VAT hypothetical.
 

If you were PM and had power to manipulate what was subject to VAT what would you have it on?
There are those who think it should be added to pop as the sugar adds to obesity. An idea similar to the shelved 'pasty tax'.
Would you stick to the 'luxury' tax added to confectionery and sanitary products in supermarkets?
Would you add it to fuel bills?

I'm going to mainly stick with food and basics because it would take forever to consider every consumer product type!

Zero on raw foods and ingredients, other household essentials, clothes, and energy!... moderate tax on packaged / prepared food of all kinds, a large tax on junk foods full of sugar and all forms of "ready meals".

Both tobacco and alcohol... I would tax through the roof. I'm talking a cheap bottle of vodka costing £30+ and no bottle of wine costing under £10, or can of beer under £2. That would apply to retail sales only though, I wouldn't apply it so heavily to pubs / bars / clubs... Basically, I would like to see it at the point where it isn't significantly cheaper to be downing vodka at home than to go out for a drink.

Cigarettes I'd happily see hit £20 a pack.


I'd probably also add an extra tax to luxuries like electrical goods...

I am not very well read as far as politics is concerned Kizzy,but if I was PM,I would put VAT on luxury items,more on cigarettes and alchohol,is that bad?:hugesmile:

No it's bad for the companies whose profits would be affected, but seeing as they are addictive substances the would still sell I'm sure :laugh:
Maybe the VAT could be on a sliding scale that corresponds to the ABV?
I would remove it from energy and sanitary products as I don't really class those as a luxury :/

I was going to say that I don't consider sanitary products and nappies etc,are luxuries and should exempt,imo.

Jamie Oliver calls for a tax on sugar in drinks on newsnight :D

Jamie Oliver gets on my tits.
He needs to get back into the kitchen :idc:
If people are paying over £1.50 a bottle of pop in restaurants then an extra 10p won't matter.
Parents need to take responsibility for their little darlings consuming so much sugar, teach them young I say.

id scrap it totally. its simply been abused by the rich to put it on the poor people and meanwhile the rich claim it all back. its an enslavement tax which I hate more than hitler and satan put together

What better than someone who understands food to advise on it?
If an industry has as much influence via media presence, sponsorship of major events and sports and dominance on the high street is any parental guidance a bit like pissing in the wind?....
I believe the boom in diabetes and fatty liver disease should be laid for the greatest part at the fizzy drinks market, I like Jamie believe they should be taxed.

Yeah yeah yeah..Jamie yakking on again, showing us all how he is no longer porky himself.:laugh:
Here we go again..last time he was teaching the poor how to cook, getting down with them and effing and jeffing.
I have never found any of our parental guidance like pissing in the wind, hard work I know, but thankfully some of it sinks in.

If he wants to spend his time, energy, money and effort helping people then I really don't get the negative press the guy gets to be fair. Everything he has done or proposed to do has been for the benefit of the many, and has improved many areas for young children in schools.

Aye, he does like a crusade..oh hang on, does he have another TV show just started.:laugh:
To be fair to him, as much as he loves to promote himself, he does help others.
He used to be my favourite cheffy back in the day.

A report on sugar’s ruinous effects on people’s health that was controversially delayed by Jeremy Hunt urges ministers to impose a “sugar tax” and crack down on the marketing of unhealthy products to children and two-for-one deals in supermarkets in a bid to tackle childhood obesity.

The report, compiled by Public Health England, (PHE), the government’s own advisory group, sets out a range of tough policies that need to be taken to reduce the consumption of sugary foods and drinks that are fuelling the obesity crisis and costing the NHS £.5.1bn a year.

It is being published later today, but the Guardian has obtained an advance copy.

Its recommendations – including for the high amounts of sugar to be stripped out of many everyday food products – pose a serious challenge for ministers including the prime minister David Cameron, who have consistently ruled out bringing in any sort of a “sugar tax”, as advocated by Jamie Oliver and many medical groups and health charities.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...action-obesity

But if we take all the sugar away what will the private dentists do?They'll be out of business.

They should tax self promoting preachers.

Like doctors? it's them who are suggesting this is needed.

Before anyone decides what goods they're going to exempt from VAT, I'd like to hear how you're going to make up that cash.

I was talking about Jamie Oliver. It's all about self promotion.

Unless he's a "celebrity doctor" now?

No, his information is provided from the medical profession. But by all means scoff it doesn't make the reality of what he says any more or less credible whoever promotes it.

I would make up the cash by adding VAT to betting, gaming and lotteries.

"Cigarettes I'd happily see hit £20 a pack."


No TS that would start a War.

I do not smoke
but massive price increase is just not realistic

I've not scoffed at anything.

If you think Jamie Oliver preaches what he does out of his concern for the wellbeing of Britain's population then that's your prerogative. Where he gets his information from is immaterial to what I was saying.

Betting
Cigarettes

I wouldn't tax sanitary products as they are a necessity and from a selfish point of view wouldn't tax alcohol either

Whether he is merely a celebrity mouthpiece, he appears to truly believe in what he advocates. He isn't an actor therefore I believe him when he states that these are matters he personally feels strongly about, as cynical as the next man I am.

Great. :laugh: What being an actor has to do with it I don't know.

But there's something completely insincere about him for me. :think:

If he was insincere and it purely was for self promotion he would have to be an award winning actor is my point, as he always convinces me over the years that this chef is entirely passionate about the causes he backs.

i've never liked Jamie Oliver, he does tend to attach himself to causes for his own self promotion. As to sugar, its just one aspect of the issue where parents find it difficult to say no to their screaming children or feed them stuff for an easy life.

Everyone has known the dangers of sugar for at least a couple of generations, taxing it is not the answer just as its not the answer to stopping those that smoke or drink.

It is becoming more widely known yes but where is the clarity... that is the message.
How much is too much, are companies open about the content in foods/drinks to aid people make better choices?

Taxing sugar is not the answer I agree. Which takes us back to cigarettes and gambling, hitting the poor the most.

Its not a simple issue. For example sugar is part of the manufacturing process of alcohol. Sugar in its natural form in fruits is just as bad for you as sugar in refined format.

Eat carbohydrates and your body converts that to sugar, which again, is just as bad for you,

These people are being overly simplistic and not addressing the real issue - that people are not eating balanced diets, How do we tax that ... you didnt have meat and 3 veg today - pay 5 quid tax, do not pass go.

Yes, exactly. Educating is key. Taxing is pointless.

Taxing will not achieve what Jamie Oliver appears to want.

Only a matter of time before it's dictated exactly what we all must eat and in what quantity. You can advise people, trying to force them into certain changes with ridiculous suggestions like this doesn't do anyone or anything any good.

Don't people across the board smoke and gamble? If you have more money you gamble more and therefore would pay more VAT.

This isn't suggesting fruit and carbs be taxed no.

But the point is that they have the same effect and its not addressing the fundamental issue. Like with smoking and drinking - education is the only solution

So would you take the VAT from both of those?

Both of what? Neither are taxed on their sugar content are they?

They both have advice on their use, have a proven medical implication and are subject to VAT therefore they are comparable.

But they've not yet had any VAT dependent on how healthy they are so, to me, they aren't comparable to what's being suggested with sugar content.

Yes Sly that
in his Café he sells Fizzy Drinks
making sure all Around the World
come to his Crap Cafe

tbh I think VAT should be lowered to the lowest possible (15% as per EU rules) and then put things like sugary drinks & extremely fatty foods at 20%.

It's too high, and we should be raising income tax for the richest individuals instead.

Some Fats are Good for you
its to Complex to do that.


Typical of you JoshBB