M_G
Well-Known Member
Not so much affording it as refusing to pay it.. Slight difference
If you can't afford £100 tax, should you really have horses?
- Thread starter little_flea
- Start date
Faithkat
Well-Known Member
The so-called "Horse Tax" will be a nice little earner for the government if it does go ahead. There are, what, 3 or 4 million horses in the UK, times that by £100 (or even the originally quoted figure of £10) . . . . . The excuse that it's to fund disease research is a bit feeble too. In no other area are specific groups of the population targeted in this way. It's a licence to print money.
£100 may not be TOO bad if you only have one; I have four at the moment and to find £400 in one go is a lot of money. If the tax is implemented I can see an already depressed market becoming even worse especially at the cheaper end of the market where £100 exceeds the cost/value of the animal. Apparently, at yesterday's New Forest pony sales, they were struggling to get the minimum 10 guinea bid for some colt foals with the vast majority of the stock going for quite a bit less than £100.
£100 may not be TOO bad if you only have one; I have four at the moment and to find £400 in one go is a lot of money. If the tax is implemented I can see an already depressed market becoming even worse especially at the cheaper end of the market where £100 exceeds the cost/value of the animal. Apparently, at yesterday's New Forest pony sales, they were struggling to get the minimum 10 guinea bid for some colt foals with the vast majority of the stock going for quite a bit less than £100.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think the more important question here is whether it is justified to pay a horse tax, which is intended to cover the expenses for Defra in dealing with and controlling disease outbreaks, or whether this should be covered by the taxpayer in general.
There seems to be more of a move in general - not just from Defra - in pinning the costs of specific activities on individuals rather than spreading these costs across the general population. A case in point is a recent prposal to charge your car insurer for ALL the costs of an accident if you are involved in one - including police time and resources, and so on. However, these costs are already covered by road tax (my friend used to be the analyst responsible for calculating exactly what the total cost of all road use is, and apportioning it across all cars and lorries). Billing for all the costs if someone is involved in an accident would effectively be double charging.
What do we think? Do we believe that the tax is actually necessary - and that the money would reach the right place? If I really thought that it woukld go to be used specifically for managing horse diseases more effectively I might be more willing to pay it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its a bit like how you are effectively charged twice for most things in this country. Like how your National Insurance used to cover dental treatment, now most people have to pay privately, but do they get a discount? No - they are just expected to forget that NI was originally meant to cover dental as well. Or school fees - my parents effectively paid twice for my education because I was moved to a private school when I couldn't take higher history - a perfectly mainstream subject. Or physio treatment, or operations that have a terribly long NHS waiting list. I paid to get the flu vaccine last year privately, even though I'm asthmatic.
I doubt most people would have a problem paying even £100 for a body that acted for the welfare of the horse and gave their money';s worth. But this is Britain; whatever they do is bound just to make life more of a misery for the average horseowner by employing loads of jobsworth Stasi-esque idiots. Its rip off Britain, you pay firstly in tax for something, then you pay again in another tax, and then you pay again because neither of those taxes actually buy you what they are supposed to. Internal double taxation. I wonder whether the Government could be sued for fraud?
Anyway, Labour are going to be out soon, whatever incoming government is going to have to make cuts, so what a waste of time even discussing such measures. Can all those Labour numpties not realise that this is not the time to be introducing yet more taxes but tightning belts? The good days of spend, spend, spend are over until this country gets on its feet again.
I think the more important question here is whether it is justified to pay a horse tax, which is intended to cover the expenses for Defra in dealing with and controlling disease outbreaks, or whether this should be covered by the taxpayer in general.
There seems to be more of a move in general - not just from Defra - in pinning the costs of specific activities on individuals rather than spreading these costs across the general population. A case in point is a recent prposal to charge your car insurer for ALL the costs of an accident if you are involved in one - including police time and resources, and so on. However, these costs are already covered by road tax (my friend used to be the analyst responsible for calculating exactly what the total cost of all road use is, and apportioning it across all cars and lorries). Billing for all the costs if someone is involved in an accident would effectively be double charging.
