Dr Elk Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 The bad alcohols are usually from the first cuts, wood distiller etc etc and are actually fairly harmless on their own it is in fact our STUPID STUPID liver that converts this stuff into nasties like formaldehyde and other acids. This is why the Russians can get punch drunk on the stuff and not get blinded as they drink copious amounts of proper vodka with it and the liver processes this while all the bad stuff just goes straight through the body. The british drinking habits are different and I do recall a case where a northern towns residents poisoned themselves on cheap bootleg flavoured to taste ok for £2, if you do drink this methyl alcohol mix it with the good stuff and you'll be fine. For God's sake don't try it, but I'm pretty sure the antidote for methanol poisoning is indeed ethanol. Its preferentially processed in the livers metabolic pathways, so all the nasty products of methanol processing don't get made in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffneck Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Can't blame manufacturers for 'trying it on', but that's just ludicrous ... talk about a screwed-up system. And some want to complicate it further, with new taxes on food seen as unhealthy Just what the UK needs , more tax. The only solution is a pay as you go medical system but good luck trying to implement it now. This would solve any issues in regards to diet , stupid life choices , excessive drinking etc - if you do it then you have to pay for it not the bloke who lived healthily and did the right thing. The NHS was always going to bankrupt Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normal Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'm very confused about this "VAT hike affects poorest families the most" argument. From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12099638 Although they will end up paying less VAT in total, lower income households spend a bigger share of their incomes on taxed goods, meaning they are proportionately harder hit. Taking rough figures from the chart: £100 out of £9.8k is 1% £200 out of £16.6k is 1.2% £300 out of £23.1k is 1.3% £520 out of £38.1k is 1.36% £830 out of £49.5k is 1.68% Seems VAT doesn't actually hit lower earners the hardest... So we dig a little deeper. The chart above isn't what it says it is. It is actually from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexa.pdf page 67, titled "Chart A3: Additional tax due to indirect tax Budget changes in cash terms (£) by expenditure distribution (2012-13)". Guess what... "Chart A4: Impact of indirect tax Budget changes as a per cent of net income by expenditure distribution (2012-13)" shows that indirect tax is a smaller "hit" for low spending (aka income?) groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyfc Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'm very confused about this "VAT hike affects poorest families the most" argument. It does not hit the poorest families as much because a high proportion of their income goes on rent and food both which attract 0 VAT. If you do not buy services, electronics, petrol, big ticket items (car) etc on a regular basis the rise will barley be noticed. Also noticed it being mentioned that it will effect business transport costs. This is total nonsense as VAT is a consumer tax. It will be reclaimed from HMRC by any transport / Business that is VAT registered and will have no effect at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worzel Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 It does not hit the poorest families as much because a high proportion of their income goes on rent and food both which attract 0 VAT. If you do not buy services, electronics, petrol, big ticket items (car) etc on a regular basis the rise will barley be noticed. Also noticed it being mentioned that it will effect business transport costs. This is total nonsense as VAT is a consumer tax. It will be reclaimed from HMRC by any transport / Business that is VAT registered and will have no effect at all. The increase in VAT will increase RPI significantly, this is one of the key drivers of regulated train ticket prices, so it will have a fairly direct, albeit deferred impact. Poorer people need to buy petrol as well, assuming they don't have the luxury of living within a walk or a bus ride to work (please no more silliness telling them to move house). There is VAT on car maintenance, again, hardly a luxury. There is an element of VAT cost to a greater or lesser extent in everything we buy whether its standard rated, zero rated, exempt or reduced rate. Since there are a number of items that are VATable but which cannot be avoided in every day life, the VAT rise will hit the poor the hardest in terms of non discretionary spend, sure those with more money will end up paying more VAT, but less as a proportion of their wealth / income and they will have the option of not paying it by not making those discretionary big ticket purchases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) The increase in VAT will increase RPI significantly, this is one of the key drivers of regulated train ticket prices, so it will have a fairly direct, albeit deferred impact. Poorer people need to buy petrol as well, assuming they don't have the luxury of living within a walk or a bus ride to work (please no more silliness telling them to move house). There is VAT on car maintenance, again, hardly a luxury. There is an element of VAT cost to a greater or lesser extent in everything we buy whether its standard rated, zero rated, exempt or reduced rate. Since there are a number of items that are VATable but which cannot be avoided in every day life, the VAT rise will hit the poor the hardest in terms of non discretionary spend, sure those with more money will end up paying more VAT, but less as a proportion of their wealth / income and they will have the option of not paying it by not making those discretionary big ticket purchases. ****** 'em I say. See post #51 (I think). Someone has already said that to me. Edited January 4, 2011 by daiking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worzel Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 ****** 'em I say. See post #26 (I think). Someone has already said that to me. Sorry, I don't think I follow what you are saying here. Who are 'em? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Sorry, I don't think I follow what you are saying here. Who are 'em? The poor. Did they not get the memo dictating the poor should not be wealthy enough to consume? (btw, changed previous post ref to 51 - Mitchbux's illustration of the greater attack than 2.5% extra VAT on the "rich". Divide and conquer, is it not?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Complex area: biscuits, for example are classed by VAT as Food: whereas cakes are not. The celebrated battle between what was then Customs and Excise and McVities on Jaffa Cakes saw McVities win finally (After zillions had been spent) when Jaffa Cakes were classed as food: and thus Zero Rated. Luxury goods for eating ( ) such as crisps are standard rated. Food served in a restaurant attracts standard rate VAT: as does most take away food: some doesn't however. Sausages are food and thus Zero Rated: ice cream is a luxury; 20%. Read all about it here: If bored! It is the other way round. Jaffa Cakes are cakes and therefore zero rated. Biscuits are standard rated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protect Rural England Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 What VALUE ADDED is there is either a biscuit or a cake? Exactly what is value added? Why are any of us being taxed to eat? It is completely absurd. Offensive actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Correct, that is why it used to be called 'purchase tax'....please can someone tell me what value has been added to it ....people with lower incomes pay a far higher percentage of their take home pay after income tax on VAT.....VAT eventually finds its way into everything that is bought even food via fuel increases etc Purchase tax was charged in one lump by the final retailer. VAT is charged at each stage along the supply chain on the "value added" by that business. Therefore it is a tax on value added, or a Value Added Tax. Just like a tax on income is called Income Tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) What VALUE ADDED is there is either a biscuit or a cake? Exactly what is value added? Why are any of us being taxed to eat? It is completely absurd. Offensive actually. All of the value of a cake or biscuit is added by the makers, distributers, so it's all value added. We shouldn't be taxing the addition of new value We need a Value Subtraction Tax (a tax on those who subtract value from others) Edited January 4, 2011 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.