OV9

That £2k that voting labour will cost everyone? Written up by trustworthy, independent, would-never-lie-to-you civil servants, according to Sunak?

Apparently the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury doesn't think so. It includes external numbers the Tories added in after the fact.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11m307jjvo

What the permanent secretary had to say about it - before the leaders debate where it was repeated again:

Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.

As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.

In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.

I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.

I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.

James Bowler

Permanent Secretary

Yet they keep bare-faced lying about it in the press with shit-eating grins on their faces.

Earlier Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho told BBC Breakfast the costings had been "signed off by the permanent secretary of the Treasury" and if anything the Tory claim was “an underestimate”.

“These are brilliant independent civil servants and they would not be putting anything dodgy in there," she said.

If they're prepared to lie about that so clearly and openly, what else are they gonna lie about?

Having watched the debate yesterday, Starmer came across like a dull headmaster.

Sunak came across as a vicious little prick.

Truly, the duality of British politics.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:04 pm The funny thing is that she’s exactly the kind of success story that everyone who thinks it’s possible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps should be getting behind. But because most people like that are more conservative, they hate her

Nah I think people dislike her simply because she's an odious gob.

The £2k figure may be bollox, but does anyone really think that their taxes won't be going up in some way to pay for Labours plans?

Meh, like I say I would’ve preferred her as leader to Keith. At least she’s actually a socialist.

I thought Starmer would have been in his element, but he was weak, boring, wishywashy and had no real answers.

He’s spent years saying how terrible the current lot are but very few ideas to solve it or say what they would have done differently.

integrale_evo wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 3:21 pm I thought Starmer would have been in his element, but he was weak, boring, wishywashy and had no real answers.

He’s spent years saying how terrible the current lot are but very few ideas to solve it or say what they would have done differently.

what's the alternative though - vote for The shower of corrupt shit we have (and their £19bn of public service budget cuts that no one seems to be mentioning) in the vague hope you'll end up with a few hundred quid a year more in your pocket (and fingers crossed you don't get ill and need whats left of the NHS?)

Simon wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 3:18 pm The £2k figure may be bollox, but does anyone really think that their taxes won't be going up in some way to pay for Labours plans?

The thing is, the Tories are the party of high taxation now and they've managed to convince the public otherwise. So I am not sure.

ETA: even the partisan as can be Torygraph ran an article about it in March: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... tory-rule/

Now, lets be fair.

They're the party of high taxation with fuck all to show for it.

Beany wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 5:22 pm Now, lets be fair.

They're the party of high taxation with only a list of scandals as long as your arm to show for it.

FTFY.

Not sure how true this is but read something earlier on PH about VAT implications - that as VAT registered entities private schools will be able to reclaim some VAT going back 10 years under the Capital Goods Scheme.

Labour’s manifesto has been published now - no rises in VAT, income tax or NI. Though that doesn’t mean they won’t apply VAT to things which are currently exempt.

The devils always in the wording - they may not raise the rates but will they lower the thresholds?

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2024 12:38 am Not sure how true this is but read something earlier on PH about VAT implications - that as VAT registered entities private schools will be able to reclaim some VAT going back 10 years under the Capital Goods Scheme.

That’s interesting. It’s only on *big* capital items, for schools that’ll likely just be buildings (over £250k, includes alterations, extensions and annexes).

Also applies to pieces of computer/IT equipment costing over £50k *each*. Like a server. Not a network of 50 terminals costing £1k each.

Also applies to aircraft, ships, boats or other vessels costing over £50k. There’s probably one or two qualifying items out there but as much as some people might want to believe it, schools buying aircraft is not very common.


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-capital ... tal-assets


The wording and examples are mostly around paying more VAT, e.g. you reclaimed 100% VAT at the time of purchase but now have a business that is partially exempt, you have effectively over-claimed. It should also work the other way around but I’d defer to an actual expert on that. VAT is something that on the face of it is very simple - “it’s 20%” - but in practice is incredibly complicated. If tax was simple we wouldn’t need an entire industry of tax specialists.

Yeah, I did some of the same searches out of interest, but you've summed it up better than I would have!

The one that might be more common may be this one:

- refurbishing, fitting out, altering or extending a building or civil engineering work

I imagine private schools would have lots more investment in their properties and fitting them out (because they aren't allowed to make profit, so spending it on improving facilities is probably a more common thing?)

Yeah, it’s all part of the “building” catch-all, the trick will be rolling it up into packages of >£250k to qualify.

Refurb building A and extend building B, £200k each, two years apart - no.

Same work but done concurrently, under one contract with the same contractor - possibly yes.

Is my guess. But as I said - VAT is complicated.

Or even, refurb building A and extend building B, and join them together to make new asset “building C”. That should be a safe bet as the £400k does now refer to one asset.

£250k doesn't go that far in commercial fit out these days - I barely ever do projects that small. I bet there'll be plenty of projects that would qualify if this loop hole did exist (and plenty of others that would happen!)

Cheers for that SJ - I knew it wouldn't be simple!