VAT rate down to 15%

[Dog]

When will this take effect?

 

Have to start drinking and smoking more to pay for the reduction.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Sorry, my canine chum, but duty is to be increased on alcohol, tobacco and petrol to compensate for the reduction.

[Mole]

It'll be interesting to see Saints new ticket prices...

[saintwarwick]

It'll be interesting to see Saints new ticket prices...

 

Yep, about £0.50p on a £24.00 ticket will make a huge difference.

[Mustapha Fag]

Sorry, my canine chum, but duty is to be increased on alcohol, tobacco and petrol to compensate for the reduction.

 

Well thats a shock

[Ponty]

The higher rate of income tax is going up in January to pay for the shortfall. As Cameron said, a small bonus at Christmas will be paid for forever.

 

Thanks Gordon, you're a brick...

 

 

Oops, typo.

[bungle]

The higher rate of income tax is going up in January to pay for the shortfall. As Cameron said, a small bonus at Christmas will be paid for forever.

 

Thanks Gordon, you're a brick...

 

 

Oops, typo.

 

Incorrect.

 

A NEW higher rate of income tax (i.e. the exisiting one remains in place) of 45p in the £1 on earnings over £150,000pa will come into place in April 2011.

 

Labour have got this half right, and the Tories are chasing their tail with no idea what is going on. However, what Labour really needed to do with get money into the pockets of those that need it. A drop of 4p in the basic rate of income tax, coupled with closing the loopholes that top earners use to wriggle out of paying tax, would have been a good start.

[Johnny Bognor]

Incorrect.

 

A NEW higher rate of income tax (i.e. the exisiting one remains in place) of 45p in the £1 on earnings over £150,000pa will come into place in April 2011.

 

Labour have got this half right, and the Tories are chasing their tail with no idea what is going on. However, what Labour really needed to do with get money into the pockets of those that need it. A drop of 4p in the basic rate of income tax, coupled with closing the loopholes that top earners use to wriggle out of paying tax, would have been a good start.

 

 

.....and an increase in NI contributions for those on £40k+ (which is by no means 'rich') means they have got it half wrong - once again, middle england is going to pay.

 

In addition to this, the increase in NI for employers means that those businesses that are struggling at the moment are going to struggle even more. Surely a reduction in employers NI would reduce the cost of emoployment for small businesses and be better for employment prospects?

 

The 2.5% reduction in VAT equates to 2.1% drop in real prices which will make little difference to consumer spending, when most retailers are discounting by 20-30% and things aren't improving. The big 'risk' to the economy is that of deflation, so what does Gordon Clown and Dulling do? Reduce prices - total irresponsible headline grabbing bull**** - the sooner these two fools are put to the sword (democratically speaking), the better!

[bungle]

.....and an increase in NI contributions for those on £40k+ (which is by no means 'rich') means they have got it half wrong - once again, middle england is going to pay.

 

In addition to this, the increase in NI for employers means that those businesses that are struggling at the moment are going to struggle even more. Surely a reduction in employers NI would reduce the cost of emoployment for small businesses and be better for employment prospects?

 

The 2.5% reduction in VAT equates to 2.1% drop in real prices which will make little difference to consumer spending, when most retailers are discounting by 20-30% and things aren't improving. The big 'risk' to the economy is that of deflation, so what does Gordon Clown and Dulling do? Reduce prices - total irresponsible headline grabbing bull**** - the sooner these two fools are put to the sword (democratically speaking), the better!

 

Yup, forgot the NI, and totally agree that again that is wrong. As is the increase in duty on alcohol and tobacco. The bit they've got right is the principal (i.e. we need to stimulate the economy), but they've f*cked up doing it. The Tories simply just don't have any idea what is going on.

 

I mean the Tories proposed a freeze in Council Tax. But were they planning to pay back the lost revenues to local government had they done it? If not, local authority finances would have been in a big hole. And if they were planning to pay back to local authorities, then how would they have done it. Would everyone have got the same? Just too many things left unanswered by another Cameron/Osborne soundbite with no substance.

