Miscellaneous desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 10

Veterinary Charges

I know this question is going to be dumped on - BUT - I am going to ask it anyway. My dog - a 5 year old miniature dachshund - was taken ill very recently and so far, has cost us £2000 in Vet fees, which is fine by us as a) we love him to bits and b) we pay for a very expensive Pet Insurance Policy on which there is a very hefty insurance tax payable to Her Majesty's Government. My question? Given the amount of cash generated into the British economy by the wider pet industry - please don't make me itemise it - why is my Vet Bill subject to 20% Value Added Tax?

Isn't that usury or perhaps abusury? 92.4.38.206 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VAT is levied on most things that cannot be described as necessities. Pets, and the costs consequential on the keeping thereof, fall very much into the luxury category. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, this is a matter of opinion, with some "pet parents" considering their pets to be "their children". There was a similar problem during Hurricane Katrina, where those performing evacuations did not include pets, and thus many people chose to stay behind with their pets. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a less condescending way, they do, in fact, love their pets, with the same emotions that one loves a family member. It's a real emotion and nothing to sniff at. The fact that humans are able to love animals — and that some animals are, as far as we can tell, truly capable of loving them back — is the product of tens of thousands of year of human evolution and human/dog co-habitation. Human grief at the death of a beloved pet is, studies have shown, as deep as with the death of a family member, although it does not last for as long a duration. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was I condescending ? If you refer to my use of quotes, I did that because those are not terms I use myself, but terms I borrowed from others. StuRat (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sounds like double taxation, but the insurance premium tax is only 6%, and this reflects a tax of around 20% on the (otherwise untaxed) administrative charges, matching the 20% VAT that is paid on the actual claims. Some insurances are exempt (such as life), but travel and equipment breakdown insurance carry 20% like VAT. I'm not convinced that these (or any) taxes are completely fair, but there is some logic in the rates. Dbfirs 08:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Given the amount of cash generated into the British economy by the wider pet industry". I think this claim would need justification. If you include the costs caused by pets (cleaning pavements, diseases spread, injuries to people, allergies, dealing with strays, noise) and the vast damage to environment caused by raising a large meat-eating animal[1] against the benefits (sales of petcare products and petcare services, allegedly reduced rates of mental illness in pet owners), it's a complex balance and by no means clear that pets are a net social good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note, some American politicians (Thad McCotter for one) have been trying to make Vet bills tax deductible [2]. Doesn't look like they're going to succeed though, in part due to some of the concerns that Colapeninsula just raised. And it's hard to get non-controversial stuff passed in Washington these days to begin with. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that there are many pet owners who will join me in wishing your dachsund a good recovery. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly concur in these good wishes. (I want to mention that however high your tax bill is, it cannot be usury since that is a description of interest on a loan-- not that this helps you at all.) Marnanel (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double taxation (ie paying tax on tax payments) shouldn't come as a surprise especially if you own a car in the UK. We Brits pay 58.95 pence per litre (= $3.63 per US gallon?) in fuel duty and then 20% Value Added Tax on the cost of the petrol PLUS the fuel duty[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same in Australia. We pay fuel excise, then GST is levied on the total price which includes the excise. When this matter was brought to the attention of the then prime minister John Howard, he had it looked into. He came back with words to the effect of "We understand the problem and, believe me, we'd dearly like to fix it, but it's impossible". Which I always thought was an odd answer for someone in the position of being able to introduce amendments to whichever laws made this so. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the reason he considered it "impossible" is that his government (as is also the case for the British Government) could not afford the upkeep of roads (and funding to Local Authorities in the UK for upkeep of roads other than primary routes) without these taxes. An alternative would be to double the fuel excise duty but not charge the VAT on it. This would be better for the government, but against EU regulations for the UK. As I pointed out above, insurance premium tax is not double taxation because it is roughly equivalent to VAT on the administrative element of the premium. Dbfirs 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in New Zealand where in addition to the petrol issue, council rates also incur GST. Anyway more to the point, I'm confused of the relevence of contributions of pets to the economy. I appreciate the VAT in the UK is far more complex than GST in New Zealand but as far as I know it's still a consumption tax in the form of a value added tax (hence the name). Contributions to the economy have little to do with whether something is taxed, instead as some have hinted at above, whether the consumption is consider vital or a luxury or whatever affects the rate. That's why plenty of other things that are surely important to the economy like petrol and internet connections are AFAIK taxed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]