VAT rising to 20%

[wraggster]

Shortly after confirming that it is to do away with tax breaks for the UK video games industry, Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed that Value Added Tax will rise to 20 per cent from January 4th 2010.
Though there’s a good chance that the ticket price of video games on the UK High Street will remain the same – much as they did when the Labour government cut VAT to 15 per cent during the recession – the drop is likely to have a damaging effect on consumer confidence as, as a result, spending.
It’s also bad news for higher price goods such as consoles and 3D TVs. Nintendo, too, is unlikely to the welcome the change, coming as it will just weeks ahead of the arrival of the 3DS.
Osborne also confirmed that the coalition government will not be proceeding with the £6 per month broadband tax that had been scheduled by the last government.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/39710/VAT-rising-to-20

[VampDude]

20% is too high... Sometimes I even think 17.5% is stupid, especially when I see the prices before and after the added VAT. Hopefully, it will call for prices before the VAT to be lowered to make way for the change, like when the VAT dropped to 15%, there was little to no change within the price of goods.

Things like this make me wonder whether the government is doing good for the people, since they want more of our money as the years go by where we see little to nothing in return.

[symbal]

Well the country's in massive debt so we either keep at 17.5% and offer tax breaks and end up with possible long term slow recovering damage to the economy, or do what they doing and put the squeeze on everything and get everything back to normal sooner.

[VampDude]

The governments spending issues into debt isn't really our problem though, plus I read that we are a rich country with the government holding trillions of pounds. We were at number 6 (in 2008), which makes me wonder if they really need to tax us more?

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/

[Darksaviour69]

The governments spending issues into debt isn't really our problem though, plus I read that we are a rich country with the government holding trillions of pounds. We were at number 6 (in 2008), which makes me wonder if they really need to tax us more?

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/

World's Richest Country means the total wealth people have, not how much money the gov has. The Uk Gov is actually £697.5bn in debt.


Also the US in 1st in the list but the US gov has over 13 trillion of debt. And why is the US in this mess?

[Shrygue]

I thought the UK was some £155bn in the red? I guess maybe it is £697.5bn if trade and other stuff between countries are added into the mix then yeah that bigger figure probably makes sense.

[VampDude]

The debt makes no sense in reality, because they tax us for everything (down to making the penny sweets smaller for the tax percentage).

The government did it, so they should bail themselves out of it. I know it's very bad to say this, but whenever the government give money to a poor country, do they ever think whether or not the money would be better used within this country?

It seems that with the U.S. it was the Bush's spending all the money, both Bush's had an Iraq war which the figures as to the years proves costly... Only Bush Jr. seemed to spend more by going to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Wars are expensive, though somehow I don't think it's the case with the UK?

I think the queen should bail the government out, since she gets paid with peoples taxes (I've never quite worked that out).

[symbal]

It isn't the goverment to blame for this it's the whole financial institution taking too many risks, so obviously the goverment has to put the squeeze on the economy to fix what those greedy bankers(w) have done, and as much as i hate eliteism the Queen is paid a relatively small amount and the whole royal family is mainly there as part of the British image and does help with international trade by just being wheeled out in front of foreign dignitaries occasionaly and being part of our history.