I was on the BBC earlier today here (45mins in)discussing some of the comments made by Conservative David Gauke concerning the “morality” of paying cash and also in tax avoidance. As ever with the BBC there is an agenda and in this case the meme is naming and shaming “the wealthy” who dare to limit their tax exposure in a lawful manner. I asked the BBC presenter if those who have ISA’S should also be hounded or if this was just class war? I asked if she knew that David Gauke is married to a Tax Avoidance lawyer. Don’t think she did. They don’t do their homework on these issues, they simply kneejerk into hang the “rich” and to hell with the consequences. Felt she was sympathetic to the soak the rich agenda of the Trade Unionist.
TAKE THE CASH…
Bookmark the permalink.
Politics of envy, perhaps?
I am rapidly coming to the opinion that all direct taxation is immoral – who says the gummint knows how to spend the 40 0dd% (or whatever) of my money they take, better than me? And if Joe the plumber does a good job, why shouldn’t I pay him in cash – not my responsibility if he chooses not to declare it. 1215 looms large again….I hope!
Section 292 of Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA) exempts from income tax accommodation expenses paid to MPs in respect of expenses
Exempted themselves from tax, and tax inspection
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/mlr/your-role/resposibilities.htm
When you enter into a business relationship with a ‘politically exposed person’. Typically, a politically exposed person is an overseas member of parliament, a head of state or government or a government minister. Note that a UK politician isn’t a politically exposed person.
That’s right. They have exempted themselves from money laundering regulations
Just what have they got to hide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/21/david-cameron-tax-cabinet-released-near-future_n_1614631.html
David Cameron and senior ministers are not planning to disclose their tax returns in the “very near future”, Downing Street indicated today.
The Prime Minister said in April that he expected information about his finances to become public, and was relaxed about the prospect.
The comment came amid controversy over the decision to cut the 50p top tax rate, and after London mayoral candidates released their records.
But a Number 10 aide said this morning that the proposal is still being “looked into”.
Ministers are “not closed to the idea”, but it is “not a very near-future thing”, the aide added.
Yep, they have to get all their tax avoidance hidden away, and then they might make it public.
Much muddled thinking on the black economy. There is a strong argument that the black economy actually performs a valuable function. It enables many people to survive and thus it prevents much social deprivation and possible unrest. It also increase the velocity of money that is the rate at which it flows around the economy. The trick for government is to establish the level at which the black economy is beneficial. But no government can admit to this. To try to stop it is impossible and probably a waste of resources. Morality does not come into it. Moralising governments are usually bad governments as we can see looking at the foreign policies of the last one and ,sadly, this one as well.
“It also increase the velocity of money that is the rate at which it flows around the economy. ”
Yep. The Daily Mash (as ever) hits the nail on the head:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/tradesmens-earnings-only-untaxed-until-they-get-to-the-pub-2012072435498
It is wrong for the government to impose taxes at the higher end of the Laffer curve (i.e. above about 29% top rate). By doing this they are inviting people to dodge taxes and thus are corrupting society.
At the same time they are encouraging people to take benefits and then work on the black, thus corrupting society even further.
Thus the statement that people are immoral for paying in cash is the exact opposite of what is happening. Government are taxing the populace too much and are further corrupting society by being too generous with their benefits.
It is the government who are being immoral.
They might like to research the cash economy in certain ‘communities’. For example, the one which managed to raise £110,000 in cash over a weekend to meet a ransom demand for a ‘British citizen’ being held to ransom in Pakistan.
Or the terror raid which discovered a 19 year-old had £20,000 in cash in his house – sorry, one of his houses.
That was weird. I remember it at the time – £20k and no explanation.
It’s pretty much a cash economy because of sections of that community regarding western banking as ‘usury’ i.e the lending of money at interest.
Eh!? So having a current account that pays no interest is against their religion too? Besides, if you’ve got 20K cash under your mattress, I doubt you’d be borrowing money. Or paying the HMRC!
And I think you’ll find that many who deal in cash and don’t put their ‘earnings’ into a bank account (not just from that community) do so because they can carry on claiming benefits.
