Coining it in: Businesses must stop playing fast and loose with our cash

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Cash bashing: Why should I be disadvantaged for using cash, rather than a contactless credit card? (Alamy/PA)

Your story about the woman who got trapped in a car park because she only had cash and no contactless card is exactly why I am fed up with companies operating a one-way system (“Woman goes viral for getting stuck in a parking lot that doesn’t accept cash payments”, Monday 30 September).

It happens all the time now. From car parks refusing loose change to businesses charging fees to use their card machine, people who use cash are being penalised.

A cab recently refused to take my payment by card as my journey was under the “minimum” and he didn’t want to pay any charges for the card machine. It meant I had to wander around London in the pouring rain desperately looking for a cash point.

Why should I be disadvantaged for having only one form of payment with me? Why can companies dictate their preferred method of payment when both card and cash are legal tender?

Businesses should be better regulated so that customers who pay cash aren’t left short.

Daisy Howley

Middlesex

Why should private healthcare be exempt from VAT?

On the matter of VAT on private school fees, I wish to draw attention to a significant anomaly which demonstrates the hypocrisy within the proposed tax, and that is that private healthcare is zero-rated (“Imposing VAT on private schools ‘wicked, stupid and cruel’, government told”, Thursday 5 September).

I am fully aware of the argument as to why parents who choose to send their children to private schools should be exempt from VAT. These parents and grandparents of course, already contribute to state education in their Council Tax.

Meanwhile, private health care and treatment in the UK is zero-rated for VAT, and this does not appear to be related to whether the private healthcare provider is a registered charity or not. Where they are a registered charity – eg Bupa – then the private provider derives further benefits. It is not dependent on whether the treatment is medically necessary or a matter of personal choice. All are zero-rated for VAT... though I understand HMRC are currently challenging some cosmetic procedure invoices on an individual basis.

All UK citizens have contributed to NHS care, ostensibly through national insurance contributions. Why should those who are able to afford private health care be subsidised by having their care zero-rated?

If 20 per cent VAT were charged on private healthcare procedures including surgery, would it not bring in valuable additional funds for a seriously compromised NHS?

The arguments are precisely the same. Those who choose private healthcare are removing themselves from NHS waiting lists allowing those who are less able to take their place and move up the waiting list.

Those who choose private healthcare of course are not providing themselves with better “opportunities” – a criticism levelled against those who choose private education. But, those who choose private healthcare are certainly “buying” less suffering and, in many cases, a longer, more comfortable life.

Why does this benefit from a 20 per cent Treasury subsidy, while parents who sacrifice their income for their children, who are likely to contribute more to society in terms of increased earnings and taxes (which ultimately benefits us all), are now penalised by being landed with a 20 per cent additional burden?

The imposition of VAT on private school fees is demonstrably hypocritical. If it is time to levy VAT on private school fees it is a greater priority to levy VAT on private healthcare.

Philippe Boissière

Edinburgh

Who would believe Boris’s version of events?

It is so difficult to decide who to believe when considering the source of the Covid outbreak (“Boris Johnson claims Covid originated in lab, in sudden U-turn in his views”, Sunday 29 September).

On the one hand, we have a scientific study carried out by a team of qualified scientists from across the US and France, who found it was “beyond reasonable doubt” that Covid originated in a Chinese animal market after analysing hundreds of genetic samples.

On the other, we have experts like Boris Johnson telling us about frisky little critters jumping out of test tubes.

When the next pandemic hits, hopefully we will have a more intelligent leader...

Geoff Forward

Stirling

IPP prisoners must be freed

I am at a loss to understand why the government is not acting to release any of the prisoners held under the infamous IPP programme (“IPP sentences are a stain on the UK – it’s time we did something about them”, Saturday 28 September).

The justice secretary is said to be concerned that dangerous prisoners may be released. But is this not an admission that the prison system is in such dire straits that it is impossible to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who pose no threat to society?

Unfortunately, this is probably true given that dangerous prisoners were erroneously freed during the recent early release scheme.

David Felton

Crewe

It’s time Britain borrowed big to build 

The evidence from the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, estimating the additional cost to the NHS of treating the 262,000 pensioners impacted by the cut in winter fuel payments, illustrates the naivety of Labour continuing the Tory austerity agenda (“Rachel Reeves warned winter fuel payment cuts won’t save as much money as expected”, Sunday 29 September).

The cost to the NHS of treating these individuals has been estimated to be more than £169m a year – and exemplifies the damaging impact of continuing with an economic programme of swingeing cuts.

Reductions in public expenditure and investment at the wrong time in the economic cycle are counterproductive, inhibiting growth at a time when it is desperately needed, and increasing the size of the debt relative to economic output.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves intends to fill the financial black hole through a combination of cuts, including those to the winter fuel allowance, as well as cutting capital investment programmes.

However, there are alternatives. Borrowing big to invest as part of a modern industrial strategy is an entirely mainstream alternative, as promoted by the likes of leading economists John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Stiglitz.

We need to invest heavily in the new technologies and infrastructure that will drive growth. However, compared to the EU and the US, our programmes to date have been pitiful.

If the Labour government wants to grow the economy, the current approach being taken will do nothing to deliver this and will only serve to damage it further. It is very much a case of more continuing pain, for less gain.

Alex Orr

Edinburgh

Prophet and loss

Agreeing with the sentiments behind Just Stop Oil protests is not enough – we have to act (Letters: “Just Stop Oil’s tactics will only alienate people”, Sunday 29 September).

I see the activists as the modern equivalent of the Old Testament prophets who were disbelieved and ridiculed. And that tended not to end well, either.

Joanna Pallister

Durham City