| (https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLaXSiJaazq2j75ctjOsWSkwUTc2gwFYgvAu6iuieFG_5Zxvrt) | Prime Minister David Cameron has defended the decision to charge VAT on hot food served by shops and supermarkets. Mr Cameron said that the move - which will add 20% to the cost of hot pies and pasties sold by shops such as Greggs - would defend takeaway restaurants against competition from major chains. Chancellor George Osborne was accused of being out of touch after he was unable to recall when he last bought a pasty as he answered questions on Tuesday about the so-called "pie tax" in Parliament. But Mr Cameron was quick to declare himself a keen pasty-eater, telling reporters he recently bought a large one from an outlet at Leeds station, adding: "And very good it was too." Greggs chief executive Ken McMeikan has said ministers had "lost touch" and did not appreciate the impact the changes to VAT rules would have on ordinary people. The high street chain saw millions wiped off its shares after the Budget closed a loophole that has meant some hot takeaway foods, such as sausage rolls and pasties, escaped the duty. The move sparked outrage, with critics pointing to the contrast of a cut in the 50p top tax rate. But speaking at a Downing Street press conference, Mr Cameron said that Mr Osborne was trying to bring shops into line with the VAT charged for more than two decades on takeaway burger bars, fried chicken restaurants and fish and chip shops. The Prime Minister said: "Many, many small businesses in this country, whether selling fried chicken or fish and chips or hot takeaway pies, are already paying VAT. What the Government has to try to do is make sure the VAT rules are fairly applied. "I don't think it is fair that the small businessman running a fried chicken takeaway is having to charge his customers VAT but the big supermarket isn't having to pay VAT on fresh hot chicken. It's about trying to have a sensible VAT arrangement where the boundaries are sensible." |
Interestingly there is no VAT on food such as Caviar or Salmon.Rich get richer, and the poor gets poorer...that is, presuming most poor people don't eat caviar!
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/business/there-s-no-tax-on-caviar-or-smoked-salmon-so-why-put-it-on-our-pies-1-4387076
Again... why do we put up with such a rob dogging government who is like the Sheriff of Nottingham, only with a smug face and whitened teeth.
No, poor people eat pies and pastys from Greggs.Exactly...so we pay more (as teh poorer ones) and the rich people get richer on caviar!
Money has to be made from something.. :lol:
Of course not... anything for the rich. The middle class are just left out to dry and the poor a left to rot.What party would you suggest? No party represents the middle class.
The sooner the torries get out of power.. the better..
No, poor people eat pies and pastys from Greggs.Really? Greggs isn't exactly cheap.
The rich will always be favored by the Conservatives.. which is why they have no chance of coming into power again.The tories will get into power again. The lib dems are (rightfully) a complete laughing stock and are essentially a non-party (once again), and labour is just awful at everything. They'll f**k the economy so hard that it won't even be able to walk for a week, not to mention those jackasses Miliband and Balls. Over that rubbish choice, I'll take Cameron and Osborne any day.
These guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party).Indeed. I support UKIP, actually, although sadly a vote for UKIP is one less tactical conservative vote.
Pastys can go to hell!no
Pastys can go to hell!
no
Pastys can go to hell!I must agree with this guy.
I must agree with this guy.
If they taxed pizzas and someone says pizzas can go to hell,I don't eat pastys or pizzas that often. :lol:
:m4:
I don't eat pastys or pizzas that often. :lol:(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PLjNWOu-Zn0/SqUwRa938NI/AAAAAAAAA24/aXlYy1lmsWg/s400/theres-the-door-now-get-the-%25&@%23-out.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PLjNWOu-Zn0/SqUwRa938NI/AAAAAAAAA24/aXlYy1lmsWg/s400/theres-the-door-now-get-the-%25&@%23-out.jpg)I don't eat doors that often either... :conf:
I don't eat doors that often either... :conf:
I'm a door eater and I find this offensive. :war:
But in all seriousness, what food are you betting they will tax next?
I'm a door eater and I find this offensive. :war:Well they already taxed buscuits which is why every buscuit company is like, 'NO SIR MR GOVERNMENT, IT'S CAKE NOT BUSCUIT!' :razz:
But in all seriousness, what food are you betting they will tax next?
Well they already taxed buscuits which is why every buscuit company is like, 'NO SIR MR GOVERNMENT, IT'S CAKE NOT BUSCUIT!' :razz:
Anyway they'll probibly tax pot noodles next. :lol:
What kind of government gets fooled into thinking a biscuit is a cake? :neutral:There was an argument with Wagon Wheels (Chocolate bar) over wether it was a chocolate bar, buscuit or cake, obviously the company that produces them argued that it was the one that was going to make them save on tax money.
If it goes hard when it goes off, it's a cake.Lol thats true!
If the reverse is true, it's a biscuit.
:)
There was an argument with Wagon Wheels (Chocolate bar) over wether it was a chocolate bar, buscuit or cake, obviously the company that produces them argued that it was the one that was going to make them save on tax money.
It's like people arguing over if a duck-billed platypus is a duck or a beaver, when it's neither of them. :neutral:No they managed to keep it as a chocolate bar, not a buscuit! (They didn't get taxed but there was a court dispute over it). :razz:
Were they able to save money on their "cakes" or did they still get taxed? :lol:
I've seen different sorts of bulllshit going on in politics. But a court dispute over if a food is a biscuit or a cake...Why wouldn't there be? It changes the tax status of a good which has a significant effect on their business.
Why wouldn't there be? It changes the tax status of a good which has a significant effect on their business.
There should be no tax on food and clothing period.
Exactly, these are necessities. However, I believe extra-expensive variants of both (i.e: thousand-dollar suits) should get a tax as only the upper-middle / upper class are able to afford them. Other than that, there should be no tax.
If the government should place tax on something, it should be on luxury items such as expensive furniture and cars.
If the government wants to save/make more money (not being racist here), they should kick all the immigrents out that are just coming over, having like 8 kids and claiming non-stop child benefits, half of them only have this amount of kids for the money and it's pathetic.Or they should get a better system for benefits management.
Or they should get a better system for benefits management.We need to decrease the population not just in Britain but the whole world. Everywhere is becoming overcrowded and it's a drain on resources like food and housing.
If the government is putting more and more taxes, it only shows they are either not managing their budget properly, or that they are desperate to invest even more money (which they do not have yet) into something.
We need to decrease the population not just in Britain but the whole world. Everywhere is becoming overcrowded and it's a drain on resources like food and housing.
As JDC said we need a more effective benefits management and maybe the more children you have say over 4 then the amount of benefits you get per child after the 4 decreases.
If the government wants to save/make more money (not being racist here), they should kick all the immigrents out that are just coming over, having like 8 kids and claiming non-stop child benefits, half of them only have this amount of kids for the money and it's pathetic.
Interesting, before this happened, Polish politicians got the idea of setting VAT on fast foods. I wonder if UK got the idea from our money munchers..This countries PM is screwing the country over, first he gets rid of our only aircraft carrier, then he's taxing every little thing, now he removes child benefits from people who need it (there are regulations on this though) but anyway the UK needs a new PM, this one is just trying to get the government as much money as possible.
trying to get the government as much money as possible.
Apparently, that is the point of politics in many of today's governments.Yes and isnt politics supposed to be helping the country? :roll:
Yes and isnt politics supposed to be helping the country? :roll: