VAT on new boats with p-ex - are they all at it?

[MapisM]

Re: Is talking about illegal practices illegal?

I wasn't having a go to anybody, either! )
...though, had the the impression that having starting this subject was perceived as "supporting" it somehow.
Which was absolutely not the case.
Anyhow, the way you all native speakers understand what I'm writing is definitely the "real" way, which is not necessarily equivalent to what I meant.
Sorry not having made understandable my viewpoint more clearly from the beginning.

Now, not that I want to continue forever on this subject, but still I've seen in the Med many CI flags on boats which clearly do not have ocean range.
Would be curious to understand how do they explain that, if asked?...

 

[tcm]

The legal stuff, then.

My understanding is that it temporarily or permanently avoids VAT, and minimises the regulations which might apply, including (for example) french registration taxes. I have experience of the french registration taxes, which run about .5% pa, so there'll be lots of red ensigns for a start. The channel island job allows avoidance of VAT, also legal, which involves chartering it round the houses to various people, one of whom miggt be oneself. VAT on charters can otherwise be somewhat massive.

It's perhaps more sensible to look at VAT on large luxury boats as a business, conducted by governments which have the right to charge the tax under ceratin circumstances, and the buyers of the boats being their targets who have the right to avoid the taxes - by not buying the boats at all, for example. Current UK tendency is to put up taxes as far as the market will stand (qv stamp duty on houses, fuel duty etc) and unless there's a revolt it stays at that level. They never ever bring them down.

Where appropriate (and boats are mobile, it is appropriate) Governments must compete and "discount" VAT and "allow" exemptions which means that you'll see some fairly walloping boats registered in landlocked Luxmbourg, a good trick i'm sure you'll agree.

Annoyance at tax issues is entirely justified, but should be redirected towards those that levy the ever-rising taxes, not those who successfully and legally mitigate their liability.

Your statement that "their not paying VAT annoys me cos i'll have to pay more" is exactly what the cutesy govt want you to think. Put this idea in the rubbish along with other wrong-headed ideas, such as 40% for income tax is "fair" , and adding another 10% for a NI to pay for a national health service is "reasonable". When in fact the NHS remains so crap that it is not used by anyone who wants to be healthy quickly, such as um, an England footballer. Anyone in their right mind running the NHS would have run long adverts on the telly (especially since the govt owns that too) telling everyone how to look after themselves, so we'd have half the number of ill people as twenty years ago (with same number of people) rather than significantly more ill people, 4 times as many who are claiming long-term disability allowance, and up to 70% of police "retring due to disabilty" ....all of whom might be a better target for your annoyance, and which may go some way to explain why those who avoid tax massively yet legally have a very clear conscience indeed.

Oh, and welcome to the madhouse, Mapis. Aplogies if I had a go at you, i normally find myself hacving a go at everyone hereabouts, but no nastiness intended...

 

[MapisM]

Re: The legal stuff, then.

No need for apologies, it was understandable from the expertise of your opinions that you were just making analyses, not really having a go to anyone.

And I also agree with your last comments, in many respects.
Actually, I never assumed that the "higher taxes I'm paying because someone else is not (or just partially) paying them" are well spent, neither for myself nor for the rest of the community I'm living in. We all well know that "inefficient" is the more polite definition applicable to the way public resources are used.
Throughout the world, I'd also say. OK, probably there are differences between say Argentina and the average of EC countries, but all in all, each of us have good reasons to complain about where and how our money flows after the fiscal declaration absorbs it.

On the other hand, I still think that we live a crazy world, considering that those who can - albeit legally - minimize to the maximum extent the taxes they're paying are actually the persons who wouldn't really need that.
I read once that the possibility to deduct the burial expenses from the taxable income is often not used from lower level workers, old people living on disability pension, etc., etc. - just because they're not aware of that, obviously.
...if you see what I mean.

However, I always tend to think positive about these things at the end.
Whenever we all boating guys see what's wrong in the world, we shouldn't forget that we still have our boat, with great seas around us awaiting to be discovered. What else do we need?
And best of all, this applies whatever the boat flag...

 

[MapisM]

Ooops...

I just realized that by "CI" you meant channel islands, whilst I was thinking of Cayman Islands.
In fact, also many "Georgetown - Grand Cayman" boats can be seen in the Med.
I'm saying this just to clarify why I didn't understand how they can explain to be around here, whenever the boat max range doesn't allow the transfer.