Is GFA Constitutional?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's sad.... because you have to pay VAT on cakes but not biscuits...

Which is why they had the lawsuit.

Tut, tut.

Cakes are zero-rated, which is the best of all worlds as the customer does not pay VAT but the manufacturer can reclaim it on ingredients etc.

Chocolate covered biscuits (the chocolate is important) are standard-rated.

McVities took the case and won.

Whatever are they teaching you lot at schools these days?

😉

p.s. nice to see taxpayers money being used to support a court system to argue about matters of such weight......

Originally posted by sumydid
Am I wrong, and if so, why?

You are wrong because you can't use religion as an excuse to ban gov't funding of any activity that offends you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's sad.... because you have to pay VAT on cakes but not biscuits...

Which is why they had the lawsuit.

VAT is standard rate on chocolate covered biscuits. Presumably
because they are luxuries and plain biscuits are essential!

Cakes are defined as a staple food and are also zero rated. Bizarre!!

edit: whoops RO beat me to it.

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish ...[text shortened]... acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Tut, tut.

Cakes are zero-rated, which is the best of all worlds as the customer does not pay VAT but the manufacturer can reclaim it on ingredients etc.

Chocolate covered biscuits (the chocolate is important) are standard-rated.

McVities took the case and won.

Whatever are they teaching you lot at schools these days?

😉

p.s. nice to s ...[text shortened]... taxpayers money being used to support a court system to argue about matters of such weight......

its good for the consumer yes but it will make no difference to the manufacturer,
because VAT is paid at every level of production, for example, if the cake manufacturer
will have paid VAT on flour, milk, sugar and butter, if these are subject to VAT, then he
can reclaim the value back, but you cannot reclaim VAT if your product was not subject
to VAT initially in the manufacturing process. All it is is a convenient way for the government to collect monies.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its good for the consumer yes but it will make no difference to the manufacturer,
because VAT is paid at every level of production, for example, if the cake manufacturer
will have paid VAT on flour, milk, sugar and butter, if these are subject to VAT, then he
can reclaim the value back, but you cannot reclaim VAT if your product was not subject ...[text shortened]... the manufacturing process. All it is is a convenient way for the government to collect monies.

No good for the manufacturer?

Why do you think Mcvities took the case then?

If you can reclaim the VAT on any ingredients, and not charge it on the biscuit....err cakes you sell, then you can charge less while maintaining your profit margin.

Lower cost equals higher sales equals higher profit.

Or you can keep your price the same and keep a higher profit margin.

That's why Mcvities spent all those years fighting the case.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No good for the manufacturer?

Why do you think Mcvities took the case then?

If you can reclaim the VAT on any ingredients, and not charge it on the biscuit....err cakes you sell, then you can charge less while maintaining your profit margin.

Lower cost equals higher sales equals higher profit.

Or you can keep your price the same and keep a higher profit margin.

That's why Mcvities spent all those years fighting the case.

I did not say it was no good, I stated that as far as VAT is concerned it makes little
difference, because you can only claim for what you have paid in VAT. If you paid VAT
at 5p per cake on all of your ingredients, you can only claim back 5p per cake back,
what you charge the consumer is entirely different., plus if you paid zero vat on any of
the ingredients you cannot make any claim back. Yes you can argue that you can
charge less making your biscuits, err i mean cakes more competitive and thus more
profitable in the long term, but its the consumer who pays the Vat and you the
manufacturer simply give it to the government, its not considered a profit at all,
although it may make you more profitable as you have argued.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not say it was no good, I stated that as far as VAT is concerned it makes little
difference, because you can only claim for what you have paid in VAT. If you paid VAT
at 5p per cake on all of your ingredients, you can only claim back 5p per cake back,
what you charge the consumer is entirely different., plus if you paid zero vat on any o ...[text shortened]... s not considered a profit at all,
although it may make you more profitable as you have argued.

Agreed.

In fact I nearly screamed at the TV when Starbucks tried to defend their position on not paying corporation tax in the UK when the executive said 'look at all the VAT we pay'.

Paxman should have said 'No you don't, matey. We pay the VAT. You just collect it. No wonder your tax affairs are so dodgy if you don't understand this.'

But he didn't.

😠

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Agreed.

In fact I nearly screamed at the TV when Starbucks tried to defend their position on not paying corporation tax in the UK when the executive said 'look at all the VAT we pay'.

Paxman should have said 'No you don't, matey. We pay the VAT. You just collect it. No wonder your tax affairs are so dodgy if you don't understand this.'

But he didn't.

😠

Unbelievable, really scandalous. It appears to me as a kind of theft, simply because you
locate your main office is another part of Europe with low corporation tax that you are
therefore not liable for the tax you accrue on sales in other European nations. Thus
ebay generated sales in the UK, which should have levied a charge of some 51 million
pounds, but because they are based in Luxembourg, they end up paying 1.5 million
pounds an outrageously small sum by comparison, despite their sales being generated
in the UK.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that is 0 evidence of the case "having merit". i am unsure what the exact workflow is in the grand american justice system but there are numerous reasons this wasn't dismissed. maybe a judge didn't want to be the one dismissing this so he passed the responsibility to someone else. maybe he/she wishes to give the appearance of considering all evidences befor ...[text shortened]... s, and to deny horribilists that is to deny their right to freely practice their religion.

I concede the point (not just yours but the ones before you as well).

