It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
Because its against EU law.
That doesn't make it a stupid idea; it just makes it an illegal policy.
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
The proposed NI change was quite right, the 'structure above' for ones income should not affect the revenue heading to the treasury. Was quite pathetic how the Tories backed down on that. I agree this VAT change is absolute mince though.
The NI proposal was sensible, the backing down on it was because of the manifesto commitment. I’m expecting to see the same proposal resurrected next week.
I can see why those advocating the VAT threshold want to change it, as there are a growing number of small businesses and a need to maintain tax receipts - but they’ve clearly never been small businessmen or women, for whom every hour they’re doing paperwork is an hour they’re not earning money, and who would also feel the costs of a 20% rise in their prices to domestic customers.
Hammond may compound this potential clusterf because I gather that there are plans to scrap and/or limit the VAT flat rate scheme - which saves bundles of time and paperwork. Indeed, having done VAT with this system it is pretty straightforward and can in fact mean a small business is slightly ahead on the deal (depending on various factors).
The NI changes have some logic, but always the government forgets that it excludes self employed people from state support, and of course we don't have any rights although we are part of paying for others to access them.
The VAT flat rate scheme has been dramatically reduced, and the the rate is 16.5%
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
I'm actually quite impressed by aspects of John McDonnell's intervention this morning - I realise the notion of borrowing is anathema to some on here but we've often done it and as the Shadow Chancellor says borrowing when rates are low is much easier than borrowing when rates are high. I've no problem with borrowing to fund capital expenditure on major infrastructure projects - there's a lot that can be done and indeed is being done.
Borrowing to fund public sector pay increases - I'm not so convinced. Yes, many in the public sector have had a raw deal since 2010 and especially in the blue light services there are huge issues with recruitment and retention but the problems are elsewhere. The ring-fencing of parts of the public sector Budget was extraordinarily foolish in my view as was the decision not to clear more of the deficit by tax rises....
Borrowing for genuine investment at current rates is a no brainer. Borrowing to fund current spending at current interest rates is a bit like taking advantage of credit card introductory offers to pay the household bills - utterly stupid.
The VAT threshold does act as a perverse incentive however. I was talking to a guest house owner. He told me it is impossible run a profitable guest house with more than three rooms and less than twelve. You either go for a three room Bed and Breakfast, do all the cooking and cleaning yourself, stay within the VAT threshold and pay domestic rates. Or you go for a medium sized guest house or hotel, employ staff, pay 20% of your turnover as VAT and pay commercial rates.
I see a case for reducing the VAT threshold but allowing a tapered relief so businesses aren't deliberately keeping turnover to less than £85 000.
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
Because its against EU law.
That doesn't make it a stupid idea; it just makes it an illegal policy.
For now. And if we were to make any radical changes, it would make a great deal of sense to give everyone a couple of years' notice...
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
Because its against EU law.
That doesn't make it a stupid idea; it just makes it an illegal policy.
It also makes tax more complicated, and that might be counterproductive. But I take the point - legality and merit are not necessarily connected
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works. They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Well raise it to £100k or £150k then, so it applies only to IT consultants and lawyers, and not to plumbers and electricians.
I'm generally in favour of shifting the balance of taxation more onto capital/property/inheritances and away from labour. The current orthodoxy stubbornly refuses to countenance this and I can't understand why.
Perhaps the people who decide these things have most of their wealth in / derived from capital / property / inheritances etc
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
The VAT threshold does act as a perverse incentive however. I was talking to a guest house owner. He told me it is impossible run a profitable guest house with more than three rooms and less than twelve. You either go for a three room Bed and Breakfast, do all the cooking and cleaning yourself, stay within the VAT threshold and pay domestic rates. Or you go for a medium sized guest house or hotel, employ staff, pay 20% of your turnover as VAT and pay commercial rates.
I see a case for reducing the VAT threshold but allowing a tapered relief so businesses aren't deliberately keeping turnover to less than £85 000.
Once you register for VAT you can of course claim back input VAT - such as on your private jet if used for business purposes.
The VAT threshold does act as a perverse incentive however. I was talking to a guest house owner. He told me it is impossible run a profitable guest house with more than three rooms and less than twelve. You either go for a three room Bed and Breakfast, do all the cooking and cleaning yourself, stay within the VAT threshold and pay domestic rates. Or you go for a medium sized guest house or hotel, employ staff, pay 20% of your turnover as VAT and pay commercial rates.
I see a case for reducing the VAT threshold but allowing a tapered relief so businesses aren't deliberately keeping turnover to less than £85 000.
Once you register for VAT you can of course claim back input VAT - such as on your private jet if used for business purposes.
The problem exists where your main business input is your own labour - specialist craftsmen for example. Their big outlay is at the outset, specific tools etc. The offset rules aren't bad there, but they paid their VAT upfront and can't get that back - and they don't have significant inputs of VAT that will offset the losses that they will make to accountancy, quarterly payment regime and the loss of business from raising of prices.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
It’s also obvious from that document that the UK is an outlier in the EU, having a much higher threshold than other member states (except for France, which appears to have a set of thresholds which top out just under the UK one, so presumably they have a lower VAT tier like Italy?)
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer g the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
In practical terms, probably not. There is conflation between control of immigration and reducing it. So people can point to countries like Australia that are claimed to "control immigration" but nevertheless have higher immigration rates. Leave voters who are uncomfortable with immigrants and think they take jobs, services etc don't think we "control" immigrants even though there are more of them. In a survey voters may place immigration control over international trade, but people making the decisions will do the trade-offs.
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
Although people aren't moving to the sparsely populated areas: they're moving to the big cities.
Quick glance at the EU VAT Directive suggests Hammond could offer graduated VAT relief up to the current VAT threshold of £85 000, but not past it.
Would it be correct to say that he could offer refunds to business, but the directive offers no method of deploying that discount to products or services created by small business? They have to charge the full rate, even though they can claw some back to offset a reduction in profit if they soak up the cost of VAT in their own prices to stay competitive?
For any well organised business the only real issue with VAT is the paperwork for submissions.
So make the threshold something very low - say 30K - but give 100% relief on accountancy fees related to VAT submissions for companies below the current threshold - Which would be the equivalent of a few hundred pounds per company.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer g the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
..........
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
Although people aren't moving to the sparsely populated areas: they're moving to the big cities.
That's true of nearly every country. People moving to the UK aren't usually settling in the Scottish Highlands or Powys.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Except that often it is: Brexit will trash the economy so I'd best move my stash overseas, but to avoid cognitive dissonance let alone charges of hypocrisy, I'll claim it is due to fear of Jeremy Corbyn.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Except that often it is: Brexit will trash the economy so I'd best move my stash overseas, but to avoid cognitive dissonance let alone charges of hypocrisy, I'll claim it is due to fear of Jeremy Corbyn.
The VAT threshold does act as a perverse incentive however. I was talking to a guest house owner. He told me it is impossible run a profitable guest house with more than three rooms and less than twelve. You either go for a three room Bed and Breakfast, do all the cooking and cleaning yourself, stay within the VAT threshold and pay domestic rates. Or you go for a medium sized guest house or hotel, employ staff, pay 20% of your turnover as VAT and pay commercial rates.
I see a case for reducing the VAT threshold but allowing a tapered relief so businesses aren't deliberately keeping turnover to less than £85 000.
Once you register for VAT you can of course claim back input VAT - such as on your private jet if used for business purposes.
The problem exists where your main business input is your own labour - specialist craftsmen for example. Their big outlay is at the outset, specific tools etc. The offset rules aren't bad there, but they paid their VAT upfront and can't get that back - and they don't have significant inputs of VAT that will offset the losses that they will make to accountancy, quarterly payment regime and the loss of business from raising of prices.
Plus the variance between what is VAT-free and VATable can make some very similar goods seem very expensive in comparison. To take the B&B example if they're charging for food in the evening (or even just taking into account the breakfast in the morning) then the bulk of their input costs don't have VAT to reclaim.
There's no VAT to reclaim on wages, quite the opposite you pay employers NI and pensions etc There's no VAT to reclaim on raw food However the second you cook that food and provide it hot to someone then 20% VAT applies with nothing to reclaim.
Plus customers look at food and think about what it will cost them in the supermarket rather than taking into account that immediately 20% tax has been applied before you make any margin.
For any well organised business the only real issue with VAT is the paperwork for submissions.
So make the threshold something very low - say 30K - but give 100% relief on accountancy fees related to VAT submissions for companies below the current threshold - Which would be the equivalent of a few hundred pounds per company.
I think the impact of VAT varies wildly from business to business.
The business I'm in, we're entirely business to business and export alot so almost every quarter is a VAT refund (We'd be worse off if we were NOT VAT registered) - whereas @TonyE business is obviously business to consumer with no exports and he will have zero input costs on his lessons hence nothing to claim back there.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Yep. I know it runs counter to popular view but I think China has been a force for good in Africa. The countries they have invested in or done resource deals with have seen massive improvements in services and infrastructure and a great deal more stability than their neighbours.
There may be a lot to criticise about China but it's self interest driven investment in Africa has done wonders for the continent.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Ironic how these African countries are happy to be effectively colonised by people with light skin, just because they're from the Far East rather than Europe.
For any well organised business the only real issue with VAT is the paperwork for submissions.
So make the threshold something very low - say 30K - but give 100% relief on accountancy fees related to VAT submissions for companies below the current threshold - Which would be the equivalent of a few hundred pounds per company.
That's not remotely accurate. It depends entirely upon what your business is - especially consumer-facing businesses with VAT-free inputs but VAT-outputs then it makes an absolutely massive difference.
Quick glance at the EU VAT Directive suggests Hammond could offer graduated VAT relief up to the current VAT threshold of £85 000, but not past it.
Would it be correct to say that he could offer refunds to business, but the directive offers no method of deploying that discount to products or services created by small business? They have to charge the full rate, even though they can claw some back to offset a reduction in profit if they soak up the cost of VAT in their own prices to stay competitive?
VAT thresholds and tapered relief appear to be grandfathered rights. They aren't offered to new members (so I guess we wouldn't get either if we applied to rejoin*). The question is whether we could move to tapered relief instead of outright exemption. Do the rights fall if you amend them, even if in the direction of greater harmonisation?
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Yep. I know it runs counter to popular view but I think China has been a force for good in Africa. The countries they have invested in or done resource deals with have seen massive improvements in services and infrastructure and a great deal more stability than their neighbours.
There may be a lot to criticise about China but it's self interest driven investment in Africa has done wonders for the continent.
Makes sense as China's investment has been self-interested which means they make sure it works. Ours tends to be either guilt-ridden or charitable which means we want it to work but there's no real difference to us if it doesn't.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer g the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
..........
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
Although people aren't moving to the sparsely populated areas: they're moving to the big cities.
That's true of nearly every country. People moving to the UK aren't usually settling in the Scottish Highlands or Powys.
But the percentage of our nation geographically that falls within the Scottish Highlands or Powys vs the percentage of Australia that falls within their outback are vastly different making population density comparisons utterly meaningless.
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Well raise it to £100k or £150k then, so it applies only to IT consultants and lawyers, and not to plumbers and electricians.
I'm generally in favour of shifting the balance of taxation more onto capital/property/inheritances and away from labour.
The current orthodoxy stubbornly refuses to countenance this and I can't understand why.
Lib Dem policy is to tax wealth rather than income.
In practice the only wealth which can't be moved offshore is property. So the policy means introducing a mansion tax in ordr to avoid having to increase income tax to cover the deficit from the increased spending on a multitude of other policies.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
Wouldn't work. Barring a few exceptions, variable for VAT charged is the good/service in question. You can't add another variable.
Yep. I know it runs counter to popular view but I think China has been a force for good in Africa. The countries they have invested in or done resource deals with have seen massive improvements in services and infrastructure and a great deal more stability than their neighbours.
There may be a lot to criticise about China but it's self interest driven investment in Africa has done wonders for the continent.
China is of course securing its own economic well-being by ensuring ready availability of resources and the ability to get them quickly from source to port. It has built new railways in Kenya as an example primarily for that purpose.
Up to now, the Chinese "investment" has been more commercial than political but the key is stability of Government to ensure stability of resources. Democracy as we know it with competing plural parties may not be part of that model but stable Government working to achieve and maintain economic prosperity is.
I believe China is already actively involved in both Mozambique and Botswana and the ability to extract raw materials and send them through to new container port facilities on the Indian Ocean coast has the potential to be extremely profitable.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Yep. I know it runs counter to popular view but I think China has been a force for good in Africa. The countries they have invested in or done resource deals with have seen massive improvements in services and infrastructure and a great deal more stability than their neighbours.
There may be a lot to criticise about China but it's self interest driven investment in Africa has done wonders for the continent.
It's still quasi-imperialism, mind. But then you could make the same case about African governance under some of the European imperial powers (most of the time, at least).
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
Wouldn't work. Barring a few exceptions, variable for VAT charged is the good/service in question. You can't add another variable.
Presumably while the percentage collected from the customer has to remain static at the moment because of EU law, and because of the issue you cite, there is no reason why the same amount has to be remitted to HMRC. It should be possible to taper the amount remitted in some sensible band above 85K, maybe say 85-100k in a way that prevents a VAT cliff disincentivizing businesses.
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Well raise it to £100k or £150k then, so it applies only to IT consultants and lawyers, and not to plumbers and electricians.
I'm generally in favour of shifting the balance of taxation more onto capital/property/inheritances and away from labour.
The current orthodoxy stubbornly refuses to countenance this and I can't understand why.
Lib Dem policy is to tax wealth rather than income.
In practice the only wealth which can't be moved offshore is property. So the policy means introducing a mansion tax in ordr to avoid having to increase income tax to cover the deficit from the increased spending on a multitude of other policies.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Ironic how these African countries are happy to be effectively colonised by people with light skin, just because they're from the Far East rather than Europe.
Depends if they intend to repay the loans or not.
Venezuela not now repaying Russian loans for example.
Zuckerberg believes the opioid crisis may be responsible for Trump in the White House:
"Mark Zuckerberg sounded a warning on Friday about the social and political fragmentation caused by America’s opioid crisis, as he ended a nationwide tour to understand the forces that had put Donald Trump in the White House.
At one point the Facebook chief executive officer choked up as he talked about the effects of opioid addiction, adding: “This stuff is really upsetting to talk about.”"
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
Mr. E, what a ****ing idiot. You would've thought he'd learnt since his NI failure last time.
The proposed NI change was quite right, the 'structure above' for ones income should not affect the revenue heading to the treasury. Was quite pathetic how the Tories backed down on that. I agree this VAT change is absolute mince though.
The NI proposal was sensible, the backing down on it was because of the manifesto commitment. I’m expecting to see the same proposal resurrected next week.
I can see why those advocating the VAT threshold want to change it, as there are a growing number of small businesses and a need to maintain tax receipts - but they’ve clearly never been small businessmen or women, for whom every hour they’re doing paperwork is an hour they’re not earning money, and who would also feel the costs of a 20% rise in their prices to domestic customers.
Hammond may compound this potential clusterf because I gather that there are plans to scrap and/or limit the VAT flat rate scheme - which saves bundles of time and paperwork. Indeed, having done VAT with this system it is pretty straightforward and can in fact mean a small business is slightly ahead on the deal (depending on various factors).
The NI changes have some logic, but always the government forgets that it excludes self employed people from state support, and of course we don't have any rights although we are part of paying for others to access them.
The VAT flat rate scheme has been dramatically reduced, and the the rate is 16.5%
Interesting. As I am out of 'the game' these days I didn't know the full details of the Flat Rate changes. Our business paid 11% flat rate, sounds like it might be 16.5 these days as we had few input goods.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Zuckerberg believes the opioid crisis may be responsible for Trump in the White House:
"Mark Zuckerberg sounded a warning on Friday about the social and political fragmentation caused by America’s opioid crisis, as he ended a nationwide tour to understand the forces that had put Donald Trump in the White House.
At one point the Facebook chief executive officer choked up as he talked about the effects of opioid addiction, adding: “This stuff is really upsetting to talk about.”"
Venezuela not now repaying Russian loans for example.
Yep, basically 6 years free of repayments.
But Russia has now got Venezuela by the balls - and so, the ability to tell Venezuela to stop shipping oil to the US as a result... (Imports by the US were 18.7m barrels in August 2017 - although this was notably down from some 25m a month earlier in the year - so maybe the USA saw this play coming?)
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
No idea why there wasn't a VAT holiday for extensions during the worst of the crisis 2008-11 or whatever. Would have saved some building firms and kept the brick manufacturers ticking over.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Yep. I know it runs counter to popular view but I think China has been a force for good in Africa. The countries they have invested in or done resource deals with have seen massive improvements in services and infrastructure and a great deal more stability than their neighbours.
There may be a lot to criticise about China but it's self interest driven investment in Africa has done wonders for the continent.
It's still quasi-imperialism, mind. But then you could make the same case about African governance under some of the European imperial powers (most of the time, at least).
Some economist rightly said that you can talk about the miseries of being exploited in the third world, but not being exploited at all pretty much sucks too. And the Chinese are at least bribing Africa, and doing it in infrastructure and bus fleets and stuff rather than in cash which ends up in dictators pockets. It's a long way from cutting off hands for missing rubber quotas, or taking slaves to grow cotton to weave rubbish cloth to sell back to Africa.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
No idea why there wasn't a VAT holiday for extensions during the worst of the crisis 2008-11 or whatever. Would have saved some building firms and kept the brick manufacturers ticking over.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
It sounds to be like Hammond's commission on VAT has found a genuine problem (the £85K is blocking business growth above this figure).
That doesn't mean he will have a solution in this Budget, or indeed that anyone at HMT can think of one that works.
They note, though, apparently, that £85K limit is one of the highest in modern economies.
Does VAT have to be all or nothing?
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
Wouldn't work. Barring a few exceptions, variable for VAT charged is the good/service in question. You can't add another variable.
Presumably while the percentage collected from the customer has to remain static at the moment because of EU law, and because of the issue you cite, there is no reason why the same amount has to be remitted to HMRC. It should be possible to taper the amount remitted in some sensible band above 85K, maybe say 85-100k in a way that prevents a VAT cliff disincentivizing businesses.
I think raising the threshold makes more sense than that.
As someone pointed out below, it makes no sense to increase the personal allowance but decrease the VAT threshold.
Zuckerberg believes the opioid crisis may be responsible for Trump in the White House:
"Mark Zuckerberg sounded a warning on Friday about the social and political fragmentation caused by America’s opioid crisis, as he ended a nationwide tour to understand the forces that had put Donald Trump in the White House.
At one point the Facebook chief executive officer choked up as he talked about the effects of opioid addiction, adding: “This stuff is really upsetting to talk about.”"
Housing appears to be an important topic for the budget. Recently the Government has been constrained because local housing associations, since last year, were classified as Government controlled for statistical purposes and this formed part of the Government accounts.
This means that all the borrowing of the local housing associations were included as part of the Government debt and deficit numbers. As a consequence the Government was controlling their borrowing, reducing affordable house building.
It would appear that the decision has now been taken by the ONS to reclassify, thus enabling the Government to permit more borrowing by Housing Associations and hence more affordable house building.
This is an artificial constraint - a consequence of fundamentalist conservative economic policy. Playing pointless games with the ONS to keep debt off the books.
Not borrowing to invest, when demand for housing is high, the economy is in the doldrums and global capital is begging for something safe to invest in was (and is) economic insanity.
These tories are fools.
I just find these sort of games seriously irritating. It is either a good use of public money to build more houses to rent at the moment or it isn't. The classification of the borrowing really should not come into it.
Given the very high levels of immigration we have had together with constrained building to buy as a result of pressures on demand, limited credit and higher deposits along with the restrictions in the buy to let market there is a clear unmet need for decent housing. So lets get on with it and cut out the games.
Housing appears to be an important topic for the budget. Recently the Government has been constrained because local housing associations, since last year, were classified as Government controlled for statistical purposes and this formed part of the Government accounts.
This means that all the borrowing of the local housing associations were included as part of the Government debt and deficit numbers. As a consequence the Government was controlling their borrowing, reducing affordable house building.
It would appear that the decision has now been taken by the ONS to reclassify, thus enabling the Government to permit more borrowing by Housing Associations and hence more affordable house building.
This is an artificial constraint - a consequence of fundamentalist conservative economic policy. Playing pointless games with the ONS to keep debt off the books.
Not borrowing to invest, when demand for housing is high, the economy is in the doldrums and global capital is begging for something safe to invest in was (and is) economic insanity.
These tories are fools.
I just find these sort of games seriously irritating. It is either a good use of public money to build more houses to rent at the moment or it isn't. The classification of the borrowing really should not come into it.
Given the very high levels of immigration we have had together with constrained building to buy as a result of pressures on demand, limited credit and higher deposits along with the restrictions in the buy to let market there is a clear unmet need for decent housing. So lets get on with it and cut out the games.
And to be fair - Labour were up to their necks in silly games under Brown to make borrowing go off balance sheet.
Keep hearing today that Hammond wants to lower VAT threshold to include nearly all self employed people.
Good move - so long as you don't ever want to be in government again.
If my turnover reaches £20k, the price of a guitar lesson or a repair goes up from £20ph to £24. The price of even a basic handmade guitar goes up £300+ So I either soak it up (I go out of business) or I pass it on (I go out of business), the result is the same.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
No idea why there wasn't a VAT holiday for extensions during the worst of the crisis 2008-11 or whatever. Would have saved some building firms and kept the brick manufacturers ticking over.
