No Vat on Bikes Petition - response from the government



V

vernon

Guest
For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any hope of
17.5% 'discount'

I'm sure that the topic was covered here in urc a while ago.

VAT is a broad-based tax on consumer expenditure generally and reliefs from
it have always been strictly limited. When the UK joined the European
Community in 1973, it meant signing up to the general agreements which
covered the application of VAT throughout the EC. Under these and subsequent
agreements, signed by successive governments, we are allowed to keep our
existing VAT zero rates but not to introduce new ones. This means that we
cannot remove VAT from bicycles and other human powered vehicles or their
parts and spares.

The Government is taking practical steps to increase levels of cycling, as a
means of contributing to many of our key priorities including improving the
health of the nation, improving the environment and helping to reduce urban
congestion. In 2005, the Department for Transport launched Cycling England,
an independent expert body to co-ordinate cycling across the country with a
budget of £5m a year for a three-year period to allocate to cycling
programmes. This was increased to £10m a year in June 2006 with the
additional funding being targeted on funding safe links to school and
additional cycle training in schools. Cycling England has a free expert
advisory service to support local authorities to help them get the best
value out of their expenditure (around £60m in 2006/07) on cycling. £17m
(with match funding) is also being invested in six Cycling Demonstration
Towns over 3 years, to showcase best practice, and test whether by investing
at levels seen in successful European cycling cities we can start to see
similar levels of cycling in England.
 
A

Alistair Gunn

Guest
vernon twisted the electrons to say:
> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
> hope of 17.5% 'discount'


At the risk of slight thread swerve, has anyone seen or heard of the
government responding to a petition with words to the effect of "that's a
good idea, we'll get right on it"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
V

vernon

Guest
"Alistair Gunn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> vernon twisted the electrons to say:
>> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
>> hope of 17.5% 'discount'

>
> At the risk of slight thread swerve, has anyone seen or heard of the
> government responding to a petition with words to the effect of "that's a
> good idea, we'll get right on it"?
> --

Online petitions keep protesters off the streets with no promises of action;
only promises of listening . Like most government led
planning/consultation/pay award processes....
 
D

David Johnson

Guest
* vernon wrote:
> The Government is taking practical steps to increase levels of cycling, as a

(snip)

Try campaigning through Facebook. Seems to be the medium of choice for
campaigning these days. Brought back the Wispa back from the dead and
took on HSBC with their non-free overdrafts for students. Fear the
power of Facebook.
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"vernon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Online petitions keep protesters off the streets with no promises of
> action; only promises of listening . Like most government led
> planning/consultation/pay award processes....


Except the online petitions thing isn't government led - it was launched by
a campaigning guy. Doesn't alter the fact that it'll get ignored though...

cheers,
clive
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Alistair Gunn said the following on 30/08/2007 17:04:

> At the risk of slight thread swerve, has anyone seen or heard of the
> government responding to a petition with words to the effect of "that's a
> good idea, we'll get right on it"?


The Farnell rep I was on the phone to as I was reading this wondered why
I suddenly burst out laughing!!! The primary purpose of this
petition is to give the impression that government are listening, not to
actually listen.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
N

Nobbut Cackling

Guest
David Johnson wrote:
> * vernon wrote:
>> The Government is taking practical steps to increase levels of
>> cycling, as a (snip)

>
> Try campaigning through Facebook. Seems to be the medium of choice for
> campaigning these days. Brought back the Wispa back from the dead and
> took on HSBC with their non-free overdrafts for students. Fear the
> power of Facebook.



Then that's obviously the place to get something done about the
ever-decreasing size of Cadbury's creme eggs! Already down to an
iniquitously small mouthful, they will shrink to the size of an acorn within
three years if something is not done about it.
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Alistair Gunn wrote:
> vernon twisted the electrons to say:
>> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
>> hope of 17.5% 'discount'

>
> At the risk of slight thread swerve, has anyone seen or heard of the
> government responding to a petition with words to the effect of "that's a
> good idea, we'll get right on it"?


The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
of the petition demanding that.

--
Matt B
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Matt B said the following on 30/08/2007 17:34:

> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
> of the petition demanding that.


You misunderstand - that change was solely down to the efforts of the CTC.

I'll get my coat...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
N

Nigel Cliffe

Guest
vernon wrote:
> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
> hope of 17.5% 'discount'


Completely predictable by anyone who knew what the EC VAT rules actually
said; adding items to the zero banding isn't permitted.

