Coyote - agree with you last point, but my mind boggles at where applying the tradesman logic would lead us! Sorry, I am 100% kosher (can you say that we days?) most of the time, so please forgive me for the occasion that I am not (m'lord).....!
Binners, interesting ideas. Out of interest why are they Tory specific?
Is it also morally outrageous to purchase things from the continent avoiding paying VAT on them and moving money out of the UK economy?
Just a thought
Why is it only VAT which is taken off whenpayment is off the books, surely it should be that and some share of the income tax due.
Binners, interesting ideas. Out of interest why are they Tory specific?
Because they're the ones in power. And more importantly: they're the ones lecturing everyone else! And they're a party of well known tax avoiders.
I think it should apply to everyone though. Lets see the accounts of everyone in government if they're going to lecture us all. I'm sure Blairs would have made interesting reading. At least he had the good sense to keep his head down on the subject. How many of the present front bench's tax affairs would stand up to close scrutiny? Seriously? George osbourne and his offshore trust fund?
Anyway... I eagerly await the first press story with a tradesman coming forward saying a Tory MP asked to pay cash to avoid tax. I'll give it until..... 4 o clock maybe? Idiots!
THM. Adopting the example I gave involves common sense and a bit of give and take. Unfortunately it will never be practical as certain people will always exploit an opportunity. The only real answer is a complete review of the whole system that makes it easier to understand and contains more absolutes and less gray areas.
Binners, as ever on the button and nothing there to disagree with.
Is it also morally outrageous to purchase things from the continent avoiding paying VAT on them and moving money out of the UK economy?
Oh, controversial!
Oh, controversial!
It's the STW NIMBY test
And they're a party of well known tax avoiders.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Coyote, I understand that (ie comon sense and give and take *) and it is an interesting argument. In essence, that is the core of any consequential versus categorical moral argument.
Binners, what wil it be? Cash payment to paint the duck house or the nanny!!!
The whole au pair industry seems to rely on this principle. So if the payment of cash to an au pair facilitates someone (even a nasty Tory Binners!!) going out to do a job that provides a bigger benefit to others, is that ok? Discuss....
Oh here we go: the usual tory defenders pop up. They ARE a party of well known tax avoiders. Thats just a fact. I'm sure there are plenty at it in the labour party too. But are you seriously suggesting its as endemic as it is with this lot
So for them to have the bare-faced gall to start lecturing others on the their tax affairs... it defies belief! The hypocrisy truly is breathtaking.
This from a party who's last election campaign was bankrolled by someone who's resident, purely for tax reasons, in Belize. Then appointed Phillip Green as a business advisor. That'll be the same Phillip Green who funelled £1.5 BILLION through his wife's Monaco bank accounts, therefore not paying a penny in tax
Like I said: they can **** right off with their monumentally hypocritical moral posturing!!!
Stimulating growth in the trades helps our economy far more than buying Taiwanese-made bikes from a German supplier. It's lunacy to be charging 20% on services that directly protect UK jobs...
Apologies Binners,
Oh here we go: the usual tory defenders pop up. They ARE a party of well known tax avoiders. Thats just a fact. I'm sure there are plenty at it in the labour party too. But are you seriously suggesting its as endemic as it is with this lot
This makes no sense 🙂
On this topic I reckon there are very few who should be throwing stones (and I hate quoting religion)
Zulu-Eleven let me point out an undeniable truth which you clearly find highly uncomfortable and would like to prefer wasn't true.
Which is that whilst the Labour Party often behaves in a very simular manner to the Tory Party, specially since the leadership of Tony Blair, and which something that leads to people like myself unable to support it, it is still relatively rare for it to "out Tory" the Tory Party.
Tax avoidance will never be one of those areas, however much you might like to imply that it is Zulu-Eleven. The Tories will always be absolute masters of tax avoidence. Even at the very highest echelons of the party :
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8542744.stm ]Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' tax status[/url]
[b][i]"Conservative donor and deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he does not pay UK tax on earnings outside Britain".[/i][/b]
So you can post as many pictures of Labour politicians as you like Zulu-Eleven, but it will never change the fact that if the problem is [i]tax avoidance[/i], then the answer will never be Tory.
Looking at the bigger picture of this on a national basis, I think there are some fairly clear examples of where a national aversion to paying tax leads - Greece for example.
It is clearly morally wrong (not to mention illegal!) to pay or receive cash, at a discounted rate, with the clear purpose of avoiding VAT, Income Tax & NI. It doesn't matter how little it is.
The UK needs to stick to the higher standards of collective national good - along with Germany and the Scandinavian countries - and not join the road to ruin followed by Greece, Spain, Italy et al. who all have very significant "black" economies.
Why is it only VAT which is taken off whenpayment is off the books, surely it should be that and some share of the income tax due.
If you find a trades person who is willing to risk doing cash work to avoid the VAT and TAX due.
Why would you expect him to take all the risk, while you gain all the benefit ?
One of the reasons I don't do it at all is because I like the risk/stress free element of doing everything by the book.
Why would you expect someone to take that risk without anything in it for them.
If you find a trades person who is willing to risk doing cash work to avoid the VAT and TAX due.
Why would you expect him to take all the risk, while you gain all the benefit ?
That is why i said 'a share'
So he takes [b]all the risk[/b] while you take none at all.
And you get all the VAT and some of the TAX as well
That seems fair.
How about the tradesman who works a 40 hour week, all monies through the books. Clear and above board.Said tradesman decides to do some small cash-in-hand jobs at the weekend. Is it morally wrong not to declare this? I'd argue not.
How about the local LBS. It doesn't normally open Sunday's but has decided open due to the demand created by Wiggo mania. They decide not to pay VAT on the bikes they sell on Sundays or NI and tax on their wages on Sundays.
Or the assembly line worker who takes on some overtime at the weekend. Should they be paid cash in hand to avoid NI and income tax.
Tax evasion is tax evasion whether it is small cash in hand job or a multinational company registering in Switzerland*. I'd argue is morally dubious to see exceptions in your own line of work but condem others who do the same thing in other areas.
*[i]The swiss thing isn't actually tax evasion, its tax efficiency which while maybe being morally wrong is totally legal. I'd put it in the same category as buying a mountain bike on the bike to work scheme, not illegal but against the intent of the rules.[/i]
Lord Ashcroft admits 'non-dom' tax status"Conservative donor and deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft has admitted he does not pay UK tax on earnings outside Britain".
So you can post as many pictures of Labour politicians as you like Zulu-Eleven, but it will never change the fact that if the problem is tax avoidance, then the answer will never be Tory.
and remeber a condition of him getting his peerage was that he would become a UK taxpayer. so a liar as well as a tax cheat
E_L (and Z11) still cant see why this is a party political issue? But let's assume that you are correct. The Tories (all?) are the masters of tax avoidance. Ok, so hypocritical to stand on moral high ground. The Labour Party (excluding the evil Uncle Tony and his mates) are by implication not masters of tax avoidance. Indeed they stand for the opposite position. So when they evade tax they are hypocritical especially the well cited example. Ergo, this is not a party political issue. Phew, we can put that to rest! Politicians in hypocritical shocker!
So adultering Tory MPs versus adultering Labour MPs - which is worse? Or is the "party" bit irrelevant? Hmmmm.....
It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys
Ernie Lynch - MemberBlah blah, Evil Tories, Thatcher, blah
In which case Ernie, why on [b]earth[/b] didn't Labour do something about the evils of tax avoidance in their [b]thirteen[/b] years in power, with a huge political majority and mandate to do something about the evil rich?
Zulu - - cowardice - fear of the right wing press in the main part
It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys
I would imagine self employed people find it ridiculous and annoying that you get a gold plated pension, virtually unlimited sick pay and paid holidays, all funded by their taxes 🙄
The practice of paying workmen “cash in hand” was condemned as “morally wrong” today by a Treasury minister.David Gauke’s comments came...
...as unsurprising from someone who's never been self-employed and wouldn't understand why cashflow is important to small businesspeople.
The idea that some Tory lawyer from Hertfordshire should have the nerve to preach about the immoral tax practices of tradespeople is unreal. If he wants to find out about tax practices that reduce the Revenue's take, he should go and chat to the partner in charge of the "Tax and Structuring" practice at his old law firm: http://www.macfarlanes.com/practice-areas/tax-and-structuring.aspx
Re the fat cats with their hard working accountants avoiding tax vs hard working tradesmen being paid cash in hand and being a little "efficient" with the truth - I accept that the numbers that the big boys are "saving" are massive but surely there are a tiny number of them in comparison to the tens (possible hundreds) of thousands of lower paid people "saving" much smaller amounts? In terms of total loss to the government (i.e. our) coffers which costs us more - lots of folks scamming a bit or a small number scamming a lot - my hunch would be the former.
On the "how much for cash" question - As an honest tradesman who declares all earning and pays all VAT owed etc I'd be wanting to stamp it out more than anyone as they must loose so much trade to those who are less honest. The pressure to play fast and loose from potential clients much be huge just to keep the work coming in.
It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys
When as a child your felt that you were unfairly disadvantged against a friend or sibling did your parents not tell you "life's not fair, get used to it".
You may be more content if they had.
Re the fat cats with their hard working accountants avoiding tax vs hard working tradesmen being paid cash in hand and being a little "efficient" with the truth - I accept that the numbers that the big boys are "saving" are massive but surely there are a tiny number of them in comparison to the tens (possible hundreds) of thousands of lower paid people "saving" much smaller amounts?
Well... when Vodaphone sat down over a nice lunch with the big cheeses at HMRC they apparently 'negotiated a settlement' that meant they effectively avoided £6 billion in tax
Thats one **** of a lot of leaking taps.
Perhaps Alan the Plumber should try negotiating with HMRC himself regarding how much they're saying he should pay, against what he'd [i]like[/i] to pay. I'm sure they'd be just as receptive as they were to the MD of Vodaphone
So he takes all the risk while you take none at all.
And you get all the VAT and some of the TAX as wellThat seems fair.
So, the alternative where you 'get' the VAT and they 'get' the tax is fair is it?
It really annoys me that I am on PAYE whereas self employed friends (and people on here) claim riudiculous things and regularly exaggerate expenses to offset against tax to reduce tax bills and pay far less tax than me on similar incomes. That annoys
Become self-employed then? No body likes a tax cheat but to claim you're annoyed about not having the same benefits as self-employed people is clutching at straws to start an argument!
Well... when Vodaphone sat down over a nice lunch with the big cheeses at HMRC they apparently 'negotiated a settlement' that meant they effectively avoided £6 billion in tax
I was under the pretty distinct impression that the 'six billion' had been shown up to be bullsh..
in the words of an HMRC spokesman:
“We cannot comment on the detail of the settlement but we can confirm that it was reached by HMRC following a rigorous examination of the facts and an intensive process of negotiation that tested the arguments of both parties... As a result it was agreed that Vodafone’s liability was £1.25 billion and at no point was a liability greater than that established. There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6 billion. That number is an urban myth.”
There's a pretty succint breakdown on why the claim was rubbish here:
still, lets not let facts get in the way of good old left wing moral outrage, eh 😉
Well... here's another article from that well known outlet for foaming lefty pinko outrage [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/vod/9322368/Vodafone-paid-zero-UK-corporation-tax-last-year.html ]the torygraph[/url]
pointing out how Vodaphone (like a lot of other huge UK based companies) pays the grand total of absolutely eff all in tax.
The point is that the government could close the tax loopholes that allow this to happen in no time. Most of the offshore tax avoidance goes through British colonial outposts. They won't though
Instead they'll lecturer plumbers and plasterers about doing the odd cash in hand job. Try and convince people thats the reason we're in the shit! I mean... seriously?
Its insulting to everyone's intelligence!!!
EDIT: And Forbes as a non-biased, impartial news source? Seriously? 😆
The point is that the government could close the tax loopholes that allow this to happen in no time
The point is that no it couldn't, the reason that vodaphones tax bill was so small, is that the transaction was registered in Luxembourg through a subsidiary, and that it was the EU rules that override UK taxation law that meant that Vodafone didn't have to pay...
So the only way for the Tories to close the loophole, is for us to pull out of Europe - sounds like a win-win situation to me 😈
Where does tipping restaurant staff fit into the morals of cash payments for services received?
Is it 'Morally wrong' to pay cash in hand?
No.
So the only way for the Tories to close the loophole, is for us to pull out of Europe - sounds like a win-win situation to me
What about those of us that trade with the rest of Europe? Good thinking Batman...
The point is that no it couldn't, the reason that vodaphones tax bill was so small, is that the transaction was registered in Luxembourg through a subsidiary, and that it was the EU rules that override UK taxation law that meant that Vodafone didn't have to pay...
Not true. We have UK regulations that are supposed to prevent the use of tax havens as a means of tax avoidance, and the Court of Appeal has ruled in the past that this does not conflict with EU law.
You quoted a highly partial source to dismiss the "£6 billion claim". It does however seem clear that Vodafone expected to pay more than they eventually did, as Richard Murphy notes. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/23/vodafones-tax-case-leaves-a-sour-taste/
Can we agree that we should stop all people from avoiding paying tax that they are legally obliged to do?
Can we?
The "benefits" of being self employed are in tax avoidance in a large part. Those of you that are self emplyed will not pay as much tax as those of us that are on PAYE even for a similar income after (real) costs are taken into account.
Seriously, taking "morals" advice from a polititian
Even cameron fiddled inheritance tax.
All of them are lieing cheating thiefing scumbags.
The "benefits" of being self employed are in tax avoidance in a large part. Those of you that are self emplyed will not pay as much tax as those of us that are on PAYE even for a similar income after (real) costs are taken into account.
Ever been self employed TJ?
Not true. We have UK regulations that are supposed to prevent the use of tax havens as a means of tax avoidance, and the Court of Appeal has ruled in the past that this does not conflict with EU law.
well, it would appear that whatever the court of appeal thinks, the EU thinks differently, and EU tax law overrules UK tax law
http://www.tax-news.com/news/UK_CFC_Rules_Still_Break_EU_Law____49482.html
The "benefits" of being self employed are in tax avoidance in a large part.
Which very clearly makes up for the lack of security, high levels of risk, abscence of pension and union or paid holidays, the abscence of redundancy pay.
Am I to assume you think that all self employed people are cooking the books and all employed people are whiter than white?
Even [s]cameron[/s] Miliband fiddled inheritance tax.
FTFY
Where does tipping restaurant staff fit into the morals of cash payments for services received?
I believe that if tips are individual and go straight to the pocket of the tipped worker, then they are untaxable, a bit like a gift.
If they are collected and redistributed, or collected by means of a visible tip jar then they are liable to tax. Usually to be administered by the employer at the business as a taxable addition to the wages.
I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank David for outlining something that he feels is immoral, and inform him that it is nobody's place to attempt to adjust my moral code, other than perhaps my dear departed mother. The moral code of a minister whose existence I was oblivious to 15 minutes ago has no impact on my morality (and likely never will).
Please, David, do continue to make the laws but leave your moral posturing behind closed doors such that we can continue to live our lives. Thank you.
Personally, I have had a few friends who started earning a lot of money off the books. I found a correlation between their amount of undeclared income and their boasting about generally being the best person on the planet. It also correlated with how much they equated 'Paris' to 'Disneyland'. I am simply (quietly) grateful that I have had the chances in life (so far) to earn far more than them legitimately.
If you're a waitress who earns enough money to pay any income tax at all, you have done well.[b]re tips: [/b]Usually to be administered by the employer at the business as a taxable addition to the wages
You could always tip on card if you want your tip to go through the 'proper' channels. Bear in mind this will likely be taxed and then rebated months later due to tax code related tomfoolery.
Zulu, if you are resorting to 'whatabouting'... comparing the Cameron and Milliband family inheritance tax dodges is akin/proprtional to comparing the 'cash-only' builder with DLA and a new Mitsubuishi L200 with my next door neighbour's undeclared car boot sale earnings... 🙄