What do we think? Do we believe that the tax is actually necessary - and that the money would reach the right place? If I really thought that it woukld go to be used specifically for managing horse diseases more effectively I might be more willing to pay it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its a bit like how you are effectively charged twice for most things in this country. Like how your National Insurance used to cover dental treatment, now most people have to pay privately, but do they get a discount? No - they are just expected to forget that NI was originally meant to cover dental as well. Or school fees - my parents effectively paid twice for my education because I was moved to a private school when I couldn't take higher history - a perfectly mainstream subject. Or physio treatment, or operations that have a terribly long NHS waiting list. I paid to get the flu vaccine last year privately, even though I'm asthmatic.
I doubt most people would have a problem paying even £100 for a body that acted for the welfare of the horse and gave their money';s worth. But this is Britain; whatever they do is bound just to make life more of a misery for the average horseowner by employing loads of jobsworth Stasi-esque idiots. Its rip off Britain, you pay firstly in tax for something, then you pay again in another tax, and then you pay again because neither of those taxes actually buy you what they are supposed to. Internal double taxation. I wonder whether the Government could be sued for fraud?
Anyway, Labour are going to be out soon, whatever incoming government is going to have to make cuts, so what a waste of time even discussing such measures. Can all those Labour numpties not realise that this is not the time to be introducing yet more taxes but tightning belts? The good days of spend, spend, spend are over until this country gets on its feet again.
Ebenezer_Scrooge
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I may be missing the point and being really stupid but are they not saying the tax is for deaise? If so why beacuse everyone keeps up with vacinations surley thats enough to stop any spreading? N
Not only that how they going to keep on top of it? Are ment to carry a tax certificate with us when out riding or going anywhere, are we going to be checked at every event?
[/ QUOTE ]
They might make our horses wear tax discs.....
I may be missing the point and being really stupid but are they not saying the tax is for deaise? If so why beacuse everyone keeps up with vacinations surley thats enough to stop any spreading? N
Not only that how they going to keep on top of it? Are ment to carry a tax certificate with us when out riding or going anywhere, are we going to be checked at every event?
[/ QUOTE ]
They might make our horses wear tax discs.....
ester
Not slacking multitasking
HGL- no vaccinations currently given for the diseases of concern. Not sure if there even are any.
DW Team
Well-Known Member
From what I can understand of the whole thing the tax is for research into diseases like blue tongue and African horse sleeping sickness and trying to prevent its spread here in the UK.
I have no objection in paying £10 per horse per year but I have to paying £100 per horse per year. What happens if you sell the horse does the new owner have to stump it up again? Are they going to stamp the passports to prove we have paid? or issue a licence? If pore horse is put to sleep do we get refund? Also god forbid we do have an outbreak are they going to give us anything for the horses they PTS? I can guess that the answer will be no. Certainly reading my insurance policy I am not covered for horses PTS due to an outbreak of what ever.
I have no objection in paying £10 per horse per year but I have to paying £100 per horse per year. What happens if you sell the horse does the new owner have to stump it up again? Are they going to stamp the passports to prove we have paid? or issue a licence? If pore horse is put to sleep do we get refund? Also god forbid we do have an outbreak are they going to give us anything for the horses they PTS? I can guess that the answer will be no. Certainly reading my insurance policy I am not covered for horses PTS due to an outbreak of what ever.
LankyDoodle
Well-Known Member
OP - this is exactly the reason I didn't respond to the post asking how I am going to afford the horse tax: it riled me to think that anyone was wondering if they are going to be able to afford £100 when they own an animal as expensive to keep as a horse. I will afford it in the same way as I afford a new pair of boots when I need them!
SpottedCat
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just another thing to add.... i'm not sure that some people on here, realise that some of us go without ie nice clothes cars etc as it is just so we can give our horses everything
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is NOT being broke. This is choosing to spend your disposable income on a horse and associated stuff to do with a horse rather than choosing to spend it on nice clothes and cars! You may well go without to keep your horse, but it does not mean you can't have those things, it means you choose not to have them in order that you can have a horse. There is a VERY big difference IMO - there are people out there who really can't afford these things, and they would laugh at the idea of having a horse as complete fantasy. Don't confuse choosing to spend your money on one thing (and therefore being unable to afford another) with being broke, you're not. You could easily afford those things if you gave up the horse, but you CHOOSE not to. Some people simply do not have that choice.
