Is it legal for Croatian restaurants to offer a discount for paying with cash?
Julie P
A I shall look at this '5 per cent off for cash' transaction through the opposite end of the telescope. The restaurant is effectively saying: 'We charge 5.26 per cent more for paying with plastic.' (Trust me on the numbers, please.) That is definitely not legal. The European Union tells traders across Europe: 'You're not allowed to charge your customers extra for using a credit or debit card.'
One reason the EU can make this demand is because it limits the commission that financial institutions can slice from each transaction. This is in marked contrast to the US. Surcharges of 3 to 4 per cent are widely applied for paying with plastic, reflecting the fees businesses must pay to credit card providers. One restaurant in Oyster Bay, Long Island, even prints menus with dual pricing.
So what is happening in Croatia? I shall begin with a couple of benign possibilities: that the restaurant needs a cash-flow boost to pay staff wages. Getting your payment immediately rather than waiting a week or two for the bank to hand it over will help. Or perhaps the proprietor just loathes paperwork and prefers to deal only with cash.
I suspect, though, that the real reason is to conceal from the tax authorities the true revenue of the restaurant. That can be a strong temptation; across the Adriatic, the Italian authorities fought back against tax evasion by demanding that every customer of a merchant be given a proper tax receipt and must carry it off the premises.
Doubtless, many visitors to Croatia are tempted to cut the cost of eating and drinking by taking up the cash offer – more so, I imagine, if they are citizens of nations where the euro is also the national currency. Whether or not you avail yourself is up to you.
Just bear in mind that withdrawing cash from ATMs increasingly involves a commission payment that could wipe out the savings.
Q Why do you have to be searched three times at Dalaman airport?
Jon O
A In common with other Turkish airports, everyone entering the passenger terminal at Dalaman on the Mediterranean coast is screened, along with their baggage, before proceeding to check-in. This arrangement is at odds with most airports in Europe, where there is unrestricted access for passengers and their baggage. The entry check was actually in place before the 2016 terrorist attack at Istanbul's old airport in which more than 40 people died. Since then, security measures for airport terminals have been stepped up.
After check-in, passengers proceed 'airside' through the normal security checkpoint that every airport has. But passengers on flights bound to the UK – of which there are a substantial number – are subject to a third search at the departure gate. That is at the insistence of the Department for Transport and Infrastructure, the ministry responsible for aviation security.
The extra check before boarding the aircraft was brought in at a time when there were serious concerns about terrorism in Turkey. For a time, both the UK and the US banned large electronic devices such as laptops and tablet computers from the cabins of flights from Turkey. The sudden ban appeared to be based on intelligence suggesting that bomb makers belonging to al-Qaeda in the Middle East had improved their skills and expanded their geographic spread. The authorities in London and Washington DC feared that would-be suicide bombers could try to bring down an aircraft with explosives concealed in consumer electronics.
While that ban ended relatively quickly, the UK government continues to demand additional aviation security on flights from Turkey. Britain's biggest budget airline, easyJet, says: 'There is no requirement to come to the airport earlier than shown on your confirmation email, but please make sure you arrive at the gate as soon as your gate is announced.' Passengers are advised to ensure their personal electronic items are charged ahead of the check. 'If you cannot turn on your device, you may be required to travel without it or place your item for safe carriage in the hold,' easyJet says.
Similar extra security measures are applied to flights from Tunisia, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt to the UK.
Q A friend of mine has recently had an operation involving a general anaesthetic and says he has been told he can't fly for six months. Why is this?
Shamus McF
A Anyone who has a general anaesthetic is likely to have had some significant surgery, which presents some risk of the potentially fatal condition of deep vein thrombosis. There is some inconsistency about how long you should leave before flying again. I have not heard of a six-month grounding, but I dare say in some circumstances this would be appropriate.
The Civil Aviation Authority offers something of a surgery tariff, saying: 'It is appropriate to allow one to two days following keyhole surgery and between four and five days for simple abdominal surgery. Major chest or abdominal surgery requires a period of approximately 10 days. Simple cataract or corneal laser surgery do not cause major complications and therefore 24 hours is an adequate gap between surgery and flying.'
The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital in Birmingham tells patients who undergo serious work on the operating table: 'Avoid long-haul travel for four weeks either side of your surgery.' It adds: 'The risk of DVT within the general population is 1:1,000. This risk is increased with long journeys (more than four hours), particularly flying.'
Patients are also urged to 'inform your surgeon of your travel plans' – presumably so that he or she can provide an opinion of the wisdom of making a journey soon after surgery, and possibly offer advice such as wearing 'travel socks' during the trip.
Airlines are always keen to know if passengers have had recent medical treatment – bluntly, because they don't want to have to divert flights due to a medical emergency. It is worth talking to the carrier in any situation where health could be an issue at altitude. On a related subject, a reminder that anyone who has a plaster cast because of a fracture will not be permitted to fly unless the cast has been split for its entire length. This will allow room for the limb to swell when the air pressure drops. A letter from the practitioner explaining the injury and confirming fitness will also be useful.
Q I saw you comparing fares on Ryanair and easyJet with British Airways from Edinburgh to London. Out of interest, how many people actually manage to get hold of Ryanair or easyJet tickets for that actual price? The add-ons as you move to the payment page mean that these starting prices are often wildly optimistic.
Name supplied
A The background: you are referring to my article highlighting an extremely high fare on British Airways for the few remaining seats on a mid-morning departure in four weeks. The 10.25am flight from Edinburgh to London Heathrow on Friday 21 June is currently priced at £1,183. This is 70 times the Ryanair fare for its morning flight to Stansted of £17; easyJet's cheapest trip to Luton is £19.
As the article explains, BA prices those particular seats at a level that no one would rationally pay. The airline does not want anyone to book a seat just between Edinburgh and Heathrow. The aim is to keep space available for a late-booking, premium intercontinental passenger – who might spend £5,000 on a one-way flight via Heathrow to the Middle East or the US. The 10.25am departure uses a small A319 aircraft and has a lot of potentially lucrative long-haul connections.
To answer your question about the other end of the price spectrum: plenty of people manage to buy Ryanair and easyJet flights at fares below £20. I have never found these starting prices on easyJet and Ryanair to be 'wildly optimistic'. You simply have to decline all the options you are offered during the online purchase journey: speedy boarding, baggage, advance seat selection, etc. Those of us who travel light and generally alone are well versed in dodging all the add-ons.
To be sure of getting the best deal, book direct with the airline rather than through an 'online travel agent' who may add extra charges. But bear in mind that the small cabin baggage limit will be strictly enforced. Of that £17 Edinburgh-Stansted fare on Ryanair, the first £13 goes to chancellor Rachel Reeves as air passenger duty, and once airport charges are paid, the airline is looking at a loss. So, understandably, airlines are always keen to augment their 'ancillary revenue'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Gary Neville hits out at Labour over taxes despite earlier support
Gary Neville has criticised Labour's national insurance rise in a sign of discontent from one of Sir Keir Starmer's most high-profile supporters. The former Manchester United and England footballer, who interviewed Starmer for Labour's election broadcast last year, said the government had been wrong to make it harder for businesses to employ staff. Neville said the economy was 'not settling' and added that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, should have held off on the contentious £25 billion increase in employer national insurance. The former right-back was one of Labour's most vocal supporters and before the election was a big backer of Starmer personally, having previously appeared at the party's conference to urge people to 'get behind' their leader, whom he described as a 'serious politician'. He has a range of business interests in property, hotels and football and has joined other senior executives and entrepreneurs in their criticism of Reeves' decision to raise the cost of employment. 'I honestly don't believe that companies and small businesses should be deterred from employing people. So, I think the national insurance rise was one that I feel probably could have been held back, particularly in terms of the way in which the economy was,' he told Sky News. 'It's been a tough economy now for a good few years, and I did think that once there was a change of government, and once there was some stability, that we would get something settling,' he said. 'But it's not settling locally in our country, but it is not settling actually, to be fair, in many places in the world either.' Neville was more supportive of an increase in the minimum wage, which rose 6.7 per cent in April to £12.21 an hour, saying: 'I don't think we can ever criticise the government for increasing the minimum wage. I honestly believe that people should be paid more so I don't think that's something that you can be critical of. I do think that the national insurance rise, though, was a challenge.' Neville revealed in 2022 that he had joined Labour, saying at the time that the party 'has to come towards the centre'. At last year's election, Starmer filmed a half-hour interview with Neville walking in the Lake District, which became a key element of the party's campaign. Starmer said he would be 'ready to deliver from the get-go' and acknowledged: 'Tax levels now are the highest for 70 years, so we can't just go and pull the tax lever.' Neville warned him that 'the country are just desperately disappointed, just generally, in politicians'. Speaking on Wednesday, Neville said conditions were 'really tough' for UK businesses that were finding their margins squeezed by rising costs. 'It's tough. It's really, really tough because cost of products has gone up, cost of everything, utilities, rents, everything, has gone up,' Neville said. 'It is challenging at this moment in time — there are certain sectors where it's tough to operate, just purely because of rising costs and people finding it tough to be able to find the money to go and support those local businesses.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer is waking up to the reality of Labour's North Sea retreat
Could even Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, yet be persuaded to change his mind? Slowly but surely, reality is beginning to dawn on Downing Street. Crushing the life out of the North Sea's oil and gas won't help the environment. It's going to cost dearly in lost tax revenues, jobs and industrial expertise, and because even by the Climate Change Committee's calculations, the UK is going to consume billions of barrels more in oil before reaching net zero in 2050, it will further damage the balance of payments and threaten to leave an already vulnerable pound even more exposed to currency crisis. Anyone with half a brain would surely reverse course immediately on being presented with these self-evident truths; and indeed, for a moment there, I thought Sir Keir Starmer might actually do so after being lectured this week by Donald Trump on how Britain was throwing away its 'treasure chest' of North Sea assets. As if to placate his new bestie, Sir Keir said that oil and gas will remain part of the UK's energy mix 'for a long time'. As indeed it must. At the current rate of decline in North Sea production, it won't be our own oil and gas that supplies the market but someone else's – the Middle East, Norway, the US and perhaps even Russia. This plainly makes no sense at all when we still have plentiful quantities of the stuff sitting there underexploited on our very own doorstep. What's more, having others produce the stuff for us is likely to cost more in terms of emissions than extracting it ourselves, defeating the whole purpose of the policy. Things could scarcely look sillier; manifesto pledges essentially commit Labour to closing down a once-thriving but still entirely necessary industry. These commitments included no new development licences and raising the effective rate of tax on North Sea production to an almost prohibitive 78pc. As Trump pointed out, nobody is going to drill for oil and gas faced with taxes like these. I'm not party to Ed Miliband's latest thinking on these issues; the man's got religion, and won't easily be persuaded that he's barking up the wrong tree. Yet closer to the heart of government, in Downing Street and in the Treasury, the negative consequences of the current policy stance are better understood, and even Miliband, now that he's in government, is said to be more cognisant of what's at stake. Already, the Government is under intense pressure to change tack. Politically, any such climbdown would be difficult to manage, but beyond environmental activists, it's hard to see who of any importance might complain. Certainly, it would be difficult in terms of public relations. Inevitably, it would be spun as the UK giving up on climate change, even though, if other aspects of the energy transition are maintained, it would not in practical terms make a blind bit of difference. What's being asked is merely a bit of import substitution. OK, so that's not quite true of North Sea oil production, which is largely exported. But a lot of this comes back to us in refined form, and virtually all gas production is domestically consumed. The Climate Change Committee estimates that in getting to net zero, the UK economy still stands to consume 13bn to 15bn barrels of oil and gas between now and the target date of 2050. As things stand, just 4bn of that consumption is likely to come from UK offshore oil and gas production, with the rest having to be imported. With the right incentives, this home-grown element could plausibly be doubled, according to analysis commissioned by Offshore Energy UK, an industry lobby group, creating £165bn of additional economic value. For a Government desperate for economic growth, it would be an easy and relatively straightforward win, which would be perfectly compatible with current environmental commitments. It was presumptuous of Trump to lecture Starmer on how he should run his own country, but someone has to say these things, and on oil and gas production, it is just simple common sense. But one thing that Trump did get wrong was his observation that a drill-baby-drill approach to the North Sea would mean 'far lower [energy] costs for the people'. This would only be the case if other aspects of Britain's energy transition were abandoned, and even then, it would require oil and gas prices to stay low. Regrettably, this rarely happens for long, Putin's invasion of Ukraine being only the latest example of an economically crippling spike in carbon-based fuel costs. There's plenty of scope in the North Sea for further oil and gas extraction, but in overall terms, this is a mature and declining basin. However much the spigots are opened, it cannot make the UK self-sufficient in hydrocarbons. Onshore fracking could potentially make up the difference, but that boat sailed a long time ago, and even a Reform government would struggle to bring it back. Lack of self-sufficiency makes the UK completely different to the US, whose relatively low energy costs are the result of substantial domestic overproduction with limited opportunities for selling the surplus in export markets. In any case, gas prices in the UK, both wholesale and retail, are pretty similar to the rest of Europe; the big dividing line comes in electricity prices, which are among the highest. However much Miliband might want to deny it, this is almost entirely down to the pursuit of net zero, which requires the construction of a completely new infrastructure of renewables generation, together with the distribution network to link it all up. In the meantime, the old system of largely gas-fired generation has to be kept going for the days when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. In essence, we have committed ourselves to a duplicate system, one on top of the other, or an obviously grossly inefficient way of powering the country. As it is, the Government has been forced to offer a number of particularly high, minimum strike prices to ensure that its latest round of renewables licences does not flop like the last one. It will be many years before there is sufficient installed renewable, nuclear and storage capacity to be able to reliably switch the old infrastructure off. Sadly, Miliband's promise that household fuel bills will be £300 lower by 2030 is just wishful thinking. Giving offshore oil and gas a new lease of life won't help much with the cost of power, but it will both support the balance of payments and significantly boost long-term tax revenues. It will also help sustain thousands of highly paid jobs in Scotland and beyond, currently fast leaching away to other, less self-righteous parts of the world. Once upon a time, these things mattered to governments; common sense somehow got lost along the way.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Russian consumer price index falls for second consecutive week
MOSCOW, July 30 (Reuters) - Russia's consumer price index fell by 0.05% in the latest week, the state statistical agency said on Wednesday, marking a second consecutive week of deflation. The decrease brought overall price growth this year to 4.51%, compared with 5.06% for the same period last year. Prices for fruits and vegetables fell by 4.1% during the week. Last week, Russia recorded weekly deflation for the first time since September 2024. On an annual basis, inflation slowed to 9.02%, down from 9.17%, in the previous week, the Economy Ministry said. The central bank, which closely watches the weekly inflation gauge, cut its key rate by 200 basis points to 18% last week and lowered its 2025 inflation forecast to between 6% and 7% from between 7% and 8%.
