Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 10 Dec 2009 13:32 mileburner wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Because you were happy to collude in order to get a lower bill and evade >>> part or all of your VAT liability? >> It's not HIS vat liability... >> If the trader is not vat registered, there's no onus on him to pay vat. >> The requirement is for the trader to collect vat from all his invoices if >> he's registered. > Indeed. > There is no colluding. Come off it. Trader says or implies: "Give me cash, I can make it a bit cheaper and you can save the VAT". Customer says "OK" (by not asking for a VAT receipt). It's seen as absolutely fair game by a large number of people (a bit like social security fraud), but it's still collusion and still wrong. > The liability is with the VAT registered trader to > charge VAT to the customer and ensure that this is declared to HMRC, even if > the customer pays cash, even if the trader will only take cash or even if > the customer demands to pay cash. Cash is perfectly legal. But the trader > must declare it. Of course. But he is under less pressure to do so if he has done a deal for cash and not issued one of his serialised receipts. > The same principle applies to personal taxation and declaring any cash as > income. Failure to declare the income has nothing to do with the customer by > paying cash but responsibility lies entirely with the trader to declare it. What "customer"? > Cash always makes them smile, and cash will get you a better deal. They > should still issue a receipt for cash but often they won't "because you paid > cash". Why is that I wonder?... > ....Because they are thieving tax evading fiddlers ....aided and abetted by evasive customers (some of whom have the temerity to say "Not me, guv").
From: JNugent on 10 Dec 2009 13:33 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 10 Dec, 17:21, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: >> >>>> I have been a house owner for 27 years and apart from people like >>>> Dynorod who are on an insurance contract, every single tradesman has >>>> asked for a cash or part cash sum as part of the bill. Last job was >>>> �5000 for windows, doors and porch. Only the windows had to go through >>>> the books, so the majority was paid in cash. Wonder why? >>> <shrug> >>> Because you were happy to collude in order to get a lower bill and evade >>> part or all of your VAT liability? >> It's not HIS vat liability... >> >> If the trader is not vat registered, there's no onus on him to pay vat. >> The requirement is for the trader to collect vat from all his invoices if >> he's registered. > > I assumed they were all like the Medway Highwayman and thus they would > have driven to the bank soon after and deposited their cash in their > business bank accounts of course. It's bog all to do with me what they > do with it, I'm not their accountant and FWIW I have *never* asked for > a cash discount. I have been given a quote for a job and when I have > come to pay they ask *me* for cash. > > I don't care if it is a cheque or cash, it all comes out of my bank > in the long run. If they fiddle their tax returns it's on their > conscience, not mine. So you always insist on a serialised receipt?
From: MasonS on 10 Dec 2009 13:47 On 10 Dec, 18:33, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > > > I don't care if it is a cheque or cash, it all comes out of my bank > > in the long run. If they fiddle their tax returns it's on their > > conscience, not mine. > > So you always insist on a serialised receipt?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No - once I agree a price and pay up - that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. A serialised receipt is no use, I only worry about bottom line. Even when I got a bill of £2000 for a car service and MOT last March it didn't matter if he charged me £89 for a Lambda sensor or £79. He just says the whole job will be £2000, do I go ahead or not? If I give him the nod, then the receipt breakdown is academic. -- Simon Mason
From: The Medway Handyman on 10 Dec 2009 14:16 mileburner wrote: > MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >> I stand corrected, he just laughed at my car and clothes then, my >> apologies. > > It is better to be laughed at for you car and clothes, than to be > laughed at for your lack of ability to comprehend the tax system, > your hypocrisy, you poor attitude to other road users and your vile > postings. So, suggesting you pay your way counts as a 'vile' posting does it? I suppose it does. You are so adverse to putting your hands in your pocket the very though must be vile. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist -- Q. Why don't they put pockets in lycra cycling shorts? A. Because cyclists never put their hands in their pockets.
From: The Medway Handyman on 10 Dec 2009 14:17
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 10 Dec, 08:42, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote: >>> On 7 Dec, 21:19, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >> >>>>>> Still good to see you hypocritically resorting to ad hominem. >>>>>> Makes a change from tu quoque, I suppose. >> >>>>> Did you have some particularly good bottles last night? >> >>>> And more ad hominem, it just comes naturally to you, doesn't it? >> >>> You mean when you mock someone >> >> "someone"? >> >>> for driving an Alfa, drinking poncy beer and wearing different >>> clothes to you, this is somehow not Ad Hominem? How strange it only >>> works one way. >> >> Is the beer a person? Is the car a person? > > Nice try, but we both know who you were attacking and why. "Look at > that silly man chaps, he drives an Alfa - let's all laugh at him." "Oh > and he wears silly tights as well, all the better." "Look at that > poncy drink he bought. Puff." > > Big man in the pub with his mates syndrome. Short on logic, big on > insults as a poor substitute. But at least he pays for his use of the roads. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |