Walkers' Sensations Poppadoms vs. HMRC: The Chip of Theseus(ft.com)
ft.com
Walkers' Sensations Poppadoms vs. HMRC: The Chip of Theseus
https://www.ft.com/content/3a64f96e-3214-48ba-9da4-76b3fb7ab8c1
52 comments
FT occasionally publishes entertaining pieces, but make no mistake - their editorial line inherently favours the ultra wealthy and government perspectives. A classic example is their coverage of IR35, crafted to shield big consultancies from competition, not the taxpayer. They parrot government propaganda, as if their critical thinking faculties mysteriously switch off whenever they touch the topic. They favour policies and narratives that sustain the power of large players, often at the expense of small businesses, freelancers, or challengers. Don't feed the beast.
> IR35, crafted to shield big consultancies from competition, not the taxpayer
I think this is a crank belief, and my guess is that you are an aggrieved ex-contractor. But i would definitely be interested to hear more about this theory.
I think this is a crank belief, and my guess is that you are an aggrieved ex-contractor. But i would definitely be interested to hear more about this theory.
IR35 only applies if the worker owns the business delivering the work. Big consultancies are completely exempt — even when their staff do the same job, in the same client seat, for years. The legislation funnels work away from independents toward large firms - it’s a structural outcome of how the rules are written, all under the false banner of tax fairness. At its core, IR35 was about consolidating control over skilled labour, locking clients into corporate pipelines, and eliminating independent operators who could undercut on price and offer better quality.
I also hate IR35, mostly because it has always been so completely unclear on whether anyone is compliant with it. HMRCs own online assessment was shown to be utterly unreliable. My single biggest insurance expense was always for IR35. And you had the constant worry that one day you would be investigated, and have back taxes applied going back years, regardless of how compliant you thought you were. It's a huge horrible mess of a law.
Big consultancies are exempt because all their staff are paid at market rates and taxed as normal employees. Let's be honest - most contractors were paying a much lower rate of tax than anyone else holding a similar position. I believe this gap has now narrowed considerably though - been out of contracting for a few years now.
Big consultancies are exempt because all their staff are paid at market rates and taxed as normal employees. Let's be honest - most contractors were paying a much lower rate of tax than anyone else holding a similar position. I believe this gap has now narrowed considerably though - been out of contracting for a few years now.
You're right that IR35 has always been a mess - but that last point seriously misses the mark.
Big consultancies aren't exempt because they "pay market rates" - they're exempt because the worker doesn't own the delivery company, so the client carries no IR35 risk. Meanwhile, the consultancy bills the client often 2-3x the day rate and books the margin as corporate profit - profit that’s often structured to minimise UK tax exposure (through internal charges, offshore entities, etc.).
It's tempting - and convenient - to reduce a small, one-person business to "just an employee in disguise," but that's classism in its purest form.
Contractors didn't have tax advantages over big consultancies or employees - in fact, they often paid much more. They had none of the multinational tax structuring, none of the offshore routing, none of the internal "cost shifting" that lets large firms declare minimal UK profit and no top accountants on tap.
Employees typically see a small fraction of what the consultancy actually bills for their work. So the idea that big consultancies "do it right" while small independents were somehow gaming the system is a myth - one that government and corporate lobbyists have carefully exploited to shut down independent economic actors and funnel the contracts back to large firms.
Big consultancies aren't exempt because they "pay market rates" - they're exempt because the worker doesn't own the delivery company, so the client carries no IR35 risk. Meanwhile, the consultancy bills the client often 2-3x the day rate and books the margin as corporate profit - profit that’s often structured to minimise UK tax exposure (through internal charges, offshore entities, etc.).
It's tempting - and convenient - to reduce a small, one-person business to "just an employee in disguise," but that's classism in its purest form.
Contractors didn't have tax advantages over big consultancies or employees - in fact, they often paid much more. They had none of the multinational tax structuring, none of the offshore routing, none of the internal "cost shifting" that lets large firms declare minimal UK profit and no top accountants on tap.
Employees typically see a small fraction of what the consultancy actually bills for their work. So the idea that big consultancies "do it right" while small independents were somehow gaming the system is a myth - one that government and corporate lobbyists have carefully exploited to shut down independent economic actors and funnel the contracts back to large firms.
The goal of IR35 is to ensure that someone doing a job pays about the same tax as an employee in a similar position [1].
While you are strictly correct that the legislation doesn't apply unless you are the owner of the small business providing the services - I guarantee you that if the consultancies did not in fact pay their employees at market rates, and instead paid low and then distributed dividends (or some other tax avoiding scheme), then there would be similar legislation that applied to them.
The tax man just doesn't like large numbers of workers paying less tax than they think they should.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-off-payroll-workin...
While you are strictly correct that the legislation doesn't apply unless you are the owner of the small business providing the services - I guarantee you that if the consultancies did not in fact pay their employees at market rates, and instead paid low and then distributed dividends (or some other tax avoiding scheme), then there would be similar legislation that applied to them.
The tax man just doesn't like large numbers of workers paying less tax than they think they should.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-off-payroll-workin...
Big consultancy employees doing the same work are paid far less than independent contractors once were, meaning they pay less tax individually, while the consultancy charges the client 2-10x more and funnels the profit through corporate structures to minimise tax further.
You say, "if big firms did X, they'd face similar rules" - but they already do worse, on a much larger scale, and they're rewarded with government contracts, tax privileges, and regulatory cover.
IR35 wasn't about fairness. It was about shutting down small, skilled independents so big firms could lock in the profit stream.
> The tax man just doesn't like large numbers of workers paying less tax than they think they should.
This is pure classism - the assumption that a working-class person cannot possibly run a legitimate business competing with a big consultancy on price and quality. No: they're just a tax-dodging worker who must be stopped.
You say, "if big firms did X, they'd face similar rules" - but they already do worse, on a much larger scale, and they're rewarded with government contracts, tax privileges, and regulatory cover.
IR35 wasn't about fairness. It was about shutting down small, skilled independents so big firms could lock in the profit stream.
> The tax man just doesn't like large numbers of workers paying less tax than they think they should.
This is pure classism - the assumption that a working-class person cannot possibly run a legitimate business competing with a big consultancy on price and quality. No: they're just a tax-dodging worker who must be stopped.
>IR35 wasn't about fairness. It was about shutting down small, skilled independents so big firms could lock in the profit stream
That is way too sophisticated. The simpler explanation, governments look for ways to squeeze more tax out of people. IR35 was an easy win for them, since it typically impacted only people who were effectively already employees by using tax loop holes to pay less. I know, I was one of them.
That is way too sophisticated. The simpler explanation, governments look for ways to squeeze more tax out of people. IR35 was an easy win for them, since it typically impacted only people who were effectively already employees by using tax loop holes to pay less. I know, I was one of them.
That's not a simpler explanation - that's just swallowing the official propaganda.
IR35 was never about raising tax. If it were, big consultancies would have been a primary hit, as this is where actual tax avoidance is.
You may have accepted the "I was one of them, using loopholes" framing, but running a small business isn't a loophole - and repeating that myth only props up the system that shut you out.
IR35 was never about raising tax. If it were, big consultancies would have been a primary hit, as this is where actual tax avoidance is.
You may have accepted the "I was one of them, using loopholes" framing, but running a small business isn't a loophole - and repeating that myth only props up the system that shut you out.
> but running a small business isn't a loophole
If you run a genuine small business, then you're not in IR35 because you'll be doing jobs for multiple clients.
Come on, let's not pretend here.
If you run a genuine small business, then you're not in IR35 because you'll be doing jobs for multiple clients.
Come on, let's not pretend here.
I think it is entirely possible to run a genuine small business and only work for a single client at a time - given that what is being sold is the time and skills of the owner.
Certainly true that working for multiple clients simultaneously pretty much insulates you from being inside IR35 though.
Certainly true that working for multiple clients simultaneously pretty much insulates you from being inside IR35 though.
IR35 only applies if the worker owns the business and it's irrelevant how many clients they have. A big consultancy can have just one client for years and IR35 won't apply.
I never said IR35 was about fairness.
It was because they really didn't like contractors using tax avoidance schemes to pay a much lower rate of tax than other people in the same position. Pay low, pay no income tax, national insurance or employers national insurance, and take the rest in dividends.
The fact that large multi-nationals do a lot worse tax wise in other areas of business is irrelevant to IR35. They are much harder to get under control than individuals. Although I still maintain that if they paid their workers the same way most contractors did, HMRC would clamp down on that very quickly. Because they can easily go after people's personal tax affairs; big corporations with expensive lawyers not so much.
It's really not classism either. It has nothing to do with being working class.
It was because they really didn't like contractors using tax avoidance schemes to pay a much lower rate of tax than other people in the same position. Pay low, pay no income tax, national insurance or employers national insurance, and take the rest in dividends.
The fact that large multi-nationals do a lot worse tax wise in other areas of business is irrelevant to IR35. They are much harder to get under control than individuals. Although I still maintain that if they paid their workers the same way most contractors did, HMRC would clamp down on that very quickly. Because they can easily go after people's personal tax affairs; big corporations with expensive lawyers not so much.
It's really not classism either. It has nothing to do with being working class.
You're making two contradictory claims.
First, you say big consultancies would face similar crackdowns if they paid their workers like contractors. But that ignores the fact that big consultancies already do far worse - they pay those workers far less, charge the client multiple times more, and funnel profits through complex corporate tax minimisation schemes. And somehow, that's fine?
> Pay low, pay no income tax, national insurance or employers national insurance, and take the rest in dividends.
That's a misleading argument. Taxes aren't hypothecated - it doesn't matter if it's labelled income tax, NICs, or dividends. What matters is overall tax contribution relative to the full value of the work delivered.
A contractor's small business typically generated more total taxable value - as both personal and business tax - compared to the portion of client fees that actually passed through to consultancy employees and stayed in UK tax channels, once the consultancy layered on profit extraction, internal costs, and offshore routing.
Secondly, this "tax avoidance" narrative was easy to sell because most people don't understand how the tax system works - and because the independent contractor is visible, familiar, and easy to resent. They look just like the person judging them - maybe even sit at the next desk - but they're earning more and keeping the rewards of their own work.
It's far easier to stir anger at that visible success than to explain how large firms quietly charge clients £1,000 a day for the same job, pay the employee £45k, and funnel the surplus offshore. The real extraction happens invisibly - while the system trains people to aim their anger sideways, not upwards.
> Large companies are just harder to control.
That's no excuse. They could have been included under IR35 - they weren't, because the system is designed to shield institutional profit chains, not treat all labour pipelines equally.
And no, it's absolutely about class - because IR35 rests on the assumption that a skilled, independent worker cannot possibly run a legitimate business, only a disguised employee gaming the system. That's structural classism - whether you acknowledge it or not.
First, you say big consultancies would face similar crackdowns if they paid their workers like contractors. But that ignores the fact that big consultancies already do far worse - they pay those workers far less, charge the client multiple times more, and funnel profits through complex corporate tax minimisation schemes. And somehow, that's fine?
> Pay low, pay no income tax, national insurance or employers national insurance, and take the rest in dividends.
That's a misleading argument. Taxes aren't hypothecated - it doesn't matter if it's labelled income tax, NICs, or dividends. What matters is overall tax contribution relative to the full value of the work delivered.
A contractor's small business typically generated more total taxable value - as both personal and business tax - compared to the portion of client fees that actually passed through to consultancy employees and stayed in UK tax channels, once the consultancy layered on profit extraction, internal costs, and offshore routing.
Secondly, this "tax avoidance" narrative was easy to sell because most people don't understand how the tax system works - and because the independent contractor is visible, familiar, and easy to resent. They look just like the person judging them - maybe even sit at the next desk - but they're earning more and keeping the rewards of their own work.
It's far easier to stir anger at that visible success than to explain how large firms quietly charge clients £1,000 a day for the same job, pay the employee £45k, and funnel the surplus offshore. The real extraction happens invisibly - while the system trains people to aim their anger sideways, not upwards.
> Large companies are just harder to control.
That's no excuse. They could have been included under IR35 - they weren't, because the system is designed to shield institutional profit chains, not treat all labour pipelines equally.
And no, it's absolutely about class - because IR35 rests on the assumption that a skilled, independent worker cannot possibly run a legitimate business, only a disguised employee gaming the system. That's structural classism - whether you acknowledge it or not.
I think we will have to agree to disagree!
I fundamentally don't think IR35 is a class-based attack on the working class. It was introduced by a Labour government.
The consultancies don't pay their workers far less than they could get in a similar position as an employee of the client - or they would leave! They do charge the client a lot more of course - that's their profit, deserved or not.
While I totally acknowledge that large multinationals play fast and loose with tax, it's a totally different problem than going after small fry. I would welcome efforts to crack down on that, it's just very, very hard to pull off.
So my view is simply that IR35 was the taxman trying to bring in more revenue by targeting a common tax avoidance scheme used by people they thought would be easy to target. And then executed it incredibly poorly.
I fundamentally don't think IR35 is a class-based attack on the working class. It was introduced by a Labour government.
The consultancies don't pay their workers far less than they could get in a similar position as an employee of the client - or they would leave! They do charge the client a lot more of course - that's their profit, deserved or not.
While I totally acknowledge that large multinationals play fast and loose with tax, it's a totally different problem than going after small fry. I would welcome efforts to crack down on that, it's just very, very hard to pull off.
So my view is simply that IR35 was the taxman trying to bring in more revenue by targeting a common tax avoidance scheme used by people they thought would be easy to target. And then executed it incredibly poorly.
The class dynamic isn't negated just because a Labour government introduced IR35 - Labour has historically protected institutional labour structures, not independent working people. The origin doesn't matter, the outcome does: IR35 crushed the ability of skilled individuals to operate as businesses, while shielding corporate profit flows.
> The consultancies don't pay their workers far less than they could get as employees of the client — or they would leave! They do charge more, of course — that's their profit.
Yes - and when those workers realised they were undervalued, they left to set up their own businesses. That was precisely one of the points IR35 was lobbied for: to stop that exodus and lock talent back into captive corporate pipelines. This was never about tax - it was about control over the market.
> I would welcome efforts to crack down on that, it's just very, very hard to pull off.
No - they could have simply included large corporates under IR35. That was a deliberate exclusion, not a technical challenge.
> My view is IR35 was the taxman trying to bring in more revenue by targeting a common tax avoidance scheme used by people they thought were easy to target.
Running a legitimate business isn't a "tax avoidance scheme." Contractors paid personal and corporate taxes - and proportionally, they paid far more onshore than the consultancies replacing them.
IR35 is a market capture - one of the most efficient, targeted consolidations of skilled labour the UK has seen. And it works.
> The consultancies don't pay their workers far less than they could get as employees of the client — or they would leave! They do charge more, of course — that's their profit.
Yes - and when those workers realised they were undervalued, they left to set up their own businesses. That was precisely one of the points IR35 was lobbied for: to stop that exodus and lock talent back into captive corporate pipelines. This was never about tax - it was about control over the market.
> I would welcome efforts to crack down on that, it's just very, very hard to pull off.
No - they could have simply included large corporates under IR35. That was a deliberate exclusion, not a technical challenge.
> My view is IR35 was the taxman trying to bring in more revenue by targeting a common tax avoidance scheme used by people they thought were easy to target.
Running a legitimate business isn't a "tax avoidance scheme." Contractors paid personal and corporate taxes - and proportionally, they paid far more onshore than the consultancies replacing them.
IR35 is a market capture - one of the most efficient, targeted consolidations of skilled labour the UK has seen. And it works.
As much as I agree with many of the biases of the Grauniad, I feel increasingly irritated by the blatant pandering to my sensibilities. The 'what happened' part of the article is so short on details it's barely there and the 'analysis' part is almost always just telling me who are the goodies and who are the baddies. If they quote experts, it's always an explanation of the most basic shit, because that's all the journalist understood. All of the non-elite media is like this: the analytics seem to have told them that ragebait is the only thing that gets ad revenue.
I just want to know what's going on in the world, and interesting analysis. I don't want analysis that tells me that I'm a good person, I want analysis that tells me something interesting about the world, even if I don't agree with it. If I have to pay a Bond villain to get that, so be it.
I just want to know what's going on in the world, and interesting analysis. I don't want analysis that tells me that I'm a good person, I want analysis that tells me something interesting about the world, even if I don't agree with it. If I have to pay a Bond villain to get that, so be it.
I get it - FT feels like the antidote to shallow ragebait because it's polished, detailed, and authoritative. But in my opinion, papers like the FT, exist less to inform you fully and more to shape your perception - a polished form of narrative management for the benefit of the said elites, not you. The elites themselves, though, aren't relying on newspaper analysis. They have access to internal briefings, specialised research, paid private reports, strategic intelligence, and direct advisor networks - insights and data that never make it into public media channels.
So, so, true. Even more irksome when the country is faced with massive economic challenges and the politicians make choices that they seek to avoid justifying and do not appear to be in the national interest.
They cater to their readers
https://commercial.ft.com/audience/
https://commercial.ft.com/audience/
Do you have a recommendation of where one should read?
This is frankly not true. They have news but also opinion pieces and it is important to separate the two. It is also important to look at the specific journalist/guest who wrote it which they make sure to feature prominently at the top along with any disclosures of shares/positions.
They for example often publish articles encouraging lower taxes, but also those advocating for wealth taxes, land value taxes, estate taxes, non-dom/exit fees which are often the ones which specifically target the ultra rich.
The important thing to note is that on any financial trade, a party is on each side, and both will be reading the FT so they have a vested interest in trying to present both sides to capture this audience.
There are heavy-weight bond investors for example, who believe government debt is too high, and we need to tax the ultra-wealthy in order to reduce deficits.
They for example often publish articles encouraging lower taxes, but also those advocating for wealth taxes, land value taxes, estate taxes, non-dom/exit fees which are often the ones which specifically target the ultra rich.
The important thing to note is that on any financial trade, a party is on each side, and both will be reading the FT so they have a vested interest in trying to present both sides to capture this audience.
There are heavy-weight bond investors for example, who believe government debt is too high, and we need to tax the ultra-wealthy in order to reduce deficits.
The FT is well worth reading (regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, it’s useful to get a sense of how the wealthy and powerful think by reading their papers) but note that the FT Alphaville blog, which published this piece, is free to read if you create an account (you don’t need to pay).
This is not necessarily a paper read by the rich and powerful, but just by those in the finance industry/politics/academia/c-suites/board-members. It combines two key markets, objective no-nonense news pieces heavy with data and a light analysis (it's very good at separating the data from analysis/opinion) and also opinion pieces from high-influence people such as the top members of various governments, central banks and think tanks. You can read an opinion pieces from the heritage foundation, next to one written by the founders of just stop oil or other.
> This is not necessarily a paper read by the rich and powerful, but just by those in the finance industry/politics/academia/c-suites/board-members.
I’m not sure who you think wealthy and powerful people are, if not those
I’m not sure who you think wealthy and powerful people are, if not those
Reminds me of McVitie's challenge to get the Jaffa Cake on the zero VAT tariff for cakes, even if technically it's a biscuit (that carries a higher VAT rate).
McVitie's won with the astute argument that, unlike other biscuits, when a Jaffa Cake goes stale it becomes hard like a cake, not soft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status
McVitie's won with the astute argument that, unlike other biscuits, when a Jaffa Cake goes stale it becomes hard like a cake, not soft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status
In the first tribunal Walkers argued that Sensations are not crisps because:
> They are not ready for human consumption
I understand why they made the argument but I couldn't understand how. I tracked down the judgement from last year:
> Walkers initially argued that the products were designed to be used with dips, chutneys and pickles, and as a side with a meal. On this basis, they contended that the products required further preparation before consumption and so did not fall within Note 5.
> In the hearing, Walkers accepted that there was nothing on the consumer packaging that stated that any preparation was required. It was agreed that the packaging would be required to state any such necessary preparation. We also noted that Walkers’ own promotional material showed people eating the product directly from the package, without any dips etc, and without a meal. On that basis, and in the light of case law on ‘preparation’ in this context, Walkers agreed that they were no longer relying on this argument.
> They are not ready for human consumption
I understand why they made the argument but I couldn't understand how. I tracked down the judgement from last year:
> Walkers initially argued that the products were designed to be used with dips, chutneys and pickles, and as a side with a meal. On this basis, they contended that the products required further preparation before consumption and so did not fall within Note 5.
> In the hearing, Walkers accepted that there was nothing on the consumer packaging that stated that any preparation was required. It was agreed that the packaging would be required to state any such necessary preparation. We also noted that Walkers’ own promotional material showed people eating the product directly from the package, without any dips etc, and without a meal. On that basis, and in the light of case law on ‘preparation’ in this context, Walkers agreed that they were no longer relying on this argument.
There’s a similar thing with chocolate: cooking chocolate is zero-rated, but VAT is due on eating chocolate. They are basically the same products: the main differences are the packaging (presence or absence of cooking instructions) and where they are shelved (with the cake ingredients or with the sweets).
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["potato crisps"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [delicious snack] involved in this case is [quite definitely] that
I have no comment on the legalities, but I have to insist that the lime and coriander variety are amazing.
I always thought poppadoms were made from fermented lentil dough, so I looked it up and they're made with basically anything - even potato!
My assumption was chickpeas, but evidently anything starchy works
A papad-like thing can be made from potato flour, but I struggle to equate it to a poppadom since potatoes are not native to the subcontinent. The classic papad is made from urad lentil flour. They are infamously tricky to make from scratch. Anecdotally, all the Indians whose houses I've been to use the brand that has the little boy photo on the sleeve and Lijjat papad brand in Hindi script in big letters across the front.
I suspect the potato choice from Walkers is just because they're a crisp / snack company so it keeps their ingredient pipeline simple.
I probably wouldn't really count these are "real" poppadoms, they're poppadom inspired mostly potato based snacks[1], sold in the crisps isle.
[1] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/264339339 for an example of the product at a shop.
I probably wouldn't really count these are "real" poppadoms, they're poppadom inspired mostly potato based snacks[1], sold in the crisps isle.
[1] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/264339339 for an example of the product at a shop.
By the same token, Pringles are potato-chip inspired mostly potato-based snacks:
https://www.pringles.com/en-us/products/pringles-the-origina...
Whilst "dried potatoes" are the top ingredient, they also contain plenty of corn, rice, and wheat products.
Surprisingly, I have found that in the States, the "purest" seeming snack food is Fritos Original Corn Chips:
https://www.pepsicoproductfacts.com/Home/product?formula=LBS...
"Ingredients: Corn, vegetable oil (corn and/or canola oil), and salt."
Some of you may have read my story of the Olive Section at Carrefour in Catalonia. The same thing had happened with the same friend when she visited me in Phoenix. She had heard tell of a vast selection of crisp flavours. So we went to the convenience store/Subway/gas station on the corner, where half of the store shelves are chips, dip, and salty snacks. She was impressed and chose two bags, including a chili lime flavour.
And here I sit with the Kalamata olives and the Manchego cheese. Jamón Serrano is not easy to come by; sometimes I settle for Prosciutto.
https://www.pringles.com/en-us/products/pringles-the-origina...
Whilst "dried potatoes" are the top ingredient, they also contain plenty of corn, rice, and wheat products.
Surprisingly, I have found that in the States, the "purest" seeming snack food is Fritos Original Corn Chips:
https://www.pepsicoproductfacts.com/Home/product?formula=LBS...
"Ingredients: Corn, vegetable oil (corn and/or canola oil), and salt."
Some of you may have read my story of the Olive Section at Carrefour in Catalonia. The same thing had happened with the same friend when she visited me in Phoenix. She had heard tell of a vast selection of crisp flavours. So we went to the convenience store/Subway/gas station on the corner, where half of the store shelves are chips, dip, and salty snacks. She was impressed and chose two bags, including a chili lime flavour.
And here I sit with the Kalamata olives and the Manchego cheese. Jamón Serrano is not easy to come by; sometimes I settle for Prosciutto.
> Some of you may have read my story of the Olive Section at Carrefour in Catalonia.
This sounds right up my aisle. Where can I find the story?
This sounds right up my aisle. Where can I find the story?
How can they talk about Walker's Poppadom Chips, without mentioning Poppadom Elvis[0]?
Once you've seen it, it's hard to get out of your head.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QduTLFILORY
Once you've seen it, it's hard to get out of your head.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QduTLFILORY
Damn you, that’s going be stuck in my head all day.
> I care not when you call me big poppadom
Huge credit to whoever came up with this subtitle
Huge credit to whoever came up with this subtitle
I wonder why the UK has a 20% tariff on potato chips, er I mean crisps. Is it to stop from being overrun by clearly superior Irish crisps (O'Donnells Ballymaloe Relish and Cheddar in particular)?
Are you getting confused between tariffs and VAT? VAT is the equivalent of sales tax.
From what I can tell, the tariff on "Potatoes, Thin slices, fried or baked, whether or not salted or flavoured, in airtight packings, suitable for immediate consumption" from Ireland is 14%, reduced to 0% if they originate in Ireland https://www.trade-tariff.service.gov.uk/commodities/20052020...
From what I can tell, the tariff on "Potatoes, Thin slices, fried or baked, whether or not salted or flavoured, in airtight packings, suitable for immediate consumption" from Ireland is 14%, reduced to 0% if they originate in Ireland https://www.trade-tariff.service.gov.uk/commodities/20052020...
It's Value Added Tax, which is basically a sales tax[1], not a tariff (unless you're a certain president who thinks it is?).
The idea is that VAT was supposed to apply to everything equally (AFAIK in most EU countries it does?), but applying it to some things like food, children’s clothes or books was seen as kinda a bad idea when they brought it in for the UK in the 1970s, so they don't have it (technically the do, but at a 0% rate which is a technicality only accountants care about). But with food they didn't want to apply to frivolous luxuries. Which in some cases is fairly obvious (alcohol has VAT), and snacks like crisps are also bourgeois luxuries, so get the full 20% (oh, for the days of 17.5%...). This split does lead to some interesting tax tribunal decisions, so a chocolate covered biscuit does have VAT, but a cake with a chocolate topping doesn't, leading to the famous Jaffa Cake case, or this case about rather crisp like Poppadoms made by a crisp company.
[1] Except a lot more confusing.
The idea is that VAT was supposed to apply to everything equally (AFAIK in most EU countries it does?), but applying it to some things like food, children’s clothes or books was seen as kinda a bad idea when they brought it in for the UK in the 1970s, so they don't have it (technically the do, but at a 0% rate which is a technicality only accountants care about). But with food they didn't want to apply to frivolous luxuries. Which in some cases is fairly obvious (alcohol has VAT), and snacks like crisps are also bourgeois luxuries, so get the full 20% (oh, for the days of 17.5%...). This split does lead to some interesting tax tribunal decisions, so a chocolate covered biscuit does have VAT, but a cake with a chocolate topping doesn't, leading to the famous Jaffa Cake case, or this case about rather crisp like Poppadoms made by a crisp company.
[1] Except a lot more confusing.
> by clearly superior Irish crisps
Here is a map of where they're available in the UK[0]. I think you under-estimate the cut-throat nature and absolute consumer abundance of good crisps in the wider British Isles...
0: https://stores-ballymaloefoods.ie/tesco
Here is a map of where they're available in the UK[0]. I think you under-estimate the cut-throat nature and absolute consumer abundance of good crisps in the wider British Isles...
0: https://stores-ballymaloefoods.ie/tesco
Map seems to be showing distribution centres, not actual stores - at least for Tesco.
This article implies that Discos are not crisps. Surely this is madness?
Quite an amusing account.
TIL that Walkers in England is different than Walker’s Shortbread, the latter being the makers of really tasty goods in attractive keepsake tins. I was going to pick one up as a commemoration of King Charles III.
Also, papadums are spelled differently by Indian restaurants around here, because it is, after all, in transliteration.
This was inevitable as mass-produced snack food is influenced and derived from foreign cuisine. Papadums served in a restaurant are about 6” diameter, puffy, thin and delicate. Caraway seeds and other bumps are often noticeable. Always need a good chutney to dip into.
The Indian groceries also sell shelves full of savory crispy snacks that run the gamut. I hope that Walkers can hold their niche amongst cricket fans.
Also, papadums are spelled differently by Indian restaurants around here, because it is, after all, in transliteration.
This was inevitable as mass-produced snack food is influenced and derived from foreign cuisine. Papadums served in a restaurant are about 6” diameter, puffy, thin and delicate. Caraway seeds and other bumps are often noticeable. Always need a good chutney to dip into.
The Indian groceries also sell shelves full of savory crispy snacks that run the gamut. I hope that Walkers can hold their niche amongst cricket fans.
There's a lotta different varieties... There are the poppadoms, the small bites which are the subject of the article.
Then there are paapads, which are basically the thin, less bubbly, often nearly plate-sized North Indian variety, often dosed with a smattering of spice. These are fire toasted and are the ones you commonly get at your local Indian for appetizer.
Then there's the South Indian appalam/pappadam which is smaller, made of rice, and often bubbly. Those usually are not spiced and are fried, often to eat with rice meals and not alone.
In some parts of South India like Bengaluru and Calicut, you can even get pappadams made out of jackfruit. These are usually made into conical shapes and are eaten as snacks.
Then there are paapads, which are basically the thin, less bubbly, often nearly plate-sized North Indian variety, often dosed with a smattering of spice. These are fire toasted and are the ones you commonly get at your local Indian for appetizer.
Then there's the South Indian appalam/pappadam which is smaller, made of rice, and often bubbly. Those usually are not spiced and are fried, often to eat with rice meals and not alone.
In some parts of South India like Bengaluru and Calicut, you can even get pappadams made out of jackfruit. These are usually made into conical shapes and are eaten as snacks.
Again, in transliteration, those names are all different ways of spelling the same word, borrowed even from Sri Lankan Tamil, even. It is unclear whether they are descriptive of a variety, or they are just varying because a different chef in a different region wrote in Latin characters in a different way.
பப்படம் → पापड़
The English Wikipedia covers the name's variants. And the jackfruit variety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papadam#Etymology
It is not my favorite appetizer, but the restaurants all seem to prepare them about the same. This is in the American Southwest with restaurants advertising cuisine of North India (vegetarian), Punjab, New Delhi, Pakistan, etc.
They are probably the most delicate crisp I've ever eaten. They crumble when I breathe on them or if they touch a drop of chutney. I wouldn't purchase them in a grocery store, for fear they would already be in crumbly pieces.
பப்படம் → पापड़
The English Wikipedia covers the name's variants. And the jackfruit variety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papadam#Etymology
It is not my favorite appetizer, but the restaurants all seem to prepare them about the same. This is in the American Southwest with restaurants advertising cuisine of North India (vegetarian), Punjab, New Delhi, Pakistan, etc.
They are probably the most delicate crisp I've ever eaten. They crumble when I breathe on them or if they touch a drop of chutney. I wouldn't purchase them in a grocery store, for fear they would already be in crumbly pieces.
> Again, in transliteration, those names are all different ways of spelling the same word, borrowed even from Sri Lankan Tamil, even. It is unclear whether they are descriptive of a variety, or they are just varying because a different chef in a different region wrote in Latin characters in a different way.
This is what I was arguing against. All of the above examples I quoted are different products with just the same root word. The only similarity might be the base ingredients and the shape.
> It is not my favorite appetizer, but the restaurants all seem to prepare them about the same. This is in the American Southwest with restaurants advertising cuisine of North India (vegetarian), Punjab, New Delhi, Pakistan, etc.
That's because all of those restaurants are still North Indian cuisine. A South Indian restaurant will have the other kind. And honestly, they aren't supposed to be eaten as appetizers, but rather along with the meal. The pappadom with chutney and sambar combo was something I only learnt of when I went to the UK the first time.
This is what I was arguing against. All of the above examples I quoted are different products with just the same root word. The only similarity might be the base ingredients and the shape.
> It is not my favorite appetizer, but the restaurants all seem to prepare them about the same. This is in the American Southwest with restaurants advertising cuisine of North India (vegetarian), Punjab, New Delhi, Pakistan, etc.
That's because all of those restaurants are still North Indian cuisine. A South Indian restaurant will have the other kind. And honestly, they aren't supposed to be eaten as appetizers, but rather along with the meal. The pappadom with chutney and sambar combo was something I only learnt of when I went to the UK the first time.
Okay, I'm sold. When I have the money, I'll get a subscription to the FT.
On a less jocular note, this article is a good reminder that, contrary to most discussion here on HN, laws aren't algorithms that the powers that be execute against the world, but are rather heuristics that courts have to interpret in the context of specific cases.