Treasury Minister thinks paying with cash is wrong
Discussion
eccles said:
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.
By the same token, claiming that there are trillions of unpaid taxes without revealing the methodology behind the calculation should also be challenged.
It is not my job to prove their numbers. It is their job. I don't believe them - although I welcome the opportunity to see how they arrived at the number so I can form an opinion.
All they seem to have done, is to count up the assets held in custody or management in offshore jurisdictions. Given that we cannot attribute where that money originates from, how long it has been there and what it is used for, I fail to understand how these people can come up with a number that represents "lost" tax revenue.
Maybe you can explain it to me?
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.
ks. Please clarify - what specific parts of the report lead you to believe there are ulterior motives in it's production?toppstuff said:
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
However, as I and some others on this thread see it, the matter of what a business - any business - does about their tax liability is not the responsibility of their customers to police. It is a perfectly acceptable and legal course of action to settle your bills by paying cash.
I had some work done some time ago, and the tradesman asked me to make an electronic transfer to his wife's account. It made no odds to me and I was quite happy to agree to his request in full and final settlement of his account.
It appears that he had been something of a naughty boy with other customers, because a couple of years later I had a visit from the local CID who were investigating him, and I was asked why I had made a payment to his wife. I told them that he had asked me to, it made no difference to me, and as far as I knew it could have been for this month's housekeeping money. End of that line of questioning
ViperPict said:
Why take the conspiracy theory stance that this is some sort subversive report and not worthy of the paper it's printed on. The report is out there and, from what I believe, it is as independent as any such report can be. Please give me reasons why you do not believe it. Note that you're not raising issues of uncertainty, you're stating it's bks. Please clarify - what specific parts of the report lead you to believe there are ulterior motives in it's production?
I don't believe the numbers because I don't trust the source. I don't trust the source because I don't see any methodology, or peer review. And I don't know who the publishers are, or who funds them.ks. Please clarify - what specific parts of the report lead you to believe there are ulterior motives in it's production?Its not about politics. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. But I will not fall into the trap of believing something just because it reinforces my view, and neither should you.
I repeat my point above:
If someone shouts from the roof tops that the Moon is made of cheese, everyone would expect him to prove it. And I will suspend belief until they do.
By the same token, claiming that there are trillions of unpaid taxes without revealing the methodology behind the calculation should also be challenged.
It is not my job to prove their numbers. It is their job. I don't believe them - although I welcome the opportunity to see how they arrived at the number so I can form an opinion.
All they seem to have done, is to count up the assets held in custody or management in offshore jurisdictions. Given that we cannot attribute where that money originates from, how long it has been there and what it is used for, I fail to understand how these people can come up with a number that represents "lost" tax revenue.
Maybe you can explain it to me?
BoRED S2upid said:
Hows about everytime we pay in cash we give HMRC a quick call to provide them with the details, tens of thousands of calls a day to HMRC after all we want to do the right thing.
That would be a couple of thousand calls a day about the Tesco Express down the road, and that's just for starters
toppstuff said:
eccles said:
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.
By the same token, claiming that there are trillions of unpaid taxes without revealing the methodology behind the calculation should also be challenged.
It is not my job to prove their numbers. It is their job. I don't believe them - although I welcome the opportunity to see how they arrived at the number so I can form an opinion.
All they seem to have done, is to count up the assets held in custody or management in offshore jurisdictions. Given that we cannot attribute where that money originates from, how long it has been there and what it is used for, I fail to understand how these people can come up with a number that represents "lost" tax revenue.
Maybe you can explain it to me?
Alex said:
A plumber friend of mine is turning down work to avoid the VAT registration limit. Charging VAT will make him uncompetitive. Arbitrary thresholds always have unintended consequences.
Is it not possible to have 2 companies? Would this be legal?? (Eric?)If so, could you not have the parts coming and being invoiced from 1 company and the labour from a different one. If you are "trading as" then you wouldnt have extra big accountancy fees as if you were ltd.
As for this debate...Im with Eric, and he has already put some very good points across, which in typical style of PH people have come on here and read the first post then added their point without reading the points of others.
The minister might not be the best person to stand on the moral high ground, but he does have a point. We need to pay taxes otherwise we don't have the facilities that come with those taxes (police, health care etc), as said above. He never meant to say that paying in cash, it's trying to say, "If I pay cash can I have a discount", and this is just wrong. I get this all the time in business, people are basically asking me to break the law. Yes I can discount my parts or labour, but if you are asking me to avoid paying the VAT, then I say no.
As for paying cash is a cheaper option, then no...it is more expensive for me to pay cash into my business account than if you pay via a debit card, or electronic banking.
So long and short of it is why do we all b
h at the super rich that squirrel away their monies in legal but immoral pots, yet the little old tradesman that doesn't pay his taxes is ok?eccles said:
So you've formed an opinion on the figures, yet you've admitted you don't know how they were collated or who the publishers are. Not just rejecting figure so it fits in with your ideology are you?
I think that assuming a claim is unproven in the absence of evidence is not about ideology. After all, it is how science works.
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).
I find it strange that so many claim there's nothing morally wrong with seeking / agreeing to save money by paying cash for things - knowing full well that they're enabling someone else to avoid income tax and or VAT on it.
On the same forum a member was torn to bits and supposedly reported to HMRC for asking how much of his cash sales he should put through the books.
Double standards?
On the same forum a member was torn to bits and supposedly reported to HMRC for asking how much of his cash sales he should put through the books.
Double standards?
P-Jay said:
I find it strange that so many claim there's nothing morally wrong with seeking / agreeing to save money by paying cash for things - knowing full well that they're enabling someone else to avoid income tax and or VAT on it.
On the same forum a member was torn to bits and supposedly reported to HMRC for asking how much of his cash sales he should put through the books.
Double standards?
Of course you are assuming when you pay cash to a tradesman that he's not putting it through the books. He may well be above board.On the same forum a member was torn to bits and supposedly reported to HMRC for asking how much of his cash sales he should put through the books.
Double standards?
muppets_mate said:
pacman1 said:
The concept of one of our government ministers telling us what is, or is not morally wrong has no credibility whatsoever, imo.
A new gold standard in pious rhetoric! <snip>
+ lotsA new gold standard in pious rhetoric! <snip>
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
toppstuff said:
eccles said:
So you've formed an opinion on the figures, yet you've admitted you don't know how they were collated or who the publishers are. Not just rejecting figure so it fits in with your ideology are you?
I think that assuming a claim is unproven in the absence of evidence is not about ideology. After all, it is how science works.
You obviously haven't read the report but are refuting it.
Rather subjective and non-scientific if you ask me.
I remain open-minded about it. But I'd like you to tell me SPECIFICALLY why I should not believe the numbers. You can't say they're b
kes just because you don't know enough about the report.If you want to take a hypothesis type of approach, the report is stating a certain position (i.e., providing a hypothesis or a starting point of discussion). Now over to you to objectively try and disprove the hypothesis based on specific issues.
Well, if we take a position on where the UK is now albeit knackered its waaaay better than Greece. So anything where people are evading tax as a matter of course then I think this is wrong. They have a hard time collecting their taxes as its so corrupt and I'd rather be where we are then where Greece has got to. I know there are other issues but if people pay about £100 a year in tax each on average you know its gonna be difficult for the govt to deal with. :P
I'm not that happy with cash in hand and its easy to say it's not my problem but the moment you have to forgo a receipt then any reasonable person knows the score as why wouldn't you get a receipt for the work otherwise?
It is always gonna happen and that a politician with a murky past said it doesn't take away from the fact that general evasion needs to be kept to a reasonable limit or things will break down. With 'reasonable avoidance' I don't have much problem as it encourages people to look into it and either close it or re-classify. I 'avoid' as much tax as I can buy using as much as I can of the 11k Self Select ISA limit each year. If I was lucky enough to have a load of good picks I could get huge sums totally free from the tax man within the ISA so I guess some education between avoidance and evasion is needed, as if I have big losses I can't write anything down against tax at the same time to be fair. If later in life you want to put 100% of income into a pension then you pay no income tax if you haven't breached the yearly limit but this is established perks to encourage certain behaviours the govt wants?
Also I think there needs to be talk on tackling current 'avoidance' schemes like K2 where they are not using established perks but sailing up to the line of evasion, but as someone said it may be deemed in retrospect evasion and be reclaimed as I hope it is as anyone thinking that paying a few percent compared to 40-50% is not going to get you in trouble is a fool.
I'm not that happy with cash in hand and its easy to say it's not my problem but the moment you have to forgo a receipt then any reasonable person knows the score as why wouldn't you get a receipt for the work otherwise?
It is always gonna happen and that a politician with a murky past said it doesn't take away from the fact that general evasion needs to be kept to a reasonable limit or things will break down. With 'reasonable avoidance' I don't have much problem as it encourages people to look into it and either close it or re-classify. I 'avoid' as much tax as I can buy using as much as I can of the 11k Self Select ISA limit each year. If I was lucky enough to have a load of good picks I could get huge sums totally free from the tax man within the ISA so I guess some education between avoidance and evasion is needed, as if I have big losses I can't write anything down against tax at the same time to be fair. If later in life you want to put 100% of income into a pension then you pay no income tax if you haven't breached the yearly limit but this is established perks to encourage certain behaviours the govt wants?
Also I think there needs to be talk on tackling current 'avoidance' schemes like K2 where they are not using established perks but sailing up to the line of evasion, but as someone said it may be deemed in retrospect evasion and be reclaimed as I hope it is as anyone thinking that paying a few percent compared to 40-50% is not going to get you in trouble is a fool.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff