Everything is in the title: we know that the VAT rates depend on the "luxury" of the product on which it is based. Books and certain other cultural products and "basic" food are at the reduced rate.
We can also wonder why books are because 99% of their use is in leisure ... but that's not the debate.
What I mean is that I don't understand why electricity is at the rate of 19.6% and not reduced by 5.5% ... since it is simply no longer possible to live without electricity.
Electricity has not been a luxury for "a few decades" ... but it is true that for some, it is wasted so reducing prices is not a solution ...
So maybe a double rate, by level according to consumption would be more "fair" and econologically efficient?
Up to X kWh / person: 5.5%, X = the "basic" part essential for living
From X kWh / person: 19.6% = the "luxury" part of the electricity.
I think an X between 1000 and 2000 kWh / person.year is a good approach.
All this would allow EdF to raise its HT prices and align with the European average and the customer to better control its consumption (it's a bit like the principle of tax levels or red yellow schedules ex EJP) .
The state would lose? Not so on ... since the VAT applies to the price excluding tax, if at the same cost price, the price excluding tax, so the EDF margin goes up well, the collected VAT increases.
The functioning of the VAT is explained and discussed on https://www.econologie.com/forums/fonctionne ... 10068.html
Since, as said in this subject, we are for an energy, therefore electric, dear: https://www.econologie.com/forums/augmentati ... 10076.html
VAT on electricity at 19.6% at EdF, why? Evolution?
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79124
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79124
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
Uh I do not see the relationship ... the high VAT rate was retained well before we know the PV ... for the other self-productions of individuals it is quite marginal (if we can consider that the PV is not).
Ah well there is no VAT on the buyback contracts to individuals? I did not know, but ultimately accounting and fiscally it makes sense, it would be a pain if individuals had to donate part of their PV earnings ...
But EdF could very well do it at the base before the transfer ...
Ah well there is no VAT on the buyback contracts to individuals? I did not know, but ultimately accounting and fiscally it makes sense, it would be a pain if individuals had to donate part of their PV earnings ...
But EdF could very well do it at the base before the transfer ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
I was not talking about buyout, I was talking about self-production.
If I buy from EDF, I pay 19,6% VAT in addition to the cost of EDF.
If I consume what I produce, for example to compress the air in my compressed air car, I do not pay VAT: I gained 19,6% differential.
It is a natural subsidy to self-production.
It is therefore quite possible that you will be heard and that the VAT on electricity will be lowered to no longer indirectly subsidize solar ...
If I buy from EDF, I pay 19,6% VAT in addition to the cost of EDF.
If I consume what I produce, for example to compress the air in my compressed air car, I do not pay VAT: I gained 19,6% differential.
It is a natural subsidy to self-production.
It is therefore quite possible that you will be heard and that the VAT on electricity will be lowered to no longer indirectly subsidize solar ...
0 x
See you soon !
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79124
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
bernardd wrote:If I consume what I produce, for example to compress the air in my compressed air car, I do not pay VAT: I gained 19,6% differential.
Thinking you gain 19.6%, you just showed black and white that you do not know, like many how VAT works ...VAT does NOT represent 19.6% of the final price for the customer !!
I strongly advise you to read the demonstration of this subject:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/fonctionne ... 10068.html
bernardd wrote:It is a natural subsidy to self-production.
It’s a bit hackneyed as a reasoning ... but hey ... let's admit ...
bernardd wrote:It is therefore quite possible that you will be heard and that the VAT on electricity will be lowered to no longer indirectly subsidize solar ...
But it has nothing to do, solar is financed exclusively by the CSPE: https://www.econologie.com/forums/augmentati ... 10076.html
..and the VAT goes directly into the pockets of the State: Edf, like all the pros, is only a VAT collector for the State ...
I believe that false ideas die hard ... especially when it concerns the money of others (and particularly in France where the neighbor necessarily passes for a privileged compared to oneself) ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Christophe, I know you are very busy, but it would be nice if you criticize what I wrote and not what you imagine.
I wrote :
So I did not speak of 19,6% of the final price, but of 19,6% of the price excluding tax. I know the asymmetry of the% well.
And whatever you say:
- If I consume the electricity produced by my panels, I do not pay 19,6% VAT,
- 19,6% VAT which I would have to add to the cost price if I bought the same energy from EDF or another company.
I wrote :
bernardd wrote:If I buy from EDF, I pay 19,6% VAT in addition to the cost of EDF.
So I did not speak of 19,6% of the final price, but of 19,6% of the price excluding tax. I know the asymmetry of the% well.
And whatever you say:
- If I consume the electricity produced by my panels, I do not pay 19,6% VAT,
- 19,6% VAT which I would have to add to the cost price if I bought the same energy from EDF or another company.
0 x
See you soon !
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79124
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
I imagine nothing, I read figures and I do not agree.
So yes in principle I agree with you but to say that you don't pay 19.6% VAT is quite awkward. Talking about a savings of 16.4% would be fairer ... because 16.4% is what represents VAT at 19.6% on the customer price.
What am I nitpicking?
But please, let's return to the original debate of the subject: pkoi is electricity still considered a "luxury"?
So yes in principle I agree with you but to say that you don't pay 19.6% VAT is quite awkward. Talking about a savings of 16.4% would be fairer ... because 16.4% is what represents VAT at 19.6% on the customer price.
What am I nitpicking?
But please, let's return to the original debate of the subject: pkoi is electricity still considered a "luxury"?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Except that I was not talking about the customer price but the cost of self-production.
It is surprising, this discussion, it is the same problem as the losses in transport and the electric self-consumption, it is 16% of loss compared to the total production, but 20% compared to the final consumption really useful .
It is surprising, this discussion, it is the same problem as the losses in transport and the electric self-consumption, it is 16% of loss compared to the total production, but 20% compared to the final consumption really useful .
0 x
See you soon !
And if France created social VAT, would it save our businesses and our social system?
To meditate:
http://www.nationetrepublique.fr/022-la ... rtpage=4-4
http://www.tva-sociale.org/
http://www.tva-sociale.org/model.htm
http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement ... va-sociale
http://tva-sociale-ou-antisocial.blogspot.com/
To meditate:
http://www.nationetrepublique.fr/022-la ... rtpage=4-4
http://www.tva-sociale.org/
http://www.tva-sociale.org/model.htm
http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement ... va-sociale
http://tva-sociale-ou-antisocial.blogspot.com/
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79124
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
Ah yes good remark, I do not know well the subject and the interests of the social VAT. Will look at the links.
As far as saving businesses is concerned, not if that is enough: if we don't sell, we don't pay VAT. But effectively, a drop in VAT at an unchanged final price increases the commercial profit.
The problem of social and employer charges, international competition (and not only China, see the recent Eurotunnel case which preferred German Siemens to French Alstom) ..., 35 hours, pensions ... are more that a reduced VAT ...
Edit, given the links, it would actually displace the problem of payroll taxes, but it would raise prices and / or lower corporate profits ...
Summary on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVA_sociale
So social VAT, after all, except the name, has very little to do with this subject ...
As far as saving businesses is concerned, not if that is enough: if we don't sell, we don't pay VAT. But effectively, a drop in VAT at an unchanged final price increases the commercial profit.
The problem of social and employer charges, international competition (and not only China, see the recent Eurotunnel case which preferred German Siemens to French Alstom) ..., 35 hours, pensions ... are more that a reduced VAT ...
Edit, given the links, it would actually displace the problem of payroll taxes, but it would raise prices and / or lower corporate profits ...
Summary on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVA_sociale
Social VAT is the allocation of part of the value added tax (VAT) proceeds to the funding of social protection. Its implementation translates concretely into an increase in VAT, instead of social security contributions, existing (in this case there would be reductions in contributions) or envisaged to increase resources.
So social VAT, after all, except the name, has very little to do with this subject ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 181 guests