The death of the high street.
Discussion
So said:
Brooking10 said:
poo at Paul's said:
So said:
saaby93 said:
He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.
king clue, does he? His team of advisers, may well do, but he fking doesn't. Not a scooby. I clicked on the first link and not have yet looked st the second. There was. Itching in his first engage I would disagree with. In fact the questioning MP seemed to have very little grasp as to the commercials of the situation.
grumbledoak said:
gizlaroc said:
but more a tax that businesses would have to pay.
Eh? Where do you think the businesses get "their" money from?OK, let's twist it around.
Should everyone be allowed to pay the same tax rate as Amazon?
Amazon have done a deal to pay a lower rate than the 19% everyone else has to pay.
There are two sides to this, doing a deal and paying 5% is better for the UK than getting nothing.
By allowing them to pay only 5% gives them an unfair advantage compared to everyone else and will eventually see them with complete control.
For many businesses Amazon is like having a new superstore open next door that stocks everything, that in itself is hard to compete with, but it is possible as you can offer a better service and experience.
The argument comes when the UK government then allows them to pay a lower tax rate than you too, allowing them to sell at prices you often can't even buy the product for from your suppliers.
Amazon's end game is total market share, that is when they will start to make serious profits. As long as they make enough now to keep going on their plan of closing everyone else down that is all that matters.
I'm sure that is where we will end up, and it will probably be fine, but it is still a bit of a worry to the 3m people who are being effected by them.
It is inevitable, just speaking to some of the bigger retailers it is starting to bite hard, very hard, even those that were saying "People will still want to shop in stores and see the goods they are buying." a couple of years ago are now saying that maybe that simply isn't the case.
The next 2 years will be very telling.
Mrr T said:
You do know Amazon pay UK VAT on good sold in the UK? No clearly not.
You do understand Amazon only collect the taxes it'a actually paid by the buyer? No clearly not.
It is a bit more complicated than that. You do understand Amazon only collect the taxes it'a actually paid by the buyer? No clearly not.
Amazon sells around 50% of its products through resellers.
They charge an average of 15%.
There is no VAT changed on that 15%.
50% of £19b, and then vat at 20% on those 15% fees is over £250 million worth of vat that Amazon are not paying.
The reseller is paying it.
The reseller sells something for £100, he pays the vat on that £100.
Amazon take 15% of that £100 and argue that vat is already paid.
It is, but is that fair?
Surely the reseller should be paying vat on the £100 less the 15% Amazon take and Amazon should pay the VAT on the 15% they pocket?
£250m is, what they are saying, is 10x their profits for the year.
Which shows that, if it was not for tax breaks they simply couldn't run the company as aggressively as they do.
The question is, is that what is best for the UK long term?
What will happen when the rest of the UK retail industry throw the towel in, where will the government make up the tax income from?
Julian Thompson said:
About Amazon - we sell similar amounts on that platform as we do on eBay.
On eBay we pay VAT on the seller fees.
On amazon there is no VAT on the seller fees.
In what way is that even remotely fair to the country, or to eBay?
Exactly. On eBay we pay VAT on the seller fees.
On amazon there is no VAT on the seller fees.
In what way is that even remotely fair to the country, or to eBay?
Edited by gizlaroc on Sunday 9th December 13:50
TheStigsWeeBrother said:
So said:
Brooking10 said:
poo at Paul's said:
So said:
saaby93 said:
He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.king clue, does he? His team of advisers, may well do, but he fking doesn't. Not a scooby. I clicked on the first link and not have yet looked st the second. There was. Itching in his first engage I would disagree with. In fact the questioning MP seemed to have very little grasp as to the commercials of the situation.
Someone like Ashley is rich enough and confident enough to tell these people what needs doing, the fact they are too narrow minded and un-influencial to actually do anything about it must make him feel he's there just pissing in the wind. I'm sure I'd not bother wasting my time going along to something like this if I was in his boots.
Rovinghawk said:
jonah35 said:
I’m amazed at how inept local councils are - genuinely amazed and they could turn things round easily
Get empty properties let on shorter leases and with less red tape
Sell off some of their own vacant premises
Reduce parking charges
Build their own car parks that are handy
Allow 2 hours free parking
But then their income stream reduces & their promotions & increased pension are less likely.Get empty properties let on shorter leases and with less red tape
Sell off some of their own vacant premises
Reduce parking charges
Build their own car parks that are handy
Allow 2 hours free parking
The primary function of a council is to look after itself.
