Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government outlined
new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made
cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a
large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that news?

Nemo wrote:
Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government outlined
new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made
cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a
large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that news?

Its bloody silly.

We should not tax the things we want to happen, like working. We should
tax the things we need to reduce, like fuel, smoking, and importing
materials and finished goods.

I have long advocated a state pension age related (but not work related)
that replaces the complex system of the dole and benefits, and zero
income tax, with infinitely more taxes raised on the sale on non
subsistence goods. Then scrap the minimum wage, because its no longer
needed as people get the pension whether they work or not.

There are issues of policing BUT it has the following advantages

- people who live here pay the sales and import taxes on goods bought
here. And high earners will WANT to live here. The presence of slots of
stinkingly rich people here with miney to burn can only be goodm,, even
if luxury goods are expensive.

- the labour market is totally flexible. People can work when they like
for who they like - they lose no benefits by working - at anything at
all. From fruit picking to washing cars and polishing your boots.

- because the state pension is limited to those who are actually born
here, not those who arrive (tough, but fair) low income people will not
find it easy to immigrate. However high earners to whom the state
pension is almost an irrelevance, will.

- because taxation is not applied to subsistence goods - essentially
food clothing and other basics - lower paid workers will be massively
subsidised and be able to compete well with offshore workers without any
directives needing to be applied. If the state pension is say £3.50 and
hour you only need pay - say - £3 an hour on top of that to employ
someone at a living wage and with no tax or NI to pay its not a bad crack.

- Because imported goods and materials are now expensive, there is a
huge incentive to recycle refurbish and repair. Essentially it baises
the national economy towards re-use and away from consumer buy and trash.

- naturally this free market in labour with the government simply not
caring about who earns what - only what they spend and what they spend
it on - would require exit from the EU. Well, so what?

Its time we put Britain first, and British workers, yea even unto the
man who cuts your grass.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nemo wrote

Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government outlined
new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made cash
in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a large
part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that
news?

Its bloody silly.

We'll see...

We should not tax the things we want to happen, like working. We should
tax the things we need to reduce, like fuel, smoking,

Can't raise anything like the sort of revenue thats needed to pay for
what the voters have decided a modern first world country needs to do.

and importing materials and finished goods.

Mindlessly parochial. The world's moved on, dinosaur.

I have long advocated a state pension age related (but not work related)
that replaces the complex system of the dole and benefits, and zero income
tax, with infinitely more taxes raised on the sale on non subsistence
goods.

More fool you. Makes a hell of a lot more sense for those
that work to provide for their own time past working instead.

Then scrap the minimum wage, because its no longer needed as people get
the pension whether they work or not.

Even sillier.

There are issues of policing BUT it has the following advantages

- people who live here pay the sales and import taxes on goods bought
here.

But that's a very regressive tax system where those who dont
earn much pay a lot more tax than they do currently. No thanks.

And high earners will WANT to live here.

Doesnt necessarily mean that their jobs will allow them to do that.

The presence of slots of stinkingly rich people here with miney to burn
can only be goodm,,

Even sillier, and you are clearly completely blotto, again.

even if luxury goods are expensive.

Even sillier. They will in fact **** off to where they arent taxed at all.

- the labour market is totally flexible.

Even sillier.

People can work when they like for who they like - they lose no benefits
by working - at anything at all.

Hordes won't bother to work at all.

From fruit picking to washing cars and polishing your boots.

**** all bother with polished boots anymore, you silly old fart.

- because the state pension is limited to those who are actually born
here, not those who arrive (tough, but fair) low income people will not
find it easy to immigrate.

Their situation will still be much better than where they
come from, so they will still keep pouring into the country.

However high earners to whom the state pension is almost an irrelevance,
will.

Nope, they'll keep ****ing off to where
they dont have to pay any taxes at all.

- because taxation is not applied to subsistence goods

Have fun actually defining those.

- essentially food clothing and other basics

Pity about how you define subsistence food and clothing.

- lower paid workers will be massively subsidised and be able to compete
well with offshore workers

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

without any directives needing to be applied. If the state pension is say
£3.50 and hour you only need pay - say - £3 an hour on top of that to
employ someone at a living wage

So your hare brained 'state pension' isn't even a living wage eh ?

So their kids will just starve to death if they dont work eh ?

and with no tax or NI to pay its not a bad crack.

Pity about the starving kids of those who dont work.

- Because imported goods and materials are now expensive, there is a huge
incentive to recycle refurbish and repair.

So we will see a return to how people operated during the great depression
eh ?

Can't see too many of the voters ever buying that any time soon.

Essentially it baises the national economy towards re-use and away from
consumer buy and trash.

Until the voters pull the plug on your hare brained scheme.

- naturally this free market in labour with the government simply not
caring about who earns what - only what they spend and what they spend it
on - would require exit from the EU. Well, so what?

Its time we put Britain first, and British workers, yea even unto the man
who cuts your grass.

So you expect all the immigrants that aren't born
there to head off back where they came from eh ?

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

On 24/07/2012 11:02, 78u77 wrote:


god almighty..........................
none of you use hospitals, you all pay for your medical aid ?
any of you ever had a receipt of a chinese or any take away, do they pay
their taxes based on what they take? people are fiddling their tax and
they still expect to get everything for nothing.don't complain about
people getting benefits while most of you don't even contribute to the
tax and N.I. that pays for it.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , "78u77"
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nemo wrote

Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government
outlined new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made
cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a
large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by
bankers, politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc.
Is that news?

Its bloody silly.

We'll see...

[rest of Wodney snipped]

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , "78u77"
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nemo wrote

Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies
the revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government
outlined new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked
shining a spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues
have ever made cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described
the practice as a large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by
bankers, politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers
etc. Is that news?

Its bloody silly.

We'll see...

[rest of Wodney snipped]

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

You gave it away, sap, with your usual inability to spell some plurals
properly.

It was never meant to not be obvious it was me, cretin.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you actually are that
stupid.

In message , Rod Speed
writes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by
bankers, politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro
footballers etc. Is that news?

Its bloody silly.

We'll see...

[rest of Wodney snipped]

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

You gave it away, sap, with your usual inability to spell some
plurals properly.

It was never meant to not be obvious it was me, cretin.

So why did you do it?

--
geoff

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , "78u77"
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nemo wrote

Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it
denies the revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the
government outlined new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax
avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked
shining a spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues
have ever made cash in hand payments to plumbers when he
described the practice as a large part of Britain's "hidden
economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by
bankers, politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers
etc. Is that news?

Its bloody silly.

We'll see...

[rest of Wodney snipped]

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

You gave it away, sap, with your usual inability to spell some plurals
properly.

It was never meant to not be obvious it was me, cretin.

Christ - and a split infinitive too! You *are* doing well.

Nice attempt at a shimmy, Wodders.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you actually are that
stupid.

I wouldnt have formatted it in my usual unusual style if
I didnt want anyone to notice it wasnt me, ****wit.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We should not tax the things we want to happen, like working. We should
tax the things we need to reduce, like fuel, smoking, and importing
materials and finished goods.

Notice you've left out alcohol. Freudian slip?

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Nemo wrote:


Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that news?

I used to feel bad about the odd fiddle. Now I do not, because I see the
government wasting my money on wars based on lies, bankers being bailed out
of their own self inflicted failure, and big fat contracts worth billions
being awarded to the incompetant like G4S for no good reason.

--
Tim Watts

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:57:23 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Nemo wrote:


Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that
news?

I used to feel bad about the odd fiddle. Now I do not, because I see the
government wasting my money on wars based on lies, bankers being bailed
out of their own self inflicted failure, and big fat contracts worth
billions being awarded to the incompetant like G4S for no good reason.

You forgot to mention the massive expenses fiddles perpetrated by more
politicians than we have yet found out about...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

En el artículo , Bob Eager
escribió:

You forgot to mention the massive expenses fiddles perpetrated by more
politicians than we have yet found out about...

The sheer hypocrisy of a Tory politician lecturing us on the black
economy is breathtaking.

Mind you, in other European countries tax-dodging is seen as normal.
That's why the Greeks and Spanish (look up 'economía sumergida') are
****ed, with the Italians not far behind.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Bob Eager
escribió:

You forgot to mention the massive expenses fiddles perpetrated by more
politicians than we have yet found out about...

The sheer hypocrisy of a Tory politician lecturing us on the black
economy is breathtaking.

Mind you, in other European countries tax-dodging is seen as normal.
That's why the Greeks and Spanish (look up 'economÃ*a sumergida') are
****ed, with the Italians not far behind.

I ws told a tale by an Englishman in Brsssles of another Englishman who
came to Belgium to start a garage business.

ASter a year of scrupulous paperwork, he presented his tax return.

"OK" said the tax man" and that will be another 100k belgian francs for
the cash that you didn't put through your books"

"But I didn't have any cash I didn't put through the books"

"More fool you"

He returned to the UK.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Nemo" wrote in message
...
Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government outlined
new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made cash
in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a large
part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that news?

Paying cash is not necessarily 'bent' - AFAIK unlike consumer bank accounts,
business bank accounts charge per transaction so there is a cost in putting
a cheque through the bank.
As long as you get a valid receipt (VAT receipt where applicable) then
paying some of the bills with cash which is then recycled by the
tradesperson on every day expenditure is in no way wrong.

Obviously the suggestion by the consumer to the tradesperson that they "Pay
cash, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, no names no pack drill no VAT and no income
tax" is encouraging the tradesperson to contrave the taxation laws.
At least we are not as paranoid as some Nordic countries where tax is/was so
high that people went to a cashless economy and traded skills; "You mend my
car and I'll paint your house" and similar. Whereupon they changed the law
so that you had to declare all services done for other people regardless of
if you were paid or not.
Makes casual sex a finacially risky proposition.
A charity f*ck should now appear on your income tax form.
Please, not in this country!

Cheers

Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 24/07/2012 11:45, David WE Roberts wrote:

"Nemo" wrote in message
...
Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government
outlined new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made
cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a
large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by
bankers, politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc.
Is that news?

Paying cash is not necessarily 'bent' - AFAIK unlike consumer bank
accounts, business bank accounts charge per transaction so there is a
cost in putting a cheque through the bank.

Indeed... also what has how has the recipients tax affairs got anything
to do with the person paying the bill?

As long as you get a valid receipt (VAT receipt where applicable) then
paying some of the bills with cash which is then recycled by the
tradesperson on every day expenditure is in no way wrong.

Not only that, what are the alternatives? They can either take a cheque
at a huge risk of not getting paid, or they can shell out hundreds a
quarter to their bank for card payment facilities and a merchant account.

Obviously the suggestion by the consumer to the tradesperson that they
"Pay cash, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, no names no pack drill no VAT and
no income tax" is encouraging the tradesperson to contrave the taxation
laws.
At least we are not as paranoid as some Nordic countries where tax
is/was so high that people went to a cashless economy and traded skills;
"You mend my car and I'll paint your house" and similar. Whereupon they
changed the law so that you had to declare all services done for other
people regardless of if you were paid or not.

That is already the case here... or at least HMRC would have you
believe. If you "give away" a service that you would normally derive
income from, they still expect you to pay the tax on the notional value!

Makes casual sex a finacially risky proposition.
A charity f*ck should now appear on your income tax form.
Please, not in this country!

Cheers

Dave R


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/07/2012 18:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/07/2012 11:45, David WE Roberts wrote:
....
As long as you get a valid receipt (VAT receipt where applicable) then
paying some of the bills with cash which is then recycled by the
tradesperson on every day expenditure is in no way wrong.

Not only that, what are the alternatives? They can either take a cheque
at a huge risk of not getting paid, or they can shell out hundreds a
quarter to their bank for card payment facilities and a merchant account....

Same day credit transfer, which is how I pay my window cleaner and my
gardener. Not that he actually said that paying in cash was morally
wrong, only paying in cash in order to get a discount.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:44:45 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 24/07/2012 18:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/07/2012 11:45, David WE Roberts wrote:
...
As long as you get a valid receipt (VAT receipt where applicable) then
paying some of the bills with cash which is then recycled by the
tradesperson on every day expenditure is in no way wrong.

Not only that, what are the alternatives? They can either take a cheque
at a huge risk of not getting paid, or they can shell out hundreds a
quarter to their bank for card payment facilities and a merchant
account....

Same day credit transfer, which is how I pay my window cleaner and my
gardener. Not that he actually said that paying in cash was morally
wrong, only paying in cash in order to get a discount.

Colin Bignell

No he didn't. He actually say paying cash to avoid paying tax was wrong.
Not paying cash to obtain a legitimate discount. It's understandable that
a small business might prefer the 100% certainty of £10 today, rather
than the vague promise (via cheque) of £15 tomorrow. Especially when
banks charge for bounced cheques.

In message , David WE Roberts
writes
Paying cash is not necessarily 'bent' - AFAIK unlike consumer bank
accounts, business bank accounts charge per transaction so there is a
cost in putting a cheque through the bank.
The also charge you for paying in cash!!
--
hugh

On 24/07/2012 22:15, hugh wrote:
In message , David WE Roberts
writes
Paying cash is not necessarily 'bent' - AFAIK unlike consumer bank
accounts, business bank accounts charge per transaction so there is a
cost in putting a cheque through the bank.
The also charge you for paying in cash!!

Mine doesn't charge for either, but I do have to keep to fewer than 20
cheques in and 20 cheques out each month to qualify for free business
banking.

Colin Bignell

On 24/07/2012 22:15, hugh wrote:
In message , David WE Roberts
writes
Paying cash is not necessarily 'bent' - AFAIK unlike consumer bank
accounts, business bank accounts charge per transaction so there is a
cost in putting a cheque through the bank.
The also charge you for paying in cash!!

If you're a sole trader, having cash in your hand means you don't need
to draw this week's grocery or petrol bill out of the bank, but doesn't
necessarily mean that the transaction won't go through the books, it
just means you save two bank transaction charges.

I do something similar when the boss gives me a cash float to pay a
bill. I pay it by card and keep the cash, as the ATM transaction to draw
cash out costs me money, whereas paying for a hotel room doesn't incur a
fee. Either way, he gets a VAT receipt for the right amount, so he
doesn't care.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 24/07/2012 10:05, Nemo wrote:
Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government outlined
new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made
cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a
large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that news?

It implies that the use of cash for any transaction is potentially a tax
fiddle. Shops, bars, buses, taxis, newspaper sellers, milkmen etc. are
all probably immoral.

And the payers are equally immoral for using cash which enables the
fiddlers.

Is this politician trying to win votes?

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything. With some clever cloud-side coding the taxes could be
collected automatically - PAYP not PAYE.

On 2012-07-24, Nemo wrote:

On 24/07/2012 10:05, Nemo wrote:
Quote
Paying a plumber cash in hand is "morally wrong" because it denies the
revenue vital funds, a Treasury minister said as the government outlined
new ways of cutting down on £5bn in tax avoidance.

David Gauke, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, risked shining a
spotlight on whether any of his government colleagues have ever made
cash in hand payments to plumbers when he described the practice as a
large part of Britain's "hidden economy".
Unquote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...dspending-hmrc

Trades poeple operate to current moral norms, as displayed by bankers,
politicians, journalists, entertainers, pro footballers etc. Is that news?

It implies that the use of cash for any transaction is potentially a tax
fiddle. Shops, bars, buses, taxis, newspaper sellers, milkmen etc. are
all probably immoral.


Well, exactly. This is a nasty slur against tradesmen. At least they
do work that's beneficial to people (unlike bankers, footballers, &
most politicians & journalists).

If I pay a tradesman in cash, it's for convenience, & I don't have the
right to assume he's doing anything dishonest without a good reason.

En el artículo , Nemo
escribió:

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything.

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe, to lock up some of the more blatant tax
evaders pour encourager las autres, and to prosecute those firms that
come up with ever more creative ways of trying to game the system.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Nemo
escribió:

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything.

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe, to lock up some of the more blatant tax
evaders pour encourager las autres, and to prosecute those firms that
come up with ever more creative ways of trying to game the system.

You cant prosecute people/entities that have broken no law.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Jul 25, 8:16*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nemo
escribió:

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything.

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.
If not then you are potentially a fool for not avoiding tax when you
can.

MBQ

En el artículo
oups.com, Man at B&Q escribió:

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.

No, because I don't avoid tax by using highly artificial offshore tax
schemes designed to exploit loopholes in the tax laws. They may comply
with the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit.

Are you saying you have no problem with what Carr did with the K2 tax
avoidance scheme?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Jul 25, 9:09*pm, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo
oups.com, Man at B&Q escribió:

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.

No, because I don't avoid tax by using highly artificial offshore tax
schemes designed to exploit loopholes in the tax laws. *They may comply
with the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit.

Are you saying you have no problem with what Carr did with the K2 tax
avoidance scheme?

I have no problem at all and would do it myself if I had the funds to
justify it. I do haver a problem with the state of tax law in this
country.

MBQ

On 25/07/2012 21:28, Huge wrote:
On 2012-07-25, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo
oups.com, Man at B&Q escribió:

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.

No, because I don't avoid tax by using highly artificial offshore tax
schemes designed to exploit loopholes in the tax laws. They may comply
with the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit.

Good luck enforcing the spirit of the law.

Are you saying you have no problem with what Carr did with the K2 tax
avoidance scheme?

I certainly don't. Good luck to him.


+1


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 25/07/2012 10:21 Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

+1

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.
If not then you are potentially a fool for not avoiding tax when you
can.

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation set
up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended,
and tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government
that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

--
F

On 25/07/2012 21:47, F wrote:
On 25/07/2012 10:21 Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

+1

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.
If not then you are potentially a fool for not avoiding tax when you
can.

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation set
up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended,
and tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government
that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

True, however the government frequently moan about both!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jul 25, 9:47*pm, F news@nowhere wrote:
On 25/07/2012 10:21 Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

+1

He did. He (or hios adviser) was a bit cleverer than the masses and
found a legal way to reduce what he owed.


Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.
If not then you are potentially a fool for not avoiding tax when you
can.

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation set
up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended,
and tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government
that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

What were they for then?

MBQ

On 25/07/2012 21:56 Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation
set up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as
intended, and tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the
Government that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

And that difference is what, precisely? Other than you foaming at the
mouth (or mouse), that is.

No foaming here, just quiet reflection.

The difference? The former is morally acceptable, the latter not.

YM(orals)MV.

--
F

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:

On 25/07/2012 10:21 Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

+1

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.
If not then you are potentially a fool for not avoiding tax when you
can.

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation set
up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended, and
tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government that
was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

And that difference is what, precisely?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

He's already told you that in his first post.

(or are you asking "how do you tell the difference")

tim

On 25/07/2012 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:

On 25/07/2012 10:21 Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

+1

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.
If not then you are potentially a fool for not avoiding tax when you
can.

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation
set up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as
intended, and tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the
Government that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

And that difference is what, precisely? Other than you foaming at the
mouth (or mouse), that is.


"foaming at the mouse"!

Brilliant!!!!

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 26/07/2012 07:45 Huge wrote:

There's a difference between tax avoidance schemes using legislation set
up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended,
and tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government
that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance.

Good luck with proving that in court.

You're not wrong, but it doesn't negate the sentiment.

--
F

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Nemo
escribió:

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything.

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.

N because the idea is that you are let off tax now, but pay tax on the
income you get from the pension scheme later. It's just deferred tax.

Thats not true of many tax systems. Plenty of them see what
you get as a pension tax free, because the pension is below
the threshold at which you pay any income tax.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
N because the idea is that you are let off tax now, but pay tax on the
income you get from the pension scheme later. It's just deferred tax.

That‘s not true of many tax systems. Plenty of them see what
you get as a pension tax free, because the pension is below
the threshold at which you pay any income tax.

Most in the UK would hope for a pension rather better than that.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tim Streater wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Man at B&Q wrote

[snipped down to the appropriate context]

Nope, you've lost the context, rorting the tax system using cash.

And dropped **** all anyway, so that's been pointless.

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.

N because the idea is that you are let off tax now, but pay tax on the
income you get from the pension scheme later. It's just deferred tax.

Thats not true of many tax systems. Plenty of them see what
you get as a pension tax free, because the pension is below
the threshold at which you pay any income tax.

Certainly true of the US

Nope, the bottom HALF of the US pays no net federal income tax.

That must include hordes on pensions.

and the UK,

Nope, there have been times in which no income tax has been
payable when below a certain income, so some on the lowest
pensions for whatever reason would have qualified.

both places where I have worked and paid pension contributions.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim being discussed.

On Jul 25, 12:02*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:16*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Nemo
escribió:

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything.

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe,

Do you pay into a personal or company pension scheme?
If you do then you are a hypocrite.

N because the idea is that you are let off tax now, but pay tax on the
income you get from the pension scheme later. It's just deferred tax.

You can get a tax free lump sum and the pension may be below the tax
threshold so it may be the case that NO tax is payable. In which case
it is hypocritical to condemn people who use other *perfectly legal*
schemes.

MBQ

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Nemo
escribió:

The obvious answer is to abolish cash and make all transactions
electronic, executed via a government cloud that tracks and logs
everything.

The obvious answer is to make tax-avoiding ****s like Jimmy Carr and
Vodafone pay the taxes they owe, to lock up some of the more blatant tax
evaders pour encourager las autres, and to prosecute those firms that
come up with ever more creative ways of trying to game the system.


Jimmy Carr did pay the taxes he owed. It is government propaganda to state
that he did not. What Cameron was whining about was that Carr was not
paying more than he owed.