Period e-petition - Save our heritage: say no to VAT changes

[Woody3]

Just thought I'd make people aware of an e-petition regarding the VAT changes on listed buildings.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32056

"Save our heritage: say no to VAT on work on listed buildings

Responsible department: Her Majesty's Treasury

In the 2012 budget, the Chancellor proposed removing the zero rating of VAT on alterations to listed buildings. This will add up to 20% extra cost on every listed building that wants to upgrade, and so will threaten the future of our nation's heritage.

For Wakefield Cathedral at an early stage of work in a restoration project of national significance, it is a disaster. It imposes a cost we cannot meet and work will have to end.

This is a small-minded change from a Big Society Government and must be stopped. Please join us to help preserve our heritage and sign this petition now."

It takes less than a minute to complete. I think everything else is self-explanatory.

I'm not convinced the Government will listen, but the more signatures we get, the louder our voice will be...

The counter at this moment in time is at 3,995 signatures.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

The alternative view being that reducing the deficit and paying off the national debt can't be done for free. It is being achieved broadly by 80% in spending reduction and 20% in tax rises.

I will propbably annoy all of you by suggesting that owners of listed properties (and especially places like Wakefield Cathedral) by and large (but by no means excusively) are owned by those of us who are fortunate enough to be more able to shoulder the VAT - much as we don't want to. I accept some are owned by charities, museums, etc.

It is frustrating that every spending cut or tax rise is objected to by one group or another, but no one is suggesting where else the burden should fall - unless you count the proposed bankers tax that has been "spent" ten times over already.

As someone who works hard, pays all my tax at the correct rate and as PAYE, I am currently rebuilding the stone barns that collapsed over new year. They are at least a couple of hundred years old, and merit saving architecturally, historically and culturally - and they'll be good for another 200 years when I'm done. But because they're not listed, I am paying full VAT on the materials and the labour.

I wish I wasn't, but grudgingly accept this is broadly necessary to pay for the great behemoth that is our publuc spending. Why should a listed building be different?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

As for Wakefield Cathdral... why don't the Church Commissioners release some of the billions they manage in investments, rather than expect the taxpayer to subsidise 20% of the cost?

 

[Moo]

I second that!

 

[Flyfisher]

The alternative view being that reducing the deficit and paying off the national debt can't be done for free. It is being achieved broadly by 80% in spending reduction and 20% in tax rises.

Well, this change is probably going to cost me at least £10,000 over the next couple of years so I'm probably biased, but I can't see how this tax change will actually help the national debt, or even the economy as a whole. Like everyone else, I have a fixed amount of money to spend and tax changes cannot change that - all they can do is to vary the amount that goes to the government. So government will take my £10k and do as they wish with it and I will put £10k less into the economy.

We cannot tax ourselves into recovery or prosperity.

 

[Jellyfire]

Even though its probably going to have a huge effect on my (distant) plans to alter the layout of our extension and new kitchen, and probably stop us being able to do it for a good while longer than we hoped, of all the vital services and resources and that have or will be irreparably damaged by the current spending cuts (i.e. the planned sale of our precious forests and the deep cuts to the police to name but two), I find it hard to find any real justification as to why alterations to listed buildings should be exempt from VAT

 

[tobydog]

I am someone who has just got away with a sizeable alteration to our listed house VAT zero rated. The problem, as I recall, is that currently VAT is payable on repairs to listed buildings but not alterations. If the primary interest is in maintaining these listed properties for their architectural, historical and cultural value (sorry FW but I pinched the words from your alternative argument) and impose restrictions on the owners accordingly, shouldn't the argument continue for the removal of VAT on repairs?

 

[tobydog]

I just copied this from the SPAB website. As Wakefield Cathedral is going through restoration, wouldn't that qualify as a repair and secure the 5% rating?

Q. Do I have to pay VAT on repairs on my listed building?

A. Yes. VAT is payable on repairs to all buildings. But if your building is listed, you may not have to pay it on approved alterations. The rules are complicated and may depend on local interpretation by your Customs and Excise office. The basic principle is that approved alterations for which you have been given listed building consent do not attract VAT. In practice there are grey areas, not least because of the differing judgments by local planning authorities on what may or may not require listed building consent.

This is the wrong way round, but repeated efforts by the SPAB and other conservation bodies to persuade the Government to remove or reduce VAT on repairs to listed buildings have so far failed. However there is currently a grant scheme for Listed Places of Worship that in effect reduces the rate of VAT on repairs to 5%.

 

[Flyfisher]

I am someone who has just got away with a sizeable alteration to our listed house VAT zero rated. The problem, as I recall, is that currently VAT is payable on repairs to listed buildings but not alterations. If the primary interest is in maintaining these listed properties for their architectural, historical and cultural value (sorry FW but I pinched the words from your alternative argument) and impose restrictions on the owners accordingly, shouldn't the argument continue for the removal of VAT on repairs?