Looking after the people and businesses in their local area is way down their list of priorities.
ToNyC1 said:
Lancashire local county council is currently deciding if to start charging for on street parking in some towns. Absolutely stupid decision if you ask me!
Ours is doing exactly the same in small market towns that have no traffic management problem to try and raise revenue even though these schemes very rarely have a net gain.Sticks. said:
My nearest main town is @ 9 miles and I'm not sure when I last shopped there, probably a decade ago.
It's not just the parking, it's the travel time. What once was 20 mins (at best) is now at least double that. Why would I spend an hour and a half getting to and from somewhere if it's not essential? Add in fuel and parking costs, it doesn't make sense. With the large scale house building going on it isn't going to get better.
I would, and do, go to shops which add something over online, usually choice and service.
I too have pretty much stopped going to my main town as well. It's not just the parking, it's the travel time. What once was 20 mins (at best) is now at least double that. Why would I spend an hour and a half getting to and from somewhere if it's not essential? Add in fuel and parking costs, it doesn't make sense. With the large scale house building going on it isn't going to get better.
I would, and do, go to shops which add something over online, usually choice and service.
My main reason is because this has happened multiple times:
"hmm, I want xyz. Shall I buy it online and wait a day ? Or I could pop into town and have it right now ?"
"I think I'll pop into town as I want it now".
So I get in my car, drive to town, and the return home empty handed because the bloody shop does not have the damn thing in stock "we can order it for you sir" - "Well, I can do that at home. can't I?"
So now I've all but given making a specific trip because it always ends up with my returning home without the thing I wanted in the first place.
TheStigsWeeBrother said:
So said:
Brooking10 said:
poo at Paul's said:
So said:
saaby93 said:
He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.king clue, does he? His team of advisers, may well do, but he fking doesn't. Not a scooby. I clicked on the first link and not have yet looked st the second. There was. Itching in his first engage I would disagree with. In fact the questioning MP seemed to have very little grasp as to the commercials of the situation.
And apologies for the fat thumbed autocorrect mangling in my original response.
gizlaroc said:
Mrr T said:
You do know Amazon pay UK VAT on good sold in the UK? No clearly not.
You do understand Amazon only collect the taxes it'a actually paid by the buyer? No clearly not.
It is a bit more complicated than that. You do understand Amazon only collect the taxes it'a actually paid by the buyer? No clearly not.
Amazon sells around 50% of its products through resellers.
They charge an average of 15%.
There is no VAT changed on that 15%.
50% of £19b, and then vat at 20% on those 15% fees is over £250 million worth of vat that Amazon are not paying.
The reseller is paying it.
The reseller sells something for £100, he pays the vat on that £100.
Amazon take 15% of that £100 and argue that vat is already paid.
It is, but is that fair?
Surely the reseller should be paying vat on the £100 less the 15% Amazon take and Amazon should pay the VAT on the 15% they pocket?
£250m is, what they are saying, is 10x their profits for the year.
Which shows that, if it was not for tax breaks they simply couldn't run the company as aggressively as they do.
The question is, is that what is best for the UK long term?
What will happen when the rest of the UK retail industry throw the towel in, where will the government make up the tax income from?
Julian Thompson said:
About Amazon - we sell similar amounts on that platform as we do on eBay.
On eBay we pay VAT on the seller fees.
On amazon there is no VAT on the seller fees.
In what way is that even remotely fair to the country, or to eBay?
Exactly. On eBay we pay VAT on the seller fees.
On amazon there is no VAT on the seller fees.
In what way is that even remotely fair to the country, or to eBay?
Edited by gizlaroc on Sunday 9th December 13:50
eBay fees are charged by eBay UK. As a UK business providing digital services to a VAT-registered UK seller, eBay UK charges UK VAT on their invoices and collects it on behalf of HMRC (say £3 using an example of £100 sales value exc VAT and 15% fees. The UK customer deducts this input VAT from the output VAT collected from their end customer and pays the net balance to HMRC (say £17).
