Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B425 - Stop Tax, Period Bill 2012 (Second Reading)

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    B425 - Stop Tax, Period Bill 2012, TSR Liberal Democrat
    Stop Tax, Period Bill 2012

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. VAT charges on all sanitary protection products will be reduced from 5% to 0%.
    (1) ‘Sanitary protection products’ defines all products used for purposes of feminine sexual hygiene.
    (2) Products currently subject to 5% VAT are detailed below and will become exempt from VAT from the date of commencement:
    a) sanitary towels
    b) sanitary pads
    c) panty liners that are not designed as incontinence products
    d) sanitary belts for use with looped towels or pads
    e) tampons
    f) keepers (internal devices for the collection of menstrual flow)
    g) maternity pads for the collection of lochia

    2. Commencement
    (1) This bill will commence on the date of 1st August 2012.

    Notes
    (1) The purpose of this Bill is to remove feminine hygiene products from all VAT charges. VAT is charged on all products that can be generally considered “luxury goods”. As feminine hygiene products are required for a biological process, they should no longer be charged VAT - in line with other essential medical products such as dispensed prescriptions.

    (2) EU Taxation and Customs law ensures that member states must charge a minimum of 5% VAT on most commercial goods. However, Article 131, point (g) of the European Commission VAT agreement, gives member states the ability to exempt goods which are seen as serving the public well-being or can be justified as “essential for medical purposes”. This Bill can therefore proceed in accordance with EU as well as UK taxation law.

    (3) The cost of implementing this bill would be a maximum estimate of £15,000,000 in order to cover the loss of tax revenue. The total revenue of the UK feminine sexual hygiene industry is £298 million. The tax revenue from this to the Treasury can be ascertained by dividing total income by 1.05, and then subtracting this from the original amount. For a total cost that is less than 10% of the cost of the House of Lords (£152.5 million annually), every woman in the UK can be released from a tax that their biology cannot avoid.

    (4) Further research can be conducted here and here.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. Should not be feminine only.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Pointless really. Companies will just hike up the price again to what it was before - that's what they did the last VAT drop.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, no, no!

    Companies will take advantage of this and lets be honest the savings are so small, it is worthless.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Surely the fairness of women being freed from a VAT charge their biology cannot avoid trumps what is in relative terms a miniscule cost. Put aside partisan interests and welcome legislation that genuinely works to achieve more fairness and help for millions of British women.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No for the reasons above. Nothing forces companies to pass on that reduction and so this Bill is a damp squib.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Unit cost remains unchanged, and this should not be manipulated by legislation. The core aim of this bill is to remove the tax on a product that can be defined as 'essential for medical purposes', similar to dispensed prescriptions. The cost of the products minus VAT is subject to supply and demand, but we must take a principled stance against women being charged VAT that their biology cannot avoid.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Unit cost remains unchanged, and this should not be manipulated by legislation. The core aim of this bill is to remove the tax on a product that can be defined as 'essential for medical purposes', similar to dispensed prescriptions. The cost of the products minus VAT is subject to supply and demand, but we must take a principled stance against women being charged VAT that their biology cannot avoid.
    You don't get it. This Bill won't actually do anything as retailers could still charge the same price which makes your principled stand futile. Quick question, did you intend the title of your Bill to be a pun?
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    You don't get it. This Bill won't actually do anything as retailers could still charge the same price which makes your principled stand futile. Quick question, did you intend the title of your Bill to be a pun?
    But that charge will be minus VAT. And yes, the title is a nifty pun courtesy of T_C.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    But that charge will be minus VAT. And yes, the title is a nifty pun courtesy of T_C.
    So effectively the pre-tax cost to the consumer goes up because the retailers won't reduce the price to take into account the fall in VAT. It is only the retailer that benefits. Do you not think that your pun rather undermines your 'principled stance'?
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    So effectively the pre-tax cost to the consumer goes up because the retailers won't reduce the price to take into account the fall in VAT. It is only the retailer that benefits. Do you not think that your pun rather undermines your 'principled stance'?
    I don't understand your fixation with unit cost. Retailers are unlikely to increase the cost of their products to cover the loss of VAT because their tax revenue will be reduced and they will have no need to cover a non-existent tax cost.

    The pun was designed to prompt thought about the absurdity of women being charged a tax that their biology cannot avoid. The RL campaign name is 'Taxpon'. Take your pun pick.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I don't understand your fixation with unit cost. Retailers are unlikely to increase the cost of their products to cover the loss of VAT because their tax revenue will be reduced and they will have no need to cover a non-existent tax cost.
    No my point is the following. The situation is currently this:

    product X - £5.00
    unit cost of product X: £4.75
    VAT - 25p

    After Bill, the retailers won't put the price down because it's merely 25p so we get the following

    product X - £5.00
    unit cost to consumer of product X: £5.00
    VAT - 0p

    So the retailer profits more, effectively the product cost has gone up since VAT is no longer applicable. Explain to me how this Bill will prevent that.

    The pun was designed to prompt thought about the absurdity of women being charged a tax that their biology cannot avoid. The RL campaign name is 'Taxpon'. Take your pun pick.
    Still undermines your stance.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    No my point is the following. The situation is currently this:

    product X - £5.00
    unit cost of product X: £4.75
    VAT - 25p

    After Bill, the retailers won't put the price down because it's merely 25p so we get the following

    product X - £5.00
    unit cost to consumer of product X: £5.00
    VAT - 0p

    So the retailer profits more, effectively the product cost has gone up since VAT is no longer applicable. Explain to me how this Bill will prevent that.



    Still undermines your stance.
    The 25p VAT will no longer be charged on product X, so it will cost £4.75 to the consumer.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    The 25p VAT will no longer be charged on product X, so it will cost £4.75 to the consumer.
    Yes, but the retailers won't reduce their prices because this Bill doesn't force them to do so, hence the overall cost will remain £5.00 meaning an effective increase in unit price.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Yes, but the retailers won't reduce their prices because this Bill doesn't force them to do so, hence the overall cost will remain £5.00 meaning an effective increase in unit price.
    Retailers will have no need to continue charging 25p if VAT is ended, and they will have no legitimate reason to continue charging this. The Bill shouldn't need to force retailers to do this - this should be done anyway as the retailers will be unable to justify their continuing charge.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Retailers will have no need to continue charging 25p if VAT is ended, and they will have no legitimate reason to continue charging this. The Bill shouldn't need to force retailers to do this - this should be done anyway as the retailers will be unable to justify their continuing charge.
    But there isn't any of that. I'm sorry, but basically you're going 'please put the price down, but we won't force you to do so'. It's business and they'll take that extra bit of profit. Your Bill basically does nothing, but you seem to have this delusion of grandeur about what this Bill will achieve.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    But there isn't any of that. I'm sorry, but basically you're going 'please put the price down, but we won't force you to do so'. It's business and they'll take that extra bit of profit. Your Bill basically does nothing, but you seem to have this delusion of grandeur about what this Bill will achieve.
    We shall see. However, this bill remains extremely progressive.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    We shall see. However, this bill remains extremely progressive.
    How is it progressive? On the ground it achieves nothing whatsoever.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    How is it progressive? On the ground it achieves nothing whatsoever.
    It removes VAT from products which women cannot avoid using due to biological reasons. That's progressive.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    It removes VAT from products which women cannot avoid using due to biological reasons. That's progressive.
    So actually achieving nothing on the ground is progressive. Interesting to see what the Lib Dem's definition of progresssive is then.
Updated: April 30, 2012
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.