[ QUOTE ]
Just another thing to add.... i'm not sure that some people on here, realise that some of us go without ie nice clothes cars etc as it is just so we can give our horses everything
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is NOT being broke. This is choosing to spend your disposable income on a horse and associated stuff to do with a horse rather than choosing to spend it on nice clothes and cars! You may well go without to keep your horse, but it does not mean you can't have those things, it means you choose not to have them in order that you can have a horse. There is a VERY big difference IMO - there are people out there who really can't afford these things, and they would laugh at the idea of having a horse as complete fantasy. Don't confuse choosing to spend your money on one thing (and therefore being unable to afford another) with being broke, you're not. You could easily afford those things if you gave up the horse, but you CHOOSE not to. Some people simply do not have that choice.
stacey_lou
Well-Known Member
I was have a blonde moment but still I think its silly, fair enough paying a one off tax against disease when importing horses but not for all of them.
All this rubbish the goverment are saying taxing this, upping costs on that, you cant do this ect basically were going to become slaves, we are going to work hard to pay stupid taxes to pay for their lavish live styles whilst we cannot afford to partisipate in our favorite things like our horses and the tax on drink wil lgo up so we cant even party and should we like to smoke we wont smoke, farmers wont be able to make a good living from farming anymore so everything will be batteryfied and imported and i may be being dramatic but its all tax, work tax work tax work and wheres the fun?
All this rubbish the goverment are saying taxing this, upping costs on that, you cant do this ect basically were going to become slaves, we are going to work hard to pay stupid taxes to pay for their lavish live styles whilst we cannot afford to partisipate in our favorite things like our horses and the tax on drink wil lgo up so we cant even party and should we like to smoke we wont smoke, farmers wont be able to make a good living from farming anymore so everything will be batteryfied and imported and i may be being dramatic but its all tax, work tax work tax work and wheres the fun?
LankyDoodle
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just another thing to add.... i'm not sure that some people on here, realise that some of us go without ie nice clothes cars etc as it is just so we can give our horses everything
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is NOT being broke. This is choosing to spend your disposable income on a horse and associated stuff to do with a horse rather than choosing to spend it on nice clothes and cars! You may well go without to keep your horse, but it does not mean you can't have those things, it means you choose not to have them in order that you can have a horse. There is a VERY big difference IMO - there are people out there who really can't afford these things, and they would laugh at the idea of having a horse as complete fantasy. Don't confuse choosing to spend your money on one thing (and therefore being unable to afford another) with being broke, you're not. You could easily afford those things if you gave up the horse, but you CHOOSE not to. Some people simply do not have that choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. Being broke is being unable to put food in your children's mouths!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just another thing to add.... i'm not sure that some people on here, realise that some of us go without ie nice clothes cars etc as it is just so we can give our horses everything
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is NOT being broke. This is choosing to spend your disposable income on a horse and associated stuff to do with a horse rather than choosing to spend it on nice clothes and cars! You may well go without to keep your horse, but it does not mean you can't have those things, it means you choose not to have them in order that you can have a horse. There is a VERY big difference IMO - there are people out there who really can't afford these things, and they would laugh at the idea of having a horse as complete fantasy. Don't confuse choosing to spend your money on one thing (and therefore being unable to afford another) with being broke, you're not. You could easily afford those things if you gave up the horse, but you CHOOSE not to. Some people simply do not have that choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. Being broke is being unable to put food in your children's mouths!
stacey_lou
Well-Known Member
Its not the monrey its the point of the matter, why should we?
SpottedCat
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Its not the monrey its the point of the matter, why should we?
[/ QUOTE ]
NOT the question the OP was asking. She was not asking if you think the tax is fair or a good idea or some brainless scheme dreamt up by the government to raise revenue, she was asking whether you really should have a horse if you can't find £100 should you need to, because in the grand scheme of keeping horses, £100 is nothing. It's a set of shoes and two wormers in some parts of the world. Don't turn this discussion into something it was never trying to be, read the OP.
Its not the monrey its the point of the matter, why should we?
[/ QUOTE ]
NOT the question the OP was asking. She was not asking if you think the tax is fair or a good idea or some brainless scheme dreamt up by the government to raise revenue, she was asking whether you really should have a horse if you can't find £100 should you need to, because in the grand scheme of keeping horses, £100 is nothing. It's a set of shoes and two wormers in some parts of the world. Don't turn this discussion into something it was never trying to be, read the OP.
SO1
Well-Known Member
Whilst I don't think it is a good idea for the average caring horse owner it might prevent the Jamie Grey's of this world getting their hands on loads of cheap horses if they had to pay an extra £100 for each.
How would this work for meat mean buying horses for slaughter would they be liable for the tax? How long would you need to keep your horse in order to liable - dealer often have a fast turn around of horses.
If the tax is per horse if say you pay your tax in Jan but sell in feb is your horse's tax then paid till the end of the year so the new owner does not need to pay any tax or does the tax remain with the previous owner so that if they then buy another horse they won't need to pay horse tax till the next tax year.
I think it will be very difficult for some breeders especially those who have semi ferral herds running on the new forest or welsh mountains.
A riding school with 30 horses would be looking at an extra £3000 a year which is quite a lot of money even though as they are a business it might be tax deductible.
How would this work for meat mean buying horses for slaughter would they be liable for the tax? How long would you need to keep your horse in order to liable - dealer often have a fast turn around of horses.
If the tax is per horse if say you pay your tax in Jan but sell in feb is your horse's tax then paid till the end of the year so the new owner does not need to pay any tax or does the tax remain with the previous owner so that if they then buy another horse they won't need to pay horse tax till the next tax year.
I think it will be very difficult for some breeders especially those who have semi ferral herds running on the new forest or welsh mountains.
A riding school with 30 horses would be looking at an extra £3000 a year which is quite a lot of money even though as they are a business it might be tax deductible.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
agree SC completely.
HGL, this is not just an imports issue, EIA and AHS are vector born so we are currently reliant on the blighters not flying across the channel atm.
plus there is a shift of these diseases further northwards with global warming- though we have had a rubbish summer!
HGL, this is not just an imports issue, EIA and AHS are vector born so we are currently reliant on the blighters not flying across the channel atm.
plus there is a shift of these diseases further northwards with global warming- though we have had a rubbish summer!
Fahrenheit
Well-Known Member
QR
I think it depends on the situation, I would be worried if a 1 horse owner couldn't afford £100... lets face it it can cost almost that just to get a vet out but then there is multi horse owners say like a horse santuary that could have 2000 horses thats £200,000!! Thats a lot of money to find! If it was to be £100 per horse then I think that would shut quite a few studs, riding schools and santuaries, which wouldn't be good news...
I think it depends on the situation, I would be worried if a 1 horse owner couldn't afford £100... lets face it it can cost almost that just to get a vet out but then there is multi horse owners say like a horse santuary that could have 2000 horses thats £200,000!! Thats a lot of money to find! If it was to be £100 per horse then I think that would shut quite a few studs, riding schools and santuaries, which wouldn't be good news...
JVB
Well-Known Member
It seems illogical to put the cost of managing diseases of livestock with the farmers/ owners.
Apart from vegans and vegetarians we are all connected to livestock, whether we farm it or eat it. So we should all have an interest in diseases being managed ie. all taxpayers.
Maybe the supermarkets should be paying a tax as they are the ones who make it difficlut for farmers to even make much of a living with the low prices they charge.
Are dog/ cat owners going to have to start paying the same tax as all animals may be at risk from diseases at some point.
Apart from vegans and vegetarians we are all connected to livestock, whether we farm it or eat it. So we should all have an interest in diseases being managed ie. all taxpayers.
Maybe the supermarkets should be paying a tax as they are the ones who make it difficlut for farmers to even make much of a living with the low prices they charge.
Are dog/ cat owners going to have to start paying the same tax as all animals may be at risk from diseases at some point.
M_G
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I may be missing the point and being really stupid but are they not saying the tax is for deaise? If so why beacuse everyone keeps up with vacinations surley thats enough to stop any spreading? N
Not only that how they going to keep on top of it? Are ment to carry a tax certificate with us when out riding or going anywhere, are we going to be checked at every event?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would think its to do with African horse sickness and the likes being in Europe and the rise in importation of horses with shall we say less than the best history... These animals come from one country lets say Romania where disease is rife they are than taken to the country beginning with F then sold on to the UK as a horse from F..
I may be missing the point and being really stupid but are they not saying the tax is for deaise? If so why beacuse everyone keeps up with vacinations surley thats enough to stop any spreading? N
Not only that how they going to keep on top of it? Are ment to carry a tax certificate with us when out riding or going anywhere, are we going to be checked at every event?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would think its to do with African horse sickness and the likes being in Europe and the rise in importation of horses with shall we say less than the best history... These animals come from one country lets say Romania where disease is rife they are than taken to the country beginning with F then sold on to the UK as a horse from F..
SpottedCat
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
QR
I think it depends on the situation, I would be worried if a 1 horse owner couldn't afford £100... lets face it it can cost almost that just to get a vet out but then there is multi horse owners say like a horse santuary that could have 2000 horses thats £200,000!! Thats a lot of money to find! If it was to be £100 per horse then I think that would shut quite a few studs, riding schools and santuaries, which wouldn't be good news...
[/ QUOTE ]
I would imagine charities would get some kind of exemption (though I am speculating - but they do for other taxes). Studs and RS are businesses, £100 would go onto the cost of any horses sold for the studs and RS lesson prices would go up. Yes, I do think this would happen because everyone would be in the same boat, so the costs would go up universally, and people would either pay or not use those services, same as any other business. It's not like one stud would have a greater increase in costs than another so one could undercut, is it?
QR
I think it depends on the situation, I would be worried if a 1 horse owner couldn't afford £100... lets face it it can cost almost that just to get a vet out but then there is multi horse owners say like a horse santuary that could have 2000 horses thats £200,000!! Thats a lot of money to find! If it was to be £100 per horse then I think that would shut quite a few studs, riding schools and santuaries, which wouldn't be good news...
[/ QUOTE ]
I would imagine charities would get some kind of exemption (though I am speculating - but they do for other taxes). Studs and RS are businesses, £100 would go onto the cost of any horses sold for the studs and RS lesson prices would go up. Yes, I do think this would happen because everyone would be in the same boat, so the costs would go up universally, and people would either pay or not use those services, same as any other business. It's not like one stud would have a greater increase in costs than another so one could undercut, is it?
Hippona
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just another thing to add.... i'm not sure that some people on here, realise that some of us go without ie nice clothes cars etc as it is just so we can give our horses everything
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is NOT being broke. This is choosing to spend your disposable income on a horse and associated stuff to do with a horse rather than choosing to spend it on nice clothes and cars! You may well go without to keep your horse, but it does not mean you can't have those things, it means you choose not to have them in order that you can have a horse. There is a VERY big difference IMO - there are people out there who really can't afford these things, and they would laugh at the idea of having a horse as complete fantasy. Don't confuse choosing to spend your money on one thing (and therefore being unable to afford another) with being broke, you're not. You could easily afford those things if you gave up the horse, but you CHOOSE not to. Some people simply do not have that choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. Being broke is being able to put food in your children's mouths!
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutey...what these have said.
When I moan I'm skint.....I'm not really. The heating is on, cupboards are full of food, diesel in the car and my horses are out in the field. I can wander around to the shop for a bottle of wine and come home and watch TV. Outgoings are less than incomings .....its my choice to have horses and if I didnt spend money on them it would be something else....god, if I didnt have kids and horses I would be well off indeed
I think the point some people are making is ...we really don't think this tax is fair, especially on leisure owners who have horses as pets essentially. I dont see dog owners being taxed for the cost of scraping up dog poo ( and I know theyre supposed to pick it up....but if they dont....how the hell can you track who is responsible and fine them for it
)
I could afford grudgingly to pay it....but frankly they can come and prise the money out of my cold dead hands.....I'm sick of paying taxes, its relentless
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just another thing to add.... i'm not sure that some people on here, realise that some of us go without ie nice clothes cars etc as it is just so we can give our horses everything
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is NOT being broke. This is choosing to spend your disposable income on a horse and associated stuff to do with a horse rather than choosing to spend it on nice clothes and cars! You may well go without to keep your horse, but it does not mean you can't have those things, it means you choose not to have them in order that you can have a horse. There is a VERY big difference IMO - there are people out there who really can't afford these things, and they would laugh at the idea of having a horse as complete fantasy. Don't confuse choosing to spend your money on one thing (and therefore being unable to afford another) with being broke, you're not. You could easily afford those things if you gave up the horse, but you CHOOSE not to. Some people simply do not have that choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. Being broke is being able to put food in your children's mouths!
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutey...what these have said.
When I moan I'm skint.....I'm not really. The heating is on, cupboards are full of food, diesel in the car and my horses are out in the field. I can wander around to the shop for a bottle of wine and come home and watch TV. Outgoings are less than incomings .....its my choice to have horses and if I didnt spend money on them it would be something else....god, if I didnt have kids and horses I would be well off indeed
I think the point some people are making is ...we really don't think this tax is fair, especially on leisure owners who have horses as pets essentially. I dont see dog owners being taxed for the cost of scraping up dog poo ( and I know theyre supposed to pick it up....but if they dont....how the hell can you track who is responsible and fine them for it
I could afford grudgingly to pay it....but frankly they can come and prise the money out of my cold dead hands.....I'm sick of paying taxes, its relentless
JosieSmith
Well-Known Member
I'm not broke. I have no money left at the end of the month and yes I realise that's because I have a horse, and I don't call myself broke. But I do go without so that my horse can have everything she needs. I will struggle to find another £100 and it aill have an impact on my already tight budget, but that doesn't mean I should sell my horse. I am willing to beg/borrow/steal it if necessary, and the same goes for vets bills.
LauraWheeler
Well-Known Member
I am a groom and only earn £80 a week. I can't afford the £100 horse tax. My pony always comes first and i will always find the money for her vet bills or enything she needs. She is ill at the mo and the vet bill is over £500 and on going. My vets are very good and know my situation so let me pay in installments. She comes first and i never have enything new for myself (cloths come from the charaty shop or given to me by friends and family) I don't drive as i can't afford the lessons and couldn't run a car anyway. Luckly i get meals provided in my job so i don't have to worry about food for me. But besides not being able to afford it why should i line the governments pockets any more than i already do. I used to know a woman who worked for the government and she did a report on equine deseases coming to britian and they concluded they would cull horses similer to during foot and mouth and as horses where for pleasure the owners would not get compensation! Not that i would let them cull lucy anyway and no amount of money would be enough compensation. I have a passport for my pony but i know loads of people who don't. what more do they want my blood sweat and tears. Ahhhhhhhhhhh
Ok sorry rant over. I'm not paying the tax they can lock me up.
Ok sorry rant over. I'm not paying the tax they can lock me up.
SpottedCat
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point some people are making is ...we really don't think this tax is fair, especially on leisure owners who have horses as pets essentially. I dont see dog owners being taxed for the cost of scraping up dog poo ( and I know theyre supposed to pick it up....but if they dont....how the hell can you track who is responsible and fine them for it
)
[/ QUOTE ]
But this isn't what the OP was asking - she clearly stated she thought it was unfair and she was not in favour. She was hoping for an entirely different debate to the one which is going on over several other threads...
I think the point some people are making is ...we really don't think this tax is fair, especially on leisure owners who have horses as pets essentially. I dont see dog owners being taxed for the cost of scraping up dog poo ( and I know theyre supposed to pick it up....but if they dont....how the hell can you track who is responsible and fine them for it
[/ QUOTE ]
But this isn't what the OP was asking - she clearly stated she thought it was unfair and she was not in favour. She was hoping for an entirely different debate to the one which is going on over several other threads...
ester
Not slacking multitasking
dogs and cats don't make much money, I suspect horses may not be included in this if it were not for the racing industry.
M_G as I said above also dependent on the lovely little biting flying things not getting across the channel.
M_G as I said above also dependent on the lovely little biting flying things not getting across the channel.
kylie88
Well-Known Member
ester - no not aimed at anyone in particular.
I no its my choice to spend my money on horses which i dont mind doing at all
I just feel your always getting wripped off in this country for trying to have something thats not the norm! or just becuase it's more expensive than most it means you have money to throw away.
I no its my choice to spend my money on horses which i dont mind doing at all
deecee
Well-Known Member
Where do we put the tax disc!! lol!!