Amazon fees are charged by Amazon EU Sarl in Luxembourg. Under the place of supply rules, the country of supply for digital services is the customer's country, not the supplier's. So the applicable rate for a UK seller is the UK VAT rate. If the UK seller is not VAT registered then Amazon are responsible for invoicing UK VAT and paying it over to HMRC (say £3). If the UK seller is VAT registered then Amazon charge 0% VAT and instead the UK seller are required to report the fee as an EU acquisition on their VAT return in boxes 2 and 4.
They already have the output VAT (£20) from their end customer in box 1. Box 4 includes the input VAT due on the Amazon fee (£3). The difference to the eBay seller though is that the Amazon seller also has to record the input VAT (£3) on their Amazon fee in box 2 to reflect that it hasn't been collected by Amazon. This increases their total output VAT to £23 and the net VAT due to HMRC is then £20.
So in both scenarios the VAT collected by HMRC should be the same.
VAT fraud arises when the UK seller pretends to be VAT registered and isn't or fails to record the EU acquisitions in box 2 on their VAT return. That isn't
A much bigger issue is non-EU sellers who are required to register with HMRC and collect UK VAT on sales to UK customers where they are fulfilled from UK warehouses. Another issue is companies that are sent up to obtain a valid VAT number which is then used even as the company is dissolved before filing any returns. Various powers have been introduced to try and tackle online VAT fraud in the last couple of years:
- Online marketplaces now have joint and several liability for uncollected VAT
- Fulfillment house due diligence scheme
- HMRC receive sales data on sellers direct from Amazon and eBay
The Treasury is also examining a split payments model where VAT would be deducted (by the marketplace or perhaps the merchant acquirer) and only the net amount would be paid over to the seller.
I don’t think the high street is dead but it’s certainly dying. I also don’t think there is much any local councils can do to make it any more attractive compared to what central government can do. It’s all very well complaining that they are making parking more expensive but when they are losing income through business rates they need to try to balance the books somehow.
I can see a point somewhere down the line where governments ( not just in this country) will be forced to introduce heavy taxing of online stores or, more drastically, passing laws which makes it very difficult to sell certain goods online. Unless something is done the high street will die completely, the likes of Amazon will have a completely lopsided monopoly on sold goods in the country and , as a result of so little tax being returned by these into the government coffers , they will be forced to take hardline steps to balance those books. It’s all very well believing that there is enough in online retailing for many competitors but that’s not the way things work and even there many of them will die at the hands of the larger ones.
It’s akin to what Trump is doing with tariffs on China. He has seen his country cannot fairly compete with cheap goods from China and logic follows that those same tactics would need to apply if any value at all was seen by governments on the traditional high street. Let’s not forget that the death of the high street impacts the feeling of community as much as it does the finances.
Everything ebbs and flows and in 10-20 years time it may be that online retailing starts to die and the high street resurges. We just need to make up our minds what we want and what is best for all of us long term.
I can see a point somewhere down the line where governments ( not just in this country) will be forced to introduce heavy taxing of online stores or, more drastically, passing laws which makes it very difficult to sell certain goods online. Unless something is done the high street will die completely, the likes of Amazon will have a completely lopsided monopoly on sold goods in the country and , as a result of so little tax being returned by these into the government coffers , they will be forced to take hardline steps to balance those books. It’s all very well believing that there is enough in online retailing for many competitors but that’s not the way things work and even there many of them will die at the hands of the larger ones.
It’s akin to what Trump is doing with tariffs on China. He has seen his country cannot fairly compete with cheap goods from China and logic follows that those same tactics would need to apply if any value at all was seen by governments on the traditional high street. Let’s not forget that the death of the high street impacts the feeling of community as much as it does the finances.
Everything ebbs and flows and in 10-20 years time it may be that online retailing starts to die and the high street resurges. We just need to make up our minds what we want and what is best for all of us long term.
snuffy said:
Rovinghawk said:
jonah35 said:
I’m amazed at how inept local councils are - genuinely amazed and they could turn things round easily
Get empty properties let on shorter leases and with less red tape
Sell off some of their own vacant premises
Reduce parking charges
Build their own car parks that are handy
Allow 2 hours free parking
But then their income stream reduces & their promotions & increased pension are less likely.Get empty properties let on shorter leases and with less red tape
Sell off some of their own vacant premises
Reduce parking charges
Build their own car parks that are handy
Allow 2 hours free parking
The primary function of a council is to look after itself.
Looking after the people and businesses in their local area is way down their list of priorities.
