Bomber Command Memorial will attract VAT

[PF62]

Exactly, if the Telegraph's had been honest, instead of a headline of -

"Change in law could leave Bomber Command Memorial with £250k VAT bill"

what a different story it would have been with -

"Coalition government's cuts leave Bomber Command Memorial with £250k VAT bill"

[Eric Mc]

Randy Winkman said:

Eric Mc said:

PF62 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Glad we're back on topic - what's the difference between a "change in the law" and a "cut"?

Would it be anything to do with distancing the current government from the cuts, after all who remembers any recent legislation changing the law on this, so it must have been the other lot.

And how palatable would it be for the average Telegraph reader to see the current government choosing to make cuts that would impact on them or their causes, rather than making cuts on welfare scroungers.

The original tax break might have had a finite life and the current government have chosen not to renew the legislation when it expires.

So the current Government has decided to scrap the tax break then. It's easy enough to blame New Labour for stuff - they were c**p. But blaming them for stuff which is the new Government's fault is pointless, in my opinion.

I expect that the tax break, when introduced by Labour, was designed to exist for a specified limited period. That is not unusual in tax legislation. I expect that Labour would not have renewed the regulation either.

[glazbagun]

ninja-lewis said:

rover 623gsi said:

Eric Mc said:

Mattt said:

Engineer1 said:

we seem to be getting to the point that the young don't know anyone who fought in the war or whose lives where altered by the war.

I think, sadly, that this is the case - and the more the years go on, the less attention will be paid to memorials & the memories of those who were lost during the wars.

World War 2 teachings are (or were) missing off the Curriculum for KS3 History, but WW1 was included. I think this needs changing - I can still vividly remember my visit to Ypres & the Somme memorials, probably the most worthwhile trip I ever undertook at school.

The youngest (legal/18+) soldier involved in WW2 will be 83 now, so I doubt anyone born now will ever learn about the war from first hand accounts.

I've often wondered why the "educationalists" put more weight on knowledge of WW1 compared to WW2? Was it, I wonder, because they perceived the treatment of the "ordinary Tommy" as evidence of a "Class War" element of WW1 which fitted in with their 1960s socialist agenda?
Also, did no one write poems in WW2? Where are all the WW2 poets?
Or is it just that the educationalists felt that WW1 poetry also backed up their view of the class system?.

It may also have been because WWI was longer ago and that WWII was too recent to be considered worthy of historical debate.

When I was at primary school in the late 90s we covered topics from the Second World War - Remembrance, evacuation, the Blitz, the Battle of Britain, the Holocaust, Grandparents' memories, etc - at various points. I think we were exposed to WW2 to a greater extent - through war films, museums, relatives, etc whereas our exposure to WWI was less. But by the time we got to secondary school, WWI made a very suitable topic for English poetry (Sassoon, Owen, Kipling, Binyon et al) and in history it could be placed in a context of Versaillies, the rise of Hitler, universal suffrage, the Balkans and the Middle East (newsworthy at the time), the Great Depression, Irish independence, the bolsheviks, the Empire, and so on.

Nothing to add, really. WWI was massively significant in that it was the death of empires and laid the groundwork for WWII. And we got taught plenty regarding the development of the latter war.

I'm not sure what it was like for everyone else, but for me, a large part of history was about being presented with diverging sources and trying to form an accurate picture of what likely happened. In hindsight, I think it was one of the best things they taught us in school, even if at the time most thought it was a load of crap about stuff that had already happened.

[Randy Winkman]

Eric Mc said:

Randy Winkman said:

Eric Mc said:

PF62 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Glad we're back on topic - what's the difference between a "change in the law" and a "cut"?

Would it be anything to do with distancing the current government from the cuts, after all who remembers any recent legislation changing the law on this, so it must have been the other lot.

And how palatable would it be for the average Telegraph reader to see the current government choosing to make cuts that would impact on them or their causes, rather than making cuts on welfare scroungers.

The original tax break might have had a finite life and the current government have chosen not to renew the legislation when it expires.

So the current Government has decided to scrap the tax break then. It's easy enough to blame New Labour for stuff - they were c**p. But blaming them for stuff which is the new Government's fault is pointless, in my opinion.

I expect that the tax break, when introduced by Labour, was designed to exist for a specified limited period. That is not unusual in tax legislation. I expect that Labour would not have renewed the regulation either.

I don't think it was intended to end on 4th Jan. Of course, Brown might have taken the same decision, but the current government actually has taken that decision.

[Eric Mc]

Randy Winkman said:

Eric Mc said:

Randy Winkman said:

Eric Mc said:

PF62 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Glad we're back on topic - what's the difference between a "change in the law" and a "cut"?

Would it be anything to do with distancing the current government from the cuts, after all who remembers any recent legislation changing the law on this, so it must have been the other lot.

And how palatable would it be for the average Telegraph reader to see the current government choosing to make cuts that would impact on them or their causes, rather than making cuts on welfare scroungers.

The original tax break might have had a finite life and the current government have chosen not to renew the legislation when it expires.

So the current Government has decided to scrap the tax break then. It's easy enough to blame New Labour for stuff - they were c**p. But blaming them for stuff which is the new Government's fault is pointless, in my opinion.

I expect that the tax break, when introduced by Labour, was designed to exist for a specified limited period. That is not unusual in tax legislation. I expect that Labour would not have renewed the regulation either.

I don't think it was intended to end on 4th Jan. Of course, Brown might have taken the same decision, but the current government actually has taken that decision.

It does seem that those constructing memorials will, still be able to recover much of the VAT associated with the construction of the memorial. It is certain aspects of the memorial's costs that will no longer be covered by the scheme i.e. -

"professional fees, including all design, surveying, project management, fundraising fees etc"

Times is tough - I'm afraid - and even worthy causes will have to tighten their belts.

[Jimbeaux]

Eric Mc said:

Times is tough - I'm afraid - and even worthy causes will have to tighten their belts.

I agree, but what about unworthy causes that seem to never have to tighten their belt and often have it expanded?

[Eric Mc]

Jimbeaux said:

Eric Mc said:

Times is tough - I'm afraid - and even worthy causes will have to tighten their belts.

I agree, but what about unworthy causes that seem to never have to tighten their belt and often have it expanded?

In a way I agree with that point of view, but one man's worthy cause is another man's unworthy cause. It all depends on what you consider worthy.