Edited 25 November, 2008 by bungle

[Guest Hacienda]

The Tories have proved themselves to be utterly and totally clueless throughout this whole debacle.

 

They are way ou of their depth.

 

Vince Cable is the only one worth listening to.

[saint1977]

Yup, forgot the NI, and totally agree that again that is wrong. As is the increase in duty on alcohol and tobacco. The bit they've got right is the principal (i.e. we need to stimulate the economy), but they've f*cked up doing it. The Tories simply just don't have any idea what is going on.

 

I mean the Tories proposed a freeze in Council Tax. But were they planning to pay back to lost revenues to local government had they done it? If not, local authority finances would have been in a big hole. And if they were planning to pay back to local authorities, then how would they have done it. Would everyone have got the same? Just to many things left unanswered by another Cameron/Osborne soundbite with no substance.

 

Have to agree Bungle, I'm not convinced the Tories would have a clue what action to take in this crisis. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by cutting VAT either, I too would have cut income tax but as I'm getting married next year, 2.5% adds up on the bigger value items so not all bad news!

 

The biggest thing that would help the economy is to use our leverage on the banks to make them act responsibly towards small businesses, unlike the 1990s when overdrafts vanished overnight. They are up to their old tricks again despite their gross incompetence worldwide getting us into this mess - some of my friends with their own businesses are getting stung with bigger overdraft charges over a certain amount. Still, the cheating cvunts have done themselves in by giving out so many loans (fixed term) which might mean small businesses aren't as badly hit as the early 90s (hopefully).

[saint1977]

The Tories have proved themselves to be utterly and totally clueless throughout this whole debacle.

 

They are way ou of their depth.

 

Vince Cable is the only one worth listening to.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if Cameron eases Osborne out of the picture - he really is a liability. I'm not a Gordon Brown fan either but Osborne is worth 60-100 seats for the Labour Party every time he opens his mouth.

[bungle]

Unfortunately Labour is not going to be helping the people that are struggling to keep their head above water. VAT is only luxury goods, so those who can't buy food and supplies aren't going to be helped, it is just big spenders getting a helping hand.

 

Small businesses will also be in trouble: they will now get a massive wage hike in 2011 as NIC goes up. Perhaps cutting Corporation Tax for small businesses NOW would have been a good start?

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

2.5% VAT is pittence. Its only really going to be noted on purchased of thousands rather than your typical xmas shopping.

 

I for one have not got up and decided to spend extra because of the additional £2.50 I will save if I spend £100!

 

They need to make cuts propper or do it in another area, and whacking taxes up on Petrol is a major no no, having just been stung heavily after petrol prices where at their highest ever, when they start to fall, the government whack taxes up.

 

This is possibly my main negative, Labour have lost any vote I would make in the future now.

[saintwarwick]

Incorrect.

 

A NEW higher rate of income tax (i.e. the exisiting one remains in place) of 45p in the £1 on earnings over £150,000pa will come into place in April 2011.

 

Labour have got this half right, and the Tories are chasing their tail with no idea what is going on. However, what Labour really needed to do with get money into the pockets of those that need it. A drop of 4p in the basic rate of income tax, coupled with closing the loopholes that top earners use to wriggle out of paying tax, would have been a good start.

 

I don't think MP's and their expenses would agree with this....

[bungle]

I don't think MP's and their expenses would agree with this....

 

It is all very well and nice and popular to have a go at MPs (note the lack of apostrophe for correct grammar), but in this instance you are well off the mark and sadly deluded.

 

There is no way that MPs, who get one salary, paid for by the HoC authorities, are going to be able to avoid paying tax on that earning. Very few have other jobs (I think there might be a couple who still have family businesses perhaps, but not sure), and expenses are working out differently to wages and tax.

 

There are plenty of legitmate reasons to call into question MPs, but I'm afraid you make yourself look the fool when you pretty much lie to make your agenda fit. In many ways your post is like alpine_saint on the main board.

[Patrick Bateman]

To be honest I give up with all the political parties. Not one of them seem to have a clue in all honesty which proves that politics is a joke, especially in this country. I don't align to any "side" and certainly won't be bothering in the future - yes, I shall not use my vote that people have lost lives ensuring I get. It's sad and I'm sorry for THEM that the parties on offer are tripe, all of them run by people that you love to hate.

I'd love to be an MP and make a difference. But what party would I align to? I have no idea. Which is why the whole thing is just staggeringly ridiculous - there should be a party that stands out, for you as a person. Maybe for others there is, but generally I find with people it's a "always supported Labour so will continue to support Labour", or "My family have always been Tory, I'll always be Tory" and so on.

 

I'm past that stage. I would love to see a party come to the forefront that could really make a difference to everything that matters; health, education, policing, benefits, immigration, taxation, international policy, hell even the "feel good factor" would be nice to have back and to be able to walk down the street and see happy smiling faces, not faces of people who look like their world is ending and/or they want to stab you.

 

On the other side of the coin, as I'm affected by ALL the new tax rules

(thanks!), I might just move to Switzerland …

[Iowsaintsfan]

Right i might be a little thick here but surely arnt most business just not pay more tax and keep the profits? or am i missing something here at no point they have to pass on the savings to the customer? or am i wrong (not being the brightest when it comes to things like this!)

[bungle]

Right i might be a little thick here but surely arnt most business just not pay more tax and keep the profits? or am i missing something here at no point they have to pass on the savings to the customer? or am i wrong (not being the brightest when it comes to things like this!)

 

Of course they don't have to but businesses, especially small ones, need to get people back in their shops and spending money and so will pass on the cuts for their own benefit.

[JohnnyFartPants]

2.5% VAT is pittence. Its only really going to be noted on purchased of thousands rather than your typical xmas shopping.

 

I for one have not got up and decided to spend extra because of the additional £2.50 I will save if I spend £100!

 

They need to make cuts propper or do it in another area, and whacking taxes up on Petrol is a major no no, having just been stung heavily after petrol prices where at their highest ever, when they start to fall, the government whack taxes up.

 

This is possibly my main negative, Labour have lost any vote I would make in the future now.

 

I don't think the 2.5% VAT cut is supposed to be noticed by us, the individuals. I think it is all about tickling the backs of the major companies that employ people and buy stock etc. It gives them more money back and is aimed at making them feel more secure to start spending, thus get the economy moving.

[Barney Trubble]

Economics isn't my strong point but I don't see how Labours VAT cutting isn't going to help sort this problem out.

 

From what I understand, we are millions in debt and this is down to people overspending or not being able to pay back credit that they may have taken, So how can encouraging people to spend more or go further into debt actually be good in the long term?

 

Or is it a case of deal with the immediate problem now and just hope hope thing's sort themselves out long term?

 

Personally, I don't see the benefit of lending more money at this moment in time and then in another couple of years, forcing our arm to pay it all back by increased national insurance contributions or another stealth tax that labour will think up in the interim period.

 

To me, we need to borrow less money.

 

I'm not Labour or Tory etc and you'll have to excuse my naive understanding of the crisis but I don't see how digging a bigger hole for yourself to get out of can be beneficial.

[Guest Hacienda]

Economics isn't my strong point but I don't see how Labours VAT cutting isn't going to help sort this problem out.

 

From what I understand, we are millions in debt and this is down to people overspending or not being able to pay back credit that they may have taken, So how can encouraging people to spend more or go further into debt actually be good in the long term?

 

Or is it a case of deal with the immediate problem now and just hope hope thing's sort themselves out long term?

 

Personally, I don't see the benefit of lending more money at this moment in time and then in another couple of years, forcing our arm to pay it all back by increased national insurance contributions or another stealth tax that labour will think up in the interim period.

 

To me, we need to borrow less money.

 

I'm not Labour or Tory etc and you'll have to excuse my naive understanding of the crisis but I don't see how digging a bigger hole for yourself to get out of can be beneficial.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian

[bungle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian

 

There's a lot of waffle in there.

 

I heard it explained quite well on the radio this morning actually. Basically at a recession time people and companies cut back on their spending. However, the lack of any money being spent creates unemployment and drags down the economy.

 

To combat this, governments can try and stimulate the economy by getting people spending again. There are, of course, many different ways of doing this. However, the idea is to boost the economy by giving people the ability to spend, thus allowing business to continue functioning etc.

 

The other option is, of course, to do nothing, and cut spending and save money. But the consquences could be dire and long-lasting.

[stevegrant]

The other option is, of course, to do nothing, and cut spending and save money. But the consquences could be dire and long-lasting.

But presumably the consequences of the first option could also be dire and long-lasting as the nation as a whole and people individually get into even worse debt because of this attempt to artificially stimulate the economy.

[Guest Hacienda]

There's a lot of waffle in there.

 

I heard it explained quite well on the radio this morning actually. Basically at a recession time people and companies cut back on their spending. However, the lack of any money being spent creates unemployment and drags down the economy.

 

To combat this, governments can try and stimulate the economy by getting people spending again. There are, of course, many different ways of doing this. However, the idea is to boost the economy by giving people the ability to spend, thus allowing business to continue functioning etc.

 

The other option is, of course, to do nothing, and cut spending and save money. But the consquences could be dire and long-lasting.

 

It's bog standard Keynesian economics.

 

Your closing paragraph refers to a more monetarist approach as advocated by Thatcher.

[bungle]

It's bog standard Keynesian economics.

 

Your closing paragraph refers to a more monetarist approach as advocated by Thatcher.

 

Indeed it is, I just felt the Wiki page was not particularly clear and had a bash myself!

[Guest Hacienda]

But presumably the consequences of the first option could also be dire and long-lasting as the nation as a whole and people individually get into even worse debt because of this attempt to artificially stimulate the economy.

 

It's because our economy has changed from one reliant upon making things to sell to one reliant on the consumer spending.

[bungle]

But presumably the consequences of the first option could also be dire and long-lasting as the nation as a whole and people individually get into even worse debt because of this attempt to artificially stimulate the economy.

 

The aim is to try and allow people to spend without taking on debt. Hence I would prefer a 4p cut on basic rate income tax which puts more money into the pockets of the low paid and middle class, and also would have benefit on non-luxury items. You don't spend VAT on your weekly grocery shop, so in what way does this help the people that need the help?

 

At this time the Government has to take on more debt to give the economy a chance to grow, I just think that Labour have done this very badly, and it could well lead to further difficult times ahead. Still, at least they are trying to do something, while the Conservatives show that they are not fit for government.

[bridge too far]

I don't quite agree with some of the comments being made about the VAT reduction. VAT is a regressive tax. The poorer you are, the more you spend PROPORTIONALLY (as part of your wages) on VAT. http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/vat/vatth2.htm

 

Time will tell if this has all been wise but if the Chancellor had done nothing I think there would a very real risk that eventually the UK would have to borrow even more money. If the economy isn't stimulated then more businesses will close (and therefore pay less business taxes and VAT), more people will lose their jobs (and therefore pay less tax, NI and VAT on purchases) and more benefits will have to be paid out.

 

So tax revenues will reduce and benefits will increase. I bet that would add up to a lot more than the proposed measures.

 

As a partner in a small business, I can see that our cashflow will benefit in a number of ways and cashflow is what is hitting small businesses more than anything ATM. Also, a number of ways of lending money to SMEs is proposed to circumvent the stubborness of the big banks in their refusal to extend overdrafts and keep rates at last year's levels.

 

Mr Osborne proposes a number of measures. Freezing Council Tax, for example. So how are local councils supposed to provide services? Would they have to borrow from central government to plug the gap? Surely that would add to the 'borrowing' by government? And it wouldn't come into effect until April next year at the earliest.

 

I think the Tories have lost the plot on this one and are painting themselves into a corner. Virtually every economy, not just in the western world, is proposing the same sort of measures as Darling introduced yesterday. I guess they're all wrong and George Osborne is the only one who's right :smt102

 

I don't think sitting back and letting the recession ride out is the right move and, as I say above, this could actually increase the levels of borrowing. Action needed to be taken now. Whilst I'm nowhere near the 45% tax bracket, I don't believe it will hit the 1% of the population in this bracket that hard. They all employ accountants to find legal loopholes and the very rich pay, as a proportion of their income, comparitively little in the way of taxes.

[Weston Super Saint]

Two and a half pence in every pound.

 

I can barely contain my excitement.

[Scummer]

In 30 replies, and some long winded ones at that, no-one has actually answered the question posed by Dog.

 

It's next Monday, by the way........

[bridge too far]

Two and a half pence in every pound.

 

I can barely contain my excitement.

 

But surely it's two and a half pence per pound less that you'll have to pay to the IR and that could well be a substantial amount.

 

And you'll have longer to pay it, too.

 

That's got to help a bit.

[bungle]

But surely it's two and a half pence per pound less that you'll have to pay to the IR and that could well be a substantial amount.

 

And you'll have longer to pay it, too.

 

That's got to help a bit.

 

It doesn't help people who neeed help, it is helping those who have the power to spend. Where is the help for low income families? There is none, and they will be shafted by increased NI.

 

Tories = Incapable of realising the issue

Labour = Know there is a problem, but have messed up the solution.

[Weston Super Saint]

But surely it's two and a half pence per pound less that you'll have to pay to the IR and that could well be a substantial amount.

 

And you'll have longer to pay it, too.

 

That's got to help a bit.

 

For anyone running a pub it's bad news - as if we needed more bad news

 

Who's going to pay for this cut in VAT, oh that's right, the duty on tobacco and alcohol is going to be increased, which WILL be passed on to the consumer, who WILL decide to spend even less of their money in the pub and even more of their money in the local supermarket.

 

Then, just to top it all off, once the customers have all gone, NI contributions will be increased.

 

I can't wait.

[bridge too far]

It doesn't help people who neeed help, it is helping those who have the power to spend. Where is the help for low income families? There is none, and they will be shafted by increased NI.

 

Tories = Incapable of realising the issue

Labour = Know there is a problem, but have messed up the solution.

 

Bungle, I know what you're saying but, if I can repeat the point, VAT is a regressive tax (lord knows, your lot have been saying that for years).

 

It is applied to many basics, not just luxuries. Over the course of a year, all those 2.5ps will add up (assuming the retailers pass the cut on). So, whilst we might sneer at 2.5p, it could be quite significant to some families.

[bridge too far]

For anyone running a pub it's bad news - as if we needed more bad news

 

Who's going to pay for this cut in VAT, oh that's right, the duty on tobacco and alcohol is going to be increased, which WILL be passed on to the consumer, who WILL decide to spend even less of their money in the pub and even more of their money in the local supermarket.

 

Then, just to top it all off, once the customers have all gone, NI contributions will be increased.

 

I can't wait.

 

A bit economical with the truth, if you'll forgive the sort-of pun. The duty on tobacco and alcohol is only going to be increased by the amount lost due to the reduction in VAT.

 

So tobacco and alcohol is not going to cost more IN REAL TERMS, even in the supermarket (although I'm with you big time on supermarket alcohol BTW).

[bungle]

Bungle, I know what you're saying but, if I can repeat the point, VAT is a regressive tax (lord knows, your lot have been saying that for years).

 

It is applied to many basics, not just luxuries. Over the course of a year, all those 2.5ps will add up (assuming the retailers pass the cut on). So, whilst we might sneer at 2.5p, it could be quite significant to some families.

 

It will help, but not enough. And as the poster above mentions, we now have another increase on alcohol and tobacco (which, by the way, will also hurt local independent shops and local pubs).

 

The whole package is a mess (although I don't mind the new higher tax band in 2011 as a solution - not my preferred method but no massive problems with it), which is just going to make those people who need the help worse off.

[saintwarwick]

It is all very well and nice and popular to have a go at MPs (note the lack of apostrophe for correct grammar), but in this instance you are well off the mark and sadly deluded.

 

There is no way that MPs, who get one salary, paid for by the HoC authorities, are going to be able to avoid paying tax on that earning. Very few have other jobs (I think there might be a couple who still have family businesses perhaps, but not sure), and expenses are working out differently to wages and tax.

 

There are plenty of legitmate reasons to call into question MPs, but I'm afraid you make yourself look the fool when you pretty much lie to make your agenda fit. In many ways your post is like alpine_saint on the main board.

 

Good to see MPs are allowed to claim £140.00 per month motoring expenses without having to provide receipts

[bungle]

Hey, and at least we are discussing positive action to try and get the economy going again. Unlike the Tories!

[Weston Super Saint]

If the government - present, future or even the less likely to get in power - were to sort out it's own inefficiencies the financial savings would probably pay for a 10p reduction in VAT.

[Patrick Bateman]

The aim is to try and allow people to spend without taking on debt. Hence I would prefer a 4p cut on basic rate income tax which puts more money into the pockets of the low paid and middle class, and also would have benefit on non-luxury items. You don't spend VAT on your weekly grocery shop, so in what way does this help the people that need the help?

 

 

This is the best "policy" on offer, by a long way. It makes the most sense and would indeed help pretty much everyone by giving them more spending power.

 

But, as JFP rightly pointed out, the VAT decrease will benefit businesses more who already have large sales on, who don't have to drop prices and can relax a bit, gain more revenue AND profit margain and expand/hire more staff and the economy starts to move again that way.

So I can understand a VAT cut from that perspective as average Joe on the street will not notice it.

 

Of course a council tax free would really help wouldn't it?

[bridge too far]

Good to see MPs are allowed to claim £140.00 per month motoring expenses without having to provide receipts

 

Given that current rates are about 43p per mile, it doesn't take a genius to realise that only very local (to Westminster) MPs would have such a small claim (280 miles a month). Most claims would be far in excess of £140 pcm and would, therefore, have to have receipts attached.

 

The administrative costs of processing such a small claim probably far outweigh the benefit of catching out a cheat IMO.

 

(Takes auditor hat off)....

[bungle]

Given that current rates are about 43p per mile, it doesn't take a genius to realise that only very local (to Westminster) MPs would have such a small claim (280 miles a month). Most claims would be far in excess of £140 pcm and would, therefore, have to have receipts attached.

 

The administrative costs of processing such a small claim probably far outweigh the benefit of catching out a cheat IMO.

 

(Takes auditor hat off)....

 

No, no, can't you see it's all the MPs fault?! Bloody hell. Did you know it's their fault there is a grey cloud in the sky today too?!

[Scummer]

Given that current rates are about 43p per mile, it doesn't take a genius to realise that only very local (to Westminster) MPs would have such a small claim (280 miles a month). Most claims would be far in excess of £140 pcm and would, therefore, have to have receipts attached.

 

The administrative costs of processing such a small claim probably far outweigh the benefit of catching out a cheat IMO.

 

(Takes auditor hat off)....

 

Do HMRC allow people to claim expenses for their travel into work?

[Johnny Bognor]

But surely it's two and a half pence per pound less that you'll have to pay to the IR and that could well be a substantial amount.

 

And you'll have longer to pay it, too.

 

That's got to help a bit.

 

 

The thing is, it is not 2.5p per pound - it is 2.1p per pound.

 

 

If a product is £85.11 +VAT then

 

.......at 17.5 % VAT, the price becomes £100.00

.......at 15 % VAT the price becomes £97.88

 

 

The reduction of 2.5% on VAT saves £2.11, which is a reduction in the overall price of 2.11%. Dulling and G Clown are quite happy to let everyone think that they are saving 2.5%, when this is not the case.

There are plenty of things that could have been done at little or no cost, but the career politicians do not see it (and I include the tories in this too). Unfortunately, when you allow amateurs to run your economy, what else can you except. Vince Cable is one of the only ones who knows what he's talking about (and I am not a Lib Dem by any stretch of the imagination).

 

[saintwarwick]

The aim is to try and allow people to spend without taking on debt. Hence I would prefer a 4p cut on basic rate income tax which puts more money into the pockets of the low paid and middle class, and also would have benefit on non-luxury items. You don't spend VAT on your weekly grocery shop, so in what way does this help the people that need the help?

 

At this time the Government has to take on more debt to give the economy a chance to grow, I just think that Labour have done this very badly, and it could well lead to further difficult times ahead. Still, at least they are trying to do something, while the Conservatives show that they are not fit for government.

 

This I agree with, the only way to help the poor or not so well of is cutting income tax, vat won't help many unless they are buying luxury items. Many people will not notice it at all with normal everyday shopping (except people who eat a lot of crisps, biscuits chocolate etc)

[bridge too far]

If the government - present, future or even the less likely to get in power - were to sort out it's own inefficiencies the financial savings would probably pay for a 10p reduction in VAT.

 

One of the things I have to do in my job is to look at 'Gershon savings'. This is where each local council has to achieve targetted savings compared to its 2004-05 budget. This financial year every local council will have to spend 10% less on non-pay items than it did in 2004-05.

 

Here's an example from a District council (I googled it - not a piece of work I did )

 

http://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/libraries/documents/the%20council/finance/budget08_09/table_2_gershon_savings.pdf

 

These savings are achieved by 'collaborative procurement' whereby local councils join forces to benefit from economies of scale for such things as energy, transport, me etc. and by developing frameworks, again to drive down prices.

 

If they don't achieve these savings, their annual audit opinion is 'qualified' and they lose out on grants.

 

Most councils achieve and many exceed their targets. So don't believe all you read in the papers

[stevegrant]

No, no, can't you see it's all the MPs fault?! Bloody hell. Did you know it's their fault there is a grey cloud in the sky today too?!

No grey clouds over Wandsworth Common today :cool:

 

Do HMRC allow people to claim expenses for their travel into work?

It depends on the job status. As a permanent employee, you are only entitled to claim expenses for business mileage, which is basically any miles travelled in addition to the daily commute.

 

As a contractor, as you technically work for yourself, your home address is your place of work and you travel to client sites for your work. Expenses for those journeys can be claimed.

 

I would presume that MPs are classed as permanent employees, but I can't be sure of that.

[Patrick Bateman]

Do HMRC allow people to claim expenses for their travel into work?

 

Yes.

 

If you are travelling to a place other than your "normal place of work", you can claim, from HMRC (only by filling in a tax return) petrol allowance from home to your "normal place of work" as your company (whether your own, or one you are employed by) won't/shouldn't actually pay that bit.

 

There is probably someone who can articulate that better than I, look on the HMRC website.

 

I've used it in the past and claimed back a fair bit.

[bridge too far]

Do HMRC allow people to claim expenses for their travel into work?

 

 

I don't claim for travelling TO work but I do claim for travelling TO OTHER PLACES IN CONNECTION WITH MY WORK.

 

An MP's place of work is his/her constituency. S/he can claim for travel to the HoC.

 

Or would you rather only the very wealthy were MPs so they can pay out of their own pockets?

 

Or better still, not draw a salary at all?

 

Dolt.