The real problem with the EU is whose in control.

[Himaginn]

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

No, I'm just asking you to suggest a few things in which EU regulations today are no more encompassing and no more restrictive than they were, say, 20 years ago.

Your question is nonsensical. It's like the MD of Heathrow saying "this is not just an airport." So you ask, "show me when planes have not been landing then."
The obvious benefit of EU harmonisation of systems and procedures is in order to facilitate the four freedoms.
But you're applying your own interpretation of harmonisation of systems and procedures to be "more restrictive. That's purely your negative perception of EU."
How can the four freedoms be possibly interpreted as "more restrictive"?

What's the point I've shown you various documented evidence to disprove your claim, yet you have dismissed them all.

You've shown documents suggesting that the European Parliament has "legislative initiative" and can "request" that the Commission submits certain proposals for new or amended legislation. You've not actually shown anything which states, clearly and unequivocably, that the Commission must do so when requested. M.E.P.'s could request all they want, but if the Commission is not obliged to honor those requests and refuses to do so, then it does come down to the Commission still being in charge of what legislation is proposed to the European Parliament.

What do you imagine that "legislative initiative" means?
You seem to be superimposing some child-like attitudes on the EU Parliament and you have some misconception of how normal people behave.
My boss "requests" that I do some work. I don't really have an option and if I refused I'd soon be out the door.
But my boss is a reasonable fellow and doesn't say to me "Do some work or else!"
Your experiences may be different, but the average person requests something, even though there's no option 'cos it allows polite relations to continue.
Now if you want to insist on your childish idea that a subservient commission can ignore the will of parliament, I've got no chance of dissuading you.

 

[Himaginn]

This discussion is about whether we should vote to leave EU or stay in. Now if you want to base your whole decision on the vagaries of the VAT system or its comparison with some other system, that's entirely up to you. For me the 'trade' argument trumps all those other arguments.

How can you separate the trade argument from VAT when they are so closely interlinked, and when you, yourself, are claiming that it's somehow necessary for VAT systems to be "harmonized" across the EU for that trade?

You're so engrossed with the minutiae of VAT that you're missing the big picture.
The discussion is about being IN or OUT. If we're OUT, then the VAT between UK and other member states may well disappear along with the trade!
Then you'll have no VAT in which to become so minutely inspective.

It's very simple, there are no zero rated VAT categories in EU, but they allow them for those counties that have a legacy of zero ratings.

Yes, but the question was about the practical effect of the difference on U.K. businesses trading in exempt goods and services versus those trading in zero-rated items.

Like I said, the discussion is about being IN or OUT, not about the minutiae of VAT.
Perhaps after the referendum ,if it's to remain IN, you'd like to start a thread about the minutiae of VAT.

 

[jockscott]

Now if you want to insist on your childish idea that a subservient commission can ignore the will of parliament, I've got no chance of dissuading you.

Do you seriously think the European Commission is "subservient" to the European Parliament ??

 

[PBC_1966]

I am amused that you are pretending that goods don't get sent to the UK from other countries.

Where did I ever suggest or imply that?

 

[PBC_1966]

How can the four freedoms be possibly interpreted as "more restrictive"?

Because the EU's idea of "freedom" is that you can do whatever it is so long as you comply with a whole extra range of regulations. As I said before, the EU makes much talk of a "free market" when what it seeks is a highly regulated, controlled market. But EU supporters refuse to accept that.

You're so engrossed with the minutiae of VAT that you're missing the big picture..

The VAT issue has arisen because it's so closely associated with EU trade, and because you seem to be defending the EU's push for more and more "harmonization" of VAT between member countries when you don't even seem to have a grasp of how the basic system works; and when you keep insisting that it's somehow obvious that a common system is needed despite the fact that no such common system exists within a single country which has completely free trade between states with no problems whatsoever. But because that shoots down your argument that a common VAT system is so essential, you just try and dismiss it as being irrelevant.

I think it's time for me to withdraw from this particular debate.,

 

[Himaginn]

Now if you want to insist on your childish idea that a subservient commission can ignore the will of parliament, I've got no chance of dissuading you.

Do you seriously think the European Commission is "subservient" to the European Parliament ??

We've dealt with this in some depth. Do keep up with current topics, not drag up old arguments.
Oh, and check out the EU Parliament, Council and Commission structure.

 

[Himaginn]

How can the four freedoms be possibly interpreted as "more restrictive"?

Because the EU's idea of "freedom" is that you can do whatever it is so long as you comply with a whole extra range of regulations. As I said before, the EU makes much talk of a "free market" when what it seeks is a highly regulated, controlled market. But EU supporters refuse to accept that.

The whole of society is based on freedom within boundaries.

You're so engrossed with the minutiae of VAT that you're missing the big picture..

The VAT issue has arisen because it's so closely associated with EU trade, and because you seem to be defending the EU's push for more and more "harmonization" of VAT between member countries when you don't even seem to have a grasp of how the basic system works; and when you keep insisting that it's somehow obvious that a common system is needed despite the fact that no such common system exists within a single country which has completely free trade between states with no problems whatsoever. But because that shoots down your argument that a common VAT system is so essential, you just try and dismiss it as being irrelevant.

I think it's time for me to withdraw from this particular debate.,

That's a good idea because your comment above is convoluted and contradictory.
The idea of facilitating the four freedoms by harmonising systems wouldn't be necessary if the various systems weren't different.
It's because they are different, or that legacy differences remain, that means further harmonisation is preferable.

Your comparison with USA is fallacious because USA has common systems of usage or sales taxation throughout USA, it's the rates that vary, (including some zero rates.)
To suggest that no problems occur with inter-state trade does nothing to illustrate the complexity of other types of taxation. In addition the major taxation involved with trade, such as pay-roll taxes are federal taxes, so common systems and rates apply. To illustrate my points any further would lead us into a detailed discussion about taxation in USA, and that is something I have no wish to do.
And, as I said, this discussion is not about comparison or variances of various tax systems.

 

[PBC_1966]

because USA has common systems of usage or sales taxation throughout USA

No it doesn't. As I said earlier, some states tax a variety of both goods and services and the list varies from state to state; here in California certain goods are taxed but no services; a few states, such as Oregon, have no sales tax at all.

 

[Himaginn]

because USA has common systems of usage or sales taxation throughout USA

No it doesn't. As I said earlier, some states tax a variety of both goods and services and the list varies from state to state; here in California certain goods are taxed but no services; a few states, such as Oregon, have no sales tax at all.

The system is the same. It's a sales or use tax. The rates may vary, even the items within the categories may vary, but the system is the same.
UK harmonised with EU VAT system, which was a different system to that in force prior to UK joining EU, when it was a purchase tax system.

With VAT within EU, rates vary and there's some variation of items within categories, if you accept UK's and Malta's zero rate as a category, France's 2.1% as a separate category, Ireland's 4.8% or 0% as separate categories, Italy's 4% as a separate category, Luxembourg's 3% as a separate category, etc.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between system and rates.

 

[PBC_1966]

But earlier on you were talking about "harmonization" of the various VAT systems across the EU, suggesting that a common system requires items to be in same categories (exempt, reduced rate, standard rate etc.) even if the rates are different. Now when it comes to the U.S. you say that it's the same system even though different states categorize various goods and services in completely different ways.

You can't have it both ways: If you now want to claim that sales tax in the U.S. is the "same system" across the whole country (even though a few states don't even have any sales tax!) then there's no reason that EU countries could not also have completely different categories while still operating the same basic VAT system of tax being paid and reclaimed at each step except the final consumer.

 

[Himaginn]

But earlier on you were talking about "harmonization" of the various VAT systems across the EU, suggesting that a common system requires items to be in same categories (exempt, reduced rate, standard rate etc.) even if the rates are different. Now when it comes to the U.S. you say that it's the same system even though different states categorize various goods and services in completely different ways.

The similarity is that EU member countries set various different rates and have various goods and service in different categories, except those defined by EU.
US states have a similar situation, various rates and various goods and services in different categories, except that laid down by federal government for excise taxes, on such goods/services as alcohol, tobacco, tires, gasoline, diesel fuel, etc, which are common and standard throughout USA.
The EU system is common throughout EU, and the US system is common throughout USA.

You can't have it both ways: If you now want to claim that sales tax in the U.S. is the "same system" across the whole country (even though a few states don't even have any sales tax!) then there's no reason that EU countries could not also have completely different categories while still operating the same basic VAT system of tax being paid and reclaimed at each step except the final consumer.

I can have it, and I do have it both ways.
There are some variations in some goods/services throughout EU, for those goods/services not included in the defined list, just as there is in USA.
There are also some EU wide standards that are complied with, just as there are some federal excise taxes in USA.
The EU defined list may be more definitive than the USA federal list, but the similarities are there.

 

[PBC_1966]

You're now confusing two completely different taxes: Federal excise taxes have nothing to do with state sales taxes.

 

[Himaginn]

You're now confusing two completely different taxes: Federal excise taxes have nothing to do with state sales taxes.

I know that, but they are both levied on (some) goods and services. That's the US system, which is different to the EU system.
In EU there's VAT, in US there's sales tax and excise tax.

Enough already, I didn't want to get into a discussion on the comparison and variations of different systems.

 

[PBC_1966]

And in the U.K. there is duty on some things (petrol, alcohol etc.) which is very similar to federal excise taxes here and in no way related to VAT, just as American federal excise taxes aren't related to state sales taxes. So I really don't see what point you were trying to make by referring to them when the comparison was between VAT/sales tax.

 

[Himaginn]

And in the U.K. there is duty on some things (petrol, alcohol etc.) which is very similar to federal excise taxes here and in no way related to VAT, just as American federal excise taxes aren't related to state sales taxes. So I really don't see what point you were trying to make by referring to them when the comparison was between VAT/sales tax.

So more variation of rates between EU member states, yet more common systems. Fuel, alcohol and tobacco are covered by EU regulations and excise duty is charged. But member countries can set their own rates.
Some services are exempt form VAT according to EU so UK applies a special tax, such as on insurance, gambling, etc, so member countries can deal with them as they see fit.

You really are delving into the minutiae of tax in order to make a point of whether UK should be IN or OUT. Don't you think we've explored the tax systems sufficiently yet?
It has no bearing on the bigger picture.