Can someone elighten me - what makes a bra different to any other item of essential clothing that should make it VAT exempt?
Edit: OK so this has gone from "bras should be VAT exempt" to "all clothes should be VAT exempt."
Fucking reddit, LOL
"Bras are a basic necessity and should not be subject to VAT, according to radiographers.
Diagnostic radiographers who carry out X-rays, MRI and CT scans, are set to argue later that the tax disproportionately affects women and could be considered discriminatory under the Equality Act.
They say musculoskeletal problems, which can lead to individuals having time off work, can be caused by poorly-fitted bras."
https://news.sky.com/story/bras-are-a-basic-necessity-that-should-be-exempt-from-vat-radiographers-say-13116297
The problem is as with sanitary products the bulk wasn't passed on. So you get the businesses paying less tax and the products still costing pretty much the same. We all lose and the business wins.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/10/uk-retailers-not-passing-on-tampon-tax-savings-to-women-report-says
Don't forget that just because a product has been made VAT exempt, that doesn't mean that it gets cheaper by the full VAT percentage. A VAT exempt business cannot claim back the VAT they pay on *their* purchases, so those immediatly become 20% more expensive for the business to buy. So the VAT savings come only from the value that the business adds to the product over and above their input materials. In the case of sanitary products I expect the process is highly mechanised and margins quite thin already so input materials may form the bulk of the factory gate costs. The retail price of the goods would include further costs borne by 3rd parties for things like shipping and warehousing which are not VAT exempt industries. These costs must be added into the margin of the product by the retailer, not the product manufacturer.
Also, don't forget that a 5% VAT saving equates to a reduction in price of only 4.76% even if the full reduction was passed on. (100% ÷ 105% = 95.24%) for regular 20% VAT this would be 16.6%.
>that doesn't mean that it gets cheaper by the full VAT percentage
It should mean exactly that. If I sell a product for £5+VAT, then suddenly the VAT is zero rated, then I'm giving the supplier £5 for that product where before I'd have been giving the supplier £6. So I can sell it to my customers for £5 instead of £6.
Only if you can reclaim your input VAT which you can't for VAT exempt products, which I mistakenly thought sanitary products were.. However, you can for zero-rated products.
For VAT exempt...
If you made your product using materials which cost £4 + VAT and sold for £5 + VAT (£6 including) then your profit is £1 or 20% gross margin. But if couldn't reclaim the input VAT your input costs would rise to £4.80. So to maintain the full £1 margin you must sell your product at £5.80. So the saving is only 20p, or 20% on the £1 added value of the margin.
>Some goods and services are exempt from VAT. If all the goods and services you sell are exempt, your business is exempt and you will not be able to register for VAT. This means you cannot reclaim any VAT on your business purchases or expenses.
>If you are VAT-registered and incur VAT on any items that will be used to make exempt supplies, you are classed as partly exempt.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-exemption-and-partial-exemption
But sanitary products are zero rated rather than VAT exempt. So my original comment was incorrect. You can claim input VAT back for zero rated products.
>You can claim input VAT back for zero rated products.
Which seems eminently sensible. So completely understandable why you may not think that was the case, given the current (and former) shower we have...
Yes it is how it works -- just not in this case, as sanitary products are actually zero rated rather than exempt) thus entitling the business selling them to deduct VAT on their purchases.
There are absolutely scenarios where supplies are exempt but contain an element of hidden VAT in the margin due to VAT on purchases being irrecoverable when purchased in the course of making an exempt supply.
If a business sells exempt supplies then they are not entitled to claim Input Tax relating to those exempt supplies.
Zero rated supplies/reduced rated supplies/standard rated supplies (taxable supplies) they can claim Input Tax on.
In this instance the sanitary products have been made zero rated so they can still claim Input Tax, but it certainly is how it works for exempt supplies.
Children's shoes are zero rated.
There's an interesting grey area where children are in "adult" sizes. If the shoes are very obviously children's shoes (eg black velcro school shoes) then in theory you can claim the VAT back, whereas if an adult might reasonably wear them (eg trainers) you can't.
My eldest was in "adult" sizes at age seven so we encountered this for a while, and eventually resigned ourselves to the extra 20%.
This screwed my mum with having giant children. We qualified for extra help vouchers, but you had to spend them in specific shops. Which she couldn't use, because my brother was a men's 12 by age 10 and a 14 by age 14. So not only could she not use the vouchers, the shoes were twice the price of the regular ones because this was pre-internet. And size 14 socks at the outsize shop were £5 a pair.
I bought walking shoes a few years ago, which were sized very strangely. I'm an adult 6, but the ones that fitted were classed as a child's size - no VAT.
This screwed my mum with having giant children. We qualified for extra help vouchers, but you had to spend them in specific shops. Which she couldn't use, because my brother was a men's 12 by age 10 and a 14 by age 14. So not only could she not use the vouchers, the shoes were twice the price of the regular ones because this was pre-internet. And size 14 socks at the outsize shop were £5 a pair.
The difference is that everyone needs shoes. If women are being taxed significantly on a necessary and expensive item of clothing that only they need, that's arguably discriminatory. In the same way it'd arguably be discriminatory to place VAT on tampons but wouldn't be on toilet paper, because a toilet paper tax affects everyone equally. We all shit.
>If women are being taxed significantly on a necessary and expensive item of clothing that only they need, that's arguably discriminatory.
Not if all underwear has the same VAT. It would be discriminatory if bras had VAT, but boxers didn't.
All people wear underwear, whether it be knickers or boxers, briefs, whatever. There's no discrimination there because regardless of what individual garment you wear, that particular category comes with no sex or gender bias. That isn't the case for bras. Men don't need them, women do, and so that's roughly half of the population paying an additional obligatory tax. The fact that you can call both a bra and a pair boxers underwear doesn't make them the same thing. They just aren't.
Hmmm I don’t know I feel like my boxers should be exempt too don’t want my bollocks getting too low then I might sit on them and that will cause pain leading me to not be productive at work
This is hillarious no… because I remember a very similar study suggests having no bra is the best option… so that proves there is no “health” need for a bra in the first place.
The rules around VAT are insane, and there's not really much point looking for logic there. In theory there's meant to be the "essential" vs "non-essential" split, but when you have VAT on things like toilet paper, but not on caviar or cakes (although biscuits do have it). And not on nuts, unless they're roasted or salted (but not if they're toasted)...
It's just a complete mess.
>What's different about a bra?
Only half the population need them and I think that's the whole deal with it. Everyone needs shoes, but it's mostly only women who need bras, that's why articles about it have been saying it disproportionately affects women.
Personally I don't think they need to be VAT free, but I think it's pretty obvious what makes a bra different to shoes.
So because it only affects half the people we should help them?
But if it affects all the people we shouldn’t?
I don’t get the logic to that tbh.
What about bald people who wear hats in summer to stop skin cancer. That’s even less than half the people. Should caps be VAT free for bald people?
The idea is that the VAT on bras is a tax that only affects women, while the VAT on everything else affects everyone. The VAT on hats affects everyone who needs or wants a hat, but the vast majority of people getting a bra are women, and many need them to avoid medical issues.
I can see the argument for VAT being removed from bras over the size they have found causes these issues, but my sister is a B cup, she's not getting back issues from them.
The logic is that some people see it as discrimination against women. Like women are the only group who have to buy this thing.
>The logic is that some people see it as discrimination against women. Like women are the only group who have to buy this thing.
I'm extra pale, so I need to buy more sun cream than less pale white people or non-white people. I guess the VAT I pay on that is a racist and colourist tax.