The primary function of a council is to deliver public services to residents and businesses. Whilst some may choose to adopt a view that supports their own preconceived agenda, it doesn't change the legislative basis of Councils.
I think people massively over estimate the ability of Councils having a magic solution to the high street's problems. I feel a lot of that feeling is a combination of people not knowing the facts, and just hooking another perceived problem onto their favourite pastime of council bashing.
Ashley has been pushing hard at landlords of shopping centres, many of whom aren't budging. Where is the mob moaning at them for not just taking financial loss to support the high street? But as soon as it's a Council, the Council is just supposed to ignore their financial position "because pensions"?
Short version - doing those things will cost money, which surprise surprise people either don't want to, or can't pay.
It's catch 22 - reducing parking "might" herald a new high street "boom", see shoppers flooding back in, rents rise, nndr income rise to offset the "lost" income locally. Then, government would see national taxes rise and refund Councils the lost income via national funding mechanisms. And council leaders and retailers can live happily ever after.
Or, no-one will notice, shops will still be closing as people shop on line, parking spaces just get clogged up with commuters and residents. Except local services have now slid from under-funded to failing, and residents and businesses moaning that the Council isn't "doing" something.
Plus councils legally have to set a balanced budget each year. Promises of a future retail boom count for zero when going through this process, and sinking reserves into bridging a gap (with no defined time or size) would be one hell of a gamble few sane finance directors would take.
So pretending parking fees are the only factor that is causing, and could save the high street, is just barmy.
Longer version, looking at the initial questions quickly:
- get empty properties let on short lease and with less red tape: presumably you're only referring to commercial property the Council owns? Councils are required to get best value from asset transactions, but do have ways to accept a lower financial return in exchange for some non-financial benefit (such as employment, or growth). Obviously other tax payers will have to compensate this financial loss
- sell of some vacant premises: of course, council's hardly want to be sitting on unusable commercial property, as vacant premises will be losing residents' money. Again, Council's legally required to obtain best consideration for asset sales. Unsure quite how settling vacant premises is going to help struggling retailers... unless the flood in supply results in lower commercial space price, and therefore lower rents & rates. That's a somewhat hopeful set of circumstances.
- reduce parking charges - fair enough. But, people have shown if a resource is "free", they use it badly. Some level of parking charge near shops is needed to stop workers / residents just parking in them all day. Generally Council car parks with no real nearby demand will be free. So we're just talking about the level of charge.
As people have identified, parking revenue (and fines) go into council coffers (well, we use a series of bank accounts actually) and can cover relevant costs. The more income that comes from parking, the less general taxes get used to provide parking. This frees up budget for public services, and/or replaces reductions in government funding. If people want to frame that argument solely around pensions: whatever. I see no value in having a grown up conversation about public finances with someone coming to the debate with that simple mindset.
I've not yet seen any evidence, or even theory that free parking will somehow rejuvenate the high street to the point it offsets lost parking income, and second, that funds will come back to the council to the same value as lost parking revenue.
- build own car parks that are handy - Ironically, a business case to invest in building a new car park would require fee income to be protected. I agree increasing the supply of spaces in an area would help bring prices down, assuming you could get someone to pay to build and maintain them (which of course in this scenario would be the local tax payers again). It's just not going to fly in this financial climate.
- allow 2 hours free parking - fair enough. Solves the problem of drivers taking the pee with parking, but as with the point two above, has all the same problems about losing the opportunity for councils to generate funding for other services, plus influence behaviour.
Issues relevant but not covered:
- influence behaviour - don't forget councils have duties around health and sustainable transport. The push to stop cars coming into city centres is a political decision for many, hoping to divert drivers to more efficient schemes of travel. Agree with it or not, it's real, and it's happening.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
The primary function of a council is to deliver public services to residents and businesses. Whilst some may choose to adopt a view that supports their own preconceived agenda, it doesn't change the legislative basis of Councils.
As Sir Humphrey said "Oh, how touching Minister"And, in just the same way as the primary function of the public sector is it provide employment.
Ian Geary said:
Issues relevant but not covered:
- influence behaviour - don't forget councils have duties around health and sustainable transport. The push to stop cars coming into city centres is a political decision for many, hoping to divert drivers to more efficient schemes of travel. Agree with it or not, it's real, and it's happening.
and that's a problem too- influence behaviour - don't forget councils have duties around health and sustainable transport. The push to stop cars coming into city centres is a political decision for many, hoping to divert drivers to more efficient schemes of travel. Agree with it or not, it's real, and it's happening.