No one can afford or wants to pay tax!! The goverment needs to get their finger out of their ar@#s and leave the countryside alone esp us poor horsey peeps!....If the cash was going towards better bridleways, horse lanes and more rights on the road it may be justified but is it ...no !!! Grrrrrrr can feel myself getting cross now coffee time and a sarni ....anyone coming to join me
No one can afford or wants to pay tax!! The goverment needs to get their finger out of their ar@#s and leave the countryside alone esp us poor horsey peeps!....If the cash was going towards better bridleways, horse lanes and more rights on the road it may be justified but is it ...no !!! Grrrrrrr can feel myself getting cross now coffee time and a sarni ....anyone coming to join me
deecee
Well-Known Member
sorry just for an extra, people (and you know the ones I mean) keep pumping out kids they cannot afford so we end up paying for them.... you know what I mean!!!!!
alsxx
Well-Known Member
IMO there are people out there that have horses that cannot afford £100, and no they shouldn't have horses full stop. I thought that before some idiot dreamt up the idea of horse tax, and after its long forgotton (hopefully! ), will still believe that. However these are the people I have come across who do not worm their horses, feet are hardy ever/never done, etc etc etc all due to not being able to afford it.
For me personally I can afford £100....I have 3 horses so would probably struggle to find £300 out of one months wages but as I would struggle to pay a £500 vets bill in one go, it would go on my credit card to be paid off later.
For me personally I can afford £100....I have 3 horses so would probably struggle to find £300 out of one months wages but as I would struggle to pay a £500 vets bill in one go, it would go on my credit card to be paid off later.
Rana
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
can you get a refund on your car tax if you write it off, I don't know?
I do think that in the event of an outbreak, depending on what the outbreak is the fact that your horse is in a field and not making direct contact with any other horses doesn't make it less susceptible infection, particularly something like EIA which is vector transmitted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can apply for a refund for the remaining months left on your tax disc....
Good point re. infectious diseases that may be spread without direct contact, but will the money *actually* be used for that research? If so, then I'll happily donate £100 for this. But I'm very sceptical about what the money will be used for...
can you get a refund on your car tax if you write it off, I don't know?
I do think that in the event of an outbreak, depending on what the outbreak is the fact that your horse is in a field and not making direct contact with any other horses doesn't make it less susceptible infection, particularly something like EIA which is vector transmitted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can apply for a refund for the remaining months left on your tax disc....
Good point re. infectious diseases that may be spread without direct contact, but will the money *actually* be used for that research? If so, then I'll happily donate £100 for this. But I'm very sceptical about what the money will be used for...
Hippona
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point some people are making is ...we really don't think this tax is fair, especially on leisure owners who have horses as pets essentially. I dont see dog owners being taxed for the cost of scraping up dog poo ( and I know theyre supposed to pick it up....but if they dont....how the hell can you track who is responsible and fine them for it
)
[/ QUOTE ]
But this isn't what the OP was asking - she clearly stated she thought it was unfair and she was not in favour. She was hoping for an entirely different debate to the one which is going on over several other threads...
[/ QUOTE ]
Point taken....quick answer....you shouldn't have anything you can't afford...and that includes kids
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point some people are making is ...we really don't think this tax is fair, especially on leisure owners who have horses as pets essentially. I dont see dog owners being taxed for the cost of scraping up dog poo ( and I know theyre supposed to pick it up....but if they dont....how the hell can you track who is responsible and fine them for it
[/ QUOTE ]
But this isn't what the OP was asking - she clearly stated she thought it was unfair and she was not in favour. She was hoping for an entirely different debate to the one which is going on over several other threads...
[/ QUOTE ]
Point taken....quick answer....you shouldn't have anything you can't afford...and that includes kids
miss_bird
Well-Known Member
Sorry a little off topic here but i would like to know how they will police it, they have not done it with passports, as there are many horses out there still not passported and microchipped.
I suppose it will again be us with passports, would that just not make people who buy, not change the ownership details, hence the old owners and breeders get hit and have to prove they have not got the horse hidden in another field somewhere, as i am sure the people they employ to enforce this will have no damned clue about the horse industry
I suppose it will again be us with passports, would that just not make people who buy, not change the ownership details, hence the old owners and breeders get hit and have to prove they have not got the horse hidden in another field somewhere, as i am sure the people they employ to enforce this will have no damned clue about the horse industry