Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[Leonard Smalls]

10 hours ago, prowla said:

companies costs are VAT-free

Having done our VAT return for quite some time, I can categorically say that company's costs are rarely VAT-free!

The only time it's actually VAT exempt, as opposed to zero-rated, is for services such as insurance, subscriptions etc, or from businesses that aren't VAT registered due to being exempt (i.e. below the threshold or if they only deal in exempt goods) - or at least that's my understanding!

To make things entertaining, we also sell zero-rated stuff which can also be a bit of a minefield. Books and kid's clothes are 0% (i.e. tax is levied, but at 0% 🤪), same with food plants. However, if it's classed as ornamental it's VATed at 20% - so a bay bush is 0, but a standard bay (i.e. a single stalked bay) is 20%.

I'm sure they will make things more complicated at some point, cos who would want a nice easy tax system that everyone understands?

[JoeEvans]

3 hours ago, Steve Browning said:

Ah, so no VAT if they sell at a loss? Not so. 

 

VAT is levied on a taxable supply of any value. I doubt there's a simple clear definition. I'll review the 6th Directive - 2006/112/EC if you want to check for yourself. 

 

The principal VAT Directive describes it as a turnover tax. It doesn't define the value added bit, so no definition exists. 

 

 

The point is simply that that's where the name comes from. A value-added tax is charged on the value generated or added to a product as it passes through a company. They don't have to do anything to it, just increase the price. If there's no price increase, net VAT is zero; if it loses value, the company gets a net rebate.

[zbd1960]

Prior to VAT the UK had Purchase Tax and post war there was a variant/band called Luxury Tax. The latter killed the hat trade for example as it was high - 33% I think. It was abolished in 1973. 

[Obrienp]

I think there might need to be a separate “arguing about VAT” thread, while the rest of us worry ourselves sick about what Trump is doing to the world order.
 

Last time round Trump betrayed the Kurds, who had been a staunch ally against ISIS and the other factions in Iraq. It looks like he is shaping up to do the same to Ukraine and the rest of us in Europe. He is a treacherous bar-steward, with no morals, or principles and very little intellectual capacity (or is he just too lazy to concentrate and inform himself). Informed view (of non-lackies) is that he is actually a very poor negotiator (despite having had a book ghost-written about it for him to put his name on), with a string of failed businesses behind him. This seems to have been born out by recent concessions to Putin before negotiations even started. His only interest in this is the glory of Trump, as far as I can see. He wants to say he sorted the war, like he said he would. He really doesn’t care about the principles involved, or the sacrifices he will force on the Ukrainians, or the long term consequences of capitulating to the world’s bullies (after all he is one).

 

Yes, Europe is going to have to step up, right at the time when the money pond has been drained and other demands are at their highest. Pretty well every country in the democratic world has the same domestic issues of aging population, over stretched health services, housing crises, lack of confidence in conventional politicians, rising populism, suppression of the free press, rising immigration, etc, etc. Having said that, a number of European countries already spend more on defence than the NATO  target of 2.5% of GDP. They tend to be the ex-communist block countries nearest to Russia. Their expenditure may not look that impressive next to the USA’s in monetary terms but as a percentage of GDP it is admirable. Western European countries such as the UK need to pull their weight but if you were a politician would you favour spending on weapons over the NHS?

Edited Sunday at 11:51 by Obrienp

[Buddster]

"in some ways the EU is a bit like the adolescent child who starts telling their parents what to do and the realisation comes that it's time to suggest that perhaps they're ready go and find their own way."

 

 

But normally the parents don't go behind the childs back to their abuser, say 'here, you carry on, we'll give you the keys to the house, help yourself to cheese and biscuits, and if you want to do it to another kid, we won't stop you". 

Edited Sunday at 12:19 by Buddster

[mcnach]

4 hours ago, prowla said:

 

It is interesting - the US has been bankrolling Europe's defence for a few decades and it's not really sustainable; in some ways the EU is a bit like the adolescent child who starts telling their parents what to do and the realisation comes that it's time to suggest that perhaps they're ready go and find their own way.

 

You make it sound as if the US were altruistic in their dealings with Europe.

[Russ]

4 hours ago, prowla said:

 

It is interesting - the US has been bankrolling Europe's defence for a few decades and it's not really sustainable; in some ways the EU is a bit like the adolescent child who starts telling their parents what to do and the realisation comes that it's time to suggest that perhaps they're ready go and find their own way.

Yes, but also no. The US bases in Europe are there primarily for the benefit of the US, so they can project their power worldwide. That’s why they give a f**k about this whole Chagos Islands thing.