By pushing cars out of small town centres it forces many to the out of town sheds
Town centre big stores see falling footfall and relocate out of town - to the sheds
Are rates lower for the out of town? Councils see a reduction in income
Town centres suffer from blight vandalism die
Why do they allow noisy diesel buses in town centres too
It turns the town into little more than a bus station - as the real bus station already closed
Brooking10 said:
TheStigsWeeBrother said:
So said:
Brooking10 said:
poo at Paul's said:
So said:
saaby93 said:
He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.king clue, does he? His team of advisers, may well do, but he fking doesn't. Not a scooby. I clicked on the first link and not have yet looked st the second. There was. Itching in his first engage I would disagree with. In fact the questioning MP seemed to have very little grasp as to the commercials of the situation.
saaby93 said:
and that's a problem too
By pushing cars out of small town centres it forces many to the out of town sheds
Town centre big stores see falling footfall and relocate out of town - to the sheds
Are rates lower for the out of town? Councils see a reduction in income
Town centres suffer from blight vandalism die
Why do they allow noisy diesel buses in town centres too
It turns the town into little more than a bus station - as the real bus station already closed
Sums up my local town perfectly(Hinckley). Mostly charity and second hand shops. Very limited free parking, chargeable parking expensive and limited. It could be decent if the few remaining independents were treated sensibly.By pushing cars out of small town centres it forces many to the out of town sheds
Town centre big stores see falling footfall and relocate out of town - to the sheds
Are rates lower for the out of town? Councils see a reduction in income
Town centres suffer from blight vandalism die
Why do they allow noisy diesel buses in town centres too
It turns the town into little more than a bus station - as the real bus station already closed
Fosse Park and its almost unlimited free parking and shops is just around the corner, but might just as well be in Murmansk as far as the local authority is concerned. Really quite sad.
Ian Geary said:
- influence behaviour - don't forget councils have duties around health and sustainable transport. The push to stop cars coming into city centres is a political decision for many, hoping to divert drivers to more efficient schemes of travel. Agree with it or not, it's real, and it's happening.
And what would these "more efficient" schemes of travel be, exactly?"The Shoe Event Horizon is an economic theory that draws a correlation between the level of economic (and emotional) depression of a society and the number of shoe shops the society has.
The theory is summarized as such: as a society sinks into depression, the people of the society need to cheer themselves up by buying themselves gifts, often shoes. It is also linked to the fact that when you are depressed you look down at your shoes and decide they aren't good enough quality so buy more expensive replacements. As more money is spent on shoes, more shoe shops are built, and the quality of the shoes begins to diminish as the demand for different types of shoes increases. This makes people buy more shoes.The above turns into a vicious cycle, causing other industries to decline.
Eventually the titular Shoe Event Horizon is reached, where the only type of store economically viable to build is a shoe shop. At this point, society ceases to function, and the economy collapses, sending a world spiralling into ruin. In the case of Brontitall and Frogstar World B, the population forsook shoes and evolved into birds."
Written a long time ago in a council estate far far away.No mention of charity shops that sell zip up front shoes for the elderly !
Personally I look forward to our Vogon overlords sorting it all out, even if it means a bypass that takes longer than the one past Tunbridge Wells.
The theory is summarized as such: as a society sinks into depression, the people of the society need to cheer themselves up by buying themselves gifts, often shoes. It is also linked to the fact that when you are depressed you look down at your shoes and decide they aren't good enough quality so buy more expensive replacements. As more money is spent on shoes, more shoe shops are built, and the quality of the shoes begins to diminish as the demand for different types of shoes increases. This makes people buy more shoes.The above turns into a vicious cycle, causing other industries to decline.
Eventually the titular Shoe Event Horizon is reached, where the only type of store economically viable to build is a shoe shop. At this point, society ceases to function, and the economy collapses, sending a world spiralling into ruin. In the case of Brontitall and Frogstar World B, the population forsook shoes and evolved into birds."
Written a long time ago in a council estate far far away.No mention of charity shops that sell zip up front shoes for the elderly !
Personally I look forward to our Vogon overlords sorting it all out, even if it means a bypass that takes longer than the one past Tunbridge Wells.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 9th December 18:59
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff