Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 11 Dec 2009 04:48 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in >>>> respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a >>>> customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion? >>> No - there is no "tacit collusion" going on at all. So every other >>> piece of your argument falls down as the original premise is false. >> Evasion. >>> Medway Highwayman would find it tantamout to libel (he has stated so >>> elsewhere) for you to infer that he avoids paying his taxes of various >>> descriptions by simply due to his taking cash for certain jobs. >> We aren't talking about him. We are talking about either: >> (a) people in general, to the extent that they, like you, admit to paying >> cash to traders and not obtaining a receipt for work done, or >> (b) you, to the extent that you have already admitted to paying cash to >> traders and not obtaining a receipt for work done. >> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in >> respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a >> customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion? >> Why don't you want to answer the question? Why do you keep inventing >> different questions to answer? > Again you have made a mistake. You state in a) and b) that there is no > "receipt" for work done. Nowhere did I state that I do not receive a > receipt for the work I have paid for. > I said: > "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." A serialised receipt is a very useful accounting tool. Why do you think receipt books usually have their pages serialised? > I get a receipt that tells me that they have put in a new fence and > that it cost me �270 for job done. I don't care how much his wood and > nails cost or his diesel or his shoe leather. It is not a *serialised* > receipt, just a receipt and I always get one. A receipt written on an anonymous and reproducible sheet of paper does have some uses (especially if one wishes to assert one's consumer rights or to prove that payment has been made), but if not serialised, it cannot be of maximum assistance to those whose job it is to combat tax evasion. Receipt books are page-numbered (like police officers' notebooks) for a reason. > When I come to pay at the end, the trader does *not* say "since you > are paying by cash, I'll knock a few quid off" otherwise I *would* be > complicit. Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion? Why *do* you keep inventing different questions to answer?
From: JNugent on 11 Dec 2009 04:49 Adrian wrote: > "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > >> I said: >> >> "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 get a receipt that tells me that they have put in a new fence and that >> it cost me £270 for job done. I don't care how much his wood and nails >> cost or his diesel or his shoe leather. It is not a *serialised* >> receipt, just a receipt and I always get one. > > Sounds like you're using "serialised" for what I'd refer to as > "itemised". I'd assumed "serialised" was referring in some way to a > serial number on the receipt/invoice. Correct.
From: Adrian on 11 Dec 2009 05:15 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Again you have made a mistake. You state in a) and b) that there is no >> "receipt" for work done. Nowhere did I state that I do not receive a >> receipt for the work I have paid for. I said: >> "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." > A serialised receipt is a very useful accounting tool. Why do you think > receipt books usually have their pages serialised? Why do I care about my supplier's accounting procedures? That really ain't my problem. >> I get a receipt that tells me that they have put in a new fence and >> that it cost me £270 for job done. I don't care how much his wood and >> nails cost or his diesel or his shoe leather. It is not a *serialised* >> receipt, just a receipt and I always get one. > A receipt written on an anonymous and reproducible sheet of paper does > have some uses (especially if one wishes to assert one's consumer rights > or to prove that payment has been made) Which is all I want a receipt for. > but if not serialised, it cannot be of maximum assistance to those > whose job it is to combat tax evasion. Receipt books are page-numbered > (like police officers' notebooks) for a reason. "Receipt books"? Bless. I bet you think everybody then transcribes them into accounting ledger books, too. >> When I come to pay at the end, the trader does *not* say "since you are >> paying by cash, I'll knock a few quid off" otherwise I *would* be >> complicit. > Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns > in respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or > "a customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax > evasion? Umm, Simon already said that he wasn't colluding, since there was no discussion about a "discount for cash", even though there are perfectly legitimate reasons why somebody may wish to give such a discount. > Why *do* you keep inventing different questions to answer? I think you're talking to yourself on that one.
From: MasonS on 11 Dec 2009 05:22 On 11 Dec, 09:48, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > > Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns in > respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or "a > customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax evasion? > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - *I personally* cannot profit from VAT tax evasion by the trader because I never get a discount for cash as I have told you on countless occasions, but you don't seem to get it so I will state it one more final time. *Other* individuals can and do benefit from cash deals with no traceable receipt, but I am not one of them. In fact, due to this, I actually lose out in the long run, since the Govt's total tax take is reduced, therefore I will end up paying more in tax in other areas to make up the shortfall. So far from "profiting" as you all it, my honesty costs me money. -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 11 Dec 2009 05:23
Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com>: >>> Again you have made a mistake. You state in a) and b) that there is no >>> "receipt" for work done. Nowhere did I state that I do not receive a >>> receipt for the work I have paid for. I said: >>> "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." >> A serialised receipt is a very useful accounting tool. Why do you think >> receipt books usually have their pages serialised? > Why do I care about my supplier's accounting procedures? That really > ain't my problem. That's what the other poster is saying. It isn't the issue. Of course a trader's accounting and book-keeping is not the responsibility of the customer. >>> I get a receipt that tells me that they have put in a new fence and >>> that it cost me £270 for job done. I don't care how much his wood and >>> nails cost or his diesel or his shoe leather. It is not a *serialised* >>> receipt, just a receipt and I always get one. >> A receipt written on an anonymous and reproducible sheet of paper does >> have some uses (especially if one wishes to assert one's consumer rights >> or to prove that payment has been made) > Which is all I want a receipt for. But it isn't the only reason for which the law obliges traders to keep accounts. >> but if not serialised, it cannot be of maximum assistance to those >> whose job it is to combat tax evasion. Receipt books are page-numbered >> (like police officers' notebooks) for a reason. > "Receipt books"? Bless. I bet you think everybody then transcribes them > into accounting ledger books, too. >>> When I come to pay at the end, the trader does *not* say "since you are >>> paying by cash, I'll knock a few quid off" otherwise I *would* be >>> complicit. >> Does the fact that a trader is responsible for VAT returns (and returns >> in respect of other tax matters) mean that you (in the sense: "one" or >> "a customer") cannot possibly profit from tacit collusion in his tax >> evasion? > Umm, Simon already said that he wasn't colluding, since there was no > discussion about a "discount for cash", even though there are perfectly > legitimate reasons why somebody may wish to give such a discount. The fact that Simon has denied it is not relevant. The question is a general one - is it possible for a customer to gain advantage from colluding (even tacitly) from trader tax-evasion? Simon doesn't want to answer that (even in general) because he prefers to pretend that *he* could not profit by (for example) avoiding the payment of VAT. >> Why *do* you keep inventing different questions to answer? > I think you're talking to yourself on that one. It seems that I might as well be, since no-one seems to be prepared to answer it (the correct answer, of course, being absolutely obvious). |