Treasury Minister thinks paying with cash is wrong
Discussion
eccles said:
Oakey said:
eccles said:
But you offer nothing to back up why you don't believe that figure.....
Burden of proof is on the person making the claims, no?Get real, people don't believe figures when it suits them (or their ideology).
IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
Oakey said:
rs1952 said:
That would be a couple of thousand calls a day about the Tesco Express down the road, and that's just for starters
By the way - you might be able to buy a sense of humour from somewhere - have you tried Ebay? Don't forget to report the transaction to HMRC if you do
johnfm said:
What a ridiculous argument.
IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
Precisely. The absence of any methodology to support the thesis is very dodgy indeed.IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
This is just politics. A stupid little "research group" no doubt with links to politicians and a desire to get some more funding, plays to the crowd with a bunch of ill-considered headlines to get the rabble roused.
People are very naive when it comes to the activities of many "think tanks", NGO's and "research groups". Some of them are truly poisonous little operations, devoid of scruples, always looking for a way to swing a grant from some political party. Some left, some right, but many of them deeply dodgy and masquerading behind a veil of pseudo-academia.
Sadly, once you have some exposure to them, all that happens is that you become more cynical..
JontyR said:
Eric
What is stopping you having 2 companys? Both T/A, but one to handle parts and the other to handle labour. that way you could stay under the £77k threshold
HMRC have a principle they apply called "disaggregation". In other words, if they see that a single trading entity has been split artificially to keep one or both entities below the compulsory VAT Registration threshold (£77,000), they will add the two turnovers together and insist that they register for VAT properly.What is stopping you having 2 companys? Both T/A, but one to handle parts and the other to handle labour. that way you could stay under the £77k threshold
They are not stupid - although they can be incompetent - which is not quite the same thing.
So Eric, if it's accepted people are trying to avoid VAT registration because it makes them uncompetetive (although surely advantage is gained in claiming back VAT on parts purchased etc...) Would you argue to lower the limit to catch all or raise it so only Medium and large companies are caught in it?
toppstuff said:
johnfm said:
What a ridiculous argument.
IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
Precisely. The absence of any methodology to support the thesis is very dodgy indeed.IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
This is just politics. A stupid little "research group" no doubt with links to politicians and a desire to get some more funding, plays to the crowd with a bunch of ill-considered headlines to get the rabble roused.
People are very naive when it comes to the activities of many "think tanks", NGO's and "research groups". Some of them are truly poisonous little operations, devoid of scruples, always looking for a way to swing a grant from some political party. Some left, some right, but many of them deeply dodgy and masquerading behind a veil of pseudo-academia.
Sadly, once you have some exposure to them, all that happens is that you become more cynical..
toppstuff said:
johnfm said:
What a ridiculous argument.
IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
Precisely. The absence of any methodology to support the thesis is very dodgy indeed.IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
This is just politics. A stupid little "research group" no doubt with links to politicians and a desire to get some more funding, plays to the crowd with a bunch of ill-considered headlines to get the rabble roused.
People are very naive when it comes to the activities of many "think tanks", NGO's and "research groups". Some of them are truly poisonous little operations, devoid of scruples, always looking for a way to swing a grant from some political party. Some left, some right, but many of them deeply dodgy and masquerading behind a veil of pseudo-academia.
Sadly, once you have some exposure to them, all that happens is that you become more cynical..
mattnunn said:
So Eric, if it's accepted people are trying to avoid VAT registration because it makes them uncompetetive (although surely advantage is gained in claiming back VAT on parts purchased etc...) Would you argue to lower the limit to catch all or raise it so only Medium and large companies are caught in it?
Lower the threshold to catch all but the very smallest trader - as is the norm in most other countries that have VAT. The UK has one of the highest turnover thresholds.
johnfm said:
eccles said:
Oakey said:
eccles said:
But you offer nothing to back up why you don't believe that figure.....
Burden of proof is on the person making the claims, no?Get real, people don't believe figures when it suits them (or their ideology).
IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
Do you really think they'll publish all their research in the article?
eccles said:
How do you know it's not?
Do you really think they'll publish all their research in the article?
YES !!! They are a research organisation. They are SUPPOSED to publish their methodology. If, for example, a science research organisation published a press release about research on Panda mating patterns, it would be expected that they show their research methodology. It is how it works. This is no different. Do you really think they'll publish all their research in the article?
Jeez you are a gullible godsend to the "research" apparatiks that feed the media. You haven't recently sent some money to some struggling Doctor in Nigeria lately have you? Are you that unquestioning?
Let me ask a simple question:
Given that the Trillions of cash stuffed offshore is subject to at least the same secrecy and data protection laws that we have here, how can a "research organisation" with a dodgy website and offering no methodology to support their claims, find a way to circumvent the rules of privacy without going to jail for eternity?
Simply looking up lists of offshore jurisdictions and adding up their assets under custody or management achieves nothing. Anyone can do that.
But what they cannot know ( or anyone can know ) is where the money is attributed. How much of it is deposited from Mr John Smith of Streatham and how much of it by Roman Abramovich? How much of the money is the cash reserves from the Gazprom, the Russian energy Co, or the earnings from a Chinese mining company in Africa that doesn't trust the banking system in Nigeria? No-one knows.
Therefore, to extrapolate and present as fact that individual countries are missing out on certain "tax income" is, to put it mildly, completely disingenuous. And the timing of the release is too opportunistic to be considered anything other than politically motivated pandering to the media.
I have dealt with so called "research groups" in the past. Many of them are obnoxious, nasty little groups with a massive political agenda who live in the pocket of special interest groups and will say and do anything to get funding for their next round of ill-informed nonsense. I see nothing here to make me believe that this lot are any better.
I actually don't care if it is true or not. But I do care when leaping suppositions and dodgy data is presented as fact.
eccles said:
johnfm said:
eccles said:
Oakey said:
eccles said:
But you offer nothing to back up why you don't believe that figure.....
Burden of proof is on the person making the claims, no?Get real, people don't believe figures when it suits them (or their ideology).
IF you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.
If it is such a bold claim as £1,000,000,000,000 unpaid taxes, I would think pretty detailed methodology and data would be available to enable independent verification.
Do you really think they'll publish all their research in the article?
I like to check veracity of 'facts'
Oakey said:
johnfm said:
Why do think I have asked for a link to the claim?
I like to check veracity of 'facts'
The irony being that earlier ViperPict (I think) was deriding people for believing everything the MSM 'spoon fed them'.I like to check veracity of 'facts'
The enquiring mind believes nothing ( whether they like the supposed facts or not ) in the absence of any reasonable evidence.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff