Treasury Minister thinks paying with cash is wrong
Discussion
This is the same treasury minister, who got us to pay for his second home stamp duty. Never mind avoiding or evading, get the public to pay for it, seems a much easier solution.
"David Gauke has branded those who avoid tax as ‘morally’ questionable – but he is open to charges of hypocrisy.
In 2006/7, Mr Gauke used his parliamentary expenses to ensure that taxpayers bore the cost of his stamp duty payments when he moved house.
He claimed £10,248.32 in ‘mortgaged payments’ on his second home that year. That broke down as ‘Inland Revenue Stamp Duty’ of £8,550.
The rest was accumulated solicitors’ fees, land registry and property searches.
He was later cleared of any wrongdoing and has not had to pay any of the money back."
"David Gauke has branded those who avoid tax as ‘morally’ questionable – but he is open to charges of hypocrisy.
In 2006/7, Mr Gauke used his parliamentary expenses to ensure that taxpayers bore the cost of his stamp duty payments when he moved house.
He claimed £10,248.32 in ‘mortgaged payments’ on his second home that year. That broke down as ‘Inland Revenue Stamp Duty’ of £8,550.
The rest was accumulated solicitors’ fees, land registry and property searches.
He was later cleared of any wrongdoing and has not had to pay any of the money back."
Reminds me of the Yes Minister sketch on tax
Sir Humphrey: No, no, no Minister, HMRC don't work out what they need then work out how to get it. They pitch for as much as they can get and THEN decide what to spend it on.
The more money they take off us the more stupid schemes they will find to waste it on.
Therefore I feel morally I should pay as little as possible so the government only spend it on the essentials.
Sir Humphrey: No, no, no Minister, HMRC don't work out what they need then work out how to get it. They pitch for as much as they can get and THEN decide what to spend it on.
The more money they take off us the more stupid schemes they will find to waste it on.
Therefore I feel morally I should pay as little as possible so the government only spend it on the essentials.
Traveller said:
This is the same treasury minister, who got us to pay for his second home stamp duty. Never mind avoiding or evading, get the public to pay for it, seems a much easier solution.
"David Gauke has branded those who avoid tax as ‘morally’ questionable – but he is open to charges of hypocrisy.
In 2006/7, Mr Gauke used his parliamentary expenses to ensure that taxpayers bore the cost of his stamp duty payments when he moved house.
He claimed £10,248.32 in ‘mortgaged payments’ on his second home that year. That broke down as ‘Inland Revenue Stamp Duty’ of £8,550.
The rest was accumulated solicitors’ fees, land registry and property searches.
He was later cleared of any wrongdoing and has not had to pay any of the money back."
What a "David Gauke has branded those who avoid tax as ‘morally’ questionable – but he is open to charges of hypocrisy.
In 2006/7, Mr Gauke used his parliamentary expenses to ensure that taxpayers bore the cost of his stamp duty payments when he moved house.
He claimed £10,248.32 in ‘mortgaged payments’ on his second home that year. That broke down as ‘Inland Revenue Stamp Duty’ of £8,550.
The rest was accumulated solicitors’ fees, land registry and property searches.
He was later cleared of any wrongdoing and has not had to pay any of the money back."
!ViperPict said:
But the point is, regardless of definitions and how hard it is to avoid tax, a very conservative number is that the super-rich have avoided paying £1TN into the UK coffers.
There's NO WAY that the cumulative amount of tax not being paid on 'homers' comes to that. Say there are 1 million tradesmen taking cash in hand payments in the UK (I'd imagine there's nowhere near that number), they'd EACH need to have had had £6M of work to avoid enough tax (if they did that 100% of the time!) to cumulatively make up the £1TN. Apparently the figure is more likely to be closer to £2TN also.
No, you are missing my point. There's NO WAY that the cumulative amount of tax not being paid on 'homers' comes to that. Say there are 1 million tradesmen taking cash in hand payments in the UK (I'd imagine there's nowhere near that number), they'd EACH need to have had had £6M of work to avoid enough tax (if they did that 100% of the time!) to cumulatively make up the £1TN. Apparently the figure is more likely to be closer to £2TN also.
First off, I don't believe the £1TRN number.
Secondly, many of the "Super-Rich" are not from the UK. What do you propose to do about them?
It is very easy and tempting to lump together some nebulous grouping of people, call them the "Super Rich", man the barricades, label them as enemies of the people and demand for their heads on a spike, but IMO that is over-simplification and populist b
ks. I am not rich. Far from it. But I know of a few that are and they do not fit the stereotype that the media portrays. How long will cash last? the next step will be thought control. I wish I'd been
born 30 years earlier, I reckon I could handle a bit of life on mars, smoking in
pubs, going down the pub every lunchtime with the lads from work for "a few pints".
God how I miss civilisation. The thing has to be that if these idiots didn't spend
so much money on all the overheads associated with running a country, they wouldn't
need to close down each and every loophole.
born 30 years earlier, I reckon I could handle a bit of life on mars, smoking in
pubs, going down the pub every lunchtime with the lads from work for "a few pints".
God how I miss civilisation. The thing has to be that if these idiots didn't spend
so much money on all the overheads associated with running a country, they wouldn't
need to close down each and every loophole.
Some here are losing sight of the fact that the black economy keeps almost all the money within the UK border whereas the wealthy take the money across borders.
So even if the amounts were equal, though probably not, the net effect is far more marked.
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
So even if the amounts were equal, though probably not, the net effect is far more marked.
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
The fella is just underpinning the social divisions in society by suggesting that 'trades workmen'are diddling the rest of us by tax evasion. They have already driven a societal wedge between people who claim benefits and working people. Only my opinion so Turbobloke will be along in a moment to stamp 'his authority' by indicating I haven't posted any evidence to base my opinion on!
Gene Vincent said:
Some here are losing sight of the fact that the black economy keeps almost all the money within the UK border whereas the wealthy take the money across borders.
So even if the amounts were equal, though probably not, the net effect is far more marked.
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
Local cash has oiled the wheels of small enterprise (should not mess with that too much) - the amounts are not insignificant, but it does feel like whilst elephants go past the check point unhindered, every ant will get clobbered.So even if the amounts were equal, though probably not, the net effect is far more marked.
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
Gene Vincent said:
Some here are losing sight of the fact that the black economy keeps almost all the money within the UK border whereas the wealthy take the money across borders.
So even if the amounts were equal, though probably not, the net effect is far more marked.
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
The black economy in counterfeit goods and illegal services is managed by multinational organised criminal networks.So even if the amounts were equal, though probably not, the net effect is far more marked.
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
Paying a plumber in cash does not make you an operator in the black economy, it's a perfectly legal and morally sound transaction.
Gene Vincent said:
Remember... it wasn't plumbers and builders that screwed up the economy.
True.Debt has screwed up the economy.
The banks traded debt, profited from debt, lost money on debt, had to be baled out because of debt, but Governments create debt.
Governments create debt to be popular. They create debt so that we can all buy s
t we don't need with money we don't have. Governments create debt to waste in stupid schemes like NHS computer projects that costs billions and then get cancelled, or MOD procurement that doesn't work. Governments create debt so that they can give money to people with one hand, so that they then pay tax on the same money back to where it came from.
The whole system is pretty stupid when you look at it.
If the politicians ever take their heads out of their arses, they would realise that using debt to be paying out with one hand and taxing with the other ( and employing a massive bureaucracy to run the whole charade ) is the problem.
toppstuff said:
ViperPict said:
But the point is, regardless of definitions and how hard it is to avoid tax, a very conservative number is that the super-rich have avoided paying £1TN into the UK coffers.
There's NO WAY that the cumulative amount of tax not being paid on 'homers' comes to that. Say there are 1 million tradesmen taking cash in hand payments in the UK (I'd imagine there's nowhere near that number), they'd EACH need to have had had £6M of work to avoid enough tax (if they did that 100% of the time!) to cumulatively make up the £1TN. Apparently the figure is more likely to be closer to £2TN also.
No, you are missing my point. There's NO WAY that the cumulative amount of tax not being paid on 'homers' comes to that. Say there are 1 million tradesmen taking cash in hand payments in the UK (I'd imagine there's nowhere near that number), they'd EACH need to have had had £6M of work to avoid enough tax (if they did that 100% of the time!) to cumulatively make up the £1TN. Apparently the figure is more likely to be closer to £2TN also.
First off, I don't believe the £1TRN number.
Secondly, many of the "Super-Rich" are not from the UK. What do you propose to do about them?
It is very easy and tempting to lump together some nebulous grouping of people, call them the "Super Rich", man the barricades, label them as enemies of the people and demand for their heads on a spike, but IMO that is over-simplification and populist b
ks. I am not rich. Far from it. But I know of a few that are and they do not fit the stereotype that the media portrays. And, from what I understand of the report, the £1TN figure was defined as that money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't, taking into account the nationality of the super rich etc etc.
toppstuff said:
True.
Debt has screwed up the economy.
The banks traded debt, profited from debt, lost money on debt, had to be baled out because of debt, but Governments create debt.
Governments create debt to be popular. They create debt so that we can all buy st we don't need with money we don't have.
Governments create debt to waste in stupid schemes like NHS computer projects that costs billions and then get cancelled, or MOD procurement that doesn't work. Governments create debt so that they can give money to people with one hand, so that they then pay tax on the same money back to where it came from.
The whole system is pretty stupid when you look at it.
If the politicians ever take their heads out of their arses, they would realise that using debt to be paying out with one hand and taxing with the other ( and employing a massive bureaucracy to run the whole charade ) is the problem.
Interesting but Iraq, Libya, Syria did not have these problems, and nor do other Middle East countries Debt has screwed up the economy.
The banks traded debt, profited from debt, lost money on debt, had to be baled out because of debt, but Governments create debt.
Governments create debt to be popular. They create debt so that we can all buy s
t we don't need with money we don't have. Governments create debt to waste in stupid schemes like NHS computer projects that costs billions and then get cancelled, or MOD procurement that doesn't work. Governments create debt so that they can give money to people with one hand, so that they then pay tax on the same money back to where it came from.
The whole system is pretty stupid when you look at it.
If the politicians ever take their heads out of their arses, they would realise that using debt to be paying out with one hand and taxing with the other ( and employing a massive bureaucracy to run the whole charade ) is the problem.
martin84 said:
The last time I looked it was legal to pay somebody with cash.
However, does anyone really think that an MP, the bastion of lying expenses claiming/fiddling snout in trough scum, is in any position to talk about what is morally right?!?!
ViperPict said:
On what grounds are you disputing the £1TN figure? That was apparently a conservative estimate (although not a Tory estimate!).
And, from what I understand of the report, the £1TN figure was defined as that money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't, taking into account the nationality of the super rich etc etc.
On what grounds are you believing the figure, or the motivation of the people writing the report?And, from what I understand of the report, the £1TN figure was defined as that money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't, taking into account the nationality of the super rich etc etc.
What is the methodology used to calculate the number? Where do they source their data? Who runs the organisation providing the data? Can you trust it?
Just because some organisation creates a headline that confirms to your pre-conceived ideas of politics and the role of different elements of society, does not mean that it is accurate.
Your own statement "money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't", reveals bias. Why should the money have gone onto the UK books? As VAT? Income tax? Capital gains tax, corporation tax?
Stamp duty? ( not anymore, the nasty Tory's have closed the stamp duty loophole that allowed rich foreigners to avoid that particular tax ) ...
I no more believe the £1TRN number than I believe the idea that Saddam has WMD's that could be deployed in 45 minutes. It is all b
ks.Just because your personal view of the world wants to believe the numbers, doesn't make it true.
toppstuff said:
ViperPict said:
On what grounds are you disputing the £1TN figure? That was apparently a conservative estimate (although not a Tory estimate!).
And, from what I understand of the report, the £1TN figure was defined as that money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't, taking into account the nationality of the super rich etc etc.
On what grounds are you believing the figure, or the motivation of the people writing the report?And, from what I understand of the report, the £1TN figure was defined as that money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't, taking into account the nationality of the super rich etc etc.
What is the methodology used to calculate the number? Where do they source their data? Who runs the organisation providing the data? Can you trust it?
Just because some organisation creates a headline that confirms to your pre-conceived ideas of politics and the role of different elements of society, does not mean that it is accurate.
Your own statement "money that should have gone into the UK books but didn't", reveals bias. Why should the money have gone onto the UK books? As VAT? Income tax? Capital gains tax, corporation tax?
Stamp duty? ( not anymore, the nasty Tory's have closed the stamp duty loophole that allowed rich foreigners to avoid that particular tax ) ...
I no more believe the £1TRN number than I believe the idea that Saddam has WMD's that could be deployed in 45 minutes. It is all b
ks.Just because your personal view of the world wants to believe the numbers, doesn't make it true.
toppstuff said:
Puggit said:
I just paid cash to my window cleaner (not 5 mins ago) - does that make me bad?
Did he give you a VAT invoice?If not, then in principle, you may be complicit in his tax evasion, yes.
With a window cleaner the sums are small but if a builder is laying a new patio and receiving £5000 in cash in a brown envelope without a VAT invoice, then this is quite serious tax evasion when it is multiplied across the country.
I suspect that if it were possible to assess ( which it probably isn't) the sums of tax not paid are probably huge.
But builders are salt-of-the-earth working class types and therefore one of us, not to be criticised, unlike these b
ds working in the city and paying tax on PAYE.. 
The threshold for VAT registration is currently a turnover £77,000 ( http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/register/when-to-... ) Note that this turnover. not profit.
However, your average common or garden window cleaner has no plant or equipment that would represent more than a tiny fraction of their turnover, so in that case turnover does indeed equal income (as near as dammit).
If you know of any one-man-band window cleaners who are earning more than £77k please let us know. Many of us might think of taking up the profession in that neck of the woods
rs1952 said:
As others have pointed out, you really ought to get your facts straight before you post.
The threshold for VAT registration is currently a turnover £77,000 ( http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/register/when-to-... ) Note that this turnover. not profit.
However, your average common or garden window cleaner has no plant or equipment that would represent more than a tiny fraction of their income, so in that case turnover does indeed equal income (as near as dammit).
If you know of any one-man-band window cleaners who are earning more than £77k please let us know. Many of us might think of taking up the profession in that neck of the woods
Your are being disingenuous. I made the point that window cleaners are probably excepted, but the example regarding the builder stands. The threshold for VAT registration is currently a turnover £77,000 ( http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/register/when-to-... ) Note that this turnover. not profit.
However, your average common or garden window cleaner has no plant or equipment that would represent more than a tiny fraction of their income, so in that case turnover does indeed equal income (as near as dammit).
If you know of any one-man-band window cleaners who are earning more than £77k please let us know. Many of us might think of taking up the profession in that neck of the woods
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff