't do that - they stashed it away and/or bought assets, especially housing, hence the historically high prices.
> Best way to encourage investment is to increase corporation tax. It's not taxed if it's re-invested and it discourages crude profiteering


I remember, 1974, Labour's Dennis Healey doubled purchase tax to 25%. Was that shifting the tax burden too? I think you make it up to suit your agenda, Jacob.


----------



## Scruples (15 Nov 2022)

That is such a twisted comment, I don't know where to start...


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> I remember, 1974, Labour's Dennis Healey doubled purchase tax to 25%. Was that shifting the tax burden too? I think you make it up to suit your agenda, Jacob.


1974 purchase tax no longer existed, it had been replaced by VAT in 1973, at 10% then reduced to 8%.
Were you thinking of corporation tax? Healey in his first ever budget in 1974 increased it from 12 to 52%


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> If I lease a car to get to work I pay VAT at 20%.
> If you buy shares in a car leasing business you don't pay VAT.
> You are correct that some things that you do with your money to make more money are regarded differently.
> Or are you implying that people with more money bury it in the back garden, so that it is not spent.
> ...


I really don't get what point you are trying to make.

I took issue with an untrue statement. I tried to explain in what I thought were simple terms why it was untrue.

If someone spends £50 on 20% VAT rated goods, that is what they spend on those goods. Nothing more is implied.

I never said anything about the 5% rate other than to state that it is the rate on most energy costs. I most certainly did not "_pretend that tax at 5% tax is not a tax_" as you just stated.

And I really don't understand what car leasing has to do with it. Other than that VAT is charged on some things and not others.........


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> What maths you have not shown any.
> 
> Bottom 20% spend 10% of dispoable housahald income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.
> 
> ...



that report kind of makes it look like the poor should send the rich some Christmas cards with a "thanks". 

Rich pay the most, they pay the highest rates, and their benefits received are the lowest. 

As the share of taxes has been skewed more toward them, the economy has gone to manure in the UK. 

I'd ditch the VAT as it's just a way to split up tax burden to make people think a combination of various taxes isn't as bad as one big one that's more honest. 

Looks like it's more than returned back to the households in cash benefits, though, when you compare net benefits with VAT. 

Of course, we have a sales tax here in the states - it's just paid at the end of the process, but not on food and in some states (including mine), not on clothing, either.


----------



## Scruples (15 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> 1974 purchase tax no longer existed, it had been replaced by VAT in 1973, at 10% then reduced to 8%.
> Were you thinking of corporation tax? Healey in his first ever budget in 1974 increased it from 12 to 52%


You're right about it being VAT. But not about the rest - In July 1974, Labour Chancellor Denis Healey reduced the standard rate of VAT from 10% to 8% but introduced a new higher rate of 12.5% for petrol and some luxury goods.[4][7][9] In November 1974, Healey doubled the higher rate of VAT to 25%.[7] Healey reduced the higher rate back to 12.5% in April 1976


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> that report kind of makes it look like the poor should send the rich some Christmas cards with a "thanks".
> 
> Rich pay the most, they pay the highest rates, and their benefits received are the lowest.


I think you have to look at it proportionally also, the poor making up the larger percentage of the population, and income for income pay the larger share.


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

TRITON said:


> I think you have to look at it proportionally also, the poor making up the larger percentage of the population, and income for income pay the larger share.



I looked at the percentiles. Taxation becoming more and more progressive is just a byproduct of two things:
1) it's politically palatable until the wealthy start to leave, even then, you can just trash them on the way out
2) over time in stable markets, the wealthy will continue to work when they don't really need to and continue to accumulate money until they have a come to Jesus moment and decide they're done working (that can be because they went to Jesus, though sometimes realize it earlier). 

I have no problem with a progressive tax system, but I feel like a sports fan - I want to make sure my team keeps the star players, too. 

The share of direct income taxes in the US is even more progressive, but top side income-related wealth is probably higher and the social benefits available to all generally don't start until about age 65. Translation, if the low income folks are receiving credits instead of taxes, they are paying some of that unpaid share in medical costs, etc, it's probably a fair trade on average. 

VAT style taxes have been proposed here to revamp income, cap gains and sales taxes, but they are always less progressive than the system already in place. I consider things like VAT, Sales taxes, and cigarette taxes just to be a way to hide the total tax effect, and they often disadvantage the poor. 

In NY state, here, the average low-income smoking household spends 24% of their income on cigarettes!! The narrative is the money has to be collected because they're a burden on the system (all smokers), which ignores the fact that smokers in general are a much lower lifetime burden on the system.


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2022)

@D_M
In the UK there are 1.2m earning over £100k. Percentage earning over £150k is 1%. 
Population of the UK is 67.33 million. 

Kind of leaves a heck of a lot of people to fill the coffers of the treasury to the tune of £915b.

I dont think anyone can say that the small percentage of the rich here in the UK pay more collectively than the poorer sections.



D_W said:


> In NY state, here, the average low-income smoking household spends 24% of their income on cigarettes!!


But they pay tax on those ciggies. In fact its probably the main reason that cigarettes arent illegal due to their toxicity.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I really don't get what point you are trying to make.
> 
> I took issue with an untrue statement. I tried to explain in what I thought were simple terms why it was untrue.
> 
> ...


 Here is your post again.



bansobaby said:


> Disposable income being what is left after tax is the Uk Government definition.
> 
> Most accepted definitions of disposable income are that it's what is left after you have kept yourself alive.
> 
> ...


I stated that the Bottom 20% spend 10% of disposable household income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT and supplied a reference.

You clearly reference in your example a person who only pays VAT at 20% on £50. You also clearly reference the 5% rate, also know as the reduced rate, being used for part of the other £800.

You then state that your example only pays 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT. The government gives a figure of 10% four times as much as your example.

We are not comparing individuals but groups of people. Unless you can show that there is a significant group of low income people who only pay 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT your example is "an untrue statement"

The government figures of about 10% and 5% are of course averages (do not know what type). There will be some poor people who live in a tent on lentils who pay very little VAT. There will be rich people who fill there house with gadgets who will pay more VAT.

I have shown that your example does not reflect reality. People will be paying VAT at 20% on a far higher amount than £50 (excluding lentil eating tent dwellers).



I compared VAT on car leasing with no VAT on buying shares in a car leasing business. You stated that not all income is spent and I gave an example of how the income may be used. I do not beleive that rich individuals bury their income in the back garden, do you. This obviously has some relevance when comparing the VAT expenditure of different groups of individuals.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Nov 2022)

My uncle used to bring me boxes of King Edward cigars in the early '80s, he had a house in Florida. One for one they were cheaper than cigarettes in this Country.

There are anomalies whatever the tax. I had an off licence, and the things that always messed up my books - salted nut carried VAT, nuts and raisins didn't, and gas and petrol lighter fuel - petrol carried VAT and gas didn't. 
I remember in the early '70s when purchase tax was used instead of VAT receiving promotional ashtrays that were actually two ashtrays interlocking to form a box - ashtrays were taxed iirc at 33%, these were taxed much less because they got away with not being classed as ashtrays.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Nov 2022)

TRITON said:


> I dont think anyone can say that the small percentage of the rich here in the UK pay more collectively than the poorer sections.


Apparently the top 3000 tax payers pay the same as the bottom 9,000,000.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Here is your post again.
> 
> 
> I stated that the Bottom 20% spend 10% of disposable household income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT and supplied a reference.
> ...


Sorry, I’m totally confused as to even roughly what you trying to say…..


----------



## Terry - Somerset (15 Nov 2022)

The debate depends on the use of selective statistics used to support a particular argument. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is the territory of the worst kind of political rhetoric - eg:

there is a fundamental difference between the burden of VAT and other indirect taxes on disposable income and total income as it relates to different income groups
there is a basic difference in concept between percentage of income paid in direct taxes vs the amount of total tax paid by each income group.
There is no point in a debate with Jacob - he is so utterly convinced his arguments are sound, and the selection of relevant statistics and data so righteous and accurately described, that alternative propositions cannot be entertained.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> that report kind of makes it look like the poor should send the rich some Christmas cards with a "thanks".
> 
> Rich pay the most, they pay the highest rates, and their benefits received are the lowest.
> 
> ...


There are countries in Europe that tax more than the UK and have a higher GDP. I think it is more about what you do with the tax than the exact rate.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> • there is a fundamental difference between the burden of VAT and other indirect taxes on disposable income and total income as it relates to different income groups


Differet yes, we are comparing the differences, but in what way are they"fundamental"?


Terry - Somerset said:


> • there is a basic difference in concept between percentage of income paid in direct taxes vs the amount of total tax paid by each income group.


Yes but so what are you trying to say?


Terry - Somerset said:


> ....s so utterly convinced his arguments are sound, and the selection of relevant statistics and data so righteous and accurately described, that alternative propositions cannot be entertained.


You don't believe in facts?
I realise that they are often a surprise, especially to people who just idly rely on preferred opinions, picked up in golf club bars etc.
I surprise myself as I dig and delve! I hadn't realised quite how high taxes have been in various eras and how low they are now.
You should have a go at "relevant statistics and data" yourself, save me from having to research and spell out the inconvenient truth! 
PS Facts are OK you know. It's not like cheating at Mastermind; the rules allow the looking-up of facts.  If in doubt you can always check them yourself.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> Sorry, I’m totally confused as to even roughly what you trying to say…..


The Bottom 20% spend 10% of disposable household income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.

Your idea that a significant number of low income households (excluding lentil eating tent dwellers) only pay 2.5% VAT is not true.


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> There are countries in Europe that tax more than the UK and have a higher GDP. I think it is more about what you do with the tax than the exact rate.



I'm guessing it is a complicated combination of things - but one of those would be making the environment friendly to business even if it is high tax by making the environment predictable, not overly cumbersome to meet regulatory needs, and by providing a workforce that's efficient and reliable. 

That can be done in a high-tax environment.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> There are countries in Europe that tax more than the UK and have a higher GDP. I think it is more about what you do with the tax than the exact rate.


Size of tax take as proportion of GDP is a crude measure of, and correlates with, civilisation and quality of life.
UK is well down the list. Below Spain, well below Cuba, just above Moldova wherever that is. Rapidly becoming a 3rd world country, particularly noticeable with regards to EU members - we are being left behind.








List of sovereign states by tax revenue to GDP ratio - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Would it be a good idea to put up a warning on posts like this one?
"This post may contain disturbing facts, not suitable for children and people of a nervous disposition"


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

The UK has been a very unpredictable place for the last few years.

The regulatory environment changes day to day. Yesterday they delayed the introduction of the UKCA mark for another two years (third time I think). UKCA is a duplicate of the EU's CE mark, same standards. To sell in the UK products would have to have it. So it is a duplication of cost for no benefit apart from being a UK government requirement. Does business spend more money on it then have the government give up on the idea or not bother and risk not being able to sell their product in the UK.


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2022)

Sales tax in the USA is weird. You have no idea what it is until you check out. At least over here, the prices on the shelf include the tax.
I expect there's some reason for this, but it's still weird. Does sales tax apply to everything at the same rate? Do people get to the checkout, and realize they can't afford stuff?


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There is no point in a debate with Jacob - he is so utterly convinced his arguments are sound, and the selection of relevant statistics and data so righteous and accurately described, that alternative propositions cannot be entertained.


Show me an instance of anyone else changing their mind in these squabbles. Why single out Jacob?


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The Bottom 20% spend 10% of disposable household income on VAT the top 20% of households 5% on VAT.
> 
> Your idea that a significant number of low income households (excluding lentil eating tent dwellers) only pay 2.5% VAT is not true.


But the first sentence suggests that the bottom 20% spend more pro rata on high VAT rated items than the top 20%, which is quite simply a load of horse poo.

The second sentence is bobbins.... I never suggested that any one pays 2.5% VAT on anything, for a start i don't think that there is a VAT rate of 2.5% on anything, but I could be wrong.

For the last time:

Bobby Skint has £100.

He spends £80 on zero rated items such as food and rent. The VAT he pays is £0.00

He spends £15 on heating with VAT element of £0.71.

He goes out and spends £5 on a pizza in a restaurant. The VAT element is £0.83.

He is now skint again. His total payment of VAT is £1.54 or 1.54% of his original £100.

If you think that the above expenditure is wildly, wildly out of tune with what some people in this country have to deal with, then we will just have to agree to disagree....


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Show me an instance of anyone else changing their mind in these squabbles. Why single out Jacob?


Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.

J. Swift.


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2022)

What? Has VAT gone up to 25%?


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Sales tax in the USA is weird. You have no idea what it is until you check out. At least over here, the prices on the shelf include the tax.
> I expect there's some reason for this, but it's still weird. Does sales tax apply to everything at the same rate? Do people get to the checkout, and realize they can't afford stuff?


I believe, maybe wrong, that it some places in the US it is illegal to display the full price.

I think the reason is political. In these days of computers and labels on shelves not products, for the most part, it is easy to display the price before and after tax. It is also easy to supply a receipt with the local, state and federal tax just like in the UK they have VAT displayed.


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> What? Has VAT gone up to 25%?


Well spotted, could you now recalculate the percentage paid by Bobby and make it wildly different to the 1.75%. You have 3 minutes....


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> What? Has VAT gone up to 25%?


Edited because someone was paying attention....


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Show me an instance of anyone else changing their mind in these squabbles. Why single out Jacob?


Thanks for that but I have changed my mind as these threads progress. More of a change by learning process rather than an actual volte face. Really interesting digging out all these facts, figures and opinions.
Got led into reading the Communist Manifesto following a remark at one point. Very interesting but also quite brief. Highly recommended it's part of our political history whatever else you may think of it


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.
> 
> J. Swift.


Spot on! Bert Russell says something very similar but much less concise.
1000 idle thoughts here : TOP 25 QUOTES BY BERTRAND RUSSELL (of 1194) | A-Z Quotes


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Sales tax in the USA is weird. You have no idea what it is until you check out. At least over here, the prices on the shelf include the tax.
> I expect there's some reason for this, but it's still weird. Does sales tax apply to everything at the same rate? Do people get to the checkout, and realize they can't afford stuff?



well, it's not like we don't know what it is - you can calculate it, but we're used to that. 

It doesn't apply to food or clothing and some other things (like toilet paper) in my state. It varies from state to state, both the rate and exactly how it applies. 

Where it does apply, it's always the same rate - 6% in my state and +1% for the county where I live. 

if you're operating a business and buying something to be used in a product you will later sell, you can get a "tax number" and not pay the sales tax on the assumption that it will be recovered in whatever you're doing. If you buy things at an antique shop here, they always ask if you have a tax number on the assumption that you may be buying stuff to resell. 

as far as not affording things, it's not common for someone to use cash and say "oh, I'm short because of the tax". I've never actually seen it - it's not really that common to use cash for anything but small purchases now, anyway.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> But the first sentence suggests that the bottom 20% spend more pro rata on high VAT rated items than the top 20%, which is quite simply a load of horse poo.
> 
> The second sentence is bobbins.... I never suggested that any one pays 2.5% VAT on anything, for a start i don't think that there is a VAT rate of 2.5% on anything, but I could be wrong.
> 
> ...


The first sentence does not refer to the 20% or 5% it refers to the combined total spend 10% of disposable household income on VAT. I am not aware of a 10% VAT rate.


You referenced 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT.


bansobaby said:


> If you spend, for example, £800 of your £850 income on zero or reduced VAT rated items to stay alive then the rest on "luxury" full VAT rated items, you have either spent 20% or thereabouts of your "income" on VAT or about 2.5%.
> 
> I imagine that those in the higher income brackets would have to be dead to spend less than 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT.


The UK government states that the bottom 20% spend 10% on VAT. I do not know what the breakdown on the different VAT bands. Your belief that a disposable income of £850 only pays tax at 20% on £50 does not match reality.

You are of course free to post figures that do not match reality.

Bobby Government Figures has £100.

He spends £38.75 on zero rated items such as food and rent. The VAT he pays is £0.00
He spends £36.25 on 20% rated items such as chocolate biscuits. a light bulb, bus to the restaurant and beer for the nights in. The VAT he pays is £7.25

He spends £15 on heating with VAT element of £0.75.

He goes out and spends £10 on a pizza in a restaurant with a beer. The VAT element is £2.00.

He is now skint again. His total payment of VAT is £10.00 or 10.00% of his original £100.

If you think that the above expenditure is wildly, wildly out of tune with what is spent on average in this country as posted by the UK government then post your source.


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Show me an instance of anyone else changing their mind in these squabbles. Why single out Jacob?



if you go to the town square and one guy is there 19 times saying the same thing, maybe he's a cucumber farmer but all he wants to talk to you about is corporate taxes that apply to people who make cell phones, and he's really animated and insistent. And the 20th time a different guy shows up once, and then back to the first guy after that....

which one will people remember when they say they're tired of hearing from the cucumber farmer?


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I believe, maybe wrong, that it some places in the US it is illegal to display the full price.
> 
> I think the reason is political. In these days of computers and labels on shelves not products, for the most part, it is easy to display the price before and after tax. It is also easy to supply a receipt with the local, state and federal tax just like in the UK they have VAT displayed.



I don't think that it's some nefarious plan - I think at some point, someone decided that there needed to be some parity in illustrating costs. 

When you go to the grocery store, some things are taxed and some are not. The things that are taxed may not be taxable to all (businesses, charities, etc). 

In general, prices are always before tax. 

Not sure how VAT works there - does everyone pay it at the exact same amount at the exact point of sale?


----------



## bansobaby (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The first sentence does not refer to the 20% or 5% it refers to the combined total spend 10% of disposable household income on VAT. I am not aware of a 10% VAT rate.
> 
> 
> You referenced 2.5% of their expenditure on VAT.
> ...


I will leave this to peer review if anyone can be pineappled.....


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> as far as not affording things, it's not common for someone to use cash and say "oh, I'm short because of the tax". I've never actually seen it - it's not really that common to use cash for anything but small purchases now, anyway.


Huh?
If you can't afford it you can't afford it, regardless of whether you're paying cash or not.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I don't think that it's some nefarious plan - I think at some point, someone decided that there needed to be some parity in illustrating costs.
> 
> When you go to the grocery store, some things are taxed and some are not. The things that are taxed may not be taxable to all (businesses, charities, etc).
> 
> ...


Yes everybody pays the same rate of VAT everywhere (I know Scotland can change income tax by 1%? do not know about VAT rates). I pay the same rate as a business or multinational company. 

Businesses that are VAT registered can claim back the VAT that their suppliers charged them then charge it on the sale and have to pay the government the difference. 

A wood working business buys £100k of materials, a machine of which 20% is VAT or £20k and makes tables which sell for £300k with 20% charged or £60k. The woodworking business has to pay £60-£20 or £40k to the government.

If a furniture shop bought the tables, plus a carpet for the shop for £400 plus £100k for the carpet (a very nice one) then sold the tables for £500k they would pay £100k - £60k on the table and -£20k for the overpriced carpet or £20k to the government.

Below a certain turnover you do not have to pay VAT on your sales but you can not claim the VAT back on the table and expenses.


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Huh?
> If you can't afford it you can't afford it, regardless of whether you're paying cash or not.



OK, i've never seen it happen. Tax is 6-7% here, less some places, a little more others. You're imagining problems you might have if you didn't account for the fact that there will be sales taxes. People don't walk to a register here with something that they're not sure about. 

More common is to see people buy 6 things and be short of one or two more than the tax amount because they didn't calculate anything at all, or maybe they were using the cashier as their courtesy adding machine. They just leave behind whatever they don't want on that trip and get it another time.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

bansobaby said:


> I will leave this to peer review if anyone can be pineappled.....


I am sure people will debate if his money would have been better spent on plain digestives but most would view it as a reasonable "luxury".


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Yes everybody pays the same rate of VAT everywhere (I know Scotland can change income tax by 1%? do not know about VAT rates). I pay the same rate as a business or multinational company.
> 
> Businesses that are VAT registered can claim back the VAT that their suppliers charged them then charge it on the sale and have to pay the government the difference.
> 
> ...



on bigger business transactions, i don't know how it works here. My mother was a craft circuit person for 40 years. I do know for sure that she didn't pay sales tax on her supplies, but her buyers paid sales tax on the entire cost. 

Which she end-arounded being problematic in person (mostly for change collecting reasons) by putting up a sign that said "all prices include sales tax". 

There absolutely ARE state tax agents who pose as buyers at craft shows to see if you're charging tax, and they don't love that sign, but it's not illegal. They don't love it because they want you to make their job easy by saying "it's $10, we don't collect sales tax", which is not allowed. 

When my mother did most of her selling, it could be fast paced at a fast show, selling $5-$20 items and sometimes $6-$8k in a weekend at the better shows. It was worth it to make the prices with tax a round figure and then go back later and back into the calculation of what was payable to the state tax authority, which they then did. Having change on hand for that kind of a volume is a real problem.


----------



## johna.clements (15 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> on bigger business transactions, i don't know how it works here. My mother was a craft circuit person for 40 years. I do know for sure that she didn't pay sales tax on her supplies, but her buyers paid sales tax on the entire cost.
> 
> Which she end-arounded being problematic in person (mostly for change collecting reasons) by putting up a sign that said "all prices include sales tax".
> 
> ...


Just as well your mother does not live in Nebraska. In the UK prices can be displayed without VAT but it must be made clear. Places that sell like that are normally selling to other business. Some display both.

Nebraska (from Revised Statutes of Nebraska):

“77-2703(1)(b)

It is unlawful for any retailer to advertise, hold out, or state to the public or to any customer, directly or indirectly, that the tax or part thereof will be assumed or absorbed by the retailer, that it will not be added to the selling, renting, or leasing price of the property sold, rented, or leased, or that, if added, it or any part thereof will be refunded. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to a public utility.

77-2703(1)(c)

The tax required to be collected by the retailer from the purchaser, unless otherwise provided by statute or by rule and regulation of the Tax Commissioner, shall be displayed separately from the list price, the price advertised in the premises, the marked price, or other price on the sales check or other proof of sales, rentals, or leases.”


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

probably also worth noting that starting a business is easier here than in the UK or than in Canada. I was listening to someone yesterday talking about how hard it is to start a business in Canada, so they moved to Florida. They were talking to someone else who was still in Canada. 

BUT - the idea that it's willy nilly and you can do whatever you want, my mother obviously has some friends who have run afoul of the local sales tax authorities. A furniture store owning relative of mine also had trouble when two states both said he had to submit tax, one saying that he had to for buyers who lived over the border if they walked into his store but took a delivery back over the border. My state and the state next to it both claimed tax was due and disagreed with the other. 

What was absolutely true, though, is if you are not collecting sales tax and you get caught by a state agent, you will wish you hadn't gotten out of bed that morning, and lots before and after that morning. They'll tie you up with assessments that may not be accurate and assess penalties first and ask questions later.


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Just as well your mother does not live in Nebraska. In the UK prices can be displayed without VAT but it must be made clear. Places that sell like that are normally selling to other business. Some display both.
> 
> Nebraska (from Revised Statutes of Nebraska):
> 
> ...



Sounds like Nebraska wants the price listed to run through the register so a paper trail of taxes is easy to figure out.

While it would sound like something people wouldn't do now, where I grew up, most people would claim that the prices were inclusive of taxes and then not pay them in or not pay all of them in. I eyeballed the nebraska tax rules - in some cases (admissions, amusements), tax can be included. In others, it can't and the registers and computer systems have to record the transaction a certain way. Sounds like a pain and might be tangled in legal definitions.

one of the humorous things is that right at the start, the regulations or code (whatever they were) state "the tax is not upon the item being sold, but is upon the sale itself". That smells like a definition that has to be given based on rules written somewhere else or some enterprising individual would say "you taxed the sale, but already collected tax on the item" or whatever.

This stuff is all coded up in computerized register and payment systems now, though. The last calamity that I can recall is being charged tax on toilet paper and then deciding I wouldn't do anything about it because it would be too big of a pain because it's probably hard coded in the item number system. 

Some of the stores here offer items for free plus an additional credit in the item amount if you can point out tax errors or pricing errors in their pricing system, but again - if you're dickering on a $10 item, do you really want to spend another 10 minutes at the store at the customer service counter? I don't.


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> probably also worth noting that starting a business is easier here than in the UK or than in Canada.


Maybe. There was a news article recently that claimed it was easier to start a company than it was to borrow a book from a library in the UK. It's been a few years since I started any companies, but time was you could buy one set up for £35.00.
I find it hard to imagine how it could be much easier.


----------



## D_W (15 Nov 2022)

well, starting a company is one thing. here, that takes very very little. Having it authorized to do business anywhere without being barred from making certain transactions or being exposed to unexpected taxes and fees - not quite as easy. 

Here's an example of easy:
*being a physical therapist and licensed, renting a space and opening a clinic

Here's what's less easy:
* being able to bill someone who is from in state or out of state depending on what their coverage is, and dealing with the compliance of it
* paying someone to assist in operating said clinic as an employee and finding out they are working remotely somewhere that will charge you taxes for them working remotely where they're doing it, for example
* setting up a store with internet access that sells perhaps over the counter PT items (compression stockings, etc) and then finding out that you're not legally allowed to sell them to anyone you were going to sell them to

It sounded like the parts that were difficult in canada weren't establishing a corporation, but then being able to do anything with it afterward, especially in regard to doing business over state lines or with customers out of country.


----------



## J-G (16 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Below a certain turnover you do not have to pay VAT on your sales but you can not claim the VAT back on the table and expenses.


I can't let that pass !! - There is NEVER a situation when the purchase of any article which carries other than Zero or Exempt VAT Rate doesn't involve the payment of VAT.

It's actually your wording which is incorrect rather than what you are trying to say. 

A non VAT Registered trader does not have to _*charge*_ VAT or show it separately on a Sale but the VAT has been levied and collected at the traders point of purchase. The turnover threshhold for a trader to become registered is now £85k p.a. (I think). When I registered it was £17.5k p.a. - I now turnover less than £5k p.a. but continue to be registered because I still have a few customers who are also registered so need to re-claim the VAT that I charge them.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Nov 2022)

VAT was originally put under the control of H.M. Customs and Excise rather that the Inland Revenue for one reason - Customs and Excise officers had rights of access to your property without a warrant, Inland Revenue officers didn't. These rights of entry were originally give because local magistrates (and churchmen, apparently) were notorious smugglers, so there was little point in approaching them for a warrant to search another magistrates property. As the two have now been amalgamated I don't know whether they have the right of entry now, but I suspect they have.

I used to have problems with my accounts - the I.R. would demand them and I'd tell them the C&E had them, and that they could have them when they'd finished with them. The the same would happen in reverse. Neither side liked this.


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Spot on! Bert Russell says something very similar but much less concise.
> 1000 idle thoughts here : TOP 25 QUOTES BY BERTRAND RUSSELL (of 1194) | A-Z Quotes


Couldn't find the Russell quotation but here's Brian Cox saying something similar:


----------



## johna.clements (16 Nov 2022)

J-G said:


> I can't let that pass !! - There is NEVER a situation when the purchase of any article which carries other than Zero or Exempt VAT Rate doesn't involve the payment of VAT.
> 
> It's actually your wording which is incorrect rather than what you are trying to say.
> 
> A non VAT Registered trader does not have to _*charge*_ VAT or show it separately on a Sale but the VAT has been levied and collected at the traders point of purchase. The turnover threshhold for a trader to become registered is now £85k p.a. (I think). When I registered it was £17.5k p.a. - I now turnover less than £5k p.a. but continue to be registered because I still have a few customers who are also registered so need to re-claim the VAT that I charge them.


Thanks for the correction.


----------