A petition to reduce the VAT on bicycles to 5% might have been more
sensible: As I understand EU VAT rules, the government can operate two rates
of VAT (it has 5% (used for domestic fuel) and 17.5%), and can put items in
the lower rate.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
M

Marc Brett

Guest
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:34:58 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Alistair Gunn wrote:
>> vernon twisted the electrons to say:
>>> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
>>> hope of 17.5% 'discount'

>>
>> At the risk of slight thread swerve, has anyone seen or heard of the
>> government responding to a petition with words to the effect of "that's a
>> good idea, we'll get right on it"?

>
>The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
>certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
>of the petition demanding that.


Bollocks -- they wasted a hell of a lot of time, with months of Ladyman
saying the disputed changes were merely for "clarification". A lot of
pressure was needed to make the changes cyclists wanted, and even now
they're not to everyone's liking.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:08:33 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>vernon wrote:
>> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
>> hope of 17.5% 'discount'

>
>Completely predictable by anyone who knew what the EC VAT rules actually
>said; adding items to the zero banding isn't permitted.
>
>A petition to reduce the VAT on bicycles to 5% might have been more
>sensible: As I understand EU VAT rules, the government can operate two rates
>of VAT (it has 5% (used for domestic fuel) and 17.5%), and can put items in
>the lower rate.


I've never understood the zero rate for domestic fuel.

Surely it would be better to have a lower rate for sweaters and a
higher rate for fuel, that way people would be encouraged to wear warm
clothing in cold weather and turn down the thermostat.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:32:48 +0100, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've never understood the zero rate for domestic fuel.


For *zero* read *lower*.

Duh!
 
J

John Kane

Guest
On Aug 30, 12:04 pm, Alistair Gunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> vernon twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
> > hope of 17.5% 'discount'

>
> At the risk of slight thread swerve, has anyone seen or heard of the
> government responding to a petition with words to the effect of "that's a
> good idea, we'll get right on it"?


Well I heard of a change in the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario based
on all of 5-7 letters suggesting a sensible modification to hand
signals. Of course this did not affect revenues. :)
 
N

Nigel Cliffe

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:08:33 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> vernon wrote:
>>> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
>>> hope of 17.5% 'discount'

>>
>> Completely predictable by anyone who knew what the EC VAT rules
>> actually said; adding items to the zero banding isn't permitted.
>>
>> A petition to reduce the VAT on bicycles to 5% might have been more
>> sensible: As I understand EU VAT rules, the government can operate
>> two rates of VAT (it has 5% (used for domestic fuel) and 17.5%), and
>> can put items in the lower rate.

>
> I've never understood the zero rate for domestic fuel.


It was the political response to the Tory government who put VAT on domestic
fuel.
Prior to the 1997 election, the Labour party said they would abolish the
change. When in power they found that the EU rules did not allow a country
to abolish VAT on any item. But a country could have two rates of VAT, and
the lowest permitted rate was 5%. Hence what we got.

> Surely it would be better to have a lower rate for sweaters and a
> higher rate for fuel, that way people would be encouraged to wear warm
> clothing in cold weather and turn down the thermostat.


Arguable point might be to increase the payment to old & vulnerable people,
and make the rest of us pay the full-whack for our fuel.

However, the counter case is that many old and vulnerable people worry
massively about their heating bills, turn down the heating too much to the
detriment of their health, etc. etc.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
> of the petition demanding that.


ROTFLMAO.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
P

Patter

Guest
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:31:22 GMT, Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
>> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
>> of the petition demanding that.

>
> ROTFLMAO.


And this is why the internet needs a standard set of <sarcasm> tags :p

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email protected]
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
>> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
>> of the petition demanding that.

>
> ROTFLMAO.


Well, _was_ the HC draft changed after the petition closed, or not?

--
Matt B
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
> >> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
> >> of the petition demanding that.

> >
> > ROTFLMAO.

>
> Well, _was_ the HC draft changed after the petition closed, or not?


Yes. Do you have any evidence that they 'bend over backwards to appease
cyclists'?

Do you have any evidence that they 'wasted no time'?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
>>>> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
>>>> of the petition demanding that.
>>> ROTFLMAO.

>> Well, _was_ the HC draft changed after the petition closed, or not?

>
> Yes. Do you have any evidence that they 'bend over backwards to appease
> cyclists'?
>
> Do you have any evidence that they 'wasted no time'?


The petition closed 18 June 2007, the response contained the statement:
"We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid
before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:..."[1]

Now, if humbly changing the rules as demanded isn't "bending over
backwards", and if getting it done three days before the petition closed
isn't a good example of "wasting no time", I don't know what is! ;-)

[1] <http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12275.asp>

--
Matt B