UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[jagnet]

JustAnotherLogin said:

If some small companies below the VAT threshold are picked up as well then that doesn't seem too big a deal. As has been said, for small businesses the flat rate scheme is simple, and while I doubt they would make a profit out of it as someonme else omn here said they do, it won't be too onerous.

Yeah, easy.

"In principle this new rules mean that if you have private customers in each of the 28 EU countries, you will need to register for VAT in each of the 28 EU countries, file VAT returns in each of these 28 countries and charge local VAT with different rates in each of the 28 countries, etc "

http://www.foreigninvestments.eu/en/fdi/expert-top...

That's going to be a headache too far for many small businesses.

[NicD]

Gaspode said:

Actually, digging a little deeper it all seems to be blown-up anti-EU nonsense. Registering for VAT costs nothing. Small businesses can go (as I do) onto the flat-rate VAT scheme and actually make a profit of charging their customers. Doing a VAT return takes about 5 minus per quarter on-line. And any on-line retailer is going to have a computerised invoicing system, so a simple lookup table to see what relevant VAT to apply is going to be trivial in the extreme.

There seems to be a figure of additional costs of £500/year in accountancy fees that seems to have been plucked out of thin air by someone who wants to make it all appear doom and gloom.

If it prevents global giants like Amazon ripping off UK taxpayers then where's the problem?

+1

[anonymous-user]

jagnet said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

If some small companies below the VAT threshold are picked up as well then that doesn't seem too big a deal. As has been said, for small businesses the flat rate scheme is simple, and while I doubt they would make a profit out of it as someonme else omn here said they do, it won't be too onerous.

Yeah, easy.

"In principle this new rules mean that if you have private customers in each of the 28 EU countries, you will need to register for VAT in each of the 28 EU countries, file VAT returns in each of these 28 countries and charge local VAT with different rates in each of the 28 countries, etc "

http://www.foreigninvestments.eu/en/fdi/expert-top...

That's going to be a headache too far for many small businesses.

Or they could check out the HMRC website which indicates businesses don't need become VAT registered in each country or file 28 separate tax returns,

https://www.gov.uk/vat-on-digital-services-in-the-...


What you need to do

As a supplier of digital services to EU consumers you can either:

:register for VAT in each EU country you supply to,

:register to use the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS) online service,

Using VAT MOSS, you can account for the VAT due on your business to consumer (B2C) sales in other EU countries by submitting a single quarterly return and payment to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

HMRC will send an electronic copy of the appropriate part of your return, and any payment, to each relevant country’s tax authority.

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

don4l said:

The latest YouGov poll is out.
Lab 34%
Con 32%
UKIP 14%
Greens 8%
LD 6%

Two bits of excellent news in this poll.

UKIP seem to be in a secure 3rd position, while the LibDems behind the Green party.

If push comes to shove in the new parliament the Greens,LD,Labour and the SNP are effectively all one alliance with Cameron being closer to that alliance than UKIP.In which case the country is fked.

Hush, as a kipper you are not supposed to admit the possibility that voting UKIP could lead to a Labour led coalition which will screw the country

Also, the new official position is that UKIP is to the left of the Tores.

Don't you read the memos?

[Gaspode]

djstevec said:

Or they could check out the HMRC website which indicates businesses don't need become VAT registered in each country or file 28 separate tax returns,

https://www.gov.uk/vat-on-digital-services-in-the-...


What you need to do

As a supplier of digital services to EU consumers you can either:

:register for VAT in each EU country you supply to,

:register to use the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS) online service,

Using VAT MOSS, you can account for the VAT due on your business to consumer (B2C) sales in other EU countries by submitting a single quarterly return and payment to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

HMRC will send an electronic copy of the appropriate part of your return, and any payment, to each relevant country’s tax authority.

I have to say that HMRC's online systems make life very easy indeed for small businesses. I don't need to run any other software for my tax and payroll.

[jagnet]

djstevec said:

Or they could check out the HMRC website which indicates businesses don't need become VAT registered in each country or file 28 separate tax returns,

https://www.gov.uk/vat-on-digital-services-in-the-...


What you need to do

As a supplier of digital services to EU consumers you can either:

:register for VAT in each EU country you supply to,

:register to use the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS) online service,

Using VAT MOSS, you can account for the VAT due on your business to consumer (B2C) sales in other EU countries by submitting a single quarterly return and payment to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

HMRC will send an electronic copy of the appropriate part of your return, and any payment, to each relevant country’s tax authority.

Well at least that solves the problem of having to register for VAT in each country, but what of the necessary changes to automated payment systems to deal with this and obtain the necessary proof of the consumer's location.

From the DT comments, for example:

"If you are using a secure payment provider - which most small businesses do - they don't tell you the address of the payment method. The IP address is not a reliable indicator of location, anyone using a private network, a proxy server or TOR could present an IP address located anywhere.

In any case the address of the payment method would not help because a) you would need to know it before you decided what rate of VAT to apply and b) it does not tell you where the customer is at the time of making the purchase.

I have just been discussing this with my colleagues and we are all quite clear that the infrastructure for making this work simply does not exist. Also nobody was aware of it even though the start date is just a month away - nobody had seen any communications from HMRC about it or any consultation."

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

don4l said:

The latest YouGov poll is out.
Lab 34%
Con 32%
UKIP 14%
Greens 8%
LD 6%

Two bits of excellent news in this poll.

UKIP seem to be in a secure 3rd position, while the LibDems behind the Green party.

If push comes to shove in the new parliament the Greens,LD,Labour and the SNP are effectively all one alliance with Cameron being closer to that alliance than UKIP.In which case the country is fked.

Hush, as a kipper you are not supposed to admit the possibility that voting UKIP could lead to a Labour led coalition which will screw the country

Also, the new official position is that UKIP is to the left of the Tores.

Don't you read the memos?

My point was even if the UKIP vote is added to the Con vote ( or preferably vice versa ) it still wouldn't outweigh an alliance of Lab/Libdem/Green/SNP.While Cameron is closer to that alliance than UKIP anyway.Although being more sympathetic to UKIP I'd say that Farage is less 'left' than Powell and certainly Shore,depending on the definition of 'left' being all about the interests of the working class.

However the idea of 'left' and 'right' have long been meaningless since about the time when Callaghan,let alone Hitler,Stalin,Tito and Mao,showed the logical conclusions of Socialism.While Thatcher's policies obviously did more for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party than the British working class.

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

My point was even if the UKIP vote is added to the Con vote it still wouldn't outweigh an alliance of Lab/Libdem/Green/SNP.

Yes it would, if the UKIP vote were added to Tory vote it would give them 46%, which under FPTP would easily guive them a majority of seas

XJ Flyer said:

While Cameron is closer to that alliance than UKIP anyway.Although being more sympathetic to UKIP I'd say that Farage is less 'left' than Powell and certainly Shore,depending on the definition of 'left' being all about the interests of the working class.

However the idea of 'left' and 'right' have long been meaningless since about the time when Callaghan,let alone Hitler,Stalin,Tito and Mao,showed the logical conclusions of Socialism.While Thatcher's policies obviously did more for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party than the British working class.

It is your fellow UKIP travellers who were insisting that UKIP is to the left of the Tories the other day. Not me.

And I don't want to even think about going down the rabbit hole that is your last paragraph

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

My point was even if the UKIP vote is added to the Con vote it still wouldn't outweigh an alliance of Lab/Libdem/Green/SNP.

Yes it would, if the UKIP vote were added to Tory vote it would give them 46%, which under FPTP would easily guive them a majority of seas

If I've calculated it right you've got 46% Con/UKIP v 48% 'others' that's without adding SNP to the others.

While out of that 46% there's obviously a large proportion of pro EU pro global warmist etc Cons that are closer to the LabLibdemGreen/SNP alliance than UKIP.As I said on that basis the country is definitely fked.

[steveT350C]

Old school Tories want us to sign up to the Euro. I wonder who is monitoring this...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvW-0o0Hv0

[Yazar]

The expected next leader of the Tories reveals his views. A U-turn from what he has said prior, so perfect credential for a Tory leader!

telegraph said:

Boris Johnson has suggested that people concerned about Britain's rising population are prejudiced and joked that they want "forced sterilisation or a one-baby policy".

The Mayor of London implied that those concerned about the rising numbers living in the UK were not being honest about their motives, asking: "How would people feel if the population pressure was caused entirely by white, Anglo-Saxon protestant babies?"

Saying that immigration was good for the economy, Mr Johnson added that he understood people had fears about the pressures on public services in the Capital, but insisted that curbing the numbers coming to live in the UK from overseas was not the answer.

...

The Mayor also appeared to contradict an article he wrote in The Telegraph just two months ago, in which he suggested that levels of European immigration might need to be capped and urged those concerned about migration to vote Conservative rather than Ukip.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11296202/Boris-Johnson-do-those-concerned-about-immigration-want-forced-sterilisation-or-one-baby-policy.html

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

My point was even if the UKIP vote is added to the Con vote it still wouldn't outweigh an alliance of Lab/Libdem/Green/SNP.

Yes it would, if the UKIP vote were added to Tory vote it would give them 46%, which under FPTP would easily guive them a majority of seas

If I've calculated it right you've got 46% Con/UKIP v 48% 'others' that's without adding SNP to the others.

While out of that 46% there's obviously a large proportion of pro EU pro global warmist etc Cons that are closer to the LabLibdemGreen/SNP alliance than UKIP.As I said on that basis the country is definitely fked.

If those 14% of UKIP votes go to Tories and they have 46% then they would get more seats under first past the post than all the others in total.

You do understand how FPTP works? I don't wish to sound rude but this is so basic I'm not sure which bit you don't get

[XJ Flyer]

Yazar said:

The expected next leader of the Tories reveals his views. A U-turn from what he has said prior, so perfect credential for a Tory leader!

telegraph said:

Boris Johnson has suggested that people concerned about Britain's rising population are prejudiced and joked that they want "forced sterilisation or a one-baby policy".

The Mayor of London implied that those concerned about the rising numbers living in the UK were not being honest about their motives, asking: "How would people feel if the population pressure was caused entirely by white, Anglo-Saxon protestant babies?"

Saying that immigration was good for the economy, Mr Johnson added that he understood people had fears about the pressures on public services in the Capital, but insisted that curbing the numbers coming to live in the UK from overseas was not the answer.

...

The Mayor also appeared to contradict an article he wrote in The Telegraph just two months ago, in which he suggested that levels of European immigration might need to be capped and urged those concerned about migration to vote Conservative rather than Ukip.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11296202/Boris-Johnson-do-those-concerned-about-immigration-want-forced-sterilisation-or-one-baby-policy.html

Sounds just like Prescott's views in which he intended to concrete over the south east to turn it into a massive housing estate for immigrants and the Cons 'said' they opposed him.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 16th December 20:18

[don4l]

steveT350C said:

If this was a UKIP councillor the BBC would have gone nuclear

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

Most reports don't mention the fact that he was a Labour councillor.

I bet that none of our highly principled lefties will comment on this case. They get extremely upset if a UKIP member uses the word "poofter", but they say nothing when a Labour councillor buggers a young boy.


Meanwhile, Eric Joyce has been arrested on a charge of assault and criminal damage. Why are our resident leftie trolls silent on this? Is it OK for Labour MP's to thump people (a la Prescott, the cabin boy)?

I'd like to hear some answers from League, Fred(Matt) and the MoreOn.

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

XJ Flyer said:

My point was even if the UKIP vote is added to the Con vote it still wouldn't outweigh an alliance of Lab/Libdem/Green/SNP.

Yes it would, if the UKIP vote were added to Tory vote it would give them 46%, which under FPTP would easily guive them a majority of seas

If I've calculated it right you've got 46% Con/UKIP v 48% 'others' that's without adding SNP to the others.

While out of that 46% there's obviously a large proportion of pro EU pro global warmist etc Cons that are closer to the LabLibdemGreen/SNP alliance than UKIP.As I said on that basis the country is definitely fked.

If those 14% of UKIP votes go to Tories and they have 46% then they would get more seats under first past the post than all the others in total.

You do understand how FPTP works? I don't wish to sound rude but this is so basic I'm not sure which bit you don't get

Regardless of the maths 'if' the UKIP vote votes for the Cons thereby giving the Cons an ( arguable ) 'majority' over a LabLibdem/Green/SNP alliance.As it stands we just end up with another version of the pro EU,pro immigration,global warmist Lab/ Libdem etc alliance with a different name.The answer from anyone with even the slightest UKIP sympathies would obviously be 'if' the Cons want to change to an anti EU,'stronger' immigration,anti global warmist agenda,that doesn't want to turn the south east into a housing estate for immigrants then they are obviously welcome to join.Other than that who cares,as I said,the country is fked either way at least from the point of view of the south east.

[eharding]

don4l said:

Most reports don't mention the fact that he was a Labour councillor.

I bet that none of our highly principled lefties will comment on this case. They get extremely upset if a UKIP member uses the word "poofter", but they say nothing when a Labour councillor buggers a young boy.


Meanwhile, Eric Joyce has been arrested on a charge of assault and criminal damage. Why are our resident leftie trolls silent on this? Is it OK for Labour MP's to thump people (a la Prescott, the cabin boy)?

I'd like to hear some answers from League, Fred(Matt) and the MoreOn.

Point of Order : I know current affairs aren't your strong point, but Joyce hasn't been a Labour MP since early 2012.

[XJ Flyer]

don4l said:

steveT350C said:

If this was a UKIP councillor the BBC would have gone nuclear

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

Most reports don't mention the fact that he was a Labour councillor.

I bet that none of our highly principled lefties will comment on this case. They get extremely upset if a UKIP member uses the word "poofter", but they say nothing when a Labour councillor buggers a young boy.

The relevant bit in this case being that 'they' obviously get 'extremely upset' if a male UKIP representative fancies a reasonably fit looking woman.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

If those 14% of UKIP votes go to Tories and they have 46% then they would get more seats under first past the post than all the others in total.

You do understand how FPTP works? I don't wish to sound rude but this is so basic I'm not sure which bit you don't get

And if the 34% represented by Labour went to the Conservatives then they would get 66%.

If the 8% that the Greens are predicted to get went to the Conservatives, then they could end up with 74%!

Like you, I wouldn't wish to sound rude. However, under the circumstances, this is rather difficult.

You don't seem to understand that UKIP voters do not want to see Cameron in office again.

[TKF]

don4l said:

steveT350C said:

If this was a UKIP councillor the BBC would have gone nuclear

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

Most reports don't mention the fact that he was a Labour councillor.

I bet that none of our highly principled lefties will comment on this case. They get extremely upset if a UKIP member uses the word "poofter", but they say nothing when a Labour councillor buggers a young boy.


Meanwhile, Eric Joyce has been arrested on a charge of assault and criminal damage. Why are our resident leftie trolls silent on this? Is it OK for Labour MP's to thump people (a la Prescott, the cabin boy)?

I'd like to hear some answers from League, Fred(Matt) and the MoreOn.

This thread is about UKIP. If you are demanding answers (seriously?) from posters about something unrelated to UKIP maybe start another thread?

I'm not one of those lefties you so despise but I'll comment on that thread and condemn their actions if it helps you sleep better.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

And if the 34% represented by Labour went to the Conservatives then they would get 66%.

If the 8% that the Greens are predicted to get went to the Conservatives, then they could end up with 74%!

Like you, I wouldn't wish to sound rude. However, under the circumstances, this is rather difficult.

You don't seem to understand that UKIP voters do not want to see Cameron in office again.

If you read back I was replying to an XJ flyer post, so I suggest you read that to get the context you are evidently missing