Atomic Systems

If a tradesman asks for payment in cash for a job that he does for you, are you obliged to ask whether he will show this on his trading accounts? If he says no are you then “morally” obliged to insist that he provides a receipt and accept that you may have to pay an additional 20% on top of the bill to cover the VAT?

or

Can you say that when verbally agreeing to a price and payment in cash you have entered into a contract, and hence there is no moral obligation to enquire as to whether that payment will be shown on any trading accounts?

Of course one must never forget the infamous quotation:-

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Alec

PS - There’s nothing more disconcerting than politicians trying to define morality, especially considering their own “morality” over expenses!

The law is being changed to shut down the cash-no-tax jobs over there, according to a recent news report. The NZ government is contemplating doing the same here. Let's hope they set their sights on secret bank accounts and tax havens, too.

Cheers Bazza

VAT law is quite clear. The person responsible for declaring "the right tax at the right time" is the VAT registered person/legal entity, who makes a legal declaration on the VAT return. Policing this is a nightmare since these "cash traders" are often amongst the smallest and number in their thousands.

Given the Government cuts in Revenue & Customs it would appear that Ministers would like us to help make evasion harder by not paying in cash and/or asking for a receipt. This wouldn't stop it, any receipt/invoice can be easily suppressed and monies paid into an "off record" bank account. Easy really!

If you cut staff and relax controls then fraud/abuse increases as witnessed in the banking sector. It's not rocket science!

Regards.

Len

Hi

Yes it keeps going on .... and on .... lots of 'mud slinging'.

"BBC stars in revolt as row over 'tax avoidance' grows: Paxman admits bosses told him to join scheme or lose Newsnight role"

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z21d4Z5dKE

The only real idiots are us .... the ones that are taxed at source (PAYE).

Cheers
Jon

If you present someone with an invoice, you are immediately responsible to pay the VAT, no matter if the recipient pays their bills or not.
As for the government 'mud slinging', they make the laws and should not castigate little people for the rules bought in by the influential.

If taxes were not so swingeing (which they are in this country) people would not try to avoid paying them,especially if the money is then wasted (which it is in this country).

jbilton wrote: The only real idiots are us .... the ones that are taxed at source (PAYE).

I think idiots is the wrong word to use. Victims of circumstance is probably more appropriate. Unfortunately this tends to be the lesser paid who end up paying the highest percentage tax rate. I can't blame anyone for minimising their tax liability, its a sensible thing to do. Sometimes that requires income sacrifice which reduces future government dependency which may be considered a good thing.
It is up to the government to make the tax system fairer. I consider the recent picking on individuals or tradesman groups as potential smoke and mirrors distraction.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."He lived from 1743-1826 and much of what he had to say applies with unnerving accuracy to the situation today.

GerardFiennes wrote:A quote from Thomas Jefferson:"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."He lived from 1743-1826 and much of what he had to say applies with unnerving accuracy to the situation today.

Thomas Jefferson made many quotes that are still applicable today. There is a group of collective individuals in which he was less than complimentary. Unfortunately, there are many people willing to work who find the ability to do so detrimental. If a worker cannot earn enough to survive, and requires a governmental benefit, is this not a hidden subsidy to corporations that are not willing to pay enough?

Hi

Yes agreed.... a very intuitive person

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Cheers
Jon

jbilton wrote:Hi

Yes agreed.... a very intuitive person

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Cheers
Jon

It has,it is called the Bank of England.It has just "printed" £325 billion.....

GerardFiennes wrote:
It has,it is called the Bank of England.It has just "printed" £325 billion.....

Another .....

The Bank of England is not a private bank,it was nationalised in 1946.

QE money is now 375 billion GBP. The Bank of England is a nationalised entity, and any profits are redistributed to the treasury. So when an interest payment is made on a government gilt owned by the BOE, the money is sent from the treasury to the BOE, which then sends the interest (minus any expenses) back to the treasury. It is essentially interest free debt for the government, although the BOE probably makes a slight loss by paying above face value for the gilts when it purchases them from the banks who originally bought them from the government. (The Maastrict treaty prevents the BOE from buying from the government directly)
The US Federal Reserve operates in a similar manner although it can buy government bonds directly from the government. It is however privately owned (a large part of it by historic UK banks that most people will not have heard of), but still any profits are returned to the treasury. The US resisted the central banking model for a few centuries, but the latest incarnation has been in place since 1913.
A good place to understand how the monetary system works is http://www.positivemoney.org.uk. Whether their alternative proposal is a magic bullet is another matter.
So when people talk about there being too much debt in the system, you can ask them if they think there is too much money in the system. Money eventually has to return from creditor to debtor otherwise credit and debt will accumulate into a problem. It also adds a moral dimension to saving money; the money being saved means that someone somewhere cannot pay their debt off!

GerardFiennes wrote:The Bank of England is not a private bank,it was nationalised in 1946.

So was I !