Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Grey_Fox's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)



  1. The only people who benefit in this additional taxation are the handful who can't compete with foreign goods. Everyone else suffers by having to pay higher prices. That's why free trade is good and I can't understand why people think that limiting cheaper imports is a good thing. Cheap imports increases peoples' spending power, which makes people better of. I don't get why people think international free trade agreements were causing some sort of tax fraud. This new tax is an example of double taxation - taxes were already being paid at the point of sale, and now people in the UK are having to pay VAT on imports on arrival. People in the EU now also have to pay local VAT on British exports too.
  2. Well it's the latter since the UK no longer has the same trade agreement they had with the US as they had when they were in the EU. Purchases under a certain value from the US don't have additional tax applied for me, whereas it does in the UK.
  3. I may have gotten my wording muddled. This is a high-level FAQ (parts 4 and 5 seem most relevant): https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/2021-brexit-top-50-faq.pdf This goes into more depth: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/vat-goods_en.pdf UK/US trade is also impacted (you can see from the screenshots in my first post as well as Elvis' comment) byt changes to taxation.
  4. British consumers were getting tax-free purchases on imports up to a certain value, at which point tax was applied. The part you've left out is that British **exports** received the same benefits, so now customers of British companies face this new tax on all goods they purchase. So British consumers are paying more, and customers of British companies are paying more. It's a double whammy to both imports (people are now having to spend more for the same goods, which means they are poorer) and exports (which means companies have to find ways to cut back, and the easiest way to do that is to shed jobs).
  5. Northern Ireland is still kinda sorta in the EU. The border is in the Irish Sea. But they're in a funny spot because a lot of companies in both Britain and the rest of the world ha e never been able to figure out if NI is a part of the UK or part of Ireland. There's many screenshots going back for years of people in NI trying to order stuff from British retailers and being told that they don't ship outside of the UK. This also goes for companies such as Amazon.
  6. It's actually worse than that. The increased tax means that British citizens have lower purchasing power - they have to spend more to buy the same stuff. So now people are poorer because of the increased taxes. Not only that, local businesses are also affected as their imports are now more expensive, or they have to purchase more expensive locally-produced substitutes. This means they too have to either increase prices or else cut costs (payroll...) in order to stay profitable. And this doesn't even include the probable loss of business they'll face when customers abroad find that they now have to pay additional taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to a net decrease in tax revenue. It's insane that people would voluntarily do this. Thanks for the confirmation.
  7. Until companies increase prices to reflect the lower value of the sterling.
  8. The VAT exemption on purchases under a certain value makes sense to me, I have had to pay import duties on goods from the US before, just not for smaller purchases. Thanks for the insight.
  9. I am based in the EU. Some people I know are based in the UK. When we add RT to our carts, I see this: My UK-based friend sees this: As you can see, the UK purchaser has a 20% sales tax which does not appear for me. My cart shows I have to pay $60, while the UK-based user sees the price as $72. Is this a brexit-related tariff?
  10. So in your hypothetical scenario it's acceptable to kill even unarmed surrendering enemies? Nice how you ignore the eyewitness accounts given by fellow members of these units of executions carried out as part of initiation rituals. It does seem like the "videographer" (in reality a helmet cam) did nothing because the unit has normalized the execution of civilians.
  11. When there's video footage of an unarmed civilian lying on his back being shot multiple times in cold blood, I have difficulty not calling that what it is. When members of the unit give eyewitness accounts to the inquiry of prisoners being executed as part of initiation rituals, I have trouble not calling that what it is.
  12. Doesn't that make these incidents even worse in that case? People are not allowed to commit murder just because "oh, it's not a REAL war". Laws still apply. And it looks like you are using any warped form of logic to excuse murders just because the people who committed them wear a uniform.
  13. You don't beat an insurgency by warcriming your way through the local populace. These aren't noble heroes, they're people who reckoned the rules didn't apply to them, adrenaline junkies pretending to be hard men making hard decisions. And the sad thing is that there are many people who don't want the dirt that their so called special forces committed brought to public attention. As usual the root of the problems with many special forces units who went off the reservation appears to be profound failures in leadership.
  • Create New...