As VAT is one of the EU's own Resources, did the EU tell the UK it had to come into line with the rest of the EU? Why no mention of the EU's involvement re VAT, and why suddenly did it become the best way to get more money off the people when some of it goes to the EU and not all to the UK?
Exactly how much of the expected £13 billion raised from the 20% VAT go to the EU?
See this prediction re VAT from Feb 2010
http://www.investortoday.co.uk/News/Story/?storyid=2663&title=VAT_rise_to_20pc_a_near_certainty&type=news_features
EU Parliament Debates re Harmonisation of VAT 22, November 2010- And other points of interest, including an EU Consultation paper re the best way of paying VAT to foreigners. Do you really think you should be paying taxes to a foreign Organisation when you have your own Government? What if those taxes go towards war making equipment that may be turned upon any Country that does not want to be governed by foreigners forever, and forever is what it is all about? OOOoooops! Do our Parliamentarians think it is all Lovey-Dovey? It is about POWER, and never forget it. How I wish we had in Government those that knew what real war was all about, and yes I do know, for I was one whose house was bombed to Hell. Anne
Common system of value added tax and duration of obligation to respect a minimum standard rate (debate-English parts only from EU Parliament)
Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament, and in particular David Casa, for his constructive and quick report on the Commission’s proposal to extend by five years the existing rules on the minimum standard VAT rate. This proposal is simple and is not controversial. (Should be in attachment if I don’t forget to include it!)
A quick opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission’s proposal will allow the Council to adopt the proposal before the end of the year – just in time, before the current rule expires. The proposal has indeed already been discussed in the Council working party. No obstacle appeared to a speedy approval.
As stated by David Casa, the Commission’s proposal will give businesses the necessary legal certainty and allow further evaluation of the appropriate level of the standard VAT rate at EU level.
The Commission will indeed launch very soon a broad debate on the future of VAT in order to evaluate and address the numerous shortcomings in the EU VAT system such as its complexity, the high level of administrative burdens for businesses and fraud.
Before the end of the year, I will propose to my fellow Commissioners the publication of a Green Paper on the evaluation of the current system and preferable ways forward for the future. I am looking forward to reactions as regards such issues as how to achieve a simpler, more robust and modern VAT system and how to reduce collection and compliance costs for businesses, in particular SMEs, whilst limiting fraud and providing flexibility for Member States. On the basis of the results obtained, the Commission will define its future policy in the VAT area in a Communication on the way forward at the end of 2011.
The amendments tabled clearly demonstrate the Parliament’s interest in participating in this discussion on the future VAT strategy. I welcome this sign of interest and hope to have a fruitful debate with you on this important issue at a later stage. However, I consider that these amendments are outside the scope of the proposal discussed today, which is limited to extending the period during which the minimum standard rate applies. Moreover, some of the amendments pre-empt a debate we should have on the basis of the Green Paper. This applies in particular to the amendment which requests the Commission to come up with a proposal on definitive rules on VAT rates by 2013.
At this stage, the Commission cannot commit on a date to table a proposal on VAT rates. It cannot predict the outcome of the consultation, whose scope will be broader than the VAT rates. I hope that this consultation will give a clear idea of the priorities for the future of VAT. The Commission’s planning for future legislative proposals will therefore depend to a great extent on the outcome of this consultation.
Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, taxes are at best a necessary evil, and should always reflect spending needs. A tax rate that is set before spending needs are decided is a recipe for taking people’s money and then deciding what to spend it on. It is a recipe for profligacy.
Harmonisation of VAT rates to a common standard and a common reduced rate, which was the proposal of the Commission back in 1993, would take yet more power out of the hands of Member States. The levying of taxation is one of the defining characteristics of a sovereign state. It will be yet another step towards the sovereign state being the European Union, and Member States simply being powerless appendices to it. Combating fraud and easing burdens on SMEs are red herrings. VAT harmonisation is about centralisation and the consolidation of EU power.
Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I want to thank you for the comments and the views expressed during this debate. I am glad to see that the European Parliament and the Commission share views on the need to rethink the current VAT system.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, I welcome the spirit of the amendments relating to the future of VAT. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that this technical proposal only concerns the periodical extension of the minimum level of the standard VAT rate.
