Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine 
is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen).

Matt Wheeler  wrote:

> Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine
> is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen).


Yes, so once VAT, mark-ups etc. are applied it will be an extra 5p a pint in 
the pub :-(

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

In article <d19heu$kj9$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, PeterE <peter@xyz_ringtai
l.fsnet.co.uk> writes

>> Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine
>> is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen).
>
>Yes, so once VAT, mark-ups etc. are applied it will be an extra 5p a 
>pint in the pub :-( 


Our club is putting it up 6 pence next Monday, the brewers got theirs in
first.

Mike

-- 
Michael Swift           We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.      
Kirkheaton              We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.    
Yorkshire                                       Halvard Lange

"Matt Wheeler"  wrote in message 
news:F7Sdne_z1-DNrqXfRVnytg@pipex.net...

>
> Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine is 
> up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen).


Why does it never go up by 1p in the pub?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:23:26 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
 wrote:


>
>Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine 
>is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen). 
>


Lets make it 10p to make it easier

In article <QDKxJ+BoeGOCFwgF@ntlworld.com>,
   Michael Swift  wrote:

> In article <d19heu$kj9$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, PeterE <peter@xyz_ringtai
> l.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >> Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine
> >> is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen).
> >
> >Yes, so once VAT, mark-ups etc. are applied it will be an extra 5p a 
> >pint in the pub :-( 

> Our club is putting it up 6 pence next Monday, the brewers got theirs in
> first.


Yes, usually carefully timed to look like the budget increase rather than
the money grubbing big brewers increase. (Note that few of the small
brewers will actually put anything on other than the tax and some absorb
that)


> Mike


-- 
Steve Pampling

Why does cider always get such a good deal over beer? They are both
English, 'volume' drinks. I've never understood why an 8.4% cider
should be cheaper than a 4.0% beer.


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:02:03 +0000, k  wrote:


>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:23:26 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine 
>>is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen). 
>>
>
>Lets make it 10p to make it easier



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>

<ESB> wrote in message news:idhh319mmspen0fj07hsarbvuk388aj6op@4ax.com...

> Why does cider always get such a good deal over beer? They are both
> English, 'volume' drinks. I've never understood why an 8.4% cider
> should be cheaper than a 4.0% beer.
>

I would suggest no one really drinks it in the volumes required and so it 
would be taxed out of existence otherwise.

---------
Tax, the folly of those who have, against those who have not!

So called 'white cider' the acoholics drink of choice is presumably sold in
reasonable volumes

--
Regards
The Ale Fan

www.real-ale.net
The ISP for the real ale fan.

Got a beer related website ?
Then get on the Beer Ring: www.real-ale.net/webring




 wrote in message
news:39tj7aF6143udU1@individual.net...

> <ESB> wrote in message news:idhh319mmspen0fj07hsarbvuk388aj6op@4ax.com...
> > Why does cider always get such a good deal over beer? They are both
> > English, 'volume' drinks. I've never understood why an 8.4% cider
> > should be cheaper than a 4.0% beer.
> >
> I would suggest no one really drinks it in the volumes required and so it
> would be taxed out of existence otherwise.
>
> ---------
> Tax, the folly of those who have, against those who have not!
>
>

In message , k 
 wrote

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:23:26 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Gordon Brown has put 1p on a pint of beer in this years budget. (Wine
>>is up 4p, and Cider, sparkling wine and spirits are frozen).
>>
>
>Lets make it 10p to make it easier
>



Don't forget the stealth tax that is already in the pipe-line. The cost 
to publicans for the local council to administer and police the binge 
drinking 24 hour opening initiative is going to introduce another 50p to 
the price of a pint.
-- 
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

In article <tkv$jITcDfPCFwcV@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan <junk_news_a@am
acleod.clara.co.uk> writes

>Don't forget the stealth tax that is already in the pipe-line. The cost 
>to publicans for the local council to administer and police the binge 
>drinking 24 hour opening initiative is going to introduce another 50p to 
>the price of a pint.
>-- 


The budget 1p per pint was a bit of a con job, as I said elsewhere the
brewers had already got there first, my club kept the increase down to
6p, at least 17.5% of that would go to the Scottish highwayman, it's the
same with petrol, he rakes in vast sums in tax every time the price goes
up, no wonder the thieving little shit can postpone an increase in fuel
duty.

Mike

-- 
Michael Swift           We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.      
Kirkheaton              We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.    
Yorkshire                                       Halvard Lange

"at least 17.5% of that would go to the Scottish highwayman"

By 17.5%, I suppose you mean VAT, in which case the amount owing to
HMCE is 17.5% of the net selling price less 17.5% of the net purchase
price.

Not so. The brewer will charge VAT to the licensee and send it to
HMCE. The licensee charges VAT to the customer , deducts what  has
already been  paid to the brewer and sends the rest to HMCE. The
Treasury collects the lot of course .

In article ,
   valeofbelvoirdrinker  wrote:

> Not so. The brewer will charge VAT to the licensee and send it to
> HMCE. The licensee charges VAT to the customer , deducts what  has
> already been  paid to the brewer and sends the rest to HMCE. The
> Treasury collects the lot of course . 


I don't know about you, but *I* think Jeff knows *exactly* how much the
licensee[1] charges the customer and how much the licensee pays the nice
VAT man.[2]

[1] At least what one specific licensee charges the customer and how much
of it is VAT

[2] Despite all the comments those tax people can be very pleasant and
charming despite the tendency to do a "grumpy old men" routine (or at least
the one I'm thinking of can).

-- 
Steve Pampling

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:13 GMT, valeofbelvoirdrinker 
wrote:

>On 21 Mar 2005 08:15:11 -0800, "Jeff Pickthall"  wrote:

>>By 17.5%, I suppose you mean VAT, in which case the amount owing to
>>HMCE is 17.5% of the net selling price less 17.5% of the net purchase
>>price.

>Not so. The brewer will charge VAT to the licensee and send it to
>HMCE. The licensee charges VAT to the customer , deducts what  has
>already been  paid to the brewer and sends the rest to HMCE.


   That is what Jeff said. The sales VAT minus purchase VAT applies
all the way down the chain - aside from any non-registered businesses
in the supply chain, who don't charge sales VAT and therefore can't
reclaim purchase VAT.


>The Treasury collects the lot of course . 


   Of course. IIRC there was a documentary (or a study) a few years
ago which followed a "nominal 1GBP coin" through from issue via all
the businesses & people it (theoretically) passed through. ISTR that
something like 78% of it ended up in the Treasury by the end of 1 year
:(

   FWIW everything in the local here went up by 10-15p last week and
he hasn't had a real ale (decent or otherwise) on for almost a year.
Last time he did, we drank it in a few days ;-)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington               ALL HTML e-mail rejected       -
- mailto:phupp@dsv1.co.uk          http://w3.z-add.co.uk/        -

No. VAT is charged on the WHOLE amount , not the difference between
the purchase price and selling price , it is collected from everyone
who sells the beer from the brewery on. It is collected in stages ,
the brewer , middlemen and licensee reclaim their share but the
customer pays the lot. So 1p becomes 1.175 pence........in fact it's
more than that because you only get 95% of a pint anyway........

valeofbelvoirdrinker wrote:

> Not so. The brewer will charge VAT to the licensee and send it to
> HMCE. The licensee charges VAT to the customer , deducts what  has
> already been  paid to the brewer and sends the rest to HMCE. The
> Treasury collects the lot of course .



Drivel.

"No. VAT is charged on the WHOLE amount , not the difference between
the purchase price and selling price ,"

I still don't think you understand it.

Yes, VAT is chargeable on the whole amount, BUT IT IS ALSO RECLAIMABLE
at 17.5% from the purchase price (presuming VAT applies).

JP

Jeff Pickthall wrote:


> Drivel.
> 


Tell it like it is, Jeff! :))

KeithS

Jeff Pickthall  wrote:
[...]

> Yes, VAT is chargeable on the whole amount, BUT IT IS ALSO
> RECLAIMABLE at 17.5% from the purchase price (presuming VAT
> applies).


All that's being reclaimed is the VAT paid by the supplier. Apart from
generating more paperwork, the net effect is that there is no VAT on
B2B transactions and a single 17.5% VAT levy is applied to the final
purchase price by the consumer.

I wonder, is White Lightning considered to be fuel and so only
attracts 5% VAT? ;)

-- 
The traditional flaming Christmas pudding for example dates back to the 17th
century, when a form of stiff porridge was made containing plums, preserved
quinces, lemon peel, ox blood and grated pig livers. All bound together with
goose fat. No wonder they set fire to it.	- Humphrey Lyttelton, ISIHAC

VAT is short for VALUE ADDED tax. That is  tax is levied every time
the goods change hands at a different price ie when value is added, so
a wholesaler will pay VAT on what is received from the brewers . When
sold on to the licensee , the licensee pays VAT on it. Finally the
customer pays the full whack. Everyone down the chain will claim back
whatever they have paid in VAT and send HMCE the remainder of the
VATthey collected. So at every stage the Treasury receives 17.5% of
any mark up , the brewer , wholesaler and licensee pay nothing out of
their own pockets  because the customer pays the lot.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:02:49 +0000, Peter Corlett wrote
(in message <42414cd9$0$38046$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>):


> All that's being reclaimed is the VAT paid by the supplier. Apart from
> generating more paperwork, the net effect is that there is no VAT on
> B2B transactions and a single 17.5% VAT levy is applied to the final
> purchase price by the consumer.


Surely that would only be the case if the product continually changed hands 
for the same price, it is safe to assume that the price goes up with each 
transaction.

Steve Pickthall  wrote:
[...]

> Surely that would only be the case if the product continually
> changed hands for the same price, it is safe to assume that the
> price goes up with each transaction.


When a VAT-registered business sells goods or services that are liable
for VAT, they must add 17.5% VAT to the price and pay this portion to
the taxman. This is the case whether the buyer is a consumer, or
another business. (I'll ignore the exceptions for now, as they're not
relevant here.)

If the buyer is another business, they may reclaim the VAT paid by the
seller. However, if they sell the goods on, they must again charge and
VAT on the full amount. What they paid is irrelevant.

-- 
The traditional flaming Christmas pudding for example dates back to the 17th
century, when a form of stiff porridge was made containing plums, preserved
quinces, lemon peel, ox blood and grated pig livers. All bound together with
goose fat. No wonder they set fire to it.	- Humphrey Lyttelton, ISIHAC

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:27:51 +0000, Peter Corlett wrote
(in message <42419907$0$38040$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>):


> When a VAT-registered business sells goods or services that are liable
> for VAT, they must add 17.5% VAT to the price and pay this portion to
> the taxman. This is the case whether the buyer is a consumer, or
> another business. (I'll ignore the exceptions for now, as they're not
> relevant here.)
> 
> If the buyer is another business, they may reclaim the VAT paid by the
> seller. However, if they sell the goods on, they must again charge and
> VAT on the full amount. What they paid is irrelevant.


Yes I know how it works, your statement "the net effect is that there is no 
VAT on B2B transactions" is still wrong unless goods continually change hands 
for the same price.

In article , Steve
Pickthall
 wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:27:51 +0000, Peter Corlett wrote (in message
> <42419907$0$38040$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>):

> > When a VAT-registered business sells goods or services that are liable
> > for VAT, they must add 17.5% VAT to the price and pay this portion to
> > the taxman. This is the case whether the buyer is a consumer, or
> > another business. (I'll ignore the exceptions for now, as they're not
> > relevant here.)
> > 
> > If the buyer is another business, they may reclaim the VAT paid by the
> > seller. However, if they sell the goods on, they must again charge and
> > VAT on the full amount. What they paid is irrelevant.

> Yes I know how it works, your statement "the net effect is that there is
> no VAT on B2B transactions" is still wrong unless goods continually
> change hands for the same price.


Which of course can't happen since you have performed a service in simply
selling on the goods and therefore must add VAT at 17.5% to the price
(unless you want lose money to the extent of approximately 14.9% per
transaction).

I'm not sure how many of the people arguing with you run businesses Steve,
but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't last long if they ran them as described.
At least not if the VAT guys came round: a brewer round here forgot to deal
with that minor issue and then got "hotel" accommodation for a couple of
years.

-- 
Steve Pampling