This story probably needs to be seen as part of a bigger picture.
The treasury is determined to move to a cashless economy as soon as possible. Once all transactions are electronic they can be tracked, monitored, taxed and investigated at will. Cash is way too analogue for the treasury, and I’m willing to bet that they are determined to push for the earliest possible digital switch over.
A red Herring. The BBC have been going on about cash in hand payments all day hoping we would forget about their own questionable tax avoidance schemes. TV license payers are no better, they pay their tv license knowing that some BBC staff are using schemes to reduce their tax liability , surely just as immoral as paying cash in hand.
ScrappyDoo
Looks like the row over the BBC’s tax avoidance scam is getting bigger ? Paxo has now weighed in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178477/BBC-stars-revolt-row-tax-avoidance-grows-Paxman-admits-bosses-told-join-scheme-lose-Newsnight-role.html
Watch out for the resignation of the BBC’s chief financial officer, Zarin Patel.
Oo, juicy.
So they basically got it about as hypocritically wrong as possible?
Unique should cover all that.
However, for balance as I hold the government in about as high esteem as the other public-funded entity I am compelled to fund, the poll here suggests the BBC will doubtless see its holding to account duties needing focus elsewhere:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9424692/Middle-class-families-doing-nothing-illegal-or-moral-by-paying-in-cash-minister-says.html
They should however pause to ponder just how many of the remaining hosts the parasite classes are sucking dry seem a little near the limit of patience with them all.
In my experience, and that’s all it is, the best work has been performed by contractors who are VAT registered and issue proper numbered invoices. I stopped using fly by nights decades ago because they were invariably unreliable, uncontactable and third rate. My DIY skills improved no end.
Of course MPs and BBC employees are hypocrites – but there are quite a few double standards amongst the general public as well.
It would be nice to have a simplified tax scheme where everyone pays a small proportion of their gross income from whatever source in whatever country
Good comment by John Redwood here .
The BBC Chief Financial Officer appeared before the Commons Public Accounts Committee re. the tax avoidance scam – and the BBC has run a long weaselly article defending her. Problem is – Paxo says she told him (and others) that the Inland Revenue had advised the BBC to pursue the dodge, and the Inland Revenue says this is bollox.
I don’t think the CFO will last much longer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18960680
The BBC tax scam had headlines in the Daily Mail and has also had coverage in the Telegraph, Mirror, Times (Paxo’s stroppy letter) and the Star.
I like the Star’s comment piece which said that the BBC tries to avoid tax and NI payments – but we are all forced to pay the BBC licence tax.
As is my habit, I had Radio 4 on this morning during the Today program – and heard the usual BBC rant against David Gauke. It did occur to me that someone on a radio or TV programme had said that Mr Gauke was not ‘pontifcating’ about this issue, but that rather he’s been asked a direct question about the issue, and had responded – properly in my view – that colluding with a supplier to pay by cash to generate a discount which could basically only be given by the supplier not declaring the income to the tax-man is morally wrong. In fact, the action of the supplier is tax EVASION – an illegal activity, not just an immoral one.
Of course, the typical, and predictable, Labour Party reaction in this case came from Austin Mitchell, MP, who prattled on about how this wasn’t the real problem, the real problem was those who are employing Tax AVOIDANCE measures, an entirely legal activity by definition, since such activities are well within the law. And, of course, a huge number of people in the UK participate in Tax AVOIDANCE schemes, like employment pension schemes, ISA’s, etc.
Mr Mitchell went on to basically say that it was impossible to track every possible Tax EVASION events such as those Mr Gauke was apparently asked about, and any way, they didn’t amount to much, so we should just ignore them.
Now, two things. Firstly, I think it is incredible that an MP in this country has effectively urged a government to chastise a group of people who are acting perfectly legally, and to condone those who are implicitly involved in breaking the law. An Austrian painter was rather famous for such activities in the late 30’s, was he not ? Secondly, and perhaps more contemporarily, wasn’t such cash-in-hand-discount-to-avoid-taxes defined as precisely one of the key causes of Greece’s economy hitting the