 

Let’s not forget, it’s not just the US bases in the UK, Germany, Italy, etc - they have bases all over the world, including several African countries, the Middle East, Australia, several of the Pacific Islands, and some large ones in Japan and South Korea. The bases in Europe pretty much just complete the chain. 

 

I do think that the Europeans (and ourselves) need to step up defence spending, but they have to do it in a way that actually makes being in the military an attractive career proposition, which, in most countries, it isn’t. In terms of equipment, a LOT of military hardware is made in Europe - aircraft, ships, electronics, avionics, guns, bombs, submarines, etc. France and Sweden make excellent combat aircraft, and, if the UK gets the Tempest II project off the ground (along with Italy and Japan) then we’ll have a proper sixth-gen fighter of our own and won’t need the Lightning II any more. 

[Agent 00Soul]

44 minutes ago, Russ said:

I do think that the Europeans (and ourselves) need to step up defence spending, but they have to do it in a way that actually makes being in the military an attractive career proposition, which, in most countries, it isn’t. 

 

Isn't the standard of living conditions for troops already higher in the UK armed forces compared to the US troops'? Same with Germany and France.  The reason I ask is because, while the US has been experiencing real problems in recruitment for about a decade now (and some who do volunteer are being rejected because they are too fat btw), but it's nothing like the recruitment shortfall in western European countries.

[Russ]

1 hour ago, Agent 00Soul said:

 

Isn't the standard of living conditions for troops already higher in the UK armed forces compared to the US troops'? Same with Germany and France.  The reason I ask is because, while the US has been experiencing real problems in recruitment for about a decade now (and some who do volunteer are being rejected because they are too fat btw), but it's nothing like the recruitment shortfall in western European countries.

Europe (certainly the UK, at least) could do with something like the US’s GI Bill - free university education and vocational training (with accommodation costs covered), preferable treatment for mortgage applications, car finance, etc, access to VA hospitals, and an ironclad pension. 

 

In some European countries there’s free university anyway, and all European countries have universal healthcare, but there should be incentives for joining up over and above “serving your country”. That’s not a huge priority for many young people these days, they need something more tangible! 

[prowla]

3 hours ago, Obrienp said:

I think there might need to be a separate “arguing about VAT” thread, while the rest of us worry ourselves sick about what Trump is doing to the world order.
 

 

It can be quite taxing...

[Steve Browning]

31 minutes ago, Russ said:

Europe (certainly the UK, at least) could do with something like the US’s GI Bill - free university education and vocational training (with accommodation costs covered), preferable treatment for mortgage applications, car finance, etc, access to VA hospitals, and an ironclad pension. 

 

In some European countries there’s free university anyway, and all European countries have universal healthcare, but there should be incentives for joining up over and above “serving your country”. That’s not a huge priority for many young people these days, they need something more tangible! 

One word. Why?

 

Everyone works and everyone is entitled to the same treatment. I would be rewarding emergency workers who should not be subject to violence over people who sign up to a job where it's a possibility. 

 

My gut feeling is that blue light workers are more likely to be injured at work than anyone in the forces. 

[tegs07]

16 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

One word. Why?

 

Everyone works and everyone is entitled to the same treatment. I would be rewarding emergency workers who should not be subject to violence over people who sign up to a job where it's a possibility. 

 

My gut feeling is that blue light workers are more likely to be injured at work than anyone in the forces. 

For many generations the armed forces served as a university for the most disadvantaged and a means of escape from dead end jobs. Other than the risk of armed conflict service personnel are frequently moved every few years. The kids education is severely disrupted. Partners have difficulty establishing a career of their own and often integration back into wider society is extremely difficult.

[Steve Browning]

16 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

For many generations the armed forces served as a university for the most disadvantaged and a means of escape from dead end jobs. Other than the risk of armed conflict service personnel are frequently moved every few years. The kids education is severely disrupted. Partners have difficulty establishing a career of their own and often integration back into wider society is extremely difficult.

Maybe, but all through choice. 

[tegs07]

1 minute ago, Steve Browning said:

Maybe, but all through choice. 

Well the armed forces have been in decline for decades. The UK barely has enough troops to cover its role in times of peace. Let’s hope the worst doesn’t happen as in times of conflict we would barely last six months. I would rather we had an armed deterrent of highly motivated, professional soldiers than a hastily assembled bunch of amateurs being led to inevitable death.

 

Sometimes it’s worth investing in those that make the choice.

[prowla]

52 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

One word. Why?

 

Everyone works and everyone is entitled to the same treatment. I would be rewarding emergency workers who should not be subject to violence over people who sign up to a job where it's a possibility. 

 

My gut feeling is that blue light workers are more likely to be injured at work than anyone in the forces. 

 

What about if someone is in both?

[edstraker123]

4 hours ago, Obrienp said:

if you were a politician would you favour spending on weapons over the NHS?

Definitely an interesting question that I've been debating with family and friends for some time. Given the funding black hole Labour keep harping on about, the NHS being at breaking point, Higher Education system about to implode and the unemployment which will result from the employers NI increases, I'm not sure where the money to fund increased defence spending would come from. I'm not sure I know anybody who would spend it on weapons.

[Buddster]

I'd rather the money wasn't spent on weapons, but after the Geopolitical events of this week, we may not have any choice 

[Russ]

1 hour ago, Steve Browning said:

One word. Why?

 

Everyone works and everyone is entitled to the same treatment. I would be rewarding emergency workers who should not be subject to violence over people who sign up to a job where it's a possibility. 

 

My gut feeling is that blue light workers are more likely to be injured at work than anyone in the forces. 

Mostly because it's a very important, but unattractive job. It needs sweetening up. You could die, or be maimed and disfigured. You could be deployed anywhere on Earth, having to leave your family behind for months at a time. You will have to live in less-than-ideal conditions, probably eat bad food and, even when you're done, you're technically a reservist for the rest of your life. Performative patriotism and the possibility of medals don't really cut it for this generation. 

 

Other jobs offer perks to help attract people - gym memberships, private healthcare, bike and season ticket loans, expense accounts, etc. I'm just making the point that I think, in order to make the job attractive, it needs perks you can't avail of by any other means. 

[Steve Browning]

Subsidised housing? An allowance when you're at sea (for the Navy). Your own medical facility?

 

I won't go on. It's a bee in my bonnet that we laud these people when there are others for whom our society has greater need, in my opinion. 

[prowla]

19 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Subsidised housing? An allowance when you're at sea (for the Navy). Your own medical facility?

 

I won't go on. It's a bee in my bonnet that we laud these people when there are others for whom our society has greater need, in my opinion. 

 

The thing is, we ask these people to defend our lifestyle so that we can argue about what we'd prefer the government to spend our taxes on.

And the problem is a professional force needs training - you can't just wander onto a destroyer one day and head off into battle, communicate and execute a battle plan, etc.

Yes, there are other jobs which need appropriate levels of skill too.

Of course.

[tauzero]

10 hours ago, prowla said:

It is interesting - the US has been bankrolling Europe's defence for a few decades and it's not really sustainable; in some ways the EU is a bit like the adolescent child who starts telling their parents what to do and the realisation comes that it's time to suggest that perhaps they're ready go and find their own way.

 

But that's because the US has wanted to get missiles and troops as close to the USSR (and Warsaw pact countries in general), and subsequently Russia, as possible, hence basing so many in Europe. It's been pure self-interest from the US, they haven't been defending Europe from any sort of altruism.

 

Ukraine is stuffed unless the Western European countries take direct action, thus removing any consideration of the US from the equation.

[Al Krow]

Defence spending is (national) insurance. Like all insurance it's seemingly a waste of money...until it's not.

[edstraker123]

But do you buy the insurance policy you may never claim on or fund the hospital that might keep your kids alive now or let your granny put the heating on in the winter ?

It is a conundrum, but I'm not sure I trust politicians to make a decision that isn't in their own self interest or the media not to be hyping a paid for agenda.

[Al Krow]

Interestingly many BC'ers would take a spare bass to a gig as insurance 'cos they didn't want to risk blowing-up a gig (to mix my metaphors). Could maybe have spent the money on another bit of kit they use all the time and can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times they've actually had to make use of a spare, but I bet they're damn glad they had the spare on those rare occasions! But that's the point of insurance: it's a waste until you need it.

 

Could of course say "we're neutral" and let other folk defend democracy (like some countries did during WW2) and hope the bad guys don't come after us. But we've mostly always stepped up to the plate and, for me, that's something to proud of.

 

I think the right answer has got to be both / and, particularly when there are nutters like Putin around.

[bass_dinger]

Defence is a slightly odd form of insurance  - having it tends to stop hostile countries from driving their tanks onto your property in the first place.  Thus, it is a form of insurance that stops the "accident" from happening, rather than paying out after the event. 

 

But as @Al Krowsaid "

3 hours ago, Al Krow said:

it's seemingly a waste of money...until it's not.

"