VAT on specs-who abolished it?

Can of worms that one :(.

Often not, or so it appears.

But it's the old NHS trick IE "80% of people don't pay prescription charges". By implication : Those that do are obviously so rich it doesn't matter whether the charges are fair/reasonable or not.

That's George brown for you "Helping the poorest", and "Taxing the top

1% of the most polluting cars", without mentioning the 5 litre Ferrarris etc are taxed at only 20p/week above 50 mpg repmobiles.

But if you are working to support yourself and your family then obviously you deserve a pasting. Therefore your medical requisites have to be paid out of your taxed income (usually 33% + ) and then taxed again (another 17.5% ) when you hand your money over.

If you have a problem with this look at the example provided by our glorious leader. Whilst escoriating himself in poverty he still pays all his medical bills, (except for staged celeb visits to NHS facilities) even taking his kids to France to get their jabs to save the health service money.

People who would deny him his £160k and his expenses are just jealous.

Like me.

At the minimum rate, or am I wrong?

Blair/booth would get a nice meal out of them. He would then feed the rest of Downing Street on the lumpy bits.

DG

Don't complain. My spectacles and contact lenses cost me over £800 last year and would have been lots more if I hadn't got specials deals on frames.

'If you are registered as suffering from a disability and the purchase of our products will help you to overcome this disability then we can supply the products to you at zero rate i.e. we will not charge you VAT.'

That may not apply to contact lenses. Tests for contact lenses have to be paid for in addition to the eye test for spectacles. They seem to be regarded as luxury items.

Google led me to

('This Chapter outlines the main VAT changes since the introduction of the tax in 1972, and details separately the changes in the VAT rates and the VAT registration thresholds.') Apparently 'On 1 November, 1989 corrective spectacles and contact lenses became liable at 10%.'

That means John Major was the then Chancellor, but, since he'd only been in the job for less than a fortnight, I assume the culprit was his predecessor, Nigel Lawson.

I'm not sure your argument 'If i didnt buy new specs I wouldnt have been in continous work for the past 25 years' works, though; if you didn't wear clothes, you'd find it difficult to keep a job, too, but that's not really an argument for zero-rating them.

Steve

Do both somehow relate to Irish Revenue? I was under impression the OP asked about the UK VAT.

Stephen Glynn wrote: || tarquinlinbin wrote: ||| Just been for an eye test ||| I now need some new contact lenses0 ||| ||| There was a time not so long ago that specs were free of VAT but the ||| government of the time quietly abolished it. ||| ||| Can anyone remember what government and/or minister was responsible? ||| ||| If i didnt buy new specs I wouldnt have been in continous work for ||| the past 25 years and paying tax for governments to fritter away on ||| rubbish. Do they charge VAT on all medical aids now? eg false ||| legs/teeth/prosthetic devices etc? Even sanitary towels are charged ||| VAT. Perhaps ladies should start mailing their used ones to Downing ||| St in protest. ||| || || || || Google led me to

|| ('This Chapter outlines the main VAT changes since the introduction || of the tax in 1972, and details separately the changes in the VAT || rates and the VAT registration thresholds.') || || Apparently 'On 1 November, 1989 corrective spectacles and contact || lenses became liable at 10%.' || || That means John Major was the then Chancellor, but, since he'd only || been in the job for less than a fortnight, I assume the culprit was || his predecessor, Nigel Lawson. || || I'm not sure your argument 'If i didnt buy new specs I wouldnt have || been in continous work for the past 25 years' works, though; if you || didn't wear clothes, you'd find it difficult to keep a job, too, but || that's not really an argument for zero-rating them. ||

The only bit of company that many elderly people have is some sort of household pet, yet as if vet's bills weren't horrendous enough, the government still sees fit to screw them for VAT as well.

|| Steve

In the sense that clothes, shoes and furniture are also 'luxury items', do you mean?

Steve

But everyone wears clothes and shoes as they are basic pre-requisites of our lifestyle and culture. I,OTOH,have been stricken with a disability but despite this,continue to work and pay tax. Others with disabilities,make the most of it and claim all the benefit they can get but could possibly also work, depending on the individual situation.

Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Ferraris have *really* clean emissions compared to most 'normal' cars, despite their crazy engines.

Yep that's the away it is. You got it.

That's George Bown for you "Helping the poorest", and "Taxing the top

1% of the most polluting cars", without mentioning that the 5 litre Ferrarris etc are taxed at only 20p/week above 50 mpg repmobiles.

2 Possibilities :

1) Either get a job as a minister ( can't be too difficult considering the standard, and do alright on their salary + expenses).

2) Erm that's it, otherwise you're shafted.

HTH.

DG

Where do you have your tests for clothes, shoes and furniture?

The clothes argument tends to work if you are self-employed and wear specialist clothing... this does not include dark formal suits but would include protective clothing and headgear. But then it is an offset against income tax rather than VAT.

Axel

What's that got to do with it? I'm questioning the notion that the principle behind VAT is that it's only charged on luxuries. I don't regard my spectacles as a luxury, but I don't regard wearing shoes as a luxury, either. 'It's not a luxury' just doesn't seem an inherently good reason for zero-rating something, since clearly VAT isn't, nor was ever meant to be, charged only on luxuries.

Steve

This:

Ariadne wrote:

"> > 'If you are registered as suffering from a > > disability and the purchase of our products > > will help you to overcome this disability then > > we can supply the products to you at zero > > rate i.e. we will not charge you VAT.'

Of more relevance here is why contact lenses tests are not treated in the same way as vision tests although although contact lenses provide a better correction of defective vision.

"Stephen Glynn" wrote

Wrong measure! Medically necessary is VAT free.

Hats in cold weather, sunglasses on sunny days and shoes most days are not designated medically necessary!

"fred_eg_bowinatuck" wrote

What do you class as "medical"...?

Hats in cold weather may stop you getting a chill. Sunglasses on sunny days may stop bad headaches. Shoes may stop bad cuts&grazes.

There has to be an element of diagnosis by a recognised professional...

"Tim" wrote

Oh dear. VAT is not charged for items that cure a PRE EXISTING medical condition.

That does not include items that may or may not, depending on other factors, prevent a medical condition.