Sam, you clearly don't understand VAT. Reaching the threshold and registering for VAT will REDUCE the tax a business pays, as it will now be able to reclaim from HMRC the VAT it has paid to its VAT-registered suppliers. Neither will the business itself pay any VAT to HMRC. What it will have to do is charge its customers VAT and pass this on to HMRC.
That's why small businesses are reluctant to breach the threshold and register - because they fear that having to put their prices up by 20% will discourage their customers from ordering and hence reduce their income.
I think he does... I run a small business B&B. If I reach the £85,000 threshold, I would be able to claim the VAT back on purchases (which are minimal and likely to only save me a couple of hundred pounds), however I would have to pay VAT on all B&B bookings, about £17,000 of tax. The only way around this would be to charge the customer 20% more, but obviously that makes me 20% less competitive.
Yes, well, putting solar farms on productive farmland in a wet country latitude 52 degrees North is on the far ultra-violet edge of the stupid spectrum.
Legalising onshore wind, in the context you mean, won't make it legal.
That's because the windiest places with fewest local people to be bothered by any development are all in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Over 20% of England land area and all the hilliest bits with the odd exception already saturated with turbines. These would be the most productive locations, and accessible if only access could be granted. But protected spaces can't put in access, let alone put in the turbines themselves. Legalise onshore wind by all means, but it won't mean turbines going up in the windiest places.
Also true that sites smaller than 50MW are able to connect at distribution level and don't usually require a generation licence or agreement with National Grid, curtailment or participation in the BM. There are reasons for the 50MW cap, and the cap has to be set somewhere - at what point would you suggest sites don't need to be responsible for their output - should you have to have a generation license for the 4kw on your roof? There may be multiple reasons for this cliff.
Sam, you clearly don't understand VAT. Reaching the threshold and registering for VAT will REDUCE the tax a business pays, as it will now be able to reclaim from HMRC the VAT it has paid to its VAT-registered suppliers. Neither will the business itself pay any VAT to HMRC. What it will have to do is charge its customers VAT and pass this on to HMRC.
That's why small businesses are reluctant to breach the threshold and register - because they fear that having to put their prices up by 20% will discourage their customers from ordering and hence reduce their income.
I think he does... I run a small business B&B. If I reach the £85,000 threshold, I would be able to claim the VAT back on purchases (which are minimal and likely to only save me a couple of hundred pounds), however I would have to pay VAT on all B&B bookings, about £17,000 of tax. The only way around this would be to charge the customer 20% more, but obviously that makes me 20% less competitive.
VAT works for some businesses but not for others.
presenting the 85k threshold as a barrier is the disingenuous part.
Dougie and Joseph are both right. the issue with registering for vat is that then you have to charge your client.
But if you are business to business this doesnt matter since the client reclaims vat.
and for builders etc the savings on reclaiming vat on expenses outweighs this.
B2B businesses often need to register for vat just to appear to have a credible size!
B&B, and all my local builders, have the best of both worlds by simlpy registering another business at 85k income.
so, poor example to start an article.
Yes, well, putting solar farms on productive farmland in a wet country latitude 52 degrees North is on the far ultra-violet edge of the stupid spectrum.
"...businesses with annual turnovers equal to or exceeding £85,000 do not have to register ..."
'Exceeding' should be 'less than'.
Legalising onshore wind, in the context you mean, won't make it legal.
That's because the windiest places with fewest local people to be bothered by any development are all in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Over 20% of England land area and all the hilliest bits with the odd exception already saturated with turbines. These would be the most productive locations, and accessible if only access could be granted. But protected spaces can't put in access, let alone put in the turbines themselves. Legalise onshore wind by all means, but it won't mean turbines going up in the windiest places.
Also true that sites smaller than 50MW are able to connect at distribution level and don't usually require a generation licence or agreement with National Grid, curtailment or participation in the BM. There are reasons for the 50MW cap, and the cap has to be set somewhere - at what point would you suggest sites don't need to be responsible for their output - should you have to have a generation license for the 4kw on your roof? There may be multiple reasons for this cliff.
Anything that hinders the expansion of the economically and environmentally ridiculous "Unreliables" gets my vote.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/clean-energy-saving-the-planet-by
Would you hope to see both a less onerous NSIP and more gradation in terms of how much regulation projects of a certain size have to face?