Something a bit worrying in the budget

[at9]

I can assure you that trawling through reams of Budget documents isn’t my usual reading but I came across this rather worrying proposal buried deep in the small print:

It is the Government’s intention to introduce fiscal measures to discourage the wearing of high-heeled footwear, particularly by those women who are young or whose freedom of dress is necessarily restrained by their medical condition or for occupational or cultural reasons. Further details are to be announced after consultation with the Health & Safety Executive, the footwear industry and other interested parties.

It all seems a bit uncertain but some other information I found suggests a higher rate of VAT on women’s shoes with heels above above a stated maximum height, provisionally set at 50mm. I’ve had a quick look at the Health & Safety Executive website, also at Andy Burnham’s site (he’s Secretary of State for Health) but can’t find anything relevant. Sounds like a typical half baked measure from a dying government.

[Dr. Shoe]

...or an April Fools joke.

[Puffer]

Well spotted, at9! I too had recently seen an oblique reference to the proposals you mention and was following them up via a contact in HMRC – yes, even the taxman can have a friend or two!

The picture is as yet incomplete but this is what I have gleaned so far. I gather the intention is indeed to impose Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) at one or more rates higher than the current standard rate (17.5%) on women’s ‘footwear’ with heels higher than 50mm, presumably on some sort of incremental basis with a further cut-off point or two. But there will be certain reliefs and exemptions. Any footwear wholly meeting what will undoubtedly be stringent design criteria in ‘replicating a recognised historical, religious or ethnic design’ will continue to be standard-rated. And high-heeled footwear ‘designed, produced and provided for bona fide medical reasons’ will now be zero-rated if the purchaser can give the appropriate declaration of personal need and eligibility (as at present with hearing aids, etc.).

There is to be no special relief for shoes purchased for ‘professional use’ (whatever that might actually mean!) on the basis that such a user would be (or should be) VAT-registered and therefore able to reclaim the tax at whatever rate it is charged, as at present. But, for us, the most surprising potential concession is that the new measures have been clearly stated (so far) to apply only to women’s footwear, i.e. ‘any item of footwear of a type or style intended to be worn exclusively by a female person’. That must exclude anything intended to be worn by a male – and (most usefully) anything remotely unisex! This must surely open the door to a range of high-heeled shoes that could be worn by men (as presumably evidenced by their corresponding availability in larger sizes) and which will be promoted as such, thus giving both sexes the opportunity to buy their heels without the extra tax. We live in interesting times!

Quite how this will all pan-out and what extra revenue it will produce remains to be seen. The Chancellor clearly has his mind set on ‘high-heeled shoes’ becoming ‘high-yield shoes’.

[Dr. Shoe]

I wouldn't have thought that the sales would be sufficient to even make it worth bothering TBH. Let's look at some numbers: There are about 15 million women in this country who are of the age where they would buy and wear heels, even if as many as half of those women actually wear heels then that is only 7.5 million women buying heels. If they average 4 pairs per year that is 30 million pairs sold. Suppose the VAT is increased to 20% for HH shoes, then that will be 2.5% a pair at an average cost of £50, in otherwords, £1.25 a pair in tax revenue. This will only bring in £37.5 million. It will cost more to administer and enforce!

[Puffer]

I wouldn't have thought that the sales would be sufficient to even make it worth bothering TBH. ... It will cost more to administer and enforce!

Not true, Doc; the extra costs will be minimal. The beauty (or otherwise) of VAT is that, once the legislation is in place, most of the admin is done by and at the expense of the trader. Enforcement has to take place anyway across the whole range of taxable 'outputs' and the only extra task will be determining the precise application of the new rate(s) to particular items - which could, I accept, involve some debate!

I've just realised that VAT was introduced in the UK precisely 37 years ago today (1.4.73). The rule books then were about 1.5" thick in total; they are several times that nowadays, worse luck.

[at9]

.... the only extra task will be determining the precise application of the new rate(s) to particular items - which could, I accept, involve some debate!

This takes me back to the early 1980s when we had 2 rates of VAT, 8% on most things and 25% on so-called luxury items. This caused a lot of grief in the electronics industry where supplies of components were quite difficult to determine. The rule was that components for professional use were rated at 8% while those for consumer equipment were 25%. There was a huge amount of hassle before it all settled down. All totally unnecssary since the retail suply of components was minimal anyway and most pro users would have been VAT registered.

As I said in my original post, an ill considered measure from a dying government.

[pussyinboots]

I can assure you that trawling through reams of Budget documents isn’t my usual reading but I came across this rather worrying proposal buried deep in the small print:

It all seems a bit uncertain but some other information I found suggests a higher rate of VAT on women’s shoes with heels above above a stated maximum height, provisionally set at 50mm. I’ve had a quick look at the Health & Safety Executive website, also at Andy Burnham’s site (he’s Secretary of State for Health) but can’t find anything relevant. Sounds like a typical half baked measure from a dying government.

There is nothing on Google.....so I presume this is a joke. Right??

[at9]

More info has come from HMRC which implies that the idea will be scrapped due to the imminent election.

[pussyinboots]

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, that when I Googled "new VAT Rules on high heeled shoes" only 5 minutes ago, this Thread on HH Place came up as 4th on the list of top results!!

[Guest]

I wonder how many "hits" and how many new members we may acquire? Al

[Bubba136]

Given the current mindset of politicians these days, there isn't any taxing suggestions that can be considered to be a JOKE! Each suggestion can be, and probably is, taken seriously.

[Tech]

More info has come from HMRC which implies that the idea will be scrapped due to the imminent election.

Or scrapped due to the imminent end of April 1st?

[Histiletto]

Once any politician sees a way to fund a project through a difference taxing source it will probably become part of a taxing law shortly there after. Government has to be contained when it comes to spending our money. I really feel their should basicly be only one tax: The income or profit of all tax paying units. Furthermore, the total tax rate should be kept under 15%. To raise it any more would reduce the buying power in the market, which would lead to less tax revenue being collected.

[pussyinboots]

Or scrapped due to the imminent end of April 1st?

Well. The Official website for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has nothing about this at all.

[Tech]

Well. The Official website for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has nothing about this at all.

lol, of course not, "they dont do humour"

[Majo]

Sorry to hear that, folks; I hope it's an April Fool's Joke. Heels have a very inelastic demand as people use them because they like them or have a "thing" about them so, if true, surely the government will get some more income on heel lovers. The thing is that I don't see how this can be a relevant increase on government revenue. Anyone who looks at this issue should be aware of the real impact and not on arbitrary measure like this one.

[mathmaj]

i agree but we will see!

[Dawn HH]

Much ado about nothing. Since we can't find any substanciation for this, my guess is that it is an April Fools joke. Cheers--- Dawn HH

[yozz]

Of course it is an Aprils fool joke. If you want to put a tax on heels higher than whatever you have to also tell how to measure that, how to implement it and so on. If even here we have trouble deciding how high a heel is (do platforms count) it would be in committee for years before they could decide on it. Y.

[at9]

Of course it was an April fools joke. What's more it was a conspiracy too, hatched between Puffer and myself. His professional expertise in legal small print made what would otherwise have been a fairly lame and obvious joke into something rather better.

[Puffer]

Of course it was an April fools joke. What's more it was a conspiracy too, hatched between Puffer and myself. His professional expertise in legal small print made what would otherwise have been a fairly lame and obvious joke into something rather better.

As Ben Franklin (who was wise enough to have been an Englishman) might well have said: 'In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes and April Fools' Day'.

Or was it all a joke and pure invention? There could be more than a grain of truth in the underlying ideas and maybe we shall hear more. And I can assure Yozz (and any other doubters) that none of the 'technical difficulties' that the lay taxpayer might identify as making such a tax impossible to devise and implement would pose the slightest deterrent to either the present government or our permanent army of civil servants. If you don't believe me, set aside several hours to look at the history of the application of VAT to 'food' - including hot food, sweets, snacks, chocolate (whether sold retail for direct consumption or put up in catering packs, including ... but excepting ... unless ... provided that ... ) ... and so on.

[at9]

... If you don't believe me, set aside several hours to look at the history of the application of VAT to 'food' - ....

Or the VAT chaos in the early 1980s when we had 8% and 25% rates. Some industries, notably my own field of electronics, had any number of marginal cases which had to be clarified.

[Guest]

Good one and it was getting publicity on the search engines. Wasn't too sure myself and searching with some views into the tax criteria regarding clothing was of marginal interest. 5 gold stars Al

[Puffer]

Good one and it was getting publicity on the search engines.

Wasn't too sure myself and searching with some views into the tax criteria regarding clothing was of marginal interest.

5 gold stars

Al

Thank you, Al. But no more gold stars, please - I have had a phonecall from the Treasury accusing me of unlicensed bullion dealing, or money-laundering, or something ...

Now, what time is that flight to Zurich?

[shrimper]

Well spotted, at9! I too had recently seen an oblique reference to the proposals you mention and was following them up via a contact in HMRC – yes, even the taxman can have a friend or two!

The picture is as yet incomplete but this is what I have gleaned so far. I gather the intention is indeed to impose Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) at one or more rates higher than the current standard rate (17.5%) on women’s ‘footwear’ with heels higher than 50mm, presumably on some sort of incremental basis with a further cut-off point or two. But there will be certain reliefs and exemptions. Any footwear wholly meeting what will undoubtedly be stringent design criteria in ‘replicating a recognised historical, religious or ethnic design’ will continue to be standard-rated. And high-heeled footwear ‘designed, produced and provided for bona fide medical reasons’ will now be zero-rated if the purchaser can give the appropriate declaration of personal need and eligibility (as at present with hearing aids, etc.).

There is to be no special relief for shoes purchased for ‘professional use’ (whatever that might actually mean!) on the basis that such a user would be (or should be) VAT-registered and therefore able to reclaim the tax at whatever rate it is charged, as at present. But, for us, the most surprising potential concession is that the new measures have been clearly stated (so far) to apply only to women’s footwear, i.e. ‘any item of footwear of a type or style intended to be worn exclusively by a female person’. That must exclude anything intended to be worn by a male – and (most usefully) anything remotely unisex! This must surely open the door to a range of high-heeled shoes that could be worn by men (as presumably evidenced by their corresponding availability in larger sizes) and which will be promoted as such, thus giving both sexes the opportunity to buy their heels without the extra tax. We live in interesting times!

Quite how this will all pan-out and what extra revenue it will produce remains to be seen. The Chancellor clearly has his mind set on ‘high-heeled shoes’ becoming ‘high-yield shoes’.

An easy way around all that is to designate the higher heels as mens shoes and the VAT won't apply.

[Bubba136]

Thank you, Al. But no more gold stars, please - I have had a phonecall from the Treasury accusing me of unlicensed bullion dealing, or money-laundering, or something ...

Now, what time is that flight to Zurich?

Given the deal just worked out between the US and Swiss Govts., Zurich mithn't be the right place.....Better Rio for non-extradition purposes....

[Puffer]

An easy way around all that is to designate the higher heels as mens shoes and the VAT won't apply.

Precisely - or at least not in terms that would suggest that any relevant high heels are exclusively for women. I will lobby for this to be done.

Given the deal just worked out between the US and Swiss Govts., Zurich mithn't be the right place.....Better Rio for non-extradition purposes....

I'm not too bothered, Bubba as (a) I'm not an Amercian citizen; ( any trip to Zurich would be merely to access a Swiss account rather than to avoid arrest - not, of course, that I have done anything wrong!