Chancellors Fuel subsidy package

[Jack Harry Teesdale]

Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.

[Jeff Layman]

On 29/05/2022 13:09, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
> Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
> announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.

Perhaps this will answer your question:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61522123>

--

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

In message <t6vnqm$ol9$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:09:54 on Sun, 29 May
2022, Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply49...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy
>package announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.

What EU Directive might have prohibited it? Given the relatively few
that we've even now got around to officially repealing (rather than
adopting them all, to be weeded out later), it shouldn't be that hard to
find.
--
Roland Perry

[Owain Lastname]

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 14:47:47 UTC+1, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
> Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
> announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.

I don't see why not.
And the EU has recently revoked the minimum 5% VAT ruling too, so energy can be zero-rated.

Owain

[Jeff Gaines]

On 29/05/2022 in message <t70gju$u5b$1...@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:09:54 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>
>>Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
>>announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.
>

>Of course. Why would you think he wouldn't ?
>
>There was nothing in the UKs membership of the EU that prevented
>anything as the UK has never ceased being a sovereign power.

Except putting a crown on pint glasses or using imperial weights and
measures?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
All things being equal, fat people use more soap

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-05-29, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 in message <t70gju$u5b$1...@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:09:54 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>>>Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
>>>announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.
>>
>>Of course. Why would you think he wouldn't ?
>>
>>There was nothing in the UKs membership of the EU that prevented
>>anything as the UK has never ceased being a sovereign power.
>
> Except putting a crown on pint glasses or using imperial weights and
> measures?

No, we could always do those things.

[Pamela]

The Crown symbol could not be placed on pint glasses between 2006 and
2020 reference regulation 21(2) of The Capacity Serving Measures
(Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1988 which states -

"No capacity serving measure shall be stamped if it bears any other mark
which, in the opinion of the inspector, might reasonably be mistaken for
the stamp or an expression of approval or guarantee of accuracy."

If the crown was simply decoration of the glass it might have been
permitted.

[Jon Ribbens]

That's a UK law, not an EU law.

[JNugent]

On 29/05/2022 08:13 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:09:54 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>

>> Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
>> announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.
>

> Of course. Why would you think he wouldn't ?
>

> There was nothing in the UKs membership of the EU that *prevented*

> anything as the UK has never ceased being a sovereign power.

Not even the mandatory imposition of VAT on domestic Fuel, plus the
handing over of some or all of that to the EU?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-05-30, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 08:13 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:09:54 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>>> Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
>>> announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.
>>
>> Of course. Why would you think he wouldn't ?
>>
>> There was nothing in the UKs membership of the EU that *prevented*
>> anything as the UK has never ceased being a sovereign power.
>
> Not even the mandatory imposition of VAT on domestic Fuel,

I think Jethro's point was rather pedantic - we *could* have passed
any law we liked, but with some possible laws there may have been
consequences had we done so (which also decribes the situation now,
of course).

> plus the handing over of some or all of that to the EU?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <slrnt992dn.4...@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> writes

There's very little in EU Law that we were 'forced' to obey.
Very little was against our national interests, and in many cases were
probably complicit in its formulation. [Admittedly, sometimes we have
been possibly been rather too keen to apply (or even over-apply) certain
regulations, while certain other EU members have chosen to ignore them.]
--
Ian

[Jon Ribbens]

Indeed. If the UK law did indeed ban the "crown mark", that was due
to the UK's well-known habit of "gold-plating" regulations and going
beyond what the EU actually asked for.

(Probably in this case because nobody actually gave a shit about
the crown mark when it was phased out, because at the time the UK
had not yet been destroyed by Brexit.)

[JNugent]

The Common Market / EEC / EU had the right to receive a proportion of
the VAT paid on purchases made in the UK. And that right was complied
with by the UK Treasury.

[Jon Ribbens]

If you say so. This must have been in the olden days when, if the UK
signed up to an international treaty, it could be relied upon to
stick to its word.

[JNugent]

Do you mean that you didn't know that a proportion of VAT was paid over
to the EU?

That is why it was verboten to zero-rate things on which VAT had
previously been charged, or to reduce the VAT rate below a certain level
(5% springs to mind).

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 11:06 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2022 10:25 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-30, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> plus the handing over of some or all of that to the EU?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
>>>
>>> The Common Market / EEC / EU had the right to receive a proportion of
>>> the VAT paid on purchases made in the UK. And that right was complied
>>> with by the UK Treasury.
>>
>> If you say so. This must have been in the olden days when, if the UK
>> signed up to an international treaty, it could be relied upon to
>> stick to its word.
>
> Do you mean that you didn't know that a proportion of VAT was paid over
> to the EU?

That is rather over-simplifying things. I guess VAT figures are seen
as a reasonable proxy for the size of the consumer economy.

> That is why it was verboten to zero-rate things on which VAT had
> previously been charged, or to reduce the VAT rate below a certain level
> (5% springs to mind).

15%. But your explanation makes little sense, except for the bit about
disallowing zero-rate, since the VAT rate doesn't affect the EU's
revenues.

[JNugent]

On 31/05/2022 11:29 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2022 11:06 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2022 10:25 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-30, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> plus the handing over of some or all of that to the EU?
>
>>>>> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
>
>>>> The Common Market / EEC / EU had the right to receive a proportion of
>>>> the VAT paid on purchases made in the UK. And that right was complied
>>>> with by the UK Treasury.
>
>>> If you say so. This must have been in the olden days when, if the UK
>>> signed up to an international treaty, it could be relied upon to
>>> stick to its word.
>
>> Do you mean that you didn't know that a proportion of VAT was paid over
>> to the EU?
>
> That is rather over-simplifying things. I guess VAT figures are seen
> as a reasonable proxy for the size of the consumer economy.

You didn't know.

That's OK. You cannot be expected to be omniscient.

>> That is why it was verboten to zero-rate things on which VAT had
>> previously been charged, or to reduce the VAT rate below a certain level
>> (5% springs to mind).

> 15%.

It was lower than that, otherwise the 5% VAT rate on domestic fuel could
not have existed. But it did.

> But your explanation makes little sense, except for the bit about
> disallowing zero-rate, since the VAT rate doesn't affect the EU's
> revenues.

How could reducing a rate to 0% not affect the EU's cut?

[kat]

There were 2 rates. 15% was the usual minimum, 5% was an allowed lower one for
certain things ( And possible zero rates on one or two historically zero rated
items in some countries) . At least that was the rule before we left, and more
recent events. Numbers might have changed.

>
>> But your explanation makes little sense, except for the bit about
>> disallowing zero-rate, since the VAT rate doesn't affect the EU's
>> revenues.
>
> How could reducing a rate to 0% not affect the EU's cut?
>

Any reduction at all would. I don't know if they took a direct percentage of
all VAT takings, but the amount of VAT collected is at the least a part of the
calculation made for each country's contribution to EU funds. I have seen it
suggested they take 20% of all VAT collected, but I cannot confirm it. Either
way any VAT reduction means less revenue for them to have a bit of.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> posted

>On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:09:54 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>

>> Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy package
>> announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.
>

>Of course. Why would you think he wouldn't ?
>
>There was nothing in the UKs membership of the EU that *prevented*
>anything as the UK has never ceased being a sovereign power.

Of course there was.

--
Algernon

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 11:29 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2022 11:06 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-31, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/05/2022 10:25 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-30, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>> plus the handing over of some or all of that to the EU?
>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
>>
>>>>> The Common Market / EEC / EU had the right to receive a proportion of
>>>>> the VAT paid on purchases made in the UK. And that right was complied
>>>>> with by the UK Treasury.
>>
>>>> If you say so. This must have been in the olden days when, if the UK
>>>> signed up to an international treaty, it could be relied upon to
>>>> stick to its word.
>>
>>> Do you mean that you didn't know that a proportion of VAT was paid over
>>> to the EU?
>>
>> That is rather over-simplifying things. I guess VAT figures are seen
>> as a reasonable proxy for the size of the consumer economy.
>
> You didn't know.
>
> That's OK. You cannot be expected to be omniscient.

Of course; I never claimed to be. But it didn't help that it isn't
true in the overly simplistic way you have stated it.

>>> That is why it was verboten to zero-rate things on which VAT had
>>> previously been charged, or to reduce the VAT rate below a certain level
>>> (5% springs to mind).
>
>> 15%.
>
> It was lower than that, otherwise the 5% VAT rate on domestic fuel could
> not have existed. But it did.

There's a specific list of items which have a lower minimum of 5%.
But in general the minimum is 15%.

[JNugent]

> But in general the minimum is 15%...

...except for the items to which 5% or 0% applied.

Thanks for the clarification.

>>> But your explanation makes little sense, except for the bit about
>>> disallowing zero-rate, since the VAT rate doesn't affect the EU's
>>> revenues.
>
>> How could reducing a rate to 0% not affect the EU's cut?
>
> "except for the bit about disallowing zero-rate"

As another poster might put it, that was a hypothetical.

How much would the EU have been allocated out of 0%?

[Jon Ribbens]

Remember what I said about replying but not responding? This is now the
third time I have said "except for the bit about disallowing zero-rate"
and yet you have still somehow failed to read and understand it.

But regardless, if we suppose that a particular item costs €100 but is
zero-rated so the VAT is €0, the answer is that the EU will take more
than €0, because, as I said, your original statement was over-simplistic
to the point of being untrue.

[JNugent]

We are all aware that the EU does not allow vassal states any room over
the EU's share of the booty.

So how much would the EU take out of £0.00?

If the answer partially involves an assertion that the rate doesn't
affect the EU's cut, why were there de minimis VAT rates? Just for fun
(or its opposite)?

Why can't member states charge 0% on anything and/or everything, whilst
maintaining the pretence that there is a VAT being collected, albeit at
a rate of 0%?

[Roger Hayter]

Because the main point of minimum VAT rates was not to maximise contributions
to the EU budget (which in our case were negotiated downwards anyway) but for
economic convergence and a level playing field for commerce and industry.

--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-01, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 01/06/2022 12:44 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Remember what I said about replying but not responding? This is now the
>> third time I have said "except for the bit about disallowing zero-rate"
>> and yet you have still somehow failed to read and understand it.
>>
>> But regardless, if we suppose that a particular item costs €100 but is
>> zero-rated so the VAT is €0, the answer is that the EU will take more
>> than €0, because, as I said, your original statement was over-simplistic
>> to the point of being untrue.
>
> We are all aware that the EU does not allow vassal states any room over
> the EU's share of the booty.

I suppose that's technically true, in that the EU doesn't *have* any
"vassal states", and things that don't exist get no say over anything.
But it's completely - and famously - false when it comes to the member
states (for one thing, you've forgotten that the UK had a discount).

I don't know why you're still bothering to post falsehoods about the
EU. You are aware that the UK is no longer an EU member state, right?
Are you worried that we'll rejoin?

> So how much would the EU take out of £0.00?

I have already answered that question above. What they take
*isn't taken out of the £0*. Your question is nonsensical.

> If the answer partially involves an assertion that the rate doesn't
> affect the EU's cut, why were there de minimis VAT rates? Just for fun
> (or its opposite)?
>
> Why can't member states charge 0% on anything and/or everything, whilst
> maintaining the pretence that there is a VAT being collected, albeit at
> a rate of 0%?

I should imagine, like Roger says, it's to do with level playing field
single market reasons. But I don't really know - as we have discussed,
I have it in common with everyone else that I am not omniscient.

[JNugent]

You missed the point of the question.

The VAT rates of EU member states never created "a level playing field

for commerce and industry".

They never converged.

The EU was sanguine about higher rates. It didn't like lower rates.

[JNugent]

On 01/06/2022 04:04 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> On 2022-06-01, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2022 12:44 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:

>>> Remember what I said about replying but not responding? This is now the
>>> third time I have said "except for the bit about disallowing zero-rate"
>>> and yet you have still somehow failed to read and understand it.
>>> But regardless, if we suppose that a particular item costs €100 but is
>>> zero-rated so the VAT is €0, the answer is that the EU will take more
>>> than €0, because, as I said, your original statement was over-simplistic
>>> to the point of being untrue.
>
>> We are all aware that the EU does not allow vassal states any room over
>> the EU's share of the booty.
>
> I suppose that's technically true, in that the EU doesn't *have* any
> "vassal states", and things that don't exist get no say over anything.
> But it's completely - and famously - false when it comes to the member
> states (for one thing, you've forgotten that the UK had a discount).
> I don't know why you're still bothering to post falsehoods about the
> EU. You are aware that the UK is no longer an EU member state, right?
> Are you worried that we'll rejoin?

Not in the slightest. There is no credible political groundswell in
favour of rejoining.

>> So how much would the EU take out of £0.00?
>
> I have already answered that question above. What they take
> *isn't taken out of the £0*. Your question is nonsensical.

It's a shame that you feel so unable to give the obvious straight answer
to that question (and so need to obfuscate), isn't it?

>
>> If the answer partially involves an assertion that the rate doesn't
>> affect the EU's cut, why were there de minimis VAT rates? Just for fun
>> (or its opposite)?
>>
>> Why can't member states charge 0% on anything and/or everything, whilst
>> maintaining the pretence that there is a VAT being collected, albeit at
>> a rate of 0%?
>
> I should imagine, like Roger says, it's to do with level playing field
> single market reasons. But I don't really know - as we have discussed,
> I have it in common with everyone else that I am not omniscient.

VAT rates were never equal throughout the Common Market / EEC / EU.

Had they been, the UK could not have changed them.

AFAICS, they still are not equal.

What is this "level playing field" concept?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-02, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 10:42:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>> Not in the slightest. There is no credible political groundswell in
>> favour of rejoining.
>

> You typed that on the day a senior Tory MP called for the UK to rejoin
> the single market. Which isn't going to happen in a month of Sundays
> admittedly. But that will have nothing to do with the UK.

He also typed it the week that a poll showed that 64% of people think
that Brexit has been bad for the country and that 55% would vote to
rejoin.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/05/27/brexit-poll-cost-of-living-more-expensive-leaving-eu/

[JNugent]

On 02/06/2022 12:17 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 10:42:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:

>> On 01/06/2022 04:04 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>

>>> [quoted text muted]
>
>>> [quoted text muted]

>
>> Not in the slightest. There is no credible political groundswell in

>> favour of rejoining [the Common Market a/k/a the EEC a/k/a the EU].

>
> You typed that on the day a senior Tory MP called for the UK to rejoin
> the single market. Which isn't going to happen in a month of Sundays
> admittedly. But that will have nothing to do with the UK.

I dare say that some Conservative MPs, as well as many more Labour MPs
and all LibDem MPs, are in favour of rejoining.

But there is no credible political groundswell in favour of rejoining.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jfrlja...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> writes

Although it was obvious that Brexit was starting to create many serious
problems for the UK (which alone would have been bad enough), most of
them have now become vastly outnumbered by those due to Covid (and the
shortages that have resulted from the subsequent bounce-back recovery in
competing countries). Even worse, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine,
and the shortages that are a result of our retaliatory sanctions. Apart
from the insoluble NI Protocol problem, Brexit has largely been
forgotten.

>
>But there is no credible political groundswell in favour of rejoining.

Like I said, Brexit has largely been forgotten (and Boris Johnson has
been well and truly let off the hook for his involvement in it).
--
Ian

[Roland Perry]

In message <jfrf08...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:42:33 on Thu, 2 Jun
2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>VAT rates were never equal throughout the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>
>Had they been, the UK could not have changed them.
>
>AFAICS, they still are not equal.
>
>What is this "level playing field" concept?

It's over-reading the policy to expect *equal* rates, the aim being to
have *some* rates, to avoid off-shoring loopholes such as practised in
Jersey for many years.

<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/jul/22/consumerissues.money>

And it's not just on goods, there was concern about things like
consultancy fees being invoiced via a zero-VAT territory and thus being
'unfair' competition for the majority of organisations who didn't
indulge in such tax-haven activity.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 03/06/2022 10:16 am, Roland Perry wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>
>> VAT rates were never equal throughout the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>> Had they been, the UK could not have changed them.
>> AFAICS, they still are not equal.
>> What is this "level playing field" concept?

> It's over-reading the policy to expect *equal* rates, the aim being to
> have *some* rates, to avoid off-shoring loopholes such as practised in
> Jersey for many years.

Jersey isn't in, and never has been in, the Common Market / EEC / EU.

What is its relevance?

Ditto for the other Channel Islands and the IoM (let alone Hong Kong in
a former life and/or various British Caribbean territories).

How did the EU's insistence on VAT on domestic fuel have any effect -
positive or negative - on any of them?

>  <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/jul/22/consumerissues.money>
>
> And it's not just on goods, there was concern about things like
> consultancy fees being invoiced via a zero-VAT territory and thus being
> 'unfair' competition for the majority of organisations who didn't
> indulge in such tax-haven activity.

had it happened, it would have been open to anyone to do the same. It
wouldn't have needed government permission. Free movement and all that.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jfu3fj...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:44:19 on Fri, 3 Jun
2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>On 03/06/2022 10:16 am, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>>
>>> VAT rates were never equal throughout the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>>> Had they been, the UK could not have changed them.
>>> AFAICS, they still are not equal.
>>> What is this "level playing field" concept?
>
>> It's over-reading the policy to expect *equal* rates, the aim being
>>to have *some* rates, to avoid off-shoring loopholes such as
>>practised in Jersey for many years.
>
>Jersey isn't in, and never has been in, the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>
>What is its relevance?

As a tax haven for companies based in the EU to avoid paying VAT in the
the country they are actually operating in (rather than pretending to be
in). It's gaining an unfair competitive advantage which matter to
Brussels, rather than the actual loss of revenue (and hence they don't
worry too much about different rates in different member countries).
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 05/06/2022 06:47 am, Roland Perry wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>
>>>> VAT rates were never equal throughout the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>>>> Had they been, the UK could not have changed them.
>>>> AFAICS, they still are not equal.
>>>> What is this "level playing field" concept?
>
>>> It's over-reading the policy to expect *equal* rates, the aim being
>>> to  have *some* rates, to avoid off-shoring loopholes such as
>>> practised in  Jersey for many years.
>
>> Jersey isn't in, and never has been in, the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>> What is its relevance?
>
> As a tax haven for companies based in the EU to avoid paying VAT in the
> the country they are actually operating in (rather than pretending to be
> in). It's gaining an unfair competitive advantage which matter to
> Brussels, rather than the actual loss of revenue (and hence they don't
> worry too much about different rates in different member countries).

In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or other
independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
irrespective of those set by other entities?

Would it be "fair" to Jersey and its occupants for the UK Parliament
(not that it has the jurisdiction, of course) to make rules that prevent
the island from competing with the mainland, the EU or other locations
around the world?

What does independence mean if it doesn't entail at least that much
liberty and discretion?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-06-05, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or other
> independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
> irrespective of those set by other entities?
>
> Would it be "fair" to Jersey and its occupants for the UK Parliament
> (not that it has the jurisdiction, of course) to make rules that prevent
> the island from competing with the mainland, the EU or other locations
> around the world?
>
> What does independence mean if it doesn't entail at least that much
> liberty and discretion?

So if the rest of Europe passed laws saying that until Jersey set
tax rules and rates acceptable to them, residents of Jersey were
permitted neither to enter their territories nor to conduct any kind of
business with their own citizens and businesses, would that be "fair"?
Which is it - are countries not allowed to set their own border and
trade policies, or are they not allowed to set their own tax policies?

[Pamela]

On 06:39 30 May 2022, Pamela said:

> On 30/05/2022 01:41, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2022-05-29, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2022 in message <t70gju$u5b$1...@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
>>> wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:09:54 +0100, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>>>>> Would the COE have been legally allowed to make the Fuel subsidy
>>>>> package announced on Thursday last if we were still EU members.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Why would you think he wouldn't ?
>>>>

>>>> There was nothing in the UKs membership of the EU that prevented

>>>> anything as the UK has never ceased being a sovereign power.
>>>

>>> Except putting a crown on pint glasses or using imperial weights
>>> and measures?
>>
>> No, we could always do those things.
>
> The Crown symbol could not be placed on pint glasses between 2006 and
> 2020 reference regulation 21(2) of The Capacity Serving Measures
> (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1988 which states -
>
> "No capacity serving measure shall be stamped if it bears any other
> mark which, in the opinion of the inspector, might reasonably be
> mistaken for the stamp or an expression of approval or guarantee of
> accuracy."
>
> If the crown was simply decoration of the glass it might have been
> permitted.