That's a very fair point and one that seems obvious at first. However, there are alterations and alterations and if they contribute to the sensitive adaptation of a listed property such that it becomes adequately suitable for modern living then the survival of the property is more likely than if the owners are forced to live in 19th, 18th, 17th century (or earlier) conditions. "Sensitive adaptation" is, of course, the name of the game and a whole complicated subject in itself, in which even the experts don't always agree.

Personally, I think there's a case for all works on listed properties being VAT exempt. If government considers listed properties to be an important part of our national heritage (which seems fair enough) and therefore impose restrictions on what the owners can and can't do, effectively relying on them to act as guardians of our national heritage, then it seems reasonable to give those owners a little bit of help towards the extra costs of safeguarding such properties.

But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Roger H]

I've signed the petition but agree that repair works should be exempted, not just works requiring lbc.

As regards the ability of listed building owners to shoulder the extra burden implied by the specialist nature of works to their homes, many listed buildings are very modest, with owners by no means well-off. The north of England will have several thousand examples of listed two up two down cottages with owners on lower incomes. We aren't all aristo's up here!

In Denmark, while repairs/alterations pay full VAT, local authorities are permitted to exempt owners of heritage buildings from the need to pay Council Tax.

 

[Moo]

But while we're talking about fairness, what about people like Joce who live in historic houses that aren't listed? She can't be the only one.

 

[tobydog]

That's the point FW was making earlier about rebuilding his unlisted stone wall. I suppose the difference is that rebuilding it in stone is a personal choice when it could probably be done far cheaper and quicker with modern block and render. I too would go the stone route in that instance but in my own house I would have no choice but to go the expensive route, hence the tax break call.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

To be honest, as someone who is inherently anti-red tape and would like to simplify the tax system, I would be attracted by the idea of abolishing tax on earnings and replacing it with a swingeing consumption and sales tax - ie VAT across the board.

Income tax strikes me as fundamentally wrong - a tax on work, aspiration and entrepreneurial effort. Also it is very easy to avoid, as Ken has shown (and that Graham Hughes for that matter too! :wink: )

A consumption and sales tax is much harder to avoid, much more transparent for the voting public, and much simpler and cheaper to collect.

Sadly it is not as progressive as other taxes, and far to simple an idea to catch on.

 

[LadyArowana]

A consumption and sales tax is much harder to avoid, much more transparent for the voting public, and much simpler and cheaper to collect.

Steady on, do you really think that dear Mr P could survive the shock of the £5 standard kit kat?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

He's precisely the kind of chocolate-loving pseudo-aristocrat that I was intending to target! 8)

 

[skier-hughes]

But while we're talking about fairness, what about people like Joce who live in historic houses that aren't listed? She can't be the only one.

Like me!!!

 

[Woody3]

Some "interesting" replies...

I have the same views as Tobydog, Roger H and Flyfisher

The guys who have non-listed Historic Houses, as daft as this sounds, but why would you want them to be Listed? :?

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm doing all the work as if it were listed, it could save me the vat!

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks Moo for thinking of us! Gareth and I have been trying to get the house listed for the last 18 months- the latest step is that the report has been sent off to the DCMS. The zero rated VAT isn't the reason, to be honest I don't know if we'll ever be able to afford to make the big changes that require LBC anyway, and nobody's going to give me anything off the FnB wallpaper or Marvic textiles alas. Our main rationale is to protect a very unique, unspoilt, largely unaltered Regency example of an estate cottage ornee from future unsympathetic development - it's a 3-4 bed /3-4 reception detached house standing in 4 acres of private grounds. I'm sure there will be people after us who'd like to knock it down and make something bigger, or several somethings bigger, and I hope listing might prevent that. If it doesn't I'm determined to haunt and make their life hell. :wink:

It is a luxury to live in these properties, even if it's just a two up two down the character and charm and value of the property is likely to be much higher than the modern equivalent in size. Broadly I agree with FW - if only they'd stop taking nearly 50% off Chris, now that would be something worth signing a petition for :x

And stop giving free money to the b****y feckless workshy scroungers.

 

[Woody3]

Wow, that sounds really nice and a very fair point about getting it Listed for that reason.

It really makes no sense at all if you were to get it Listed for VAT reasons. In all honesty, for our house, we'd rather pay the VAT than have it Listed, but definitely not both!

Anyway, for those that are interested, I was sent these links by LBOC:

http://www.cutthevat.co.uk/cut-the-vat/listed-buildings/

http://www.cutthevat.co.uk/cut-the-vat/contact-your-mp/