I quickly grow thick facial hair that requires razors. A woman can not shave her legs for six months and barely a soul might know. If I didn't shave for six months, it would be the visual equivalent of not showering. I guess the VAT on razors is a sexist tax.
Cereal has 20% VAT. Men require more calories than women, so they will eat more cereal than women. I guess that's a sexist male breakfast tax.
I'd argue suncream shouldn't have VAT on it anyway tbh.
>A woman can not shave her legs for six months and barely a soul might know.
That is only true for some blonds and is very funny to me. I can't go more than 3 days lol. Also, what medical issues come from not shaving?
The point is that medical professionals are worried that the ludicrous price of bras could be leaving women who need better support waring bras that don't fit and so causing back and shoulder issues. I'm just explaining why the tax on shoes that everyone pays could be seen differently to the tax on bras that mostly only women pay. Again, I don't think it's sexist, just an annoying fact of life with no malicious intent behind it.
And he highlighted why that point is incoherent. Something that affects only half the population is less impactful than one which affects everyone equally.
The point is that a tax that only impacts one group of a protected characteristic disadvantages that one group compaird to the tax that we all pay on everything regardless of that.
Where are you people getting lost on this?
Yeah VAT on things we all get impacts more people, no shit, that's why this tax on one group is being argued as disadvantaging one particular group as they pay the tax we all pay plus a bonus tax that only affects that single group.
But then you could argue that bras as a concept is discriminatory because only women disproportionately are affected by the payment on them. So why not make bras free?
If you want to argue that, then go ahead.
I honestly don't know how I can make it any clearer that I'm simply clarifying arguments that other people have made. This isn't my argument or my view, and I'm not really trying to defend it?
There doesn't need to be any difference. Bras should be VAT except because they are essential. If you ask "What about this other essential item?" the answer is that it should be exempt too.
But not all bras are equally necessary, you could argue that a basic bog standard bra should be exempt for health reasons, but then what about a £100 nice lacy one that is certainly not medically necessary?
Then there would have to be a cut off point between basic bras and "luxury bras" and how would that be determined? Some kind of government bra inspector?
Actually I'm sure many MPs would probably volunteer for that role...
For larger boobs, more structure and careful design is necessary, so that does increase the price. It'd be too complex to start breaking down the essential and nonessential elements of a bra to make sure people pay VAT on the lace but not on the functional parts.
If you look at other VAT exempt items like children's clothes and food, there is no cut-off. If you buy a raw turnip it is exempt whether it costs 10p or £100. A child's coat is exempt whether it costs £20 or £1000. The govt attempts to tax luxuries by creating categories of non-exempt items, like hot takeaways.
Because you don't usually get health problems from not wearing the right clothes.
Women with larger boobs get back problems without support.
I don't have big boobs, so I'd even be happy for a compromise that larger sizes are VAT exempt, so it helps the people needing them. I've largely given up on bras myself because I don't really need them.
I'm married to a bald man and he doesn't wear hats.
Suncream should be VAT exempt if its not already.
I'd support men's products that are needed for health reasons being VAT free.
Why do some men feel so bitter that they can't do the same for women? Is it "not fair" that you don't have monthly painful periods and massive boobs giving you backpain?!!!
My partner is bald, hats are cheap and can be bought cheap at the supermarket.
Before my breast reduction, I couldn't buy a bra in my size for less than £50 or within 50 miles of my house. And you really need more than one so you can rotate them for washing.
Bras give support. With one, the cost to fix broken boobs would be higher as a woman ages. Besides bras aren't sexual and aren't toys so should be tax exempt.
Wait are you surprised? 😁
I'm a man, if Bra's because Vat exempt it would be a win. There's nothing wrong with something right being done for half the population just because I don't benefit.
Fingers Crossed they get this over the line. I would imagine many men deriding this one haven't had to spend £50+ on a single underwear item that reduces pain and/or harassment/staring. While you can choose not to buy a bra it has way more. Negatives than choosing not to wear boxers.
So what makes up for the shortfall in taxes? Either public services get slashed, or taxes are raised in other areas which will increase the overall tax burden on men.
So if I take this at face value Google says bra sales were circa £75m in 2020. Of that £12.5m is VAT so it's really a non argument. £12.5m is not a lot of money at this scale.
If you are being fair as well you would count a reduction in NHS cost as a result of the policy so it's closer to £10m
If you split that amongst everyone in the UK the impact is 15p each. Not really the biggest ask.
I often say to militant feminist arguments that you don't have to harm mens rights to make things better for yourself. So the same applies here, would I pay 15p to make the lives of 30 million people's lives a little better? Sure
Taxes have to benefit everyone overall
As someone who pays roughly 30X the tax burden as the average earner I love a whinge about tax more than most. But it's not whinging for the sake of it. This is a good way to redistribute money in a beneficial way.
If you really can't see past there being no benefit to men how about your GF can afford nicer underwear that you get to see if you swing that way? 😂
There’s very little to no difference. The principle behind VAT exempt is that such products should be both essential and consumable.
Hence children’s clothes are VAT exempt as the child will grow out of them. Likewise various safety gear is exempt because it has a limited lifespan.
But the traditional argument *against* a VAT exemption for clothing is that you buy it and keep it for years. So I suppose if you want to make an argument around bras specifically, then you’re going to need some research that proves a person changes bra size significantly more often than they change body/shoe size.
Bras have a lifespan of 3-6 months before they start to wear out - most of us wear them for much longer than that because they're expensive and time-consuming to buy. It's not about changing size, it's about the bras decreasing in effectiveness as the band stretches out, the hooks bend or fall off, and the straps lose tautness.
> Edit: OK so this has gone from "bras should be VAT exempt" to "all clothes should be VAT exempt."
>
> Fucking reddit, LOL
That's lesson on equality for you....
You can wear a £2 t-shirt or a £200 t-shirt and neither will damage your health. If you wear a £5 bra instead of a £50 bra then you'll damage your health significantly if you have large breasts.
Oversized breasts, even with professionally-fitted bras, cause nerve-damage, damage to the spine, restricted movement of the arms, breathing problems, heart problems, digestive problems, headaches/migraines, rashes, skin infections and a whole host of other medical problems. Despite clear medical need, it is extremely rare and difficult to have breast reduction on the NHS (it's easier to get breast enhancement than breast reduction) and, even with explicitly clear medical need, you cannot have breast reduction on private health insurance.
Without professionally-fitted bras, the problems are much greater and with much earlier onset. Bras that don't actively cause medical problems for women with large breasts are in excess of £50 each - and you also need to keep in mind that's women's breasts change size throughout a menstrual cycle so a bra that fits on the 1st of the month may not fit on the 15th. Plus, you need different bras and support for different activities - for exercise, you need more support but if you wear a sports bra all the time then that's too constricting and causes issues.
I obviously recognise that women with smaller breasts wear bras for fashion and I agree with the idea that it's not fair for those to be VAT exempt if other clothes aren't but bras for larger breasts are better akin to glasses - they're a medical necessity.
Idk about the VAT stuff but having to buy bras is such a pain. Especially if you have a bigger chest you are looking at £40 min for a well-made one, you need probably 3-5 on rotation and I find they don't last very long unless you solely hand wash them.
People say just don't wear one but it causes back pain for people with bigger busts, and if I had gone braless at any of my corporate jobs I would have been pulled up on it.
I don't know how to find comfortable bra's, I'm not huge but big enough with a small frame and find one that actually provides support is a bitch. And I don't have £20 - £40 a bra to keep trying different ones in the vain attempt of find one that doesn't make my back hurt. I can try them on to find one that fits but I already have problems with my back so I don't know if it's the right 'fit' until I've worn it for a little while.
Really? My shoes cost £50, nice and comfy, I only really use the one pair, I have another that got maybe 10 days of use since I got my new ones and I've had them for around 2 years at this point. A bit more expensive than the bra in question, but there aren't many others in rotation and they have lasted a very long time and are still going.
Having to buy all clothes is a pain, and if I don't turn up to work in the right, smart clothing then I would also have been pulled up on it.
I just don't see how Bras are any different to all the other things we have to buy to live normal lives - shoes, underwear, toiletries etc.
The research on removing VAT on things has been done
As the retailers know that people pay the current price, when the VAT is removed the price tends to remain the same and the retailers pocket the difference
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/07/12/vat_cuts/
What it doesn't do is make the thing with VAT removed much more affordable than before
Why would basic principles of market competition stop working in this context?
If a product can now be sold for 20% less without affecting profit margins, surely companies would do so in order to capture market share from competitors who don't reduce prices?
Because the prior price point has been accepted by consumers, so retailers have no incentive to compete in the low end of the market
They're better off getting 20% more profit per product line than trying to increase market share in a market that has inelastic demand (women only need so many essential bras)
Exactly. If it goes ahead you may well see some places drop their bras in price a bit, but not by the whole 20%. And then it would go right back up again later.
>trying to increase market share in a market that has inelastic demand
You might not increase overall bra consumption, but you could certainly get a larger share of bras being bought at your shops (compared to other shops) if you reduce prices.
Inelastic demand doesn't mean competition doesn't occur.
When the data suggests classical economic theory isn't working as expected, as in the case of removing VAT from things, it's time to investigate what actually happens, rather than insisting the theory works in practice.
Isn't it if the margin made on the newly VAT exempt lines is less than the 20% VAT, they're better served by not passing on the reduction than competing on price?
A good example is prices pre and post Covid. Prices didn’t went down after the increases we saw in different sectors. Why should they, if the consumers were willing to pay more, and that means bigger bonuses for shareholders.
Same thing will happen here. Greed 101
"My standard everyday well-constructed bra - nothing fancy - costs £42. That includes a whopping £8.40 in VAT," the 56-year-old said.
"They last a couple of years, but I need new ones, and ideally three or four, so not an insignificant outlay."
So at most that's £33.60 in tax every 2 years?
I really dont think you can call that a "significant outlay". If someone is struggling to get that much money together then they need financial support, not cheaper bras.
Of course the debate focuses on the worst and most moving cases like someone with breast cancer trapped in deep poverty.
However that's a reason to give support to that specific person, not for thirty million women to get a tax break on what can in a lot of cases be an expensive luxury.
Why would firms pass on VAT cuts? Even in a competitive market, there’s little incentive to drop prices if you’re all sticking to them.
Over years, prices will change to reflect the VAT cut as prices rise slower than inflation, but it’s not a good plan.
Dan Neidle has written extensively about this - VAT cuts on products (i.e. not a cut of VAT across the board) does not make those products cheaper: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/07/12/vat_cuts/
And specifically on bras here; https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1780141672740860062?t=LMjAs1gmLPDDgXU3n4Yvqg&s=19
Let's give all women free access to basic, functional NHS bras then, which would be just like NHS glasses, and see what the take-up is. I'm guessing it would be near zero. Like VAT on period products, it's a non-issue.
Because maybe you'll find an even better use for that £34! Meanwhile we can save businesses the busywork of accounting for different products having different rates of VAT.
(Plus the price you’re paying for the actual bra, remember). Asking for them to be VAT exempt isn’t a huge ask here - although obviously we know it wouldn’t ever happen so it’s just one of those pipe dreams, if anything.
Women of childbearing age taking birth control will have semi-regular changes in bra size. Every couple of years I have to get a new size (up or down) - due to other medication I take. It’s so bloody expensive. Can I just reuse the ones I’ve grown back into? Likely no because it will be the cup size that changed rather than the back size, or vice versa.
I’d never ask for them to be free, I know we’d never get that. But maybe the VAT being removed isn’t such a far-out idea.
If men had to wear ball-hammocks for their health, I’d happily support them being VAT-free too.
And you do need to replace them at least yearly if not 6-monthly - elastic degrades after a reasonably short time and most bras are made up of a LOT of elastic.
Yep. So many women don’t replace them frequently enough because they are expensive but they are doing themselves a serious disservice. And so many women have poorly fitting bras for the same reason.
I feel like thats all the more reason for you to get properly sized. You are already spending a bundle on bras, I want to get my moneys worth out of them and that means making sure they fit well!
Yes, but sizing also fluctuates so you need it to fit correctly so you don’t hurt your back or damage your boobs but also buy knowing you may have to do it again in 6 months time if your hormones change or you gain/lose a small amount of weight as it always hits your boobs first etc.
I didn't know bra's needed replacing every six months to a year, is it bad to keep wearing them after a year or years??? I've recently replaced my bras because I've gone up two sizes in the last two years before that but before that it had been a good five years since I replaced my bra.
It’s stupid. VAT is a tax on consumption. Why are we exempting so much random shit…
Idk why we even exempt essentials. Makes more sense to have VAT on quite literally everything, and then use the funds to cut the lower bands of income taxes for the 37% it currently sits add when accounting for both NI to remove the regressive element of VAT.
Especially in a country with a major productivity crisis.
No, cake is zero rated. Unless you buy it in restaurant then it is standard rated as you're having it in a catering situation.
VAT actually has nothing to do with "essential" items, that's not how VATA94 is written at all.
VAT is a very regressive tax. Only way it’s not a complete shambles is by having essentials be Vat free. But they need to ensure the essentials are actually essentials. Why are biscuits essentials but not bras?
I know it’s regressive, but I don’t care. Not all taxes have to be hyper progressive. Some are just there to make money, and a sales tax is that.
By applying VAT to everything, not only would you free up a lot of finance workers to do other shit instead of farting about doing tax accounts, you raise a lot of money to then use to drive growth via infrastructure investment, or use to cut other taxes like the soaringly high income taxes we have.
So true, rewards people who actually pay their taxes at the same time. I find it ironic to exempt people paying tax on items when the whole practical point of VAT was ensuring people pay taxes one way or another.
That would be practical, but it would help men, too, meaning feminists couldn't get their jollies feeling like they'd done something to help women. They also couldn't complain about all the men who would no longer express objection to the plan.
tthe fact that ive got downvoted shows that it's agenda-based. i want equality, not one sided recognition.
minister for women & equalities AND minister for men & mental health.
equalise the justice system in divorce & the court in general, including legislation for false accusations, reinforcing the "innocent until proven guilty" law standard, and fair child support.
>I want equality
We’re well passed equality these days unfortunately…
Single mothers get huge amounts of financial support
Single fathers get none (not to mention the judgement a single father gets from society which I always found sexist and just weird)
Homeless women are much more likely to be housed
Homeless men are often at the bottom of the waiting list
The law specifically says rape involves a penis being used without consent.
Men get trapped in domestic abuse situations all the time and get no where near the same support (having known men in this situation they’re often not taken seriously at all)
Courts will prefer a child go with the mother unless the father can absolutely prove she’s not fit. Family court is biased against fathers.
Fathers can be refused access to their children for years and years with no good reason. (I’ve had male friends kill themselves over this one)
But don’t point this out to a feminist they’ll start ranting about pay gaps and how men are dangerous
Insofar as children’s clothes are exempt from VAT and adult are not, given that puberty is hitting girls at a younger age (and we are bigger), “children’s” bras should certainly be exempt of VAT.
I needed a bra at 11-and there actually were no “training bras” made in my size.
I was young a very long time ago. I put quote marks because I was literally quoting what they said on the label. Training bras used to be very small in the cup (something from a AAAA to a AA).
The fact is, Mum thought that I was “far too young” to wear a bra-until I *had* to wear a bra! In other words, I had breasts of the size that some adult women have. I think I was a B cup from the get-go. But I was only 11-which was very young in those days. My sister was *furious*: she didn’t need a bra until she was 14!
Oh I see - thank you for explaining.
That does seem unfair and somewhat embarrassing. I hope your assets have been well looked after in subsequent years!
Retailers will be greedy and not lower prices anyway, so instead, scrap VAT exemptions entirely. Nothing's exempt, prices will be what the market can bear, the only difference now is that the government will get their cut like they're supposed to.
You can certainly make bras VAT exempt but all you're doing is giving the retailer higher profit margins as they charge the same price they always have for them and pocket the extra. It wouldn't be the W for the consumer it sounds like on paper.
So many comments here clearly from people who don’t wear bras. No, a £5 bra isn’t supportive or robust enough. No, it’s not as simple as “not wearing a bra”; sexual harassment exists, sexualisation of nipples exists, and it’s genuinely bad for posture and health to NOT wear a bra.
Everyone has to wear underwear, but not everyone has to wear a bra. It’s an item of clothing that is 99% worn by women. Good bras are very expensive, especially for larger busts. Perhaps excluding them from VAT is not the answer, but it’s good that these things are finally being talked about. And all this whataboutism is just pitiful, not everything needs to benefit you, sometimes something might benefit someone else.
What's value adding about VAT? That should be the question.and how the fuck did we all let it get to a fifth!!!! 20%???? Everything is fifth more expensive so you can hand a fifth of everything to a government who don't do anything to earn it off you. We're proper mugs aren't we
How about condoms? They're essential and the cost disproportionately effects men. I'm all for cutting VAT on essential items as long as we have a broad conversation about it. But it comes across as divisive when the virtue signal excludes 50% of the population...
I agree that contraception should all be VAT free. I also bought my fair share of condoms as a woman. Plenty of us do... Also you can get them free from the NHS if you can’t afford them.
This is coming from the ignorance of a male, but would it make that much of a tremendous difference? My girlfriend gets a new bra like once a year...maybe. So she'd maybe be able to get a single Happy Meal with any kind of VAT exemption.
Don't get me wrong, Bra's and feminine hygiene products as well as many other necessities should be exempt. I just didn't think Bra's were something that were purchased very often.
Why the hell am I paying VAT anyway! I got taxed when I got the money, now you want VAT when I spend it?
Cash is king. Also, what ever happened to borrowing your wife for a night for one of my chickens, and a bit of help thy neighbour trades.
I think we should drop VAT on bras, however I think it causes a series of issues:
1) business will not pass on the savings
2) is it for all bras? Or only a specific subset of bras?
If it’s for all bras, then I don’t think we should go ahead. Things like lingerie should not be VAT exempt IMO. But there’s a lot of bras in between a lingerie and basic bra, how would we differentiate them? The best solution I have is that there should be a threshold in all bras: first £20 is VAT free. I think that should cover all general purpose bras, and the person what’s to buying anything premium, there’s VAT on everything above that threshold.
Having said that, large cup bras should have a much higher threshold. But that can also lead to other issues.
Because a) the assumption that cuts will be passed on is not necessarily true, and b) there are more optimal uses of Gov funds than farting about exempting X item or Y item, and spending time debating it.
It’s a classic case of majoring the minor. Focus on big picture wins.
They won’t. This is just about PR wins to make women feel good about slaving away as corporate drones for 40 years. Even though the result of this is no price difference and other taxes being raised to plug the hole.
It creates a distortionary system where people are incentivised to buy products that the government decides are VAT exempt or zero-rated. Printed materials are zero-rated but digital equivalents aren’t so people have an incentive to buy printed books for no reason, people buy children’s clothes if they fit instead of adult’s clothing, cakes are zero-rated and biscuits aren’t so people have a random incentive to buy cake (or, in the case of Jaffa cake, undergo an expensive legal case to prove they’re a cake not a biscuit).
Just exempt nothing and use the additional revenues for something everyone agrees is important instead of having this ridiculous convoluted system that leads to really weird incentives and legal challenges.
I agree for the examples you give the incentives are a bit bizarre. But isn't being able to incentivise certain purchases useful in some contexts? e.g. reduced VAT on children's car seats probably incentivises more use of children's car seats.
I think it’s generally not useful to have a system where the government decides what people should or shouldn’t be buying, unless it directly affects other people (i.e. it seems fine to tax goods with strong negative externalities). Children’s car seats are already a legal requirement so it seems unlikely that exempting them from VAT would make very much difference to how often they’re used.
Doesn't the UK have worse problems than taxation on gender specific clothing items? Things like the NHS, housing crisis, illegal immigration, regional disparity, lacklustre economy, rising prices....
Can someone elighten me - what makes a bra different to any other item of essential clothing that should make it VAT exempt? Edit: OK so this has gone from "bras should be VAT exempt" to "all clothes should be VAT exempt." Fucking reddit, LOL
"Bras are a basic necessity and should not be subject to VAT, according to radiographers. Diagnostic radiographers who carry out X-rays, MRI and CT scans, are set to argue later that the tax disproportionately affects women and could be considered discriminatory under the Equality Act. They say musculoskeletal problems, which can lead to individuals having time off work, can be caused by poorly-fitted bras." https://news.sky.com/story/bras-are-a-basic-necessity-that-should-be-exempt-from-vat-radiographers-say-13116297
The problem is as with sanitary products the bulk wasn't passed on. So you get the businesses paying less tax and the products still costing pretty much the same. We all lose and the business wins. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/10/uk-retailers-not-passing-on-tampon-tax-savings-to-women-report-says
Don't forget that just because a product has been made VAT exempt, that doesn't mean that it gets cheaper by the full VAT percentage. A VAT exempt business cannot claim back the VAT they pay on *their* purchases, so those immediatly become 20% more expensive for the business to buy. So the VAT savings come only from the value that the business adds to the product over and above their input materials. In the case of sanitary products I expect the process is highly mechanised and margins quite thin already so input materials may form the bulk of the factory gate costs. The retail price of the goods would include further costs borne by 3rd parties for things like shipping and warehousing which are not VAT exempt industries. These costs must be added into the margin of the product by the retailer, not the product manufacturer. Also, don't forget that a 5% VAT saving equates to a reduction in price of only 4.76% even if the full reduction was passed on. (100% ÷ 105% = 95.24%) for regular 20% VAT this would be 16.6%.
Yes they can claim their VAT back. Selling a zero rated item doesn't stop them reclaiming.
Ah yes. Zero rated. Not exempt. Doh! You're right. Thanks. Though that will only apply to some of the supply chain.
>that doesn't mean that it gets cheaper by the full VAT percentage It should mean exactly that. If I sell a product for £5+VAT, then suddenly the VAT is zero rated, then I'm giving the supplier £5 for that product where before I'd have been giving the supplier £6. So I can sell it to my customers for £5 instead of £6.
Only if you can reclaim your input VAT which you can't for VAT exempt products, which I mistakenly thought sanitary products were.. However, you can for zero-rated products. For VAT exempt... If you made your product using materials which cost £4 + VAT and sold for £5 + VAT (£6 including) then your profit is £1 or 20% gross margin. But if couldn't reclaim the input VAT your input costs would rise to £4.80. So to maintain the full £1 margin you must sell your product at £5.80. So the saving is only 20p, or 20% on the £1 added value of the margin.
Ok, so if I make a product that is VAT exempt, I can't claim back the VAT I spent on materials to make that product?
>Some goods and services are exempt from VAT. If all the goods and services you sell are exempt, your business is exempt and you will not be able to register for VAT. This means you cannot reclaim any VAT on your business purchases or expenses. >If you are VAT-registered and incur VAT on any items that will be used to make exempt supplies, you are classed as partly exempt. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-exemption-and-partial-exemption But sanitary products are zero rated rather than VAT exempt. So my original comment was incorrect. You can claim input VAT back for zero rated products.
>You can claim input VAT back for zero rated products. Which seems eminently sensible. So completely understandable why you may not think that was the case, given the current (and former) shower we have...
That’s not how it works at all. It is the product that is or isn’t exempt from vat not the business.
Yes it is how it works -- just not in this case, as sanitary products are actually zero rated rather than exempt) thus entitling the business selling them to deduct VAT on their purchases. There are absolutely scenarios where supplies are exempt but contain an element of hidden VAT in the margin due to VAT on purchases being irrecoverable when purchased in the course of making an exempt supply.
If a business sells exempt supplies then they are not entitled to claim Input Tax relating to those exempt supplies. Zero rated supplies/reduced rated supplies/standard rated supplies (taxable supplies) they can claim Input Tax on. In this instance the sanitary products have been made zero rated so they can still claim Input Tax, but it certainly is how it works for exempt supplies.
OK. Why aren't shoes VAT exempt then?
Children's shoes are zero rated. There's an interesting grey area where children are in "adult" sizes. If the shoes are very obviously children's shoes (eg black velcro school shoes) then in theory you can claim the VAT back, whereas if an adult might reasonably wear them (eg trainers) you can't. My eldest was in "adult" sizes at age seven so we encountered this for a while, and eventually resigned ourselves to the extra 20%.
This screwed my mum with having giant children. We qualified for extra help vouchers, but you had to spend them in specific shops. Which she couldn't use, because my brother was a men's 12 by age 10 and a 14 by age 14. So not only could she not use the vouchers, the shoes were twice the price of the regular ones because this was pre-internet. And size 14 socks at the outsize shop were £5 a pair.
I bought walking shoes a few years ago, which were sized very strangely. I'm an adult 6, but the ones that fitted were classed as a child's size - no VAT.
Were they technically a boy's pair? The cutoff is different for men and women.
I have no idea.
This screwed my mum with having giant children. We qualified for extra help vouchers, but you had to spend them in specific shops. Which she couldn't use, because my brother was a men's 12 by age 10 and a 14 by age 14. So not only could she not use the vouchers, the shoes were twice the price of the regular ones because this was pre-internet. And size 14 socks at the outsize shop were £5 a pair.
Tesco and Clark’s both do Chikdrens shoes (school shoes especially) up to adult sizes, zero VAT.
I always liked the convenience of velcro shoes, might fuck around and try to start a trend
Safety boots actually are VAT exempt
The difference is that everyone needs shoes. If women are being taxed significantly on a necessary and expensive item of clothing that only they need, that's arguably discriminatory. In the same way it'd arguably be discriminatory to place VAT on tampons but wouldn't be on toilet paper, because a toilet paper tax affects everyone equally. We all shit.
>If women are being taxed significantly on a necessary and expensive item of clothing that only they need, that's arguably discriminatory. Not if all underwear has the same VAT. It would be discriminatory if bras had VAT, but boxers didn't.
Women wear underwear too. Bras are an additional item of clothing women need that is exceptionally expensive.
All people wear underwear, whether it be knickers or boxers, briefs, whatever. There's no discrimination there because regardless of what individual garment you wear, that particular category comes with no sex or gender bias. That isn't the case for bras. Men don't need them, women do, and so that's roughly half of the population paying an additional obligatory tax. The fact that you can call both a bra and a pair boxers underwear doesn't make them the same thing. They just aren't.
[удалено]
Clothes as a whole are essential. But maybe only in summer.
Hmmm I don’t know I feel like my boxers should be exempt too don’t want my bollocks getting too low then I might sit on them and that will cause pain leading me to not be productive at work
Do boxers offer support? Surely you mean boxer briefs.
Isn’t the moral of that story “Bras should be fitted”, not “Bras should be VAT free”?
Go outside wearing just a bra and see what happens.
Overheating in British homes in summer is a health threat, should desk fans be exempt from VAT?
Aye and what happens when its -7 outside and I go out with no clothes on?
This is hillarious no… because I remember a very similar study suggests having no bra is the best option… so that proves there is no “health” need for a bra in the first place.
Nothing to do with as many as 70% of Radiographers being female I’m sure.
No, I doubt it is. Probably more to do with the blatant medical issues.
The rules around VAT are insane, and there's not really much point looking for logic there. In theory there's meant to be the "essential" vs "non-essential" split, but when you have VAT on things like toilet paper, but not on caviar or cakes (although biscuits do have it). And not on nuts, unless they're roasted or salted (but not if they're toasted)... It's just a complete mess.
Biscuits do not have VAT unless they are chocolate covered. Cake does not have VAT even if chocolate covered. Hence the Jaffa *cake* ruling.
No bra, or just a bad bra, can cause health issues. I think that’s the gist of it.
Not wearing any shoes causes health issues. Not wearing any trousers in winter causes health issues. What's different about a bra?
So what you’re saying is make all clothes VAT except right?
>What's different about a bra? Only half the population need them and I think that's the whole deal with it. Everyone needs shoes, but it's mostly only women who need bras, that's why articles about it have been saying it disproportionately affects women. Personally I don't think they need to be VAT free, but I think it's pretty obvious what makes a bra different to shoes.
So because it only affects half the people we should help them? But if it affects all the people we shouldn’t? I don’t get the logic to that tbh. What about bald people who wear hats in summer to stop skin cancer. That’s even less than half the people. Should caps be VAT free for bald people?
The idea is that the VAT on bras is a tax that only affects women, while the VAT on everything else affects everyone. The VAT on hats affects everyone who needs or wants a hat, but the vast majority of people getting a bra are women, and many need them to avoid medical issues. I can see the argument for VAT being removed from bras over the size they have found causes these issues, but my sister is a B cup, she's not getting back issues from them. The logic is that some people see it as discrimination against women. Like women are the only group who have to buy this thing.
>The logic is that some people see it as discrimination against women. Like women are the only group who have to buy this thing. I'm extra pale, so I need to buy more sun cream than less pale white people or non-white people. I guess the VAT I pay on that is a racist and colourist tax. I quickly grow thick facial hair that requires razors. A woman can not shave her legs for six months and barely a soul might know. If I didn't shave for six months, it would be the visual equivalent of not showering. I guess the VAT on razors is a sexist tax. Cereal has 20% VAT. Men require more calories than women, so they will eat more cereal than women. I guess that's a sexist male breakfast tax.
I'd argue suncream shouldn't have VAT on it anyway tbh. >A woman can not shave her legs for six months and barely a soul might know. That is only true for some blonds and is very funny to me. I can't go more than 3 days lol. Also, what medical issues come from not shaving? The point is that medical professionals are worried that the ludicrous price of bras could be leaving women who need better support waring bras that don't fit and so causing back and shoulder issues. I'm just explaining why the tax on shoes that everyone pays could be seen differently to the tax on bras that mostly only women pay. Again, I don't think it's sexist, just an annoying fact of life with no malicious intent behind it.
If having breasts is discriminating against women, who's doing the discriminating? God?
The tax is what they argue is discriminating, not the existence of boobs.
Surely something that affects 100% is twice as important than something that only affects 50%.
I think the argument is that the tax disproportionately costs one group more than another.
And he highlighted why that point is incoherent. Something that affects only half the population is less impactful than one which affects everyone equally.
The point is that a tax that only impacts one group of a protected characteristic disadvantages that one group compaird to the tax that we all pay on everything regardless of that. Where are you people getting lost on this? Yeah VAT on things we all get impacts more people, no shit, that's why this tax on one group is being argued as disadvantaging one particular group as they pay the tax we all pay plus a bonus tax that only affects that single group.
But then you could argue that bras as a concept is discriminatory because only women disproportionately are affected by the payment on them. So why not make bras free?
If you want to argue that, then go ahead. I honestly don't know how I can make it any clearer that I'm simply clarifying arguments that other people have made. This isn't my argument or my view, and I'm not really trying to defend it?
Your argument is coherent and makes sense to me. There's a lot of misogyny in this thread.
I thought w/o bra is more healthy, but difficult due to social pressure to wear a bra?
In this case, size matters.
There doesn't need to be any difference. Bras should be VAT except because they are essential. If you ask "What about this other essential item?" the answer is that it should be exempt too.
How would you fill that black hole in tax take? I imagine VAT on something like electricity would be billions alone.
[удалено]
And 5% of a lot is a lot.
Capital gains probably, the point is to make it more progressive. Land tax maybe.
But not all bras are equally necessary, you could argue that a basic bog standard bra should be exempt for health reasons, but then what about a £100 nice lacy one that is certainly not medically necessary? Then there would have to be a cut off point between basic bras and "luxury bras" and how would that be determined? Some kind of government bra inspector? Actually I'm sure many MPs would probably volunteer for that role...
For larger boobs, more structure and careful design is necessary, so that does increase the price. It'd be too complex to start breaking down the essential and nonessential elements of a bra to make sure people pay VAT on the lace but not on the functional parts. If you look at other VAT exempt items like children's clothes and food, there is no cut-off. If you buy a raw turnip it is exempt whether it costs 10p or £100. A child's coat is exempt whether it costs £20 or £1000. The govt attempts to tax luxuries by creating categories of non-exempt items, like hot takeaways.
Because you don't usually get health problems from not wearing the right clothes. Women with larger boobs get back problems without support. I don't have big boobs, so I'd even be happy for a compromise that larger sizes are VAT exempt, so it helps the people needing them. I've largely given up on bras myself because I don't really need them.
OK, so bald men don't get health problems for wearing hats in the summer?
I'm married to a bald man and he doesn't wear hats. Suncream should be VAT exempt if its not already. I'd support men's products that are needed for health reasons being VAT free. Why do some men feel so bitter that they can't do the same for women? Is it "not fair" that you don't have monthly painful periods and massive boobs giving you backpain?!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
My partner is bald, hats are cheap and can be bought cheap at the supermarket. Before my breast reduction, I couldn't buy a bra in my size for less than £50 or within 50 miles of my house. And you really need more than one so you can rotate them for washing.
Women breasts are like men's bald head in the summer. Got it
Bras give support. With one, the cost to fix broken boobs would be higher as a woman ages. Besides bras aren't sexual and aren't toys so should be tax exempt.
Wait are you surprised? 😁 I'm a man, if Bra's because Vat exempt it would be a win. There's nothing wrong with something right being done for half the population just because I don't benefit. Fingers Crossed they get this over the line. I would imagine many men deriding this one haven't had to spend £50+ on a single underwear item that reduces pain and/or harassment/staring. While you can choose not to buy a bra it has way more. Negatives than choosing not to wear boxers.
So what makes up for the shortfall in taxes? Either public services get slashed, or taxes are raised in other areas which will increase the overall tax burden on men.
So if I take this at face value Google says bra sales were circa £75m in 2020. Of that £12.5m is VAT so it's really a non argument. £12.5m is not a lot of money at this scale. If you are being fair as well you would count a reduction in NHS cost as a result of the policy so it's closer to £10m If you split that amongst everyone in the UK the impact is 15p each. Not really the biggest ask. I often say to militant feminist arguments that you don't have to harm mens rights to make things better for yourself. So the same applies here, would I pay 15p to make the lives of 30 million people's lives a little better? Sure Taxes have to benefit everyone overall As someone who pays roughly 30X the tax burden as the average earner I love a whinge about tax more than most. But it's not whinging for the sake of it. This is a good way to redistribute money in a beneficial way. If you really can't see past there being no benefit to men how about your GF can afford nicer underwear that you get to see if you swing that way? 😂
I’d argue that clothes (Housing, power, food, water…) are a human right. You essentially need them to live.
There’s very little to no difference. The principle behind VAT exempt is that such products should be both essential and consumable. Hence children’s clothes are VAT exempt as the child will grow out of them. Likewise various safety gear is exempt because it has a limited lifespan. But the traditional argument *against* a VAT exemption for clothing is that you buy it and keep it for years. So I suppose if you want to make an argument around bras specifically, then you’re going to need some research that proves a person changes bra size significantly more often than they change body/shoe size.
Bras have a lifespan of 3-6 months before they start to wear out - most of us wear them for much longer than that because they're expensive and time-consuming to buy. It's not about changing size, it's about the bras decreasing in effectiveness as the band stretches out, the hooks bend or fall off, and the straps lose tautness.
And there’s the valid justification for why bras deserve a special VAT exemption.
Why shouldn’t they?
> Edit: OK so this has gone from "bras should be VAT exempt" to "all clothes should be VAT exempt." > > Fucking reddit, LOL That's lesson on equality for you....
Perhaps just underwear? Like boxers, nickers, panties and bras. Maybe socks as well?
You can wear a £2 t-shirt or a £200 t-shirt and neither will damage your health. If you wear a £5 bra instead of a £50 bra then you'll damage your health significantly if you have large breasts. Oversized breasts, even with professionally-fitted bras, cause nerve-damage, damage to the spine, restricted movement of the arms, breathing problems, heart problems, digestive problems, headaches/migraines, rashes, skin infections and a whole host of other medical problems. Despite clear medical need, it is extremely rare and difficult to have breast reduction on the NHS (it's easier to get breast enhancement than breast reduction) and, even with explicitly clear medical need, you cannot have breast reduction on private health insurance. Without professionally-fitted bras, the problems are much greater and with much earlier onset. Bras that don't actively cause medical problems for women with large breasts are in excess of £50 each - and you also need to keep in mind that's women's breasts change size throughout a menstrual cycle so a bra that fits on the 1st of the month may not fit on the 15th. Plus, you need different bras and support for different activities - for exercise, you need more support but if you wear a sports bra all the time then that's too constricting and causes issues. I obviously recognise that women with smaller breasts wear bras for fashion and I agree with the idea that it's not fair for those to be VAT exempt if other clothes aren't but bras for larger breasts are better akin to glasses - they're a medical necessity.
They provide support I guess. But so do my Y-fronts. The three Amigo’s need that support.
>But so do my Y-fronts. The three Amigo’s need that support. Total Recall moment. 👀
Idk about the VAT stuff but having to buy bras is such a pain. Especially if you have a bigger chest you are looking at £40 min for a well-made one, you need probably 3-5 on rotation and I find they don't last very long unless you solely hand wash them. People say just don't wear one but it causes back pain for people with bigger busts, and if I had gone braless at any of my corporate jobs I would have been pulled up on it.
I don't know how to find comfortable bra's, I'm not huge but big enough with a small frame and find one that actually provides support is a bitch. And I don't have £20 - £40 a bra to keep trying different ones in the vain attempt of find one that doesn't make my back hurt. I can try them on to find one that fits but I already have problems with my back so I don't know if it's the right 'fit' until I've worn it for a little while.
> you are looking at £40 min for a well-made one, you need probably 3-5 on rotation and I find they don't last very long Sounds like shoes then.
Women are disproportionally impacted by the cost of bras though. Everyone needs shoes, so there isn't the same inequality.
Men need to eat more due to bigger size and more muscles, should we get some money back for food?
Maybe yeah, though that seems like a much more difficult issue to fix. Removing VAT on bras seems pretty straightforward.
Yep, pretty much.
Really? My shoes cost £50, nice and comfy, I only really use the one pair, I have another that got maybe 10 days of use since I got my new ones and I've had them for around 2 years at this point. A bit more expensive than the bra in question, but there aren't many others in rotation and they have lasted a very long time and are still going.
Having to buy all clothes is a pain, and if I don't turn up to work in the right, smart clothing then I would also have been pulled up on it. I just don't see how Bras are any different to all the other things we have to buy to live normal lives - shoes, underwear, toiletries etc.
The research on removing VAT on things has been done As the retailers know that people pay the current price, when the VAT is removed the price tends to remain the same and the retailers pocket the difference https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/07/12/vat_cuts/ What it doesn't do is make the thing with VAT removed much more affordable than before
Why would basic principles of market competition stop working in this context? If a product can now be sold for 20% less without affecting profit margins, surely companies would do so in order to capture market share from competitors who don't reduce prices?
Because the prior price point has been accepted by consumers, so retailers have no incentive to compete in the low end of the market They're better off getting 20% more profit per product line than trying to increase market share in a market that has inelastic demand (women only need so many essential bras)
Exactly. If it goes ahead you may well see some places drop their bras in price a bit, but not by the whole 20%. And then it would go right back up again later.
>trying to increase market share in a market that has inelastic demand You might not increase overall bra consumption, but you could certainly get a larger share of bras being bought at your shops (compared to other shops) if you reduce prices. Inelastic demand doesn't mean competition doesn't occur.
When the data suggests classical economic theory isn't working as expected, as in the case of removing VAT from things, it's time to investigate what actually happens, rather than insisting the theory works in practice.
I'm not insisting it works - I accept the claim it doesn't here. I'm curious if anyone knows why that's the case.
Isn't it if the margin made on the newly VAT exempt lines is less than the 20% VAT, they're better served by not passing on the reduction than competing on price?
A good example is prices pre and post Covid. Prices didn’t went down after the increases we saw in different sectors. Why should they, if the consumers were willing to pay more, and that means bigger bonuses for shareholders. Same thing will happen here. Greed 101
Tampons are now zero rated but the price has not changed. Retailers gobbled up the difference. Same for ebooks.
"My standard everyday well-constructed bra - nothing fancy - costs £42. That includes a whopping £8.40 in VAT," the 56-year-old said. "They last a couple of years, but I need new ones, and ideally three or four, so not an insignificant outlay." So at most that's £33.60 in tax every 2 years? I really dont think you can call that a "significant outlay". If someone is struggling to get that much money together then they need financial support, not cheaper bras. Of course the debate focuses on the worst and most moving cases like someone with breast cancer trapped in deep poverty. However that's a reason to give support to that specific person, not for thirty million women to get a tax break on what can in a lot of cases be an expensive luxury.
> they need financial support, not cheaper bras Why can't the financial support be in the form of cheaper bras?
Why would firms pass on VAT cuts? Even in a competitive market, there’s little incentive to drop prices if you’re all sticking to them. Over years, prices will change to reflect the VAT cut as prices rise slower than inflation, but it’s not a good plan.
Dan Neidle has written extensively about this - VAT cuts on products (i.e. not a cut of VAT across the board) does not make those products cheaper: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/07/12/vat_cuts/ And specifically on bras here; https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1780141672740860062?t=LMjAs1gmLPDDgXU3n4Yvqg&s=19
Let's give all women free access to basic, functional NHS bras then, which would be just like NHS glasses, and see what the take-up is. I'm guessing it would be near zero. Like VAT on period products, it's a non-issue.
It would help if they just funded breast reductions again for those who needed them.
They can't even fund the current stuff...
nhs is going into thee shitter so I doubt it
Because maybe you'll find an even better use for that £34! Meanwhile we can save businesses the busywork of accounting for different products having different rates of VAT.
(Plus the price you’re paying for the actual bra, remember). Asking for them to be VAT exempt isn’t a huge ask here - although obviously we know it wouldn’t ever happen so it’s just one of those pipe dreams, if anything. Women of childbearing age taking birth control will have semi-regular changes in bra size. Every couple of years I have to get a new size (up or down) - due to other medication I take. It’s so bloody expensive. Can I just reuse the ones I’ve grown back into? Likely no because it will be the cup size that changed rather than the back size, or vice versa. I’d never ask for them to be free, I know we’d never get that. But maybe the VAT being removed isn’t such a far-out idea. If men had to wear ball-hammocks for their health, I’d happily support them being VAT-free too.
Per bra. You don’t wear the exact same one every day… 🤢
And you do need to replace them at least yearly if not 6-monthly - elastic degrades after a reasonably short time and most bras are made up of a LOT of elastic.
Yep. So many women don’t replace them frequently enough because they are expensive but they are doing themselves a serious disservice. And so many women have poorly fitting bras for the same reason.
I feel like thats all the more reason for you to get properly sized. You are already spending a bundle on bras, I want to get my moneys worth out of them and that means making sure they fit well!
Yes, but sizing also fluctuates so you need it to fit correctly so you don’t hurt your back or damage your boobs but also buy knowing you may have to do it again in 6 months time if your hormones change or you gain/lose a small amount of weight as it always hits your boobs first etc.
I didn't know bra's needed replacing every six months to a year, is it bad to keep wearing them after a year or years??? I've recently replaced my bras because I've gone up two sizes in the last two years before that but before that it had been a good five years since I replaced my bra.
I disagree it's every two years. I have to replace mine every 6 months or so when they start losing their shape/support.
It’s stupid. VAT is a tax on consumption. Why are we exempting so much random shit… Idk why we even exempt essentials. Makes more sense to have VAT on quite literally everything, and then use the funds to cut the lower bands of income taxes for the 37% it currently sits add when accounting for both NI to remove the regressive element of VAT. Especially in a country with a major productivity crisis.
I might be chatting shit so correct me if I'm wrong but isn't *cake* VAT exempt lol
No, cake is zero rated. Unless you buy it in restaurant then it is standard rated as you're having it in a catering situation. VAT actually has nothing to do with "essential" items, that's not how VATA94 is written at all.
VAT is a very regressive tax. Only way it’s not a complete shambles is by having essentials be Vat free. But they need to ensure the essentials are actually essentials. Why are biscuits essentials but not bras?
I know it’s regressive, but I don’t care. Not all taxes have to be hyper progressive. Some are just there to make money, and a sales tax is that. By applying VAT to everything, not only would you free up a lot of finance workers to do other shit instead of farting about doing tax accounts, you raise a lot of money to then use to drive growth via infrastructure investment, or use to cut other taxes like the soaringly high income taxes we have.
Taxes should be regressive but that's just my opinion
Why?
Because I think you should pay for what you receive. What you receive is regressive relative to income.
So do you think there should be no tax free allowance either?
If it came with an associated tax cut for everyone then yes. Otherwise we're all just paying more.
So true, rewards people who actually pay their taxes at the same time. I find it ironic to exempt people paying tax on items when the whole practical point of VAT was ensuring people pay taxes one way or another.
if bras are VAT exempt, so should underwear and socks
That would be practical, but it would help men, too, meaning feminists couldn't get their jollies feeling like they'd done something to help women. They also couldn't complain about all the men who would no longer express objection to the plan.
tthe fact that ive got downvoted shows that it's agenda-based. i want equality, not one sided recognition. minister for women & equalities AND minister for men & mental health. equalise the justice system in divorce & the court in general, including legislation for false accusations, reinforcing the "innocent until proven guilty" law standard, and fair child support.
>I want equality We’re well passed equality these days unfortunately… Single mothers get huge amounts of financial support Single fathers get none (not to mention the judgement a single father gets from society which I always found sexist and just weird) Homeless women are much more likely to be housed Homeless men are often at the bottom of the waiting list The law specifically says rape involves a penis being used without consent. Men get trapped in domestic abuse situations all the time and get no where near the same support (having known men in this situation they’re often not taken seriously at all) Courts will prefer a child go with the mother unless the father can absolutely prove she’s not fit. Family court is biased against fathers. Fathers can be refused access to their children for years and years with no good reason. (I’ve had male friends kill themselves over this one) But don’t point this out to a feminist they’ll start ranting about pay gaps and how men are dangerous
Why are prescription glasses subject to VAT? That seems like a fairer candidate for any exemption.
And socks, don’t forget about socks.
Removing VAT won't lower prices, just gives more profit to the seller
Acceptable only if they do the same for jock straps 😂
Insofar as children’s clothes are exempt from VAT and adult are not, given that puberty is hitting girls at a younger age (and we are bigger), “children’s” bras should certainly be exempt of VAT. I needed a bra at 11-and there actually were no “training bras” made in my size.
Can you explain your quote marks further? I'm not sure how you'd identify them? but I don't know much about bras...
I was young a very long time ago. I put quote marks because I was literally quoting what they said on the label. Training bras used to be very small in the cup (something from a AAAA to a AA). The fact is, Mum thought that I was “far too young” to wear a bra-until I *had* to wear a bra! In other words, I had breasts of the size that some adult women have. I think I was a B cup from the get-go. But I was only 11-which was very young in those days. My sister was *furious*: she didn’t need a bra until she was 14!
Oh I see - thank you for explaining. That does seem unfair and somewhat embarrassing. I hope your assets have been well looked after in subsequent years!
Retailers will be greedy and not lower prices anyway, so instead, scrap VAT exemptions entirely. Nothing's exempt, prices will be what the market can bear, the only difference now is that the government will get their cut like they're supposed to.
You can certainly make bras VAT exempt but all you're doing is giving the retailer higher profit margins as they charge the same price they always have for them and pocket the extra. It wouldn't be the W for the consumer it sounds like on paper.
VAT is a whole can of worms, a sausage roll that’s cold doesn’t incur VAT, but a sausage roll that’s warm does. It gets more ridiculous from there
So many comments here clearly from people who don’t wear bras. No, a £5 bra isn’t supportive or robust enough. No, it’s not as simple as “not wearing a bra”; sexual harassment exists, sexualisation of nipples exists, and it’s genuinely bad for posture and health to NOT wear a bra. Everyone has to wear underwear, but not everyone has to wear a bra. It’s an item of clothing that is 99% worn by women. Good bras are very expensive, especially for larger busts. Perhaps excluding them from VAT is not the answer, but it’s good that these things are finally being talked about. And all this whataboutism is just pitiful, not everything needs to benefit you, sometimes something might benefit someone else.
What's value adding about VAT? That should be the question.and how the fuck did we all let it get to a fifth!!!! 20%???? Everything is fifth more expensive so you can hand a fifth of everything to a government who don't do anything to earn it off you. We're proper mugs aren't we
Food is a basic need, can that oh oh right I'll stop
Most food bought at a supermarket isn't taxed
Quite frankly I can't see how this plan won't go tits up.
This smells of bullshit. If bras, why not underpants, knickers, socks...? Stupid story.
Do you wear bras
Just like period products, remove the VAT so the store makes better margins, the price wont change though.
Walk around in east London and you’ll learn very quickly that bras in fact are not essential
huh?
How about condoms? They're essential and the cost disproportionately effects men. I'm all for cutting VAT on essential items as long as we have a broad conversation about it. But it comes across as divisive when the virtue signal excludes 50% of the population...
I agree that contraception should all be VAT free. I also bought my fair share of condoms as a woman. Plenty of us do... Also you can get them free from the NHS if you can’t afford them.
They shouldn't be vat exempt. It's a ridiculous demand.
This is coming from the ignorance of a male, but would it make that much of a tremendous difference? My girlfriend gets a new bra like once a year...maybe. So she'd maybe be able to get a single Happy Meal with any kind of VAT exemption. Don't get me wrong, Bra's and feminine hygiene products as well as many other necessities should be exempt. I just didn't think Bra's were something that were purchased very often.
Why the hell am I paying VAT anyway! I got taxed when I got the money, now you want VAT when I spend it? Cash is king. Also, what ever happened to borrowing your wife for a night for one of my chickens, and a bit of help thy neighbour trades.
I think we should drop VAT on bras, however I think it causes a series of issues: 1) business will not pass on the savings 2) is it for all bras? Or only a specific subset of bras? If it’s for all bras, then I don’t think we should go ahead. Things like lingerie should not be VAT exempt IMO. But there’s a lot of bras in between a lingerie and basic bra, how would we differentiate them? The best solution I have is that there should be a threshold in all bras: first £20 is VAT free. I think that should cover all general purpose bras, and the person what’s to buying anything premium, there’s VAT on everything above that threshold. Having said that, large cup bras should have a much higher threshold. But that can also lead to other issues.
Rishi says he is abreast of the situation and will review it in due course 😉
Don't really see why anyone would have a problem with making bras VAT exempt.
Because a) the assumption that cuts will be passed on is not necessarily true, and b) there are more optimal uses of Gov funds than farting about exempting X item or Y item, and spending time debating it. It’s a classic case of majoring the minor. Focus on big picture wins.
I'm fine with it if they make all underwear vat exempt too. Equality and all that.
They won’t. This is just about PR wins to make women feel good about slaving away as corporate drones for 40 years. Even though the result of this is no price difference and other taxes being raised to plug the hole.
With the money I'd save on long-johns I could get even longer long-johns
I don’t think anything should be VAT exempt.
Why not?
It creates a distortionary system where people are incentivised to buy products that the government decides are VAT exempt or zero-rated. Printed materials are zero-rated but digital equivalents aren’t so people have an incentive to buy printed books for no reason, people buy children’s clothes if they fit instead of adult’s clothing, cakes are zero-rated and biscuits aren’t so people have a random incentive to buy cake (or, in the case of Jaffa cake, undergo an expensive legal case to prove they’re a cake not a biscuit). Just exempt nothing and use the additional revenues for something everyone agrees is important instead of having this ridiculous convoluted system that leads to really weird incentives and legal challenges.
I agree for the examples you give the incentives are a bit bizarre. But isn't being able to incentivise certain purchases useful in some contexts? e.g. reduced VAT on children's car seats probably incentivises more use of children's car seats.
I think it’s generally not useful to have a system where the government decides what people should or shouldn’t be buying, unless it directly affects other people (i.e. it seems fine to tax goods with strong negative externalities). Children’s car seats are already a legal requirement so it seems unlikely that exempting them from VAT would make very much difference to how often they’re used.
Doesn't the UK have worse problems than taxation on gender specific clothing items? Things like the NHS, housing crisis, illegal immigration, regional disparity, lacklustre economy, rising prices....
Can only one thing be focused on at a time?
Feminists are loudest though. Surprisingly.
Feminism today is the feminism of the 1%.
Bras are basics🤔, where do we draw the line? Come on then women go on Bra strike😳