Cost of food is making us all unhealthy
May 10th, 2012 • 11 Comments
There’s a recession on isn’t there. Apparently things have got so bad that people can’t even afford to eat properly anymore. That’s right- private healthcare provider PruHealth has done some researching and has discovered that more than one in five Brits (22%) are eating less healthily owing to the rising cost of living.
The study, which ran at the start of the financial downturn in 2008 and again in March this year, found that the continuing rise in cost of living means that an equivalent of 10.6 million people across the country are not eating as healthily as they would like to and over half (52%) believe their health has suffered as a result of the recession. Since 2008, 75% of people say they have changed their eating and shopping habits with 85% of these naming the recession and or rising food prices as the cause for the change.
So why the change in shopping habits? Well, over two thirds (68%) of respondents think healthier food is more expensive than less healthy alternatives. One in six (16%) people are buying as much as they can that is ‘reduced to clear’ and one in ten (11%) only buy foods that are on special offer. Around one in four (24%) say they regularly take vitamin supplements because they are unable to eat as healthily as they like.
But is this true? Nutritionists would argue that it is cheaper, and better for you to prepare your own food from scratch, rather than buying ready meals or pre-prepared foods. One banana costs 20p from ASDA, but a Mars bar costs 49p. However, 1kg of ASDA Smart price chips work out at 55p, while a 1kg bag of ASDA Smart Price potatoes are a whopping 59p. And they’re not even peeled.
So there may be cases where it is cheaper to be less healthy. But what about food prices? Food inflation has been bringing up the overall inflation rate for months, and in March, the rate of food inflation alone was at an 18 month high of 5.4%. New figures from the British Retail Consortium show that the rate has now fallen to 4.3% in April, but they warn that further inflationary pressures could be around the corner, including record global prices for soyabean. Mostly seen in pre-prepared and processed foods. And soy sauce.
Dr Dawn Richards, Head of Clinical Service at PruHealth, commented: “We can clearly see how people’s healthy eating habits have been affected, with the picture having got significantly worse since the start of the economic downturn. People are only too well aware of the need to eat healthily, but financial constraints are making it difficult, resulting in people’s health being negatively affected.”
PruHealth, like all health insurance providers, does have a vested interest in keeping you well- after all, they would much rather you paid your premiums while bounding around in rude health, costing them nothing in medical bills. However, if you are that way inclined, PruHealth do offer a points scheme to get savings on doing healthy things (like joining a gym) and give you discounts on unrelated products. Like mobile phones. They even claim you could get more in discounts than your premium costs. They may also cover you if you are uninsurable by other insurers, by offering a moratorium- a period (eg 2 years) where you pay your premiums but you aren’t covered for certain pre-existing conditions.
Or you could save yourself the money, stop eating chips, and live next door to your local NHS hospital instead.
Don’t get knocked up by a bailiff…
February 10th, 2012 • 9 Comments
So you’re in the brown sticky stuff and the bailiffs are knocking on your door. So besides pocketing your smart phone in your (brown) trousers and stashing your gold (in the time honoured stash place), what can you friendly neighbourhood Bitterwallet team do to help you in this sticky situation?
Well, debt advice charity the Money Advice Trust has launched an initiative to encourage consumers to stand up for their rights against bailiffs. After having first found out what they are, of course.
Bailiffs are commonly used to collect council tax arrears or to enforce a court judgment, but they can also used to collect parking fines and penalties, tax debt, or child support arrears. Once a bailiff has gained entry by peaceable means, they can return to take your goods and break in if you don’t let them in.
However, contrary to popular opinion, bailiffs are not vampires and do not need an actual invitation to gain entry by peaceable means- leaving a door or window unlocked is all the access they need, and once they’ve been in once, they can come back to take your stuff.
But even the conscientious door closers among you may instead be faced with bailiffs who try to blag their way into a property. Some of the most common techniques witnessed by National Debtline are:
“Can I come in to use your toilet?”;
“I’m from the local council, can I come in?”;
“We have a warrant, so you have to let us in.”
You can even share your best lines on that Twitter using the imaginative #bailiffblags hash tag. If you have nothing better to do.
Joanna Elson OBE, Chief Executive of the Money Advice Trust, said: “The rules and regulations around bailiffs can be quite complicated and so it is not fair to expect your average person in the street to know all the specifics. However there are some rules of thumb that are very useful to be aware of, and one of those is to not let the bailiffs in your property. This means locking doors and windows, and not falling for some of these blags.”
The rules are complicated, and even the Office of Fair Trading recently came up with some new rules on debt collection, handily summarised for us by Len.
“The most important thing is to get some free advice immediately. Organisations like National Debtline and CCCS can talk you through your rights over the phone, even whilst the bailiff is waiting outside,” added Ms Elson, conveniently.
Of course, you are all probably far too sensible to be faced with a fictitiously-full-bladdered bailiff, but just in case you are, Money Advice Trust’s Top Five Tips are:
> If the bailiffs have not been into your home before to collect this debt, they have no right to come in. They cannot break in. You can choose not to let them in;
> By law the police should not force you to allow a bailiff in. Bailiffs will sometimes call the police and ask them to force you to let them in, as many police are unaware of the complex laws and regulations involved;
> Don’t sign anything. If the bailiff leaves papers for you to sign and return, you do not have to do this. You don’t have to sign agreements posted through your door either;
> Except in rent arrears cases, bailiffs cannot take goods which are rented or hired or that belong entirely to someone else. This includes goods on hire purchase agreements.
Result! Bitterwallet readers help the Government make up its mind on MOT reform.
February 1st, 2012 • 6 Comments
I know what you’re all thinking. That Bitterwallet is just here to keep you informed of consumer, financial and legal matters that actually matter in a fun and skilfully written way. Of course that is what we are here for, but we are also here to challenge those rubber neckers up at City Hall- to take on the Government and win. Ish.
You may recall we wrote about the proposed changes to the frequency of the MOT system about a month ago. The Department for Transport (DfT) was considering reducing the frequency of MOT tests, to bring it in line with Continental Europe- changing from the current 3-1-1 system to a 4-2-2.
As part of a larger red tape consultation, the Government had received 291 comments on the vehicle safety section of the Red Tape Challenge website. We thought we could do better, and our poll actually brought in more than 2.5 times the number of responses. The results were also interesting.
Despite ProMOTe’s claims that reducing the frequency of an MOT would actually cost you more (yeah right), we thought the obvious time and money saving of fewer MOTs would be attractive to Bitterwallet readers. And the Yes camp did come out top in our poll, but by a far smaller majority than we might have imagined. Out of 739 responses, 54.8% were for a reduced frequency and 45.2% were dead against it, the vast majority for safety reasons.
We thought this was very interesting. So interesting that we actually contacted the DfT about it. In addition to letting them have our research findings, we also quizzed them on their consultation practices. We thought using an online method was great, but worried that, if little old Bitterwallet could get 448 more responses in two days than they could get in a three-month consultation surely they were doing something wrong?
The DfT were at pains to point out that the Red Tape consultation was a general fact-finding mission and not a dedicated MOT reform consultation, and that a specific consultation would take place before any changes were made. However, we pointed out that, while fantastic sites with an engaged and moderately intelligent readership like Bitterwallet can get immediate, meaningful responses in hours, Government consultations are, in general, only responded to by organisations and private firms. I mean, have any of you ever responded to one? You really wouldn’t want to, they are long and dull and take ages.
They obviously took our points on board and decided not to have another stuffy consultation. Instead,the DfT has announced today that it will not be changing the MOT frequency. Given that the size of our response greatly exceeded theirs, we can only conclude that it was Bitterwallet’s own dear readers who made up the Government’s mind for them. Go us.
The retention of the current system will reduce the risk that “vehicle defects are being missed and roadworthiness mis-assessed”. The DfT have also announced that they will:
> Shine a light on the performance of MOT testing stations by releasing hitherto unpublished VOSA survey data on whether the sector is complying with test standards.
> Work with motoring organisations to find out what problems motorists experience and enable them to share examples of good customer service – in particular to find ways to make it easier for customers to give feedback on their experiences of garages in a way that others can see – potentially in the manner of existing online hotel and restaurant review websites.
> Encourage the take up of industry codes of practice – and expand them to include MOT testing – so that customers can find garages signed up to schemes delivering the highest standards and take action if they have not received the service they expect.
> Help motorists to spot “clocked” second hand vehicles, by changing MOT certificates so that they carry the last three years’ mileage information as well as the mileage on the day of the test, and encourage car buyers to check full MOT histories using the online MOT database.
> Arrange “mystery shopper” tests to help improve performance in addition to those already carried out by VOSA.
Is this the death of poundshops?
January 17th, 2012 • 6 Comments
Although the inflation rate fell last month from its lofty heights over 5% down to 4.5%, the thing with inflation is that it makes the price of things go up. Add in the increase in VAT to 20% last year and you could well expect 2012 prices to be considerably heftier than those a couple of years ago. But what if the retailer’s unique selling point is its fixed price? Will Poundland and 99p Stores soon become the £1.38 Shop?
It may sound silly, but that is exactly what Welsh businessman Colin Sharp was forced to do when he changed the name of his Famous £1 Shop to the Famous £1.20 Shop some time ago and he reckons that his somewhat larger competitors will soon be following suit.
But they disagree. The advantage that the bigger boys have, with 173 UK 99p stores and 381 Poundland outlets, is that they can have products made for them, of a particular quantity or size, to ensure the £1/99p selling price makes a turn. A simple way to address rising prices is therefore to offer customers less for their money.
99p stores founder Hussein Lalani recently admitted that his Toblerone bars, for example, are now 30g lighter than they were. “I may be selling a smaller Toblerone than I did 10 years ago, but I am still the cheapest on the High Street for that particular Toblerone,” he said. Of course, no one else sells that particular Toblerone either, so strictly speaking, he is also the most expensive retailer.
However, the fixed price stores are also finding other ways to relieve the inflationary pressure. 99p Stores have recently opened its first stores in the Irish Republic called Euro 50 (£1.25) Stores as well as expanding into retail parks with Family Bargains, which are not tied down to a single price. Mr Lalani explained his motivation by saying, “We had a lot of customers coming in and saying: ‘It’s great that you’ve got all this 99p stuff, but I need to buy a new vacuum cleaner’.” Yes. I always go into my local 99p store looking for domestic appliances. What is this country coming to that you can’t buy a suction-based cleaning machine for less than a pound?
Poundland has opened Deals-branded stores in the Irish Republic and the Isle of Man, which do not stick to a single price. Retail director Tim McDonnell is convinced that the pound shop format can survive, although the products offered may change.
“If you go into any other supermarket you’ll see a whole range of products ranging from 10 pence up to 60 or 70 pence. There are thousands of those lines, and over time, with inflation, they will eventually fall into our price bracket,” he says.
Great to see quality and quantity being compromised at the expense of price, eh? Still, this may all be a load of complete nonsense. The newest shop that has opened in my posh suburb of North Birmingham* is the amazing 98p Store. I kid you not.
*no, this is not an oxymoron.
[BBC]
Why Can’t HMRC be as creative as the Indian tax authorities? Rubbish and Eunuchs.
January 11th, 2012 • 6 Comments
some eunuchs, yesterday
We all know someone who doesn’t pay their taxes, and gloats about their cleverness/slipperiness/intellectual superiority in getting one over on the taxman. Of course, we could shop him to the anonymous tax evaders department, or we could just grumble about it.
HMRC itself has other powers at its disposal. It can send in bailiffs to collect dues and offenders can even go to prison for wilful avoidance. The taxman has sent many an individual/company/football club to the knackers yard.
But this method of tax collection is pretty dull and staid. No-one gets any enjoyment out of boring legal proceedings. Better to take a leaf out of India’s book, where municipal tax authorities are instead seeking to embarrass people into paying up.
In 2006, the state of Bihar employed eunuchs to collect unpaid taxes. Eunuchs are feared and reviled in many parts of India, where some believe they have supernatural powers.
Accompanied by police officers, the eunuchs approached shopkeepers and large defaulters , gathering outside their shops or homes and sang “to embarrass” them into paying their dues. “Pay the tax, pay the Patna Municipal Corporation tax,” the eunuchs sang, melodiously*.
The eunuchs collected about 400,000 rupees on their first day of work, authorities said, sharing 16,000 rupees (£188) amongst themselves, but the scheme was discontinued after some time following public protests.
Now, officials in the city of Patna, Bihar’s capital have come up with a new way to embarrass defaulters into paying up. Detractors of the scheme think it’s rubbish, but we think it shows genuine ingenuity and a healthy dash of irony.
The taxman dumped heaps of stinking garbage outside a shopping complex to penalise its owner for evading taxes. Three truckloads of rubbish were emptied outside the complex in Kankerbagh as the complex owner had not paid taxes for 12 years.
Patna is one of India’s filthiest cities with stinking piles of rubbish literally found in every nook and cranny. The Municipal Corporation officials often express their inability to clean the city because of staff shortages and poor resources. All they need for a cleaner city could be the unpaid tax totalling 164,000 rupees ($3,175/£2,052) from Avinash Kumar, the proprietor of the JP Market complex.
The stunt certainly caused a stir, but many local people thought it was, well, crap. “Why should people, who pay their taxes regularly, have to suffer the stench of garbage on the road?” Rajesh Kumar told the BBC. “The stinking filth is unbearable and it forced us to remain indoors for the whole day on Tuesday.”
After a public outcry, the garbage was removed from the area where it had been dumped.
The municipal authority says it will no longer use “such unusual ways” to collect tax dues “We’ve abandoned the exercise for the time being,” an official said, “but please ask those defaulters where in the law is it written that they can live in the city, do their business and not pay municipal taxes?” he asked.
Where indeed.
* it might not have been melodious. But we like to think it was.
[BBC]
Fat tax on fizzy drinks and milk edges ever nearer
December 22nd, 2011 • 28 Comments
A few years ago, when I used to smoke, I used to think they would never be able to ban smoking. Then, after a successful ban in parts of the US, and then in Ireland, the inevitable ban came into force in July 2007. While the concept of a “fat tax” in the UK originally seemed a fluffy and ridiculous American idea that would never make it across the Atlantic, growing support amongst academia, and in our neighbouring countries, could mean that we are at the start of a slippery slope into fat taxing.
The latest chapter in the campaign proposes imposing a 10% fat tax on sugary drinks and full fat milk, which would, it is suggested, cut consumption and prompt a switch to healthier alternatives. Sugary and full-fat drinks have been blamed for expanding waistlines, claimed in a new British Journal of Nutrition (BJN) study, one of the co-authors being Professor Susan Jebb, an eminent nutrition specialist who has been the government’s main adviser on obesity since 2007.
A growing number of countries are considering fat taxes in order to demotivate the purchase of ‘unhealthy’ products which contain a lot of saturated fat or sugar. Following Denmark’s introduction of a fat tax on foods with more than 2.3% saturated fat in October this year, David Cameron said that the coalition would consider following suit as a way of minimising the huge and rising medical harm and financial cost to the National Health Service caused by obesity and obesity related illness. But it’s not just those jumper-wearing Danes- the French are planning to introduce a soft drinks tax, Hungary has already brought in an extra levy on all “high-fat-sugar-salt” products, and Finland is punishing sweet-munchers. Interestingly though, Ireland brought a soft-drink tax in but then abandoned it.
The BJN study analyses trends in consumption of all drinks by both children and adults in Britain between 1986 and 2009 before estimating the likely impact of a 10% increase in the price of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). “In testing taxation as an option for shifting beverage purchase patterns, we calculate that a 10% increase in the price of SSBs could potentially result in a decrease of 7.5ml per capita per day. A similar 10% hike in the cost of full-fat milk would also reduce consumption of it by 5ml per person per day and increased intake of reduced fat milk by 7ml per head every day.”
But it’s not just some random academics in a cupboard with this view. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) “supports legislative measures to tackle major public health issues, such as obesity, where there is substantial evidence to support it.”
Professor John Wass, chair of the college’s obesity working party, added “Legislative measures have already worked in France, where food and drink in schools is controlled and all marketing of foods high in fat, sugar and salt is banned unless they are taxed and marketed with a health warning. Studies have shown that following these measures, the number of overweight children in France has dropped from 18.1% in 2000 to 15.5% in 2007,” he said.
The RCP is “sceptical” that the Government’s current plan of “nudging” consumers to adopt healthier lifestyles will succeed , saying that “the additional force of legislation or financial pressures” is necessary.
Dr Mike Rayner, obesity expert and public health researcher at Oxford University, said: “This research adds to the increasing weight of expert opinion that fiscal measures are an underused mechanism which may prove to be an important public health tool for influencing people’s food choices away from those high in saturated fat, salt or sugar.” Ministers should now commission “an independent review which would make recommendations on UK taxation on unhealthy foods, considering both economic factors and health outcomes”, Rayner added.
Unsurprisingly, the soft drinks industry dismissed the idea, describing it as “ineffective, intrusive and unfair”. Richard Laming, of the British Soft Drinks Association, said: “A tax on soft drinks is not the way to fight obesity. Many people enjoy soft drinks within a balanced diet: those people should not be targeted for additional taxes. Balanced diets and active lifestyles can only be achieved through information and education and not regulation or compulsion.”
Other arguments against the effectiveness of such an idea are that consumers would simply buy larger bottles, use cheaper shops, drink cheaper brands or only buy soft drinks on on of the numerous special offers. Given that many consumers pay many times the price for Coca-Cola or Pepsi than unbranded cola, surely few would be deterred by a 10% price rise?
So is this just another example of tax gone mad? Surely everyone who drinks Coke is not an elephantine bloater, so why punish the many to target the few? And is it really fair to say that fizzy drink consumption alone makes people obese? Why not have a fat tax on NHS treatment based on your weight instead?
The Department of Health refused to say if it supported a soft drinks or any other “fat” tax.
The rich to give 10% of their wealth to the poor this Christmas
December 16th, 2011 • 21 Comments
A robin, in Sherwood Forest, yesterday
Ho ho ho. Tis the season to be jolly and spread goodwill to all men. Why then does no-one believe the above headline is true? OK. It isn’t true, but it would be if Stewart Lansley, author of ‘The Cost of Inequality: Three Decades of the Super Rich’ had his way.
It may be the title of his book. It may be that he writes for a website called ‘Left Foot Forward’, but all in all, I am getting a strong feeling that Mr. Lansley is not one of Dave’s best pals. In an incendiary, but might possibly be so mental it makes sense article, Lansley claims that Britain’s top 1,000 super-rich are sitting on fortunes that are collectively worth £250 billion more than in 2000. He also claims that corporate surpluses in the UK now stand at over £60 billion, around five per cent of the size of the economy.
Lansley’s plan is to use this money to kickstart the economy by transferring some of these surpluses to consumers and he is even claiming international approval for this idea. In a recent report entitled ‘Divided we Stand’, the OECD* has asked all nations to review their “tax systems to ensure that wealthier individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden.” Lansley describes this as a ‘call to action’.
What he wants to do is levy a one-off emergency tax on company surpluses over a certain amount along with a wealth levy on the super-rich, quantified as those worth over £15 million. The money will then be doled out** to “all those in receipt of benefits”. He claims a “modest” tax of 10% would raise over £30 billion and would provide “rough justice” to those offering “squeals of outrage”.
While Lansley clearly sees himself as a modern day Robin Hood, and the idea of using some of the pots of cash sitting idly in some bank vault somewhere is quite attractive, particularly if it generates jobs and stimulates the economy, but is giving those on benefits a handy wedge going to do that? Wouldn’t they all just spend it on flat screen TVs and gold chains? And what about the people who work hard so they don’t need to claim benefits? Seems a bit unfair to penalise them for trying so hard?
Even assuming you could collect such a tax, where would the fair line be drawn between the haves and have nots. A nice idea, but lacking in substance perhaps? Bit like the Government really…
*Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Or something like that
** pun intended
Fed up of cold calls? Some anti-social callers are beyond even the TPS
November 28th, 2011 • 8 Comments
You know what it’s like. On a Sunday afternoon, you are enjoying your post-Church day of rest with your family when you realise there is something missing from your day. If only a random stranger could call you up on the telephone and ask you what you think about toothpaste. Or, while snuggled up with your loved ones, top of your list would be a late night phone call after 10.30pm, because that wouldn’t cause alarm, no, it would generate excitement about garden centres.
Tragic as it is, junk mail and cold calls seem to be a fact of life. Some people don’t mind if the calls are made at sensible times, others will chat to anyone and some see cold callers as sport for the baiting. However, the best way to prevent this type of call is to register with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). Once registered, all calls should be stopped and any that do get through can be reported using a simple online form.
So imagine the distress of a lonely old pensioner, for example, who has registered with the TPS, but who gets called at 10.30pm. Who on earth could it be? Upon answering, our old dear is invited to participate in an Ipsos- Mori survey. Her cries of Telephone Preference Service are drowned out by the start of the survey questions…
You see, it is only a legal requirement under The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 for companies or organisations that are making unsolicited calls (cold calling) for sales or marketing purposes to filter those calls against the TPS lists. There are no legal or regulatory requirements to filter unsolicited calls made for research purposes against the TPS. This means that market research firms like Ipsos-Mori can legitimately call you as many times as they like, at whatever time they like, mentioning whatever brands they like. And they do.
Now, Ipsos-Mori claim that “we are required to ensure that the individuals who take part are fully representative of the target audience being researched. To exclude individuals with TPS registered telephone numbers could bias the results,” which could be true, but do they have to call, repeatedly, at antisocial times? Are their customers aware that, by using this company to make these calls, they could be antagonising potential customers in their own homes, meaning they will be less, rather than more likely to buy their products?
Ipsos-Mori use random generated telephone numbers, so the only way to prevent these calls is to specifically opt-out with the individual research company. For Ipsos-Mori specifically, you can email telephone@ipsos-mori.com providing your contact telephone number. Note that in order to stop the calls, they will need to store your number on a database, although they “absolutely guarantee” that your details will not be disclosed to any third party, nor will it be used for any other purpose. Good job we trust them…
Will mobile phone operators lose their ’stealth tax’ just to be nice to people?
October 25th, 2011 • 4 Comments
Imagine you’re having a bad day. You spill tea down your shirt, tread in dog shit on the way to missing your train and to top it all, your mobile is lifted from your pocket while you struggle to keep upright during a standing room only trip into work. Your day can only get better, right?
Well, to add insult to injury, when your mobile phone is stolen, any calls made between the light-fingeredness and the resulting discovery, frantic searching and eventual reporting of the crime to the police and phone company are charged to your mobile phone account at full rate.
What this means is that not only have you been robbed, you get robbed by the phone companies who are not merely passing on their costs to you (after all, you wouldn’t expect them to be out of pocket, would you?), but who are making a profit out of your misery. Literally. Given that Which! suggest nearly 6m people in Britain have had their mobile phones stolen in the past five years, that’s a nice little earner for the mobile providers.
Well, this disgruntling situation has gone so far as to fire up some particularly ranty MPs who entered an Early Day Motion (EDM). The motion, which was read out in the House of Commons, said that mobile operators should charge customers the wholesale rate for calls made after phones are stolen, rather than the “much higher” retail charges that they currently face until the theft is reported.
Robert Halfon, Conservative MP for Harlow, told The Telegraph: “Mobile phone operators are raking it in. At the moment mobile phone tariffs are competitive, and the way [operators] are compensating is by using theft like a stealth tax. First of all they charge rip-off insurance – often £10 to £15 a month – and then, when the phone is nicked, they charge for the calls made. They shouldn’t be stealth taxing consumers in this way.”
