new skip tax

[ellal]

Yet another U-turn!

The sooner Gideon and his cronies get sent to landfill the better!

 

[oilboffin]

Just been into my veg patch thought I could hear robin gibb singing when I took a look it was just a chive talking

 

[AronSearle]

Yet another U-turn!

The sooner Gideon and his cronies get sent to landfill the better!

The EU has set targets to reduce waste to landfill.

We are heading for very large EU fines if we do not comply.

So this is only a temporary U-turn, or they will apply the tax elsewhere.

Whether it's through your council tax, some kind of bin fine, skip tax, tax on packaging, I don't know, but you WILL be paying for this.

 

[Nige F]

Just been into my veg patch thought I could hear robin gibb singing when I took a look it was just a chive talking

 

[EddieM]

My own personal feeling is that all skips should be emptied at prisons and the inmates forced to sort the rubbish for salvage before any goes to landfill.

I've often thought that the unemployed should all be required to work 8 hours a day down the local tips sorting the rubbish and recycling every last scrap where possible, thus earning their handouts.

Depends on where your "local" recycling centre is does it not, most rubbish is already categorised in local recycling centres, our one is at around 75%.

If your talking about recycling depots, then our nearest one is 40 miles away, so assuming you have to get yourself there and back, it is not economically viable, you cannot run a car on JSA. NIce idea in principal, but unfortunately a rubbish idea practically speaking.

 

[Diane2]

My own personal feeling is that all skips should be emptied at prisons and the inmates forced to sort the rubbish for salvage before any goes to landfill.

I've often thought that the unemployed should all be required to work 8 hours a day down the local tips sorting the rubbish and recycling every last scrap where possible, thus earning their handouts.

Depends on where your "local" recycling centre is does it not, most rubbish is already categorised in local recycling centres, our one is at around 75%.

If your talking about recycling depots, then our nearest one is 40 miles away, so assuming you have to get yourself there and back, it is not economically viable, you cannot run a car on JSA. NIce idea in principal, but unfortunately a rubbish idea practically speaking.

you could keep an army of job seekers busy just sorting thru the bottles and cans you hoard in your kitchen Mr M!!!!!!.........

 

[libby lou lou]

[/quote]

I've often thought that the unemployed should all be required to work 8 hours a day down the local tips sorting the rubbish and recycling every last scrap where possible, thus earning their handouts.[/quote]

As long as your willing to do that, i agree. Are you?.

 

[AronSearle]

I've often thought that the unemployed should all be required to work 8 hours a day down the local tips sorting the rubbish and recycling every last scrap where possible, thus earning their handouts.

As long as your willing to do that, i agree. Are you?.

But muuuuum I don't whana work, whaaaaaaaaaaaaa whaaaaaaaaaa!

Ok dear, I'll just take some money off other people and give it to you, now you just sit down and watch Jeremy kyle you little tike!

 

[wobs]

Care to elaborate or post a link?

google new skip tax


On Friday 18 May, thousands of small businesses in the skip disposal industry, employing 20,000 to 30,000 people, were affected by the changing of the tax rate for the disposal of materials from skips from £2.50 a tonne to £64 a tonne. A typical business with dozens of skips now faces bills of tens of thousands of pounds, with many expected to go out of business, damaging the construction industry still further.

The two new changes to the rules governing Landfill Tax came in on Friday 18 May. The move relates to a judgement in the HMRC v Waste Recycling Group (2008) case.

Material used to protect or ‘provide a suitable stable substrate’ at the top of a landfill will now be taxed. In the past, it has not been taxed as it was seen as an engineering material.

As I understand it, rubble and soil are used at night time to provide a cover for daytime domestic/household refuse as part of tip management and were therefore given an exemption (at £2.50 per tonne) as 'engineering waste'. The ruling has removed that exemption.

As a result, disposal sites have increased the charge per skip by hundreds of pounds almost overnight. For instance, Sita in Morden, Surrey, raised their charge for the smallest skip from £144 to £300 on 28 May.

So the big hike is only for inert waste that is to be used for temperory cover on landfills.

Non-inert rubble already had the higher rate of tax on it.


