User talk:37.247.9.228

October 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: SIE (file format) was changed by 37.247.9.228 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955901 on 2012-10-01T01:29:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Accountancy, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first part under "The European union VAT directive accounting definition" seems to be referenced well. Toward the end, there are many statements that need to be cited. See veriability, citing sources, and reliable sources. Please add sources to significant edits - these edits need to be cited. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (37.247.9.228) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Boson (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Union value added tax area

Since you are not registered, I do not know if you are the same person who made all the edits, but I noticed your edits to European Union value added tax. It looks as if they are intended for a new article European Union value added tax area, which currently redirects to the article where you made the edits. Could you confirm if that is the case? --Boson (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not, I think it is good as is right now, a three step information set, them all tightly related to each other in sequence.

I am not asking for a new article, rather the question is if this article should not be renamed to what you suggest ... area. And most of all should be hit when searching for EU VAT directive. EU VAT directive is another alternative title. But European Union value added tax, would do very well as title in the future as well.

The major problem with the article as it was, was that it was totally confusing mess of detail information and no content line for understanding why the EU VAT exists and why there is so much effort in synchronizing the entire area of VAT within the EU. The benefits are much more extent than anyone not familiar with its core would imagine. The removal of the physical customs border control by national borders in-between the members states is a huge difference to both privates and trading business. The US must have had a similar process in the past (though before VAT was invented). I am a Swede and a parcel from Rome on a Lorry is faster here than one from Oslo (next neighbor country, due to the Norwegian parcel is getting stuck in the customs. Going to Norway with my new laptop there is (not a big) but nevertheless a risk that you have to pay first Norwegian VAT on the way there, then get it refunded and pay Swedish VAT on the way back and at last get the Swedish refunded by the next VAT reporting. Going by car to Rome I can fill my car with new PCs and just go. The international free trade agreements usually do not include VAT harmonization and for everyone but the huge enterprises with volume trade it makes no real difference, VAT unions does.

The VAT directive is a tremendous work being made by the EU commission and as a side effects it makes definitions of six other very important issues that are for huge importance for the future complete electronic conversion of trade documents like what UN/CEFACT is dealing with. Instead of recommendations it is firm legal demands and a very strong guideline for such administrative routines. Far better than most other countries VAT law.

So I think the three step alternative as it is right now is very good, the three of them are very tightly dependent on each other and has the logics as is now, 1) The VAT area and why, 2) The directive and its consequences, 3) The content of EU VAT. I think rather it is important that there are search hits for all these expressions and that there are hits regardless using the European union/EU Value added tax/VAT expressions because in daily talk people are talking about the EU and the VAT and not the long expressions. No one in Sweden says mervärdesskatt all say moms for VAT.

I think it is good as is.

I prefer anonymity not being logged in because of integrity reasons. Please give me a hint why I should change my mind?

// I also edited stuff like invoice (VAT directive definition), receipt (VAT directive definition), means of transport (that the VAT directive refers the expression to the physical vehicles rather of the article) and accounting yesterday. To make them better woven together in their references and reference to the EU VAT directive.

To address your last point first: you do not need to register, but some good reasons to do so are given here: Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Another advantage is that people will more easily recognize your edits and you can build trust; it is easier to remember a user name and associate it with a person, so you can build up a reputation for constructive editing more easily. If you register, only a few trusted users are able to view your IP address (and they will only do so with justification), so you are in some ways more anonymous. You are asked to provide an E-mail address but I don't believe that is obligatory. It is useful, though, in case you forget your password, and (if you activate the feature under preferences) other users can send you a private e-mail without knowing your e-mail address.

I will most likely register, next days.

As regards your edits, I believe some work is needed. For instance "No VAT goes to the EU" is incorrect (or at the very least misleading), since a certain proportion of VAT revenues does go (finally) to the EU.

You also have to keep in mind that the EU VAT directive really defines language, published in all languages of the union. Expressions in English has a concise meaning like means of transport means physical vehicles and not the forwarding technology as in the Wikipedia article of means of transport. And so it must be noted in that article, else the article is just wrong vocabulary within Europe. see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0112:en:NOT

As regards the suggested structure, I am not sure it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It might be more appropriate for an a text book or an essay, which argues a case for the advantages of the EU VAT system, but that is not our remit.

Well when it comes to EU VAT the VAT aspects could be noted under the VAT article because it is nothing particular in EU VAT from other countries VAT in general. Only perhaps that the EU-commission spent much more time and bargain to make it really well worked over. The directive is an impressive quality document, that is far better quality than a single government would spend on it. But if anything should be expelled from the articled it is the last step that is of least general interest of the phenomena. The very indeed special thing about it is that it is not mainly about VAT but the border free Europe. I think the European value added tax article is very good right now in its three step approach covering all sides of the issue. I added last a few things about private citizens perspective in bringing goods across the EU internal national borders and some sub-issues of common misunderstanding. I think those should be there as well. I think the three step approach must be there like in the Oxford dictionary of concise English there are often three steps regarding what you refer to.

One issue is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a policy often abbreviated to NPOV: articles should be written in an encyclopedic style that does not present an opinion or argue a point. So we would not normally talk of the advantages of a particular system in Wikipedia's voice. We can state opinions if we attribute them, but we should not state the opinion itself as fact.

Well if you find a way of describing the difference of a single market with or without a VAT union and the difference in cross border controls stations are removed in the latter case, please do. But I really think you can't make it much crisp clear than I did?

There is a formal problem with the structure, since what you have added is positioned as the lead section, which is supposed to introduce and summarize the rest of the article, but the text contains much more detail than is appropriate for the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. There is quite a lot of overlap with what follows, so the added content needs to be merged with the rest. There is also some formatting etc. that needs changing.The material you added appears to be formatted as a separate article; for instance it is standard to use boldface for the article title (and not for much else). Such things are described in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Well the schema section belongs to the last of the three issues. Certainly you are welcome to include them all into one scheme, but will it really be an improvement? If you believe so do. But the initial text of the original article "The European Union value added tax (or EU VAT) is a tax on the consumption of goods and services within the European Union (EU).", is a very bad start. Digging into VAT details does not make an over all introduction what it is all about? Because it is a side thing and also leads to people starting to believe that the EU is taxing anyone? Only governments do and the VAT is national In all countries just syncronised by the EU.

So far, the text you added does not contain any references. Any statements that might be contested should be backed up by reliable sources in the form of a reference. References can be a bit difficult at first, so feel free to ask for assistance.

Certianly it does have a reference, the VAT directive is actually added as external link. Please read the (4) and the (5) of the VAT directives first page: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:347:0001:01:EN:HTML

I will have a think about possible redirects for alternative names.

I think that is a very bad idea. All three aspects of the EU VAT, the union, the directive and the content as well as the fact it is not the EU that tax anyone is the same and can't be separated.

--Boson (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no EU VAT, there are national VAT syncronised by the EU This is dead wrong: "The European Union value added tax (or EU VAT) is a tax on the consumption of goods and services within the European Union (EU).". Such thing just does not exist. The EU is not taxing anyone, their budget is from direct fees of the member states governments to pay. VAT is a national governmental tax in every member state.

Me as a Swede and my company I pay and handle VAT accordingly to the Swedish national momslagen, http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19940200.HTM

An English resident to the English VAT law and a German to the German VAT law and so on.

But the EU VAT union means that by syncronising the VAT accordingly to the VAT directive the member states formed a cartel and trust of a border free Europe. The cartel agreement is that governments that do not follow the VAT directive in its VAT law and applied VAT legal administration, either fines heavily to the EU by verdicts in the EU court or has to leave the union. They don't. And there are bargained exceptions within the VAT direct, seach for any of the member states names and you will find exceptions. Try dfor instance to search for "Denmark" in the VAT directive text: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:347:0001:01:EN:HTML

So I think you should be aware of what "European Union value added tax" is and what it isn't. I think the article is fine, if anything should go it is the last part from "The European Union value added tax (or EU VAT) is a tax on the consumption of goods and services within the European Union (EU).".

Replies

OK, if you are going to register, It's probably not a good idea to continue here, so I will take the discussion to the article talk page. If we want to achieve consensus on the content of the article following your fairly substantial changes, that is probably best done on the article talk page, anyway. Just to address a couple of points you made, before moving to the article talk page:

Re: "The European Union value added tax (or EU VAT) is a tax on the consumption of goods and services within the European Union (EU)."

I think you may have misunderstood this, though the wording should probably be improved to prevent such misunderstanding. It says within the EU, not by the EU.

Re your reply "I think that is a very bad idea. All three aspects of the EU VAT, the union, the directive and the content as well as the fact it is not the EU that tax anyone is the same and can't be separated." in reply to my "I will have a think about possible redirects for alternative names. " This does not make sense to me. I suspect you have misunderstood my statement, in particular what is meant by " redirects".
Re your " I think the article is fine". Though you have made some helpful changes, the article is not "fine". The changes were made with scant regard for the existing content, and, apart from anything else, it is not fully compliant with guidelines and needs a serious copy edit for style and grammar. I will try to address some of the issues in the next few days, but may need to revert your edits in the meantime.

Please re-read my comments and read the guidelines on the lead which I linked to above. What you added does not belong in the lead.

Re your addition " No VAT goes to the EU". This is incorrect (at the very least: misleading). As you are no doubt aware, roughly 0.3% percentage points of VAT (the so-called VAT call rate) goes to the EU (though, I believe, Sweden pays less) and constitutes a significant part of the EUs so-called "own resources", which account for most of the EU budget. The fact that this money is paid to the national authorities together with the rest of the VAT and paid by them to the EU authorities in the form of a levy does not alter the fact that the EU's share of VAT (VAT based own resources) is a significant source of revenue (something like 16% of the budget).

By the way, could you sign your comments on talk pages, please? It is a bit confusing when they are embedded and unsigned. --Boson (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.