To avoid confusion, please note that I am not the poster I am replying
to, despite the similarity of posting identities.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jg3k7s...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:01:00 on Sun, 5 Jun
2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>On 05/06/2022 06:47 am, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>>
>>>>> VAT rates were never equal throughout the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>>>>> Had they been, the UK could not have changed them.
>>>>> AFAICS, they still are not equal.
>>>>> What is this "level playing field" concept?
>>
>>>> It's over-reading the policy to expect *equal* rates, the aim being
>>>>to  have *some* rates, to avoid off-shoring loopholes such as
>>>>practised in  Jersey for many years.
>>
>>> Jersey isn't in, and never has been in, the Common Market / EEC / EU.
>>> What is its relevance?
>> As a tax haven for companies based in the EU to avoid paying VAT in
>>the the country they are actually operating in (rather than
>>pretending to be in). It's gaining an unfair competitive advantage
>>which matter to Brussels, rather than the actual loss of revenue (and
>>hence they don't worry too much about different rates in different
>>member countries).
>
>In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or other
>independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
>irrespective of those set by other entities?

OK, so you think tax havens are just market forces acting in the best
interests of organisations wishing to evade taxation. Others disagree.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

Please answer my question first. I shall then answer yours.

Mine was:

In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or other
independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
irrespective of those set by other entities?

If you do not provide a direct honest answer which addresses the
question asked rather than some fanciful question which was *not* asked,
one can only assume that the ungiven honest answer to the question
(there's only one) undermines, as a first principle, whatever point you
were trying to make.

[Roger Hayter]

Whatever the answer in some theoretical world, in practice there are four
groups of countries easily identified: The US and EU and hangers on, including
the UK, who set the rules; countries like Iran and North Korea and now Russia
who are ostracised and punished for breaking them; countries like China and a
few Arab countries who ignore the rules but are immune to action; and all the
rest of the small countries in the world. The latter have to obey all the
rules on banking, money laundering, sanctions, drrugs, and providing
information to "international" agencies, and whatever economic rules, which
certainly could include tax and privacy rules for foreigners and companies the
West thinks expedients..


So it may not be unfair, but in practice they will do what they are told or
end up like North Korea.

>
> If you do not provide a direct honest answer which addresses the
> question asked rather than some fanciful question which was *not* asked,
> one can only assume that the ungiven honest answer to the question
> (there's only one) undermines, as a first principle, whatever point you
> were trying to make.

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

No, they do *not*.

They may choose to (or, indeed, not to), but that *is* a choice.

Your post goes nowhere near answering my question, which was about the
rights of independent states to set their own rules, law and taxes.

> So it may not be unfair, but in practice they will do what they are told or
> end up like North Korea.

???

[Roger Hayter]

I answered it fully. They are consstrained in practice, if they want to part
of the world from the point of view of trade, travel, law, science, medicine,
technology and defence, to act within the constraints set by big countries.

>
>> So it may not be unfair, but in practice they will do what they are told or
>> end up like North Korea.
>
> ???

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <jge5hs...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:57:47 on Thu, 9 Jun
2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

Because if the state in question isn't the one in which the trading
company is genuinely based, it creates loopholes which are widely
regarded as a breach of competition law.

>If you do not provide a direct honest answer which addresses the
>question asked rather than some fanciful question which was *not*
>asked, one can only assume that the ungiven honest answer to the
>question (there's only one) undermines, as a first principle, whatever
>point you were trying to make.

I've made the point twice now, and it's pretty clear what I'm saying.
--
Roland Perry

[Algernon Goss-Custard]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted

>In message <jge5hs...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:57:47 on Thu, 9
>Jun 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>>

>>In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or other
>>independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
>>irrespective of those set by other entities?
>
>Because if the state in question isn't the one in which the trading
>company is genuinely based, it creates loopholes which are widely
>regarded as a breach of competition law.

Which country's competition law?