Because it would have been illegal under EU law?
I am not sure if it would have been .However I am sure it could have been reduced from 17.5%.Surely the VAT rate can go down and not always up.
First off and away from domestic matters, I'll shed few tears for the passing of Robert Mugabe. I can only hope Zimbabwe is heading back on the right road to democracy and reform but it's going to be a long and hard journey and they will need a lot of help from the rest of the world (and especially from the likes of China and South Africa)...
Is there any evidence the new guy is any more favourable disposed towards democracy than the old guy ? & I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
A well-connected associate I was speaking to this morning reckons that what’s going on in Zimbabwe is a proper Chinese takeover. There were lots of Zimbabweans in Beijing last week, including the former vice-president who returned to Africa on a military flight.
Wonder if Beijing is involved in the Zimbabwe coup in some shape or form.
A Chinese involvement could be very positive for the country. Rwanda has had superb growth in the 2000s, with alot of Chinese capital involved.
Ironic how these African countries are happy to be effectively colonised by people with light skin, just because they're from the Far East rather than Europe.
Because the Chinese have engaged in a capitalist rather than mercantile relationship with them.
"provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution"
That seems pretty key.
You also seem to assume that there will be a level effect across all parts of the UK economy and geography. That seems far from certain to me.
I agree that the likelihood is there will be no disaster if we get a deal with the EU. But I voted Remain because I believed that leaving would reduce long-term GDP growth, leading to further, sustained cuts in public services and reductions in living standards. Nothing that has happened so far has changed my mind on that.
Yes, import substitution is key. If we simply buy more from elsewhere there will be no positive effect and quite possibly a negative one.
I also accept that while some areas might gain some might lose significantly. The effects will be lumpy, not uniform.
I also acknowledged that if you thought that long term growth was likely to be better in the EU that would certainly be a consideration for remaining to be weighed against the disadvantages. Personally, I thought that was unproven principally because the EU is a relatively slow growth area by international standards, modern technology is making borders much less important than they were and our ability to compete within the SM seems disappointing but I see the argument.
There is room for different conclusions. I, on balance, favoured Leave but it was close. There are forms of the EU I would like to be in. The one we have and the one we are going to have as a result of Euro integration is not one of them. And the marginal gains or losses that will be taken or suffered are going to be (a) hard to prove and (b) small.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
No idea why there wasn't a VAT holiday for extensions during the worst of the crisis 2008-11 or whatever. Would have saved some building firms and kept the brick manufacturers ticking over.
Because it would have been illegal under EU law?
I am not sure if it would have been .However I am sure it could have been reduced from 17.5%.Surely the VAT rate can go down and not always up.
The VAT rate can go up or down as a whole, as demonstrated by Brown in 2009, but cant be reduced or exempted on specific products or services. Things like domestic fuel or tampons, to give a couple of pertinent examples.
That’s a really silly idea, unless he wants to create a lot of small business tax evaders and recruit a new small army of inspectors to spend a huge amount of effort collecting small amounts of money.
There was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
No idea why there wasn't a VAT holiday for extensions during the worst of the crisis 2008-11 or whatever. Would have saved some building firms and kept the brick manufacturers ticking over.
Because it would have been illegal under EU law?
I am not sure if it would have been .However I am sure it could have been reduced from 17.5%.Surely the VAT rate can go down and not always up.
The VAT rate can go up or down as a whole, as demonstrated by Brown in 2009, but cant be reduced or exempted on specific products or services. Things like domestic fuel or tampons, to give a couple of pertinent examples.
could we have 5% rated everything? I think so given the two things you mention were 5% rated.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Yep. I am sure you know all about the Roman roads and paths from Biggleswade (I think) or Sandy heading north to Godmanchester.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
was a discussion on 5 live this morning suggesting Hammond will reduce VAT threshold to between £20,000 - £43,000 and it was controversial but there was support for it.
I had a national locksmith call some months ago and fixed the lock but then gave me his personal card and said next time contact him direct and it will be 20% cheaper as I do not pay VAT.
Also I have friends who are putting an extension of their home and again they are openly saying they have saved 20% by using non VAT registered builders
A difficult decision but it is a form of tax avoidance
And by the way new home figures just announced at 217,000 show a good increase but with more to do
There is no VAT on new house building a 20% rate would I imagine cause an effect.However it does seem unfair to charge 20% on existing homes for repairs and extensions but not on new builds.No wonder governments would prefer a cashless economy to stop the black economy and more chance of investigating fraud.
We did an extension a few years ago. The 20% VAT was a serious go/no go issue and could have led to the project not happening at a time when the building trade was weeping in desperation for work.
Yes same for me.I remember when Nigel Lawson imposed VAT on extensions repairs in the 80s.Hit some small builders quite hard.20% is a lot to consider on an extension for most people.However the cost of moving is not cheap either.
No idea why there wasn't a VAT holiday for extensions during the worst of the crisis 2008-11 or whatever. Would have saved some building firms and kept the brick manufacturers ticking over.
Because it would have been illegal under EU law?
I am not sure if it would have been .However I am sure it could have been reduced from 17.5%.Surely the VAT rate can go down and not always up.
The VAT rate can go up or down as a whole, as demonstrated by Brown in 2009, but cant be reduced or exempted on specific products or services. Things like domestic fuel or tampons, to give a couple of pertinent examples.
could we have 5% rated everything? I think so given the two things you mention were 5% rated.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Some parts of Bedford are very fine. The Embankment is lovely, and there's a lot of very good housing heading North from there.
Sounds like Javid has been putting serious pressure on No.11 to do something on house building.
Gavin Barwell as well I think
TM as well - if Hammond does not address housing and reduces VAT registration to £20,000 he is a goner
I'm pretty sure the budget doesn't go through if there is any reduction to the VAT threshold.
Just one of the following groups opposing it would be a problem, and I honestly think all three would:
- influential right of centre Tory backbenchers - loud and proud wet Tories - the DUP
- shitloads of small businessmen and women, who will write to their Conservative MPs questioning why they should vote for increased taxes rather than reduced spending.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Some parts of Bedford are very fine. The Embankment is lovely, and there's a lot of very good housing heading North from there.
You can say that about nearly any place. Even, perhaps, Luton. What matters is what visitors are most likely to see - the areas around the transport hubs are therefore vital.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Yep. I am sure you know all about the Roman roads and paths from Biggleswade (I think) or Sandy heading north to Godmanchester.
Done 'em. Got told off by a golfer on one once.
Yesterday I walked the Ouse Valley Way between Bedford and St Neots. Not a good walk, as my head wasn't really in it. (and yes, I meant my head, not my body).
Comments
At the moment if you bring in £84,999 you pay zero VAT, and if you earn £85,001 you pay £17,000.50 in VAT. And then you pay VAT on income the following year even if you only earn £30,000 as the VAT registration is not reversible.
Pay 0% VAT up to 40k, 10% 40-80k, 20% after that would seem sensible. I look forward to being told why that is a stupid idea - which is the main reason I comment on here
If he is to act he should not go below £50,000
The VAT flat rate scheme has been dramatically reduced, and the the rate is 16.5%
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/vat-flat-rate-scheme-end-of-an-era
& I'm not quite seeing how China helps in any such amelioration, other than as a new quasi-colonial power (I note the armoured vehicles appearing in the coup pictures appear to be of Chinese manufacture).
Borrowing for genuine investment at current rates is a no brainer.
Borrowing to fund current spending at current interest rates is a bit like taking advantage of credit card introductory offers to pay the household bills - utterly stupid.
The current orthodoxy stubbornly refuses to countenance this and I can't understand why.
Jeremy Corbyn.
I see a case for reducing the VAT threshold but allowing a tapered relief so businesses aren't deliberately keeping turnover to less than £85 000.
And if we were to make any radical changes, it would make a great deal of sense to give everyone a couple of years' notice...
Personally I'd rather be in Labour's boat.
It’s also obvious from that document that the UK is an outlier in the EU, having a much higher threshold than other member states (except for France, which appears to have a set of thresholds which top out just under the UK one, so presumably they have a lower VAT tier like Italy?)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/liverpool-students-want-gladstones-name-dropped-from-halls-of-residence-qgsl0tzfb
So make the threshold something very low - say 30K - but give 100% relief on accountancy fees related to VAT submissions for companies below the current threshold - Which would be the equivalent of a few hundred pounds per company.
There's no VAT to reclaim on wages, quite the opposite you pay employers NI and pensions etc
There's no VAT to reclaim on raw food
However the second you cook that food and provide it hot to someone then 20% VAT applies with nothing to reclaim.
Plus customers look at food and think about what it will cost them in the supermarket rather than taking into account that immediately 20% tax has been applied before you make any margin.
The business I'm in, we're entirely business to business and export alot so almost every quarter is a VAT refund (We'd be worse off if we were NOT VAT registered) - whereas @TonyE business is obviously business to consumer with no exports and he will have zero input costs on his lessons hence nothing to claim back there.
There may be a lot to criticise about China but it's self interest driven investment in Africa has done wonders for the continent.
*Edit or stay in the Single Market
Ours tends to be either guilt-ridden or charitable which means we want it to work but there's no real difference to us if it doesn't.
Self-interest works.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-politics/zimbabwes-mugabe-resisting-army-pressure-to-quit-senior-source-idUSKBN1DG08B
In practice the only wealth which can't be moved offshore is property. So the policy means introducing a mansion tax in ordr to avoid having to increase income tax to cover the deficit from the increased spending on a multitude of other policies.
Perhaps you have via Betfair.
You tax property, I invest less in property, the market value crashes etc.
Ditto capital, and everyone has schemes to avoid inheritance taxes.
Up to now, the Chinese "investment" has been more commercial than political but the key is stability of Government to ensure stability of resources. Democracy as we know it with competing plural parties may not be part of that model but stable Government working to achieve and maintain economic prosperity is.
I believe China is already actively involved in both Mozambique and Botswana and the ability to extract raw materials and send them through to new container port facilities on the Indian Ocean coast has the potential to be extremely profitable.
Venezuela not now repaying Russian loans for example.
"Mark Zuckerberg sounded a warning on Friday about the social and political fragmentation caused by America’s opioid crisis, as he ended a nationwide tour to understand the forces that had put Donald Trump in the White House.
At one point the Facebook chief executive officer choked up as he talked about the effects of opioid addiction, adding: “This stuff is really upsetting to talk about.”"
https://www.ft.com/content/8936e254-c645-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
But Russia has now got Venezuela by the balls - and so, the ability to tell Venezuela to stop shipping oil to the US as a result... (Imports by the US were 18.7m barrels in August 2017 - although this was notably down from some 25m a month earlier in the year - so maybe the USA saw this play coming?)
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
As someone pointed out below, it makes no sense to increase the personal allowance but decrease the VAT threshold.
https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/931123004939100160
Given the very high levels of immigration we have had together with constrained building to buy as a result of pressures on demand, limited credit and higher deposits along with the restrictions in the buy to let market there is a clear unmet need for decent housing. So lets get on with it and cut out the games.
1. Order for 430 new-gen Airbus A320neo aircraft, biggest deal ever for Airbus.
https://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/airbus-bags-largest-deal-to-date-with-49-5-billion-order-from-indigo-for-430-a320neo-jets-1.675857
2. Order from Emirates airline for at least 40 Boeing 787s, likely to be powered by Rolls Royce engines.
https://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/exclusive-emirates-likely-to-order-more-boeing-787-dreamliners-tim-clark-says-1.676027
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
I also accept that while some areas might gain some might lose significantly. The effects will be lumpy, not uniform.
I also acknowledged that if you thought that long term growth was likely to be better in the EU that would certainly be a consideration for remaining to be weighed against the disadvantages. Personally, I thought that was unproven principally because the EU is a relatively slow growth area by international standards, modern technology is making borders much less important than they were and our ability to compete within the SM seems disappointing but I see the argument.
There is room for different conclusions. I, on balance, favoured Leave but it was close. There are forms of the EU I would like to be in. The one we have and the one we are going to have as a result of Euro integration is not one of them. And the marginal gains or losses that will be taken or suffered are going to be (a) hard to prove and (b) small.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
"Rolf Harris indecent assault conviction overturned
It concerned an alleged assault on an eight-year-old autograph hunter in 1968 or 1969."
https://news.sky.com/story/rolf-harris-has-one-of-12-indecent-assault-convictions-overturned-11128592
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Just one of the following groups opposing it would be a problem, and I honestly think all three would:
- influential right of centre Tory backbenchers
- loud and proud wet Tories
- the DUP
https://www.rt.com/uk/410018-salmond-show-puigdemont-independence/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/21/uk-budget-deficit-philip-hammond-gdp-august
Yesterday I walked the Ouse Valley Way between Bedford and St Neots. Not a good walk, as my head wasn't really in it. (and yes, I meant my head, not my body).