The only real thing I can submit in the case's defense is that there are attorneys and legal experts who argue quite convincingly that the case has merit. Also, it is at least *some* indication that the case has merit, inasmuch as the Obama Administration did make a compromise offer, which the Catholic Church rejected. I'm certain the compromise would not have been offered, had the lawsuit been completely meritless and frivolous.

Originally posted by sumydid
I concede the point (not just yours but the ones before you as well).

The only real thing I can submit in the case's defense is that there are attorneys and legal experts who argue quite convincingly that the case has merit. Also, it is at least *some* indication that the case has merit, inasmuch as the Obama Administration did make a compromise offer, w ...[text shortened]... mpromise would not have been offered, had the lawsuit been completely meritless and frivolous.

Because polititians never do things simply to avoid bad publicity....

I brought up the Catholic Church's lawsuit because I think it is along similar lines. My argument is that the government should not be able to force money from my pocket and use it to fund what I stand against on religious grounds. The Catholic Church on the other hand, is suing over Obamacare's forcing of them to fund contraception coverage in their healthcare plans... which they stand against on religious grounds.

Just about everyone here must be entirely Liberal here because the whole lot of you almost laughed at the Church's suit... calling it frivolous, etc.

Well it seems a Federal Judge is in disagreement. Tyndale House Publishers filed a lawsuit against the Federal governemnt for forcing them--through Obamacare--to cover contraception in their healthcare coverage. Their specific problem was the funding of so-called abortion pills, because, it limits the free excersise of their (Christian/pro-life/anti-abortion) religion.

The Federal Judge stated that the requirement "substantially burdens" the company's free exercise of religion.

http://christiannews.net/2012/11/16/federal-judge-grants-bible-publisher-injunction-against-obamacares-abortion-pill-mandate/

This Federal Judge's ruling seems to fly in the face of many of the criticisms laid out against me here.

Originally posted by sumydid
I brought up the Catholic Church's lawsuit because I think it is along similar lines. My argument is that the government should not be able to force money from my pocket and use it to fund what I stand against on religious grounds. The Catholic Church on the other hand, is suing over Obamacare's forcing of them to fund contraception coverage in their healt dge's ruling seems to fly in the face of many of the criticisms laid out against me here.

At the beginning of this thread there was long debate about the use of taxes and whether a person's religious beliefs should be allowed to determine its use.

We disagreed with you. From the opening paragraph of one of the lawsuits:

This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Those services are freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the Government itself from making them more widely available. Here, however, the Government seeks to require Plaintiffs—all Catholic entities—to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by providing, paying for, and/or facilitating access to those products and services. American history and tradition, embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA&rdquo😉, safeguard religious entities from such overbearing and oppressive governmental action. Plaintiffs therefore seek relief in this Court to protect this most fundamental of American rights.

It is hardly fair to argue that we have been unfair on your point, when the lawsuit itself accepts the very point we are making.

In fact, why do you think this point is made in the opening paragraph of the submission?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
At the beginning of this thread there was long debate about the use of taxes and whether a person's religious beliefs should be allowed to determine its use.

We disagreed with you. From the opening paragraph of one of the lawsuits:

[quote]This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion witho ...[text shortened]... ng.

In fact, why do you think this point is made in the opening paragraph of the submission?

The bolded statement you are citing only says there is nothing wrong with the government making legal contraceptives more widely available. It makes no mention of my specific issue, which is for the government to take my tax dollars and directly fund an act that my religious beliefs explicitly forbid. My religion does not explicitly forbid the use of contraceptives--except in the case where a woman is having sex outside of marriage, but that's not relevant to the case at hand. The government, by proxy, is forcing me to fund something my religion forbids. The best defense I've heard so far is that once my money is transferred to the government, it is no longer my money and they can do what they want with it. However--as argued--it is still MY money before the government forcibly takes it, and I already know beforehand that some of MY money is going to fund abortion. Therefore, the decision is already made before the money changes hands and I therefore am being forced to fund something my religion condemns. In this scenario, the government is nothing more than a temporary holder of the money. My money is going straight to the abortion doctors and/or the clinicians who facilitate abortions. So by giving my tax dollars, I am pledging support for abortion... and thus my 1st Amendment rights are being violated because the Government is impeding my freedom to express my religious beliefs... by forcing me to do something completely against my religious beliefs.

I already stated from the beginning that this isn't the case--yet--and I may be legally wrong. I'm arguing a point but I am prepared to be wrong. But so far I have not been convinced that I am, and this recent ruling by a Federal Judge loosely supports my argument in my opinion. The 2 scenarios are similar enough to be compared apples to apples.

And again, I ask. Why were Muslims given waivers for Obamacare--based on religious grounds--if by the same token, Christians are not allowed a waiver based on religious grounds? If Muslims are given a waiver, the Federal Government is already conceding the 1st Amendment argument.

Originally posted by sumydid
The bolded statement you are citing only says there is nothing wrong with the government making legal contraceptives more widely available. It makes no mention of my specific issue, which is for the government to take my tax dollars and directly fund an act that my religious beliefs explicitly forbid. My religion does not explicitly forbid the use of contr ven a waiver, the Federal Government is already conceding the 1st Amendment argument.

Does your religion permit the use of abortion inducing drugs, which are also included in my quote. Even if it does, do you not agree that some religions would oppose this as well?

Can you post a reference to where Muslims are granted a specific exemption. My understand is that there is an exemption for certain religious organisations in specific circumstances, but I wasn't aware any were restricted to Muslims.

Even if there is an exemption, this is very far from conceding the 1st Amendment argument.