VAT lies

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Blogg, Nov 26, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Well well. Cannot even lie properly

    "The finding will prove deeply embarrassing to the Chancellor, who had insisted that the only taxpayers to face higher taxes after the recession would be Britain's richest residents.

    Accounting sources said they had been told by the Treasury that the planned increase in VAT was rejected in favour of a new top tax rate of 45 percent for those earning more than £150,000.

    However, accountants said the explanation ``did not stack up'' because the new tax rate is only expected to raise £670m in 2011-12. "
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    It was rejected because whilst may be a correct economic decision it is by no way politically acceptable. Bad news, even if it is for a while in the future, will damage the here and now fight to mend the public perception and fear of a deepening recession.
  3. We have seen all too often how Torygraph anonymous quotes have been used to back up a journalists imagination. I would trust the article if Messrs Winnett, Osborne, Conway and Tibbetts had stated who the sources were.
  4. The source was a Treasury document that was published by mistake.

    Even if the government has ruled it out until the end of time, the fact that they're so inept as to publish the damn thing, with all the political ramifications associated with raising VAT (does anyone else remember Brown's completely unsourced and unsubtatitated claim that the Tories intended to raise VAT that was peddled prior to either the 1997 or 2001 elections, BTW?) doesn't exactly fill one with confidence...

    I think your chap Vince has summed up the issue well, Sven:

    (source the link you provided).
  5. I apologise, I referred to the accountant sources who "said the explanation ``did not stack up'' because the new tax rate is only expected to raise £670m in 2011-12. ""
  6. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator


    As the original document with the fact of the internal discussion about an increase to VAT came directly from a HMG site, published by the Treasury, I would have thought that was good enough for you for once.

    Analysis requires no sourcing - it is after all, analysis. :roll:
  7. . . . . .and in reference to Vinces quote, when he said it, I would have agreed. But since then Brown has said that there was not a chance of him allowing a VAT rise - ref PMQs today.
  8. I disagree.
    The correct economic decision would be a proper and honest review of the way Whiehall pishes money away in huge amounts.
    Raising tax is not of benefit the the public, a properly targetted drastic reduction in public spending is.
  9. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Of course he is going to say that, you ejit. How could he say anything else? :roll:

    I really didn't think you were that naive. You going do-la-lay in your old age?
  10. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    You are talking tactics rather than strategy. Try to think bigger, mate :D
  11. Did I hear this morning, that the new VAT rate was not legally enforceable,and businesess were not obliged to pass it on?
  12. Darling said yesterday that they could not cut VAT further because of EU laws.
  13. Sven, so if Broon says something it must be true, bollix, if Broon says anything it is certainly a lie, thats all he and the other creeps in Zanu-Liarbore know how to do.
  14. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    No what he said was he was restricted to a cut of no more than 2.5% in one go.....
  15. My misunderstanding then, thanks ITC