It's not OT cause cars run on it :P

Check this: http://tinyurl.com/7v9h6

According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
= 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!

Shurely shum mishtake??  Else I want 8p off immediately!!! (and a
retrospective rebate taken out of b'liar's hide but that's another
matter)

Any lurkers from the revenue here??

Chandy

Chandy (chandy@totalise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
were saying :


> According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
> = 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!

Yup.

> Shurely shum mishtake??


Nope.

"Adrian"  wrote in message
news:Xns96D0AAE31943Dadrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170...

> Chandy (chandy@totalise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
> > According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
> > = 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!
>
> Yup.
>
> > Shurely shum mishtake??
>
> Nope.


That's the government for you - and others before this one etc....   Good
little earner.
-- 
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

Chandy wrote:

> It's not OT cause cars run on it :P
>
> Check this: http://tinyurl.com/7v9h6
>
> According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
> = 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!
>
> Shurely shum mishtake??  Else I want 8p off immediately!!! (and a
> retrospective rebate taken out of b'liar's hide but that's another
> matter)
>
> Any lurkers from the revenue here??
>
> Chandy


Chandy,

You are unfortunately - very correct!

The Chancellor - bless his cotton socks slaps a fuel duty on every litre of
liquid gold and then slaps 17.5% VAT on top of that fuel duty - ergo two
taxes on fuel - a nice little earner 'innit?

Our Gordon has been asked to slap a 'windfall tax' on the excessive profit
of oil companies, the way thing are going at the minute, he ought to slap
the same tax on the taxes that HE is getting from the fuel increases and
pass that onto the motorist - Ha! Pigs might fly and if by some miracle that
he does that - you hear the Friends of the Earth et-al scream in protest.

Brian G

> The Chancellor - bless his cotton socks slaps a fuel duty on every litre of
> liquid gold and then slaps 17.5% VAT on top of that fuel duty - ergo two
> taxes on fuel - a nice little earner 'innit?


You forgot to add that you`ve already paid tax on your income !

-- 
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****

"Colin Wilson"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d912e6dea30205098b411@news.individual.net...

>> The Chancellor - bless his cotton socks slaps a fuel duty on every litre 
>> of
>> liquid gold and then slaps 17.5% VAT on top of that fuel duty - ergo two
>> taxes on fuel - a nice little earner 'innit?
>
> You forgot to add that you`ve already paid tax on your income !


Ooohh yes. If you actually sit down and work it out a family on average 
earnings running a car will probably give about 65% - 70% of their monthly 
income in tax - one way or the other.

Income Tax + NI + Duties + VAT + Council Tax + Insurance Premium Tax  = not 
much left for mr and mrs average.

MattF

Colin Wilson wrote:

>> The Chancellor - bless his cotton socks slaps a fuel duty on every
>> litre of liquid gold and then slaps 17.5% VAT on top of that fuel
>> duty - ergo two taxes on fuel - a nice little earner 'innit?
>
> You forgot to add that you`ve already paid tax on your income !


Hi Colin,

Well we can't moan about *ALL* the taxes our Gordon collects.  If we did
that, then we'd be sat at the computer all day typing it down - and then
we'd miss half of the ones that he's hidden in the woodpile! ROTFLMAO

Brian G

Boy are you quick!

When VAT on fuel was introduced there was a great outcry - don't you 
remember the phrase "A Tax on a Tax"?

"Chandy"  wrote in message 
news:1126625797.932991.65540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> It's not OT cause cars run on it :P
>
> Check this: http://tinyurl.com/7v9h6
>
> According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
> = 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!
>
> Shurely shum mishtake??  Else I want 8p off immediately!!! (and a
> retrospective rebate taken out of b'liar's hide but that's another
> matter)
>
> Any lurkers from the revenue here??
>
> Chandy
> 

"R. Murphy"  wrote in message
news:dg7gbq$a4f$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Boy are you quick!
>
> When VAT on fuel was introduced there was a great outcry - don't you
> remember the phrase "A Tax on a Tax"?
>
> "Chandy"  wrote in message
> news:1126625797.932991.65540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > It's not OT cause cars run on it :P
> >
> > Check this: http://tinyurl.com/7v9h6
> >
> > According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
> > = 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!
> >
> > Shurely shum mishtake??  Else I want 8p off immediately!!! (and a
> > retrospective rebate taken out of b'liar's hide but that's another
> > matter)
> >
> > Any lurkers from the revenue here??
> >
> > Chandy
> >
>
>


i would like tofind out where the meatings are for the protests. i would
love to take part in the motorway go slows

"aussie bongo"  wrote in message
news:MARVe.501$6p.303@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "R. Murphy"  wrote in message
> news:dg7gbq$a4f$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Boy are you quick!
> >
> > When VAT on fuel was introduced there was a great outcry - don't you
> > remember the phrase "A Tax on a Tax"?
> >
> > "Chandy"  wrote in message
> > news:1126625797.932991.65540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > It's not OT cause cars run on it :P
> > >
> > > Check this: http://tinyurl.com/7v9h6
> > >
> > > According to that illustration and my reckoning ((47.1+23.2+6.3)x.175)
> > > = 13.405, we're paying VAT on the duty!
> > >
> > > Shurely shum mishtake??  Else I want 8p off immediately!!! (and a
> > > retrospective rebate taken out of b'liar's hide but that's another
> > > matter)
> > >
> > > Any lurkers from the revenue here??
> > >
> > > Chandy
> > >
> >
> >
>
> i would like tofind out where the meatings are for the protests. i would
> love to take part in the motorway go slows
>


Its meetings.....but just about any motorway any day has go slows although
not for this reason!


>
>
>

*ahem*, I'm likely too young for that one..but if I had known!! *shakes
fist at world in general*

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:56:51 GMT, "Matt F"
 wrote:



>Ooohh yes. If you actually sit down and work it out a family on average 
>earnings running a car will probably give about 65% - 70% of their monthly 
>income in tax - one way or the other.
>
>Income Tax + NI + Duties + VAT + Council Tax + Insurance Premium Tax  = not 
>much left for mr and mrs average.
>


I'm an electrician and Dave next door is a painter. Dave wants to come
out with 30 quid in cash for painting my ceiling. It turns out I've
got to bill out an extra  240 of electrical work to generate the
extra 30 quid for Dave after I've paid all the taxes. If he spends it
on petrol for his car I will have billed out 240 to put 4.20 of
petrol into his tank. All the rest (235.80) will have gone to the
government.  

I've heard that bartering goods and services is coming back, no doubt
this is why.

Look at it a different way, if local groups of tradesmen got together
and started a self build scheme to build their own houses, to put
itself in the same state the goverrnment would have put a tax on self
build houses so that if a person built himself a house he would be
forced to build 3 other houses and give them to the government who
would then give them away to single parent slappers and dole bludgers
who haven't done a days work in their life.  ;-)

DG

Derek ^ (usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 


> I'm an electrician and Dave next door is a painter. Dave wants to come
> out with 30 quid in cash for painting my ceiling. It turns out I've
> got to bill out an extra  240 of electrical work to generate the
> extra 30 quid for Dave after I've paid all the taxes.


Let's see the sums, please.

On 15 Sep 2005 14:02:39 GMT, Adrian  wrote:


>Derek ^ (usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying : 
>
>> I'm an electrician and Dave next door is a painter. Dave wants to come
>> out with 30 quid in cash for painting my ceiling. It turns out I've
>> got to bill out an extra  240 of electrical work to generate the
>> extra 30 quid for Dave after I've paid all the taxes.
>
>Let's see the sums, please.


Well I've posted this a couple of times before, this is from memory.

But Earwig-O

I run my own limited company so pay both halves of the NI.  

I'm already paying higher rate tax. 

Note I said an *extra* 30 quid so it's my marginal rate 40% that
applies. Every additional 100 quid I bill out has to support...

14.9% vat
+
40% income tax
+
11% Employer's NI
+
11% Employees NI
+ 
Vehicle E.D. + Road fuel E.D. on fuel used for work
+ 
Business's share of vat etc. on company vehicle purchase & repairs
+
My share of GB's 7 billion/yr. pension tax.
+
Compensation for paying pensions credit (which I won't get) to people
who haven't saved for their own pensions, thereby negating the benefit
of the equivalent of 180k of what I've paid in over 19 years (Say
10k/year).
+
Serps (Ditto)
 
All a bit empirical I know, but must add up to well over 80%.

Accepting that for the sake of argument it is about 80%, well my mate
Dave the decorator (remember him) runs his business exactly as I do.
So If I work for 2 days and bill out 500 quid, which yields 100 in
spendable cash. I spend that with Dave painting my "outside" my 100
yields just 20 for Dave to spend as he wants. If he spends it on
ordinary goods the chancellor will collect 2.98 in VAT on that so my
500 billing only generates 17.02  of true purchasing power for Dave.

Unless, of course he chooses to buy dutyable items then my 500
billing becomes reduced to about sick squid.

Like I said, bartering is coming back in!

Oh, and BTW I forgot insurance premium tax.  

DG

"Derek ^"  wrote in message 
news:qd4ji1lqbjk326erbavkongn8vpcdtk9lu@4ax.com...


> Note I said an *extra* 30 quid so it's my marginal rate 40% that
> applies. Every additional 100 quid I bill out has to support...
>
> 14.9% vat
> +
> 40% income tax
> +
> 11% Employer's NI
> +
> 11% Employees NI
> +
> Vehicle E.D. + Road fuel E.D. on fuel used for work
> +
> Business's share of vat etc. on company vehicle purchase & repairs
> +
> My share of GB's 7 billion/yr. pension tax.
> +
> Compensation for paying pensions credit (which I won't get) to people
> who haven't saved for their own pensions, thereby negating the benefit
> of the equivalent of 180k of what I've paid in over 19 years (Say
> 10k/year).
> +
> Serps (Ditto)
>
> All a bit empirical I know, but must add up to well over 80%.


And it's bollocks as well. I can see a 10% error in there before I even 
consider the amount of double-counting you're doing.

clive

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:31:36 +0100, "Clive George"
 wrote:


>"Derek ^"  wrote in message 
>news:qd4ji1lqbjk326erbavkongn8vpcdtk9lu@4ax.com...
>
>> Note I said an *extra* 30 quid so it's my marginal rate 40% that
>> applies. Every additional 100 quid I bill out has to support...
>>
>> 14.9% vat
>> +
>> 40% income tax
>> +
>> 11% Employer's NI
>> +
>> 11% Employees NI
>> +
>> Vehicle E.D. + Road fuel E.D. on fuel used for work
>> +
>> Business's share of vat etc. on company vehicle purchase & repairs
>> +
>> My share of GB's 7 billion/yr. pension tax.
>> +
>> Compensation for paying pensions credit (which I won't get) to people
>> who haven't saved for their own pensions, thereby negating the benefit
>> of the equivalent of 180k of what I've paid in over 19 years (Say
>> 10k/year).
>> +
>> Serps (Ditto)
>>
>> All a bit empirical I know, but must add up to well over 80%.
>
>And it's bollocks as well. I can see a 10% error in there before I even 
>consider the amount of double-counting you're doing.
>


So where are *your* figures??? 

What *exactly* are you trying to say?

I said my 100 billing had to support <Item List> and sure as hell it
does.

What's your figure then for the Chancellor's take out of a 100
billing inc VAT. Including the secondary pension/taxation issues.

I'm not an accountant, I don't have access to tax tables, wages
software and all that. I have to pay the accountant to do our salaries
calculation. His fee (we get a seperate fee for doing the wages)
should be on that list *as well*.

DG

"Derek ^"  wrote in message 
news:64dji1lneo148nuqqkkdkookj348d9gnmn@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:31:36 +0100, "Clive George"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Derek ^"  wrote in message
>>news:qd4ji1lqbjk326erbavkongn8vpcdtk9lu@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Note I said an *extra* 30 quid so it's my marginal rate 40% that
>>> applies. Every additional 100 quid I bill out has to support...
>>>
>>> 14.9% vat
>>> +
>>> 40% income tax
>>> +
>>> 11% Employer's NI
>>> +
>>> 11% Employees NI
>>> +
>>> Vehicle E.D. + Road fuel E.D. on fuel used for work
>>> +
>>> Business's share of vat etc. on company vehicle purchase & repairs
>>> +
>>> My share of GB's 7 billion/yr. pension tax.
>>> +
>>> Compensation for paying pensions credit (which I won't get) to people
>>> who haven't saved for their own pensions, thereby negating the benefit
>>> of the equivalent of 180k of what I've paid in over 19 years (Say
>>> 10k/year).
>>> +
>>> Serps (Ditto)
>>>
>>> All a bit empirical I know, but must add up to well over 80%.
>>
>>And it's bollocks as well. I can see a 10% error in there before I even
>>consider the amount of double-counting you're doing.
>>
>
> So where are *your* figures???


Don't have any. I don't care enough to work them out.


> What *exactly* are you trying to say?


That you've got at least a 10% error in there, and you're double counting on 
other stuff (eg VAT, pensions).


> I'm not an accountant, I don't have access to tax tables, wages
> software and all that.


I'm not an accountant, and I do. Well, I'd write my own wages software if 
Excel didn't suffice. Do you have access to the web, or just news? If you've 
got web access, you've got access to the tax tables.

clive

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:21:53 +0100, "Clive George"
 wrote:


>>>> All a bit empirical I know, but must add up to well over 80%.
>>>
>>>And it's bollocks as well. I can see a 10% error in there before I even
>>>consider the amount of double-counting you're doing.
>>>
>>
>> So where are *your* figures???
>
>Don't have any. I don't care enough to work them out.
>
>> What *exactly* are you trying to say?
>
>That you've got at least a 10% error in there, and you're double counting on 
>other stuff (eg VAT, pensions).


Sorry , it shouldn't be taken as a "count" but as an "item list". I
know these charges are applied in a sequence (but I don't know the
rules) . But there is enough in the list to support a claim that the
chancellor's take out of a 100 quid vat inclusive billing is about 80
quid.


>
>> I'm not an accountant, I don't have access to tax tables, wages
>> software and all that.
>
>I'm not an accountant, and I do. Well, I'd write my own wages software if 
>Excel didn't suffice. Do you have access to the web, or just news? If you've 
>got web access, you've got access to the tax tables.


I probably wouldn't understand them, & I'd look well paying my
accountant to employ a wages clerk to do our PAYE, but then poring
over web pages for the sake of a usenet post.  Anyway, they might not
demonstrate explicitly what I'm after, which is the the marginal tax
take on 100 of marginal extra billings once into higher level tax, 

Let alone that after 2 taxation cycles (remember Dave ?)  when nearly
all the billing has gone in tax. You dispute 80%, I'd dispute it
wasn't well over 70%....  Anyhow...

Billing out 100.

If it's 80% after 2 tax cycles 4% is left for the taxpayer to spend

If it's 70% after 2 tax cycles 9% is left for the taxpayer to spend.

Woo-Hoo ! 

But lets not go mad, whatever he spends it on it will prolly attract
VAT, reducing his spend by 14.9%, If it's booze or road fuel excise
duty will have been charged beforehand reducing it by another 60%  or
so *as well as*  the 14.9% VAT. 

There's absolutely no doubt about it. The Chancellor's the one doing
the "double counting" here. 

DG

"Derek ^"  wrote in message 
news:8qgji1hjrocla1t51769mgclh2cha6kkd3@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:21:53 +0100, "Clive George"
>  wrote:
>
>>>>> All a bit empirical I know, but must add up to well over 80%.
>>>>
>>>>And it's bollocks as well. I can see a 10% error in there before I even
>>>>consider the amount of double-counting you're doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So where are *your* figures???
>>
>>Don't have any. I don't care enough to work them out.
>>
>>> What *exactly* are you trying to say?
>>
>>That you've got at least a 10% error in there, and you're double counting 
>>on
>>other stuff (eg VAT, pensions).
>
> Sorry , it shouldn't be taken as a "count" but as an "item list". I
> know these charges are applied in a sequence (but I don't know the
> rules) . But there is enough in the list to support a claim that the
> chancellor's take out of a 100 quid vat inclusive billing is about 80
> quid.
>
>>
>>> I'm not an accountant, I don't have access to tax tables, wages
>>> software and all that.
>>
>>I'm not an accountant, and I do. Well, I'd write my own wages software if
>>Excel didn't suffice. Do you have access to the web, or just news? If 
>>you've
>>got web access, you've got access to the tax tables.
>
> I probably wouldn't understand them, & I'd look well paying my
> accountant to employ a wages clerk to do our PAYE, but then poring
> over web pages for the sake of a usenet post.  Anyway, they might not
> demonstrate explicitly what I'm after, which is the the marginal tax
> take on 100 of marginal extra billings once into higher level tax,
>
> Let alone that after 2 taxation cycles (remember Dave ?)  when nearly
> all the billing has gone in tax. You dispute 80%, I'd dispute it
> wasn't well over 70%....  Anyhow...
>
> Billing out 100.
>
> If it's 80% after 2 tax cycles 4% is left for the taxpayer to spend
>
> If it's 70% after 2 tax cycles 9% is left for the taxpayer to spend.
>
> Woo-Hoo !
>
> But lets not go mad, whatever he spends it on it will prolly attract
> VAT, reducing his spend by 14.9%, If it's booze or road fuel excise
> duty will have been charged beforehand reducing it by another 60%  or
> so *as well as*  the 14.9% VAT.
>
> There's absolutely no doubt about it. The Chancellor's the one doing
> the "double counting" here.


Er, no, you are. Even with a 10% tax rate, after a few cycles using your 
logic there's very little left for the taxpayer to spend. Which illustrates 
there's something wrong with the way you're working things out. (Which is 
that you forget that money comes out of the govt in the form of salaries, 
purchases, etc, thus feeding everything from the top again.)

You're definitely double-counting the VAT - eg the 17.5% you're charging 
your clients you're also counting as part of their personal tax count. The 
business fuel VAT is zero.
The pension stuff is a few % of a few %.
Since you chose for simplicity to only consider higher tax rate payers, you 
only have 1% employee NI to consider.

Other people have done the sums properly, and it comes out as about 42% - 
have a look for "Tax Freedom Day".

clive

On 16 Sep 2005 20:08:58 GMT, Adrian  wrote:


>AstraVanMan (Peter@Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk) gurgled happily,
>sounding much like they were saying : 
>
>> Can you not just claim actual costs, like straight line depreciation
>> over 4 years (25%/year), and then just actual costs for everything,
>> claiming interest payments as well, etc etc?
>
>No.
>
>If you're not a limited company, then there's no prob with putting it 
>through the books. If you're trading through a limited company, then you'll 
>have to start paying co. car tax if you do that...



By way of an example, the IR wanted to reduce my allowances by  GBP
5,700 because I had a company car, a 4 year old FIAT Ulysse, with
82,000 miles on the clock which would have been lucky to fetch GBP
5,000. 

IE they wanted more tax every year for me having the use of the car
than I'd have paid *once*  if the firm had given it to me outright.

AAMOF I couldn't use the car privately anyway , I'd have had to spend
all of Saturday emptying it of my tools, circuit diagrams, and test
equipment and stacheing it away, then all of Sunday putting it all
back in, so I ran another car of my own. The revenue still wanted
their company car tax. :((

DG

Adrian wrote:

> AstraVanMan (Peter@Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying : 
> 
> 
>>Can you not just claim actual costs, like straight line depreciation
>>over 4 years (25%/year), and then just actual costs for everything,
>>claiming interest payments as well, etc etc?
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If you're not a limited company, then there's no prob with putting it 
> through the books. If you're trading through a limited company, then you'll 
> have to start paying co. car tax if you do that...


heheheh.. unless you get a full sized pick-up truck. Fixed taxed per 
month - commercial vehicle etc.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:47:34 +0100, ts86 
wrote:


>Adrian wrote:
>> AstraVanMan (Peter@Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk) gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying : 
>> 
>> 
>>>Can you not just claim actual costs, like straight line depreciation
>>>over 4 years (25%/year), and then just actual costs for everything,
>>>claiming interest payments as well, etc etc?
>> 
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> If you're not a limited company, then there's no prob with putting it 
>> through the books. If you're trading through a limited company, then you'll 
>> have to start paying co. car tax if you do that...
>
>heheheh.. unless you get a full sized pick-up truck. Fixed taxed per 
>month - commercial vehicle etc.


Classed as a van. But Gordon's sussed you:

<http://www.themgroup.co.uk/taxation/budget_report_2005_classic/company_c.html>

"The maximum tax payable on the use of a company van will therefore
increase from April 2007 from 200 to 1,400 p.a., and the employer's
Class1A NIC payable will increase from 64 to 448 p.a."

A kewl *seven fold* increase in tax. Just watch second hand values
plummet as companies unload them.

DG