The outcome of the consultations on a new VAT strategy is only mentioned in order to justify the reason why it is premature to set a permanent standard rate level. There is therefore no need to refer to the aims and the framework of the new VAT strategy in this context at this stage.
I also repeat that the Commission cannot commit today on a date for the future legislative proposal on rates. We will first need to have the debate on the future of VAT, which will give a clear idea on the priorities for the Commission. The outcome of this consultation will steer the Commission’s planning for the future legislative proposal.
We are finalising our work on the Green Paper, and in the coming weeks we will produce the real questions for debate for everyone involved: the general public, Members of the European Parliament, stakeholders and the Member States. The questions which will be raised clearly address issues which were raised during today’s debate.
I am looking forward to fruitful debates in the coming months in order to enable the Commission to develop a much better strategy for VAT in the future.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_European_Union
VAT on Postal Packets UK Standard Note http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-04155.pdf
UK Finance Bill http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100706/debtext/100706-0005.htm
A snippet
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): It is
"A coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused".
Those are not my words-as a Member new to the House I would not be so bold-but those of the Nobel laureate economist, Paul Krugman, when describing another right-wing cabal, in the US, and its attempt to
6 July 2010 : Column 317
slash welfare spending instead of increasing growth. His description might serve well to describe and characterise the callous collaborators on the Government Benches, and the war on welfare that they are launching tonight with the Finance Bill.
The coalition is heartless in its disregard for how VAT and the unprecedented spending cuts that we anticipate will hit the poorest in our society, it is clueless in the wrong-headed belief that we have heard repeated so often tonight that these savage public sector cuts will somehow liberate private sector surpluses, entrepreneurialism and growth in the economy, and it is confused. There is confusion at least on the part of the Liberal Democrats as to how they managed to enter the political fray at last, only to find themselves, as an old soldier in my constituency described it last week, on the side of the axis powers. [Interruption.] I thought that it was pretty funny.
I do not, however, want to dwell on the heartlessness of the measures included in the Finance Bill, because so many people have done so with such eloquence this evening. I think that the public will be able to judge that heartlessness for themselves when they see the raising of VAT on essential goods for the poor, and Government Members cheering, as they did during the Budget speech, measures such as the decision to scrap the health in pregnancy grant designed to tackle malnourishment in pregnant mothers in the poorer sectors of our society. Opposition Members consider such provisions the hallmark of a civilised society, but Government Members clearly think they are a burden on economic efficiency.
I do not really want to talk about the heartlessness. I would rather talk about the cluelessness. [Hon. Members: " You already have.] Yes I have, and I am going to do it again in a minute. We have heard lots of cluelessness this evening, mostly inspired by the primer on Milton Friedman that Government Members have all obviously read recently, and we have heard reiterated by the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) and various others. The idea is that if we cut the public sector, which allegedly squeezes out private sector entrepreneurialism and growth, we somehow stimulate the private sector, and that leads to a flourishing of entrepreneurialism.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100706/debtext/100706-0005.htm
**************************
EU Budget State of Union address is easy to obtain
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snep-00864.pdf
Chris Heaton-Harris (Part only) President Barroso recently gave a state of the Union address. I talk about that because I want to put into context where the argument sits now. We might be talking about the 2011 budget for the European Parliament, and I am trying to look forward to how we negotiate in the negotiations that are just opening up for the next financial framework. President Barroso put his cards on the table in his state of the Union address: not only does he want more money, but he wants to raise it in a completely different way. A former Minister for Europe talked about own resources; essentially, President Barroso would like to have a European tax. There is a debate for us to have on that.
13 Oct 2010 : Column 438
Some people want a European tax because more member states are having debates such as the one in the Chamber today whereby their parliamentarians say, "You are spending a lot of money from direct taxation, not from the way you used to raise it." My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) referred to that and it is unacceptable in the current economic climate.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): My hon. Friend adds a great deal to the Chamber with his wealth of experience. For those of us who are new to the EU institutions, will he explain how members of the British public may cast a vote to dismiss President Barroso?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101013/debtext/101013-0004.htm
Latest EU re VAT http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/consultations/tax/future_vat/com%282010%29695_en.pdf
EU Consultation Paper re VAT Runs until .11.2011 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/consultations/tax/2010_11_future_vat_en.htm
Posts