--
Algernon

[Roland Perry]

In message <oqP3m3AY...@invalid.com>, at 08:30:32 on Fri, 10 Jun
2022, Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:

Primarily the one where the customers are, because the competition is
between the supplier using the tax haven to artificially reduce his
prices, and suppliers who wish to trade with those customers on a level
playing field.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

How on Earth does *that* mean that an independent state is acting
unfairly by creating its own internal legislation in its own interest
and that of its population?

Isn't it instead totally unfair of bigger states to expect to be able to
bully smaller states into adopting behaviour which is to the advantage
of the bullies and the disadvantage of the victim?

Does the word "independence" have no meaning at all pour les bien-pensants?

>> If you do not provide a direct honest answer which addresses the
>> question asked rather than some fanciful question which was *not*
>> asked, one can only assume that the ungiven honest answer to the
>> question (there's only one) undermines, as a first principle, whatever
>> point you were trying to make.

> I've made the point twice now, and it's pretty clear what I'm saying.

It is, even though you have not answered my question.

You have stated that smaller countries and jurisdictions have a perfect
right to do as they are told. You haven't explained why they shouldn't
decide for themselves, in their own interests.

Now... what was *your* question?

[JNugent]

Yes... you aren't the only one saying that, either. See RP's post
nearby, to much the same effect.

I, of course, reject it entirely.

[JNugent]

On 10/06/2022 08:30 am, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:

> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted

>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>
>>> In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or other
>>> independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
>>> irrespective of those set by other entities?
>
>> Because if the state in question isn't the one in which the trading
>> company is genuinely based, it creates loopholes which are widely
>> regarded as a breach of competition law.
>
> Which country's competition law?

As long as the complainant state is big enough and aggressive enough, it
apparently doesn't matter.

[JNugent]

On 10/06/2022 09:12 am, Roland Perry wrote:

> Algernon Goss-Custard <B...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted

>>> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>
>>>> In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or
>>>> other independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
>>>> irrespective of those set by other entities?
>
>>> Because if the state in question isn't the one in which the trading
>>> company is genuinely based, it creates loopholes which are widely
>>> regarded as a breach of competition law.
>
>> Which country's competition law?
>
> Primarily the one where the customers are, because the competition is
> between the supplier using the tax haven to artificially reduce his
> prices,

Hang on... "...artificially reduce his prices..."?

Reduce them below what?

Manufacturing cost?

Mother Nature will soon enough sort out that "problem".

Or perhaps below the gross-of-tax prices that the bullying state wishes
to charge? Are you of the opinion that everywhere in the world must
charge VAT? And even then, that the rate must be whatever the importing
state says it should be?

> and suppliers who wish to trade with those customers on a level
> playing field.

Can they not counter their "problem" by the application of tariffs and
by scrupulously applying a "Your papers, please" policy to travellers
and imports?

[Roger Hayter]

Do you reject on the ground that you believe it to be untrue, or on the ground
that in some 18th century vision of an ideal world it ought not to be true?

>
>>>> So it may not be unfair, but in practice they will do what they are told or
>>>> end up like North Korea.
>>
>>> ???

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

Of course it isn't true.

If it were, smaller countries "constrained" by the wishes and commands
of larger places would have a legitimate complaint against the bullies
in some international forum.

But...

It's only the bullies who complain about the "unfair" actions of the
intended victims. The victims seem to grin and bear whatever is being
foisted upon them, don't they? :-)

>>>>> So it may not be unfair, but in practice they will do what they are told or
>>>>> end up like North Korea.
>
>>>> ???

Still no explanation of that one (which to be fair, isn't a surprise).

[Roland Perry]

In message <jgh05u...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:44:29 on Fri, 10
Jun 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>>>>> In what possible way is it "unfair" for an independent state or
>>>>>other independent jurisdiction to set its own tax rules and rates,
>>>>>irrespective of those set by other entities?
>>
>>>> Because if the state in question isn't the one in which the trading
>>>>company is genuinely based, it creates loopholes which are widely
>>>>regarded as a breach of competition law.
>>
>>> Which country's competition law?

>> Primarily the one where the customers are, because the competition
>>is between the supplier using the tax haven to artificially reduce
>>his prices,
>
>Hang on... "...artificially reduce his prices..."?

Yes, but not having to include as much tax/duty in the invoice to the
consumer.
--
Roland Perry