However, mobile operators have, unsurprisingly, suggested they would resist the proposed shift to wholesale charges because it would be open to abuse by customers who claim their phones have been stolen if they incur a particularly large bill, or who might be tempted to backdate a real theft.
“We see from the amount of mobiles that get ’stolen’ whenever a new iPhone comes on the market that customers are not always very honest,” said a very senior executive at one of the major providers.
However Mr Halfon pooh-poohed the idea, suggesting a requirement to obtain a crime number would prevent such high jinks, “very few customers are going to lie to the police, and the police don’t give out crime references willy-nilly.”
So can we expect to see the phone companies being landed with some hefty legislation anytime soon? Er, no. Probably not.
You see an Early Day Motion is a formal motion submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated in the House of Commons, and they are largely used as the parliamentary equivalent of a press release. Good for making lots of noise, but not so good for forcing a change in law. Unless the public really jump on the bandwagon of course.
But even if it garners loads of support within the House, an EDM is not likely to be debated, and Ministers, Whips, Private Secretaries and the Speaker (and deputies), the important people who decide these things, will not normally sign EDMs.
The EDM that received the most signatures this session was one expressing the importance of community pubs, at 275 signatures, beating Zac Goldsmith and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s fish fight into second place with 249.
The lost mobile phone EDM got 22 signatures, so if you feel strongly about it, you may have to go and disrupt people’s weddings and church services before anything will actually be done about it. Or you could just grumble a lot. Or keep your mobile inside a loaded mousetrap. Or something.
BOOB TAX. Sorry lads, it’s true.
October 17th, 2011 • 12 Comments
We all know the Government likes to tax fun, with both cigarettes and alcohol suffering ‘sin taxes’ in the form of excise duty. Now, the Government has realised that they can tax funbags as well.
Of course, much to the chagrin of employees of HMRC who were eagerly eyeing up their tape measures, this tax does not apply to naturally endowed ladies, merely those who seek to artificially enhance their boobage*
The tax in question is actually VAT, as medical procedures are exempt from VAT. However, new Revenue guidance suggests that cosmetic surgery, including boob jobs, nose jobs and penis enlargements, which are not required for health reasons should, in fact be subject to VAT at 20%. Practitioners offering purely cosmetic procedures should therefore register for VAT.
Unsurprisingly, the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons are not fans of the new approach. President Fazel Fatah said: “The subjective proposals being put forward by HMRC will potentially harm large numbers of patients…With surgery we are quite literally dealing with human lives.”
The Sun, for whom maths are not a strong point, estimating an average increase of £1,000 by applying 20% VAT to the average £4,000 cost of a boob job, took a different tack. Rather than finding two girls to photograph with large and unsightly noses, they interviewed two ladies blessed with large mammaries, one real and one fake.
Natural 30F Page 3 girl Peta Todd was in favour of the proposal and said, “in the same way that I should be expected to pay VAT when I buy make-up or a nice top, people who are having a boob job or other surgery simply to make themselves look better should also have to pay the tax.” She also revealed hidden psychoanalysis skills, adding “many people think a boob job, a tummy tuck or a facelift is the answer to their problems, when really it’s the deeper issue of a lack of self confidence or self esteem that they need to tackle.”
TOWIE’s Jessica Wright, whose 32DDs are surgically enhanced disagrees “I didn’t have particularly low confidence or self esteem before, but having a boob job is something I’ve always wanted and now I feel that I look my best. Why should I be penalised for that when it hasn’t harmed anyone or even cost anyone else a penny?”
So is this a change in the law then?
Joking aside, whether you agree that cosmetic surgery should be subject to the same consumption tax as any other commodity or not, there is no change in the law, merely a change in interpretation of the law that has been in place since 1994.
Surgeons were previously advised by accountants not to register for VAT but HMRC officials insist VAT should always have been paid on cosmetic procedures unless they are part of a “health care treatment programme” and say they are now simply “clarifying” existing rules.
An HMRC spokesman told the Telegraph there was “no change in Government policy on VAT for cosmetic surgery”. He added “[VAT] is not charged on surgery for medical reasons, and is charged for surgery for aesthetic reasons.”
But what does the law say? The VAT exemption in question refers to medical services provided by a registered practitioner, and the class of exemption is entitled “Health and Welfare”. While it is perhaps easy to determine whether or not a procedure is necessary for health reasons, welfare is an altogether different kettle of rhinoplasty. Most patients would argue that they feel better after a cosmetic procedure, meaning it has contributed to their welfare. In any case, the relevant sections of the VAT Act do not actually require the procedure to be for either Health or Welfare purposes merely to be performed by a medical practitioner. And if you are getting new boobs from someone who is not a medical practitioner, VAT is probably the least of your worries.
It seems HMRC may again be issuing guidance that is outside the law that they actually bound by. Still, there is nothing to stop the Government introducing new laws to make new boobs taxable in future. Quick ladies, get ‘em done quick!
*This is, in fact, an actual word. Bitterwallet editor Andy did a comprehensive Google Image search to make sure.
Why can’t all flights have Soviet “Aeroflot” staff from the ’60s
October 14th, 2011 • 2 CommentsMost airline staff these days are orange faced sourpusses who openly resent your very existence, thundering down the aisles with their stupid, ungainly trolleys and tutting at you through the safety dance routine they do.
It wasn’t always like that. Once upon a time, in the Soviet Union, the hostesses just loved to dance, dance, DANCE! Of course, they were probably threatened with a life down the mines in Siberia if they didn’t partake… but don’t let that spoil the show.
Why can’t all airline staff look like this? To think we’ve been fobbed off with Jeremy Spake.
Bit short of cash? Donate your relatives’ organs in exchange for freebie funerals
October 11th, 2011 • 8 Comments
A new report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics suggests that the NHS should test the idea of paying for the funerals of organ donors to help tackle the current shortage of organs. Under such a scheme, funeral expenses would be offered as a ‘gift’ if someone who has signed the Organ Donor Register dies in circumstances where their organs can be donated to others.
Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern, described this as an ethical way of encouraging more people to sign the Organ Donor Register. She said:
“The possibility of sparing relatives the financial burden of a funeral might encourage more people to register as donors. Paying for the funerals of organ donors would be ethically justified – no harm can come to the donor, and it would be a form of recognition from society. We think a pilot scheme to test the public response to the idea is worth trying, alongside other schemes”.
The other schemes in mind also involve some kind of reward for the donation of organs, although it is to be clear that these are gifts and NOT payment for body parts. Which it might otherwise look like, being the exchange of one thing (organs) for monetary value. Glad we’ve sorted that out then.
Currently, 18 million people – around 30% per cent of the UK population – are signed up to the Organ Donor Register, but the 8,000 people on the waiting list for an organ transplant will wait an average of three years for a suitable donor to become available and three people die every day whilst waiting for an organ. The NHS are aiming to increase donors to 25 million by 2013.
As previously stated, the Nuffield Council are not advocating paying for organs, which is a good job, as it is against the law to offer or accept payment to donate organs for the treatment of others in the UK. The Council believe this type of ‘gift’ payment is just enough to encourage donation, but not enough to undermine the inherent altruism that encourages most donees to offer to donate.
Roger Goss, of Patient Concern, disagrees: “Offering funeral expenses in return for organs may result in families leaning on sick relatives to donate because it can save thousands of pounds.” Just so long as they don’t lean on them with a pillow until they stop wriggling…
So what do you think? Would the offer of a free funeral change your behaviour as guardian of a loved one’s body parts? Would you do it anyway? Would you prefer the opt-out system of Spain and Belgium where it is assumed that people consent to donation unless they objected to this before they died, or their family objects? Surely the NHS has better things to spend its money on than in persuading people to do the right thing?
Make the pork promise. For fork’s sake
October 10th, 2011 • 4 Comments
how could you resist this tasty chap?
I know I am not a schoolgirl, but asking someone with even a relatively un-grubby mind to make the pork promise is bound to raise a few titters surely?
With catchy slogans like “Love Pork” and “Stand by your Ham”, the aim of the campaign, organised by the Pig industry, is to drive consumers to look out for the Red Tractor logo when buying their chops, bacon, sausages and gammon.
Consumers are being encouraged to ‘Make the Pork Promise’ by looking more closely at the welfare standards behind the pork and pork products they are purchasing. With promises like “I promise to give more thought to the pork I’m forking”*, it is surprising that so far only 2,000 odd facebookers have signed up.
A page has been set up on Facebook which has been liked by over 39,000 people. Perhaps the other 37,000 are unwilling to fully commit to Porking.
Farm minister Jim Paice has also given his backing to the initiative. He is now officially a Porky Forker.
The target is to get 100,000 people to make the pledge on Facebook. Given the affinity avid Bitterwallet readers have for bacon and all things porky, we are sure you will go forth and swell the numbers of pledges. While porking. And forking.
*this may have been paraphrased. Slightly.
Can you work out your energy bill? You’re cleverer than an accountant then.
September 27th, 2011 • 11 Comments
Now that EVERYONE has put up their prices for electricity and gas, being able to work out whether your current energy provider is shafting you has become a necessary, rather than merely desireable skill. However, our good friends over at Which! have done some serious in-depth research into how easy energy bills are to understand. And the conclusion is Not Very.
Which! had a spare five minutes, so asked 36 whole people, including a solicitor, an engineer and an accountant, to work out their domestic energy bill using nothing but information from the supplier’s website, just one – a company director – could do it. The accountant they asked was not me. I am eminently capable of reading my own bill.
Which!’s concern is that making bills so complex conceals bad deals from customers, with comparisons being made particularly difficult by the ‘tricks’ that energy tariffs typically include. Amongst the most common tariff tricks are two-tiered tariffs which penalise lower users by charging a much higher rate for the first block of units, and ‘discounts’ that do not materialise because the customer leaves the provider before a set period.
As a result, Which! has called on Ofgem to introduce one simple standard format for all tariffs, which would have a daily charge covering fixed costs and a unit rate covering the actual energy used.
Richard Lloyd, Which! executive director said “There are straightforward ways that consumers can cut their bills – for example by switching to online deals or paying by direct debit, but that won’t help people to pick the best tariff for them.”
Separate research from Energyhelpline.com suggests the Government is set for a £197 million VAT windfall from the latest round of energy price rises. They estimate that the recent price rises will increase the annual VAT take from domestic energy will rise to £1.5 billion. Mark Todd, director of Energyhelpline.com has asked the Government to consider cutting the VAT rate on power from 5% to 4% in order to help out hard-pressed households.
“This will give an immediate £13 a year saving on a typical bill and, for once, the Government would actually be reducing people’s bills instead of just talking about it,” he snarled.
While a reduction of the reduced rate of VAT on fuel would undoubtedly be welcomed, are energy bills really that hard to understand? Is the concept of a two-tiered rate so difficult to grasp? A straw poll round the Bitterwallet office clearly didn’t help, as all the others have OTHER SKILLS rather than the searing intelligence and wit of yours truly, but surely the average Bitterwallet reader can manage? Can’t you?
[Moneyfacts]
Car insurance too high? You can get free no claims discounts from the right insurer.
September 20th, 2011 • 7 Comments
Don’t you hate car insurance? Insurance generally is detestable, being something you pay for in the hope that you never need the service, but car insurance, with its ever increasing premiums is something all drivers are required to have, whether we like it or not.
I have just bought a new car. No, it is not a new car, it is just slightly newer than my current 11 year old one. And it is a Mercedes-Benz but the smallest one possible, before the Big Boss of Bitterwallet starts thinking he is paying me too much. He’s not. Anyway, I called my current insurers to sort out changing the insurance.
I didn’t think this would be a problem, I have seven years’ no claims discount and have never been caught speeding. Or anything else. However, the co-operative insurance, or CIS, informed me that despite the fact that this was my policy, set up in my name, my direct debit, my car, they had transferred my no claims discount to my husband. I informed them that this was incorrect and that they could just go and transfer those handy old no claims back, and they refused.
You see, because they had already done it, and I hadn’t noticed in the very small writing (about 8pt font) on the policy documents, they had effectively rewritten history. They told me that they would not provide me with proof of no claims to a new insurer because, according to their records, I didn’t have any, but that they would evidence my husband’s no claim discount, even though, on a purely factual basis, he did not have any.
Previously, I had been unaware that insurance companies had such time-travelling qualities, but I was assured it was all my fault as I had said that he might drive the car, on balance, a fraction more than I did* believing that his age (being somewhat more than mine) would be preferable.
So. Despite still feeling robbed of what was mine, I resigned myself to searching for insurance assuming I had zero no claims. According to the Quidco compare site (where you see the net cost after your cashback), as my husband is now in prime mid-life-crisis age territory, and is a man, it was actually cheaper for me to have zero no claims than for him.
However, I also had to call Mercedes’ own insurance company FirstCover to get the cover note so that the dealer could tax my new car. I explained the situation to the lady on the phone and she informed me that, despite the fact that CIS had stolen my no claims discount, she could give me 5 years no claims to mirror the discount that was now my husband’s. Not only that, but these would then be my own no claims going forwards should I want to change insurer in the future.
I have to say, Mercedes FirstCover insurance would not have been the cheapest quote if I had all my no claims- although, naturally, they do not claim to be the cheapest, merely the best. However, with the gift of the no claims discount, they ended up being cheaper by over £250, which is not to be sniffed at. Cheapest and best then.
I am assured this ‘mirroring’ policy was not created especially for me, and is aimed at couples (like mine) where the partners have been sharing a car, and now they each want to have a car. The no claims is awarded on the basis of being a named driver on another policy throughout the period.
Clearly, this mirroring of no claims bonus can be very lucrative for people in this situation, and had I not spoken to First Cover on the phone, I would not have known this was possible, I would have been pillaged of my no claims bonus and would have forked out a fortune in insurance. So maybe sometimes online isn’t always best and it pays to speak to someone on the phone once in a while.
Or just read Bitterwallet.
*as I am clearly locked in a basement writing for Bitterwallet most of the time.
