In or out

In or out of the European union

  • Remain in the EU

  • Get out


Results are only viewable after voting.
And you know who to thank for this ridiculously convoluted system!

Sounds like you have a bee in your bonnet. It would be interesting to know who you think is responsible for it being used in Australia, Japan, Canada, India, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Nepal, South Africa, Mexico and China, among many.

Perhaps you think Purchase Tax, Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax and Income tax are better.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.

Phew, that's a relief.
Why so?

Sounds like we are exiting.
Why so?
Polls currently are neck and neck, 51% for staying, and 49% for leaving. Did you not read the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35524844
Obviously you couldn't have done otherwise you wouldn't have arrived at the wrong assumption.

Oh sorry, you're basing your assumption on the GD Forum poll. :rolleyes:

Ultimately I'll vote out. I was undecided a while back but you've convinced me. What will be will be. Good luck to us both :)
 
Now we know why Himaginn keeps coming here albeit with different names...

http://order-order.com/2014/02/27/eu-spends-2-million-on-trolling-online-euroscpetics/

I doubt it. There's only a few regular posters left on here. Dropclanger and JohnD have bored the others away. I'm one of the few left and I was undecided about the EU until Dropclangers constant epilogues convinced me to vote for the exact opposite of whatever he recommended. Hardly a success story for the pro euro bunch. I can't see a handful of people posting during the TV adverts on Billy Joes liberal building site being a target for bacon faces mob.
 
Sponsored Links
It would be interesting to know who you think is responsible for it being used in Australia, Japan, Canada, India, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Nepal, South Africa, Mexico and China, among many.
I really don't know if their GST and similar systems work in exactly the same way as VAT, but their national governments decided upon their respective systems, presumably. And no, that doesn't mean that there haven't been and aren't still other British taxes which are complicated or unfair, but that doesn't alter the fact that VAT is a highly convoluted and complicated system, nor does it alter the fact that in the U.K. the implementation of VAT came as a condition of membership of the EEC (along with the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy etc.).

While for the moment, the U.K. is still free to set the specific rates, it's still bound by the overall EU rules, e.g. it is not allowed to exempt some item which the EU VAT rules says is taxable. It was only by what might be described as stealth that the U.K. avoided having to put VAT on food by exploiting the fact that while the then-EEC VAT rules stipulated that food is taxable, they didn't specify a minimum tax level, hence the zero-rated category (which is not the same as exempt). In recent years the EU has made a number of complaints about how it regards this as "unfair" and has been pushing for the U.K. to start taxing food (and Ireland, the only other EU member to have zero-rated food).

Yes, there are many other British taxes which are complicated and unfair, but the U.K. government could change them. So long as the U.K. remains within the EU, it's stuck with the EU's basic VAT framework. And you can bet that it won't be too long before the EU dictates that VAT rates should be "harmonized" across all countries. They've been working toward that for years.
 
Now we know why Himaginn keeps coming here albeit with different names...

http://order-order.com/2014/02/27/eu-spends-2-million-on-trolling-online-euroscpetics/

I doubt it. There's only a few regular posters left on here. Dropclanger and JohnD have bored the others away. I'm one of the few left and I was undecided about the EU until Dropclangers constant epilogues convinced me to vote for the exact opposite of whatever he recommended. Hardly a success story for the pro euro bunch. I can't see a handful of people posting during the TV adverts on Billy Joes liberal building site being a target for bacon faces mob.

Indeed you are of course right. Himaginn/ Dropclanger does have the ability to bore folk with irrelevant minutia. He is a far greater asset to the Leave campaign than he would like to admit. When he doesn't get his way he will accuse folk of things that he knows aren't true but he John and Bolo have all accused posters of racism over and over again when they were innocent... To my mind the moderators should have stamped that out quickly and banned all three, I am surprised how long I was permitted to call Himaginn racist before they started to delete my posts and ban me from one particular thread. I wonder if Himaginn would be anxious to call me a racist if I was to mention the unacceptable number of muslims entering main land Europe and how some of them have been raping children at swimming pools?
 
I wonder if Himaginn would be anxious to call me a racist if I was to mention the unacceptable number of muslims entering main land Europe and how some of them have been raping children at swimming pools?
You have mentioned it and you are racist to have done so.
Anyone who makes flagrantly fabricated allegations against others based on their race or religion is blatantly racist.

It proves that you'll resort to the least excuse to make blatant racist comments, even though they are wildly untrue and way off-topic.

It also proves that you have no real argument for Brexit if you resort to such offensive behaviour.

Perhaps you ought to change that PC of yours to a newer model that has the capability of flagging up your racist remarks because you are obviously incapable of being aware of them.
 
A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.
Better educated in what sense?
Read the link. I've reproduced the quote for you:
University graduates, a high-turnout group, are solidly pro-EU; those with fewest educational qualifications, who are more likely to stay at home, favour leaving
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35524844

Another way of looking at it would be that the older voters have saved the younger, university-brainwashed voters from a future in some kind of EUSSR in which by that time they no longer have the ability to get out peaceably.
You consider a university education to be a form of brain-washing?
You're suggesting that the lower educated are better placed to make a rational judgement than the more educated?
You're grasping at straws and sounding desperate by suggesting that force will be required to exit EU.

I have been debating with you on the basis that you were presenting arguments for Brexit. But I'm beginning to suspect that you are being intentionally misleading and using silly emotive fabricated arguments.

I'll continue to debate with you, for now, but I suspect I'm going to end up listing your emotive, misleading or naive arguments.
 
The only way out of captivity is by stealth or by force.
Unfortunately, the direction the EU is taking in a few more decades that may be the only way for the U.K. to escape.
I may add this silly comment of yours to a list of your devious comments.

What you're doing, by resorting to outrageous comments, is destroying the argument for Brexit and illustrating that there are no valid arguments for leaving!
 
I wonder if Himaginn would be anxious to call me a racist if I was to mention the unacceptable number of muslims entering main land Europe and how some of them have been raping children at swimming pools?
You have mentioned it and you are racist to have done so.
Anyone who makes flagrantly fabricated allegations against others based on their race or religion is blatantly racist.

It proves that you'll resort to the least excuse to make blatant racist comments, even though they are wildly untrue and way off-topic.

It also proves that you have no real argument for Brexit if you resort to such offensive behaviour.

Perhaps you ought to change that PC of yours to a newer model that has the capability of flagging up your racist remarks because you are obviously incapable of being aware of them.
How is making an allegation against a person based on their religion "Racist"? Religion is a lifestyle choice..Some folk choose to believe that raping 9 year olds is good because some dusty old book says so.. You on the other hand have been blatantly racist with you comments about black folk. The term that you used is seen as pretty offensive in some parts of the world..
The rampage of muslim rapists has everything to do with the EU
 
But this extract clearly shows that VAT is paid by the importer if from outside of EU, it must be paid before release from customs clearance. But paid by consumer if within EU.
Unless it's changed since I was last VAT-registered some years ago, it is actually possible for an importer to have his registration details provided on the shipment so as not to be charged VAT in the first place. But even if not and he has to pay VAT to receive his goods, as a VAT-registered business he will then be able to reclaim that VAT.

That's how the convoluted VAT system works: Each VAT-registered business along the sales chain pays VAT to whoever he buys from and reclaims that amount from Customs & Excise (or equivalent), then he charges VAT to his buyer and forwards that to C&E.

The result - apart from a lot of needless accounting and paper-shuffling along the way - is that a few months later all the businesses involved along the chain have reclaimed the VAT they paid out when purchasing and the net VAT collected at the end of this pointless bureaucratic exercise is that paid on the final purchase price by the end (non VAT-registered) consumer.

And you know who to thank for this ridiculously convoluted system!
You're either intentionally avoiding the link and statement that I posted, or you're persistently ignoring it.

The statement reproduced from the advisory website about EU VAT clearly indicated that VAT must be paid prior to removal from customs, for goods imported from outside EU. This does not apply to goods imported within EU, which can be considered for a suspensive arrangement.

So, logically, the importer pays the VAT, at the rate of the receiving country, prior to removal from customs, for goods imported from outside EU.
Now the importer is out of pocket until the goods are sold on. That incurs some cost, especially when we are talking £000's, even £M's of pounds (sorry Euros). Sometimes, the VAT paid at the country of reception can be higher than the country of sale. Who loses the difference? Is it repaid somehow? How? When?
The answers to these questions obviously bears further costs to the importer/exporter/manufacturer.
To further illustrate the example, suppose Brico Depot (a DIY shed operating in EU) import tools from UK (following a Brexit), they would have to pay VAT prior to removal from customs, but they couldn't reclaim that VAT until goods are sold to the end user, perhaps many months, even years, later.
Whereas goods imported from Spain (i.e. within EU) would be under a Suspensive Arrangement and VAT not collected/paid until sale to end user.

Thus it's obvious that goods imported to the EU, from outside the EU, have a higher cost than goods imported within the EU.
 
Thus it's obvious that goods imported to the EU, from outside the EU, have a higher cost than goods imported within the EU.

Wow! The expert knows it all... I shall remember your wise words the next time one of my containers from Ukraine hits the dock...Then I shall laugh.
 
It would be interesting to know who you think is responsible for it being used in Australia, Japan, Canada, India, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Nepal, South Africa, Mexico and China, among many.
I really don't know if their GST and similar systems work in exactly the same way as VAT, but their national governments decided upon their respective systems, presumably. And no, that doesn't mean that there haven't been and aren't still other British taxes which are complicated or unfair, but that doesn't alter the fact that VAT is a highly convoluted and complicated system, nor does it alter the fact that in the U.K. the implementation of VAT came as a condition of membership of the EEC
You're right, VAT was implemented, in the UK, on joining the EU. It wasn't implemented in Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Argentina, Armenia, Australia on condition of them joining EU. And that is just the countries beginning with'A'. I won't bother to list rest of the countries. I'd be here too long, and you get the idea.

While for the moment, the U.K. is still free to set the specific rates, it's still bound by the overall EU rules, e.g. it is not allowed to exempt some item which the EU VAT rules says is taxable. It was only by what might be described as stealth that the U.K. avoided having to put VAT on food by exploiting the fact that while the then-EEC VAT rules stipulated that food is taxable, they didn't specify a minimum tax level, hence the zero-rated category (which is not the same as exempt). In recent years the EU has made a number of complaints about how it regards this as "unfair" and has been pushing for the U.K. to start taxing food (and Ireland, the only other EU member to have zero-rated food).
Now I'm becoming more convinced that you're arguing with your heart and not your head.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about:
VAT Rates
  • the standard rate may not be less than 15%.
  • EU countries may also apply either one or two reduced rates, which should not be less than 5%, and shall only be applied to very specific supplies of goods.
  • the Directive allows the application of a reduced rate not lower than 12% (the "parking rate") for some goods or services.
  • it also allows certain EU countries to maintain of reduced rates lower than the 5% minimum (super reduced rates)


Goods subject to reduced VAT rates

Annex III to the Directive on VAT allows EU countries to apply reduced rates to the following categories:

  1. Foodstuffs (including beverages but excluding alcoholic ones) for human and animal consumption; live animals, seeds, plants and ingredients normally intended for use in preparation of foodstuffs; products normally intended for supplement or substitute foodstuffs.
  2. Water supplies.
  3. Pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health care, prevention of diseases and treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, including products used for contraception and sanitary protection.
  4. Medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled, including the repair of such goods, as well as children car seats.
  5. Transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage.
  6. Supply, including on loan by libraries, of books (including brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, children's pictures, drawing or colouring books, music printed or in manuscript, maps and hydrographical or similar charts), newspapers and periodicals, other than material wholly or substantially devoted to advertising matter.
  7. Admissions to shows, theatres, circuses, fairs, amusement parks, concerts, museums, zoos, cinemas, exhibitions and similar cultural events and facilities, reception of broadcasting services.
  8. Services supplied by or royalties due to writers, composers and performing artists.
  9. Supply, construction, renovation and alteration of housing provided as a part of a social policy.
  10. Supplies of goods and services of a kind normally intended for use in agricultural production but excluding capital goods such as machinery or buildings.
  11. Accommodation provided by hotels and similar establishments including the provision of holiday accommodation and the letting of camping sites and caravan parks.
  12. Admission to sporting events.
  13. Use of sporting facilities.
  14. Supply of goods and services by organizations recognised by the EU countries as charities and engaged in welfare or social security work.
  15. Services supplied by undertakers and cremation services, together with the supply of goods related thereto.
  16. Provision of medical and dental care as well as thermal treatment.
  17. Services supplied in connection with street cleaning, refuse collection and waste treatment.


http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/display.htm?page=rt/rt_ValueAddedTax.html&docType=main&languageId=en

. And you can bet that it won't be too long before the EU dictates that VAT rates should be "harmonized" across all countries. They've been working toward that for years.
Another blatant fallacy:
Taxable transactions are subject to the rates and regulations approved by the EU country to which the goods or services are supplied. Each EU country can fix rates according to the following limits
You're sounding more and more desperate within your outlandish claims.

I really am becoming convinced that you are willing to resort to flagrant deceptive arguments to support your position.

  • EU Army
  • Pan-European Police Force with immunity from prosecution. ( I won't list the various divisions that you mentioned.)
  • EAW
  • VAT not paid or collected along the way for non-EU goods.
  • No VAT Zero rated goods
  • No VAT reduced rates
  • VAT rates harmonized.
  • Finally, Brexit only by force.
You, like F&I, are resorting to invalid arguments which serve to illustrate that there are no valid arguments for Brexit.
 
Last edited:
1. Some folk choose to believe that raping 9 year olds is good because some dusty old book says so.


2. The rampage of muslim rapists has everything to do with the EU

I am absolutely shocked and disgusted that Fire and Ice, or anyone else for that matter, should publish such comments.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top