Helmet VAT - or not?

Received a letter this morning via my elected member (ooh, er, missus!!!)
from John Healey MP of HM Treasury, which included the following:

"As you may be aware, the European Commission has recently proposed changes
to the reduced rate provisions in the EC Sixth VAT Directive, and there are
understandable concerns about the effects these proposals would have on some
of the UK's VAT zero rates. We made clear at the outset of the current
negotiations that the Commission's proposals are unacceptable.

The number of zero rates threatened is long and detailed, but in aggregate
their withdrawal would fall on low-income families, charities and disabled
people, as well as motorcycle users. We will not allow proposals to pass
which would damage the fairness of our VAT system and undermine our social
objectives."

As they say, you can tell when a politician is lying because his lips are
moving, but this seems a pretty clear statement of intention. When the shit
hits the fan, of course, I guess we have to question whether helmet VAT
would be expendable to save sacred vote-keepers such as zero rating on kids'
clothes remains to be seen.

Over to you lot......

 

snip

I guess we have to question whether helmet VAT

snip

IIRC all 'safety' equipment is zero rated for vat.
Books, maybe amongst other things, are too for that matter.

Suppose the best hope for continuing exemption is the ammunition it feeds
the anti-Europe lobby.

Exempting kids clothes would be more credible if so many of the little sods
didn't spend so much on crap designs put together by ham-fisted slave
labour, paying a fortune for the designer labels. Fk 'em. Let them carry
the tax tab too - It'll only go onto something else otherwise. But then
again ...... half the over 10s these days are taller than me & catch vat
anyway so where's the difference?


--
Nidge
ZX6R J2 Stunning in zit yellow. Bits of CB500S in Norwegian Parrot blue.
BOTAFOT#63

'Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand'.
(Homer Simpson).

 

The Observinator wrote

Only right and proper really. What was the issue again?

See there is enormous administrative problems with multi rating stuff
for the VATman so they would like to see the system made simple and if
everything is simple treated the same under the VAT system there would
be a lot less paperwork to do for everyone and the EEC would have even
more money to oil the wheels of the gravy train.

In addition, the old liberal idea of giving state subsidies to poor
people with 3 or more A levels per household has fallen out of favour
and is being replaced by the old socialist idea of giving poor people a
pay rise and then taxing them equally with rich people back into penury.

 

I've never liked the children's clothing exemption as when I was a child I
only benefited from this in my early childhood due to size restrictions. It
seems to benefit well off parents albeit ones with small children. Far
better to apply the VAT and give the money gained out in family allowance or
whatever it's called now.

Zero rating of VAT for personal protective equipment is a more difficult
area. In theory it's a good idea but should you get your Doctor Marten boots
VAT free if you don't use them in a work environment that requires them such
as factory or workshop? It's a difficult argument. For something like a
day-glo vest or a crash helmet it is unlikely to be used for anything other
than PPE. Although the latest Dianesse leather jacket could be classed as
PPE but be bought as a fashion item and never be worn on a bike.

 

They make you wear it and then they want a cut of the procedes. Doesn't
seem fair somehow.

I doubt if it would make a difference to the price of top-of-the range
lids, as they have enough margin absorb most of the tax, but budget
lids would suffer as they operate on much smaller margins. Thus, (once
again) the poorest are hit most harshly.

 

Maybe that's the criteria that should be adopted. Helmet use is compulsory
so should be zero rated. Dianesse leather jackets with CE armour are not and
should have VAT applied.

 

Observinator - over to you. We shouldn't pay VAT on items that we are
required to wear. Off to http://www.faxyourmp.com/ .

 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:58:29 GMT, "Helium"

Try snipping before you proceed to posting in future, eh?

And as to your point - motor insurance is compulsory and the gummint
gets a cut. Buildings insurance, come to that, whilst not compulsory
you cannot have a mortgage without it - the gummint gets a cut. Fuel
taxation, whisky taxation ... stop bleating and accept the facts of
life.

 

Big Tony wibbled incoherently...

I'd love to hear Paul Varnsverry's opinion on this.


--
Lozzo
ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CBCBCB750RSRSRS
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, two#49, MIB#22, TCP#7, BONY#9,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, KoBV#3.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
www.mjkleathers.com

 

Using the patented Mavis Bacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo

"Pathetically Poor Equipment"?

 

All the LJs that I've seen have a label sewn to an inside seam that
specifically denies that they can be classed as PPE and that no
liability will attach to the manufacturer as a result of any injury
suffered while wearing said jacket.

The only PPEish bits are the CE protectors.

I hasten to add that I do understand that some leathers can be so
classed as PPE, but I am unlikely to ever be rich enough to even read
the labels.

 

BTDT - he was the source of the letter quoted in my original posting.
Wouldn't hurt if a few more of us made some noise though....