Further, it seems there is some more clarifying from HMRC:

Mr Bowden-Williams said: "Whilst HMRC have suggested that the waste industry's belief that an increase from £2.50 per tonne to £64 per tonne due on certain waste streams was down to a misunderstanding, it would be surprising if the whole industry really misinterpreted the previous HMRC announcement.

“The fact that HMRC have now issued a clarification (and said that there has been in their view no change in the rules for the tax treatment of such materials since 2009) is welcome, in that there is clarity on what has – or rather what has not– changed.”

He added: "The challenge for the industry now will be to work with the relevant authorities and their advisors to obtain clarity as to what can still theoretically and, importantly, operationally fall within the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Materials) Order 2011 and thus still attract the lower rate of tax. This latest clarification may not therefore be the full response that the entire waste industry will welcome."

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/lat.../expert-warning-over-hmrcs-landfill-tax-paper

Basically, the HMRC calls into question where a material stops being a waste and becomes an engineering material. EG. the clay lining is clearly not a waste, and so is not taxable. But the tempory cover usually made from inert waste is.
The EA discuss it here:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.u..._Modernising_landfill_tax_legislation_v_2.pdf

Following a ruling in 2009 when HMRC was forced to rebate £300m in tax that had been paid on waste used for engineering purposes, new regulations were put in place to restrict what could be used for engineering without paying tax. The Landfill Tax (Prescribed Landfill Site Activities) Order 2009 ensured that most engineering activities were liable.

Further regulations were then published in 2011 that specified the type of material that could be classed as inert waste, attracting the lower rate of tax. Of particular note was the exclusion of topsoil. The Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 2011 allowed a degree of non-inert contamination, but guidance issued by HMRC on 18th May 2012 tightened up that position and stated that treated waste from transfer stations - fines and screenings - should all be classed as standard rate liable as it cannot be determined that they will not contain standard rate materials.

HMRC stress that this Guidance has simply clarified their position as there had been concerns expressed by larger waste companies that the rules were being flouted allowing standard rate material to be landfilled at the lower rate of tax, thereby providing an unfair commercial advantage. However, a strong reaction by some parts of the waste industry had led to further clarification which allows fines from inert materials to still be landfilled as inert waste.

http://www.360environmental.co.uk/legislation/waste_legislation/landfill_tax/

What the HMRC have said is that the trommel finings have been classed by waste operators as inert, and going in on the lower rate. They are saying that this must stop.

http://www.360environmental.co.uk/news/469/

A fairly detailed explanation here:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/excise-duty/brief1512.htm

However, HMRC has received a number of claims from landfill site operators and their advisers that relate to materials which are said to be used to protect or provide a suitable stable substrate for the overlying layers at the top of a landfill cell. This material is often referred to as a 'landfill reverse fluff layer' or 'top fluff layer' as opposed to a 'landfill fluff layer', which describes material used for basal landfill engineering to protect the integrity of the lining system.

HMRC has discussed these claims widely, including with site operators and the Environment Agency ('EA'), and have undertaken site visits to inform its decision. It has concluded that the so-called reverse or top fluff layer constitutes careful placement of soft waste that should not cause damage to the cap or regulating layer placed above and should be (and always should have been) liable to Landfill Tax as the waste material is disposed with the intention of discarding it and the disposal does not constitute a use of that material. However, HMRC accepts that the material placed to form the regulating layer (by providing protection to the overlying geo-synthetic engineered cap) would constitute a 'use', up to the time the 2009 Order came into force on 1 September 2009. The basis for this conclusion is that such a regulating layer is an engineering specification which would be set out in specific agreements between the site operator and the EA.

Landfill site operators and their advisers who have made such claims will have them rejected insofar as they relate to the so-called reverse or top fluff layer and any further such claims that are submitted will be rejected.

 

[Norcon]

What about the haulage licence? What is it but a yearly tax?

Its for hauliers making a profit from hauling goods. Those with lorries for thier own business and operating within a certain radius have always been exempt afaik.

Well we've got a small lorry and it doesn't haul goods for profit and it will be on ebay shortly as this exemption is being ended. More crippling costs imposed by greedy governments on businesses trying to survive.
Of course it will mean less white diesel revenue for the coffers.
Tractors on red diesel (which we already have) are the way forward at the moment until such time they think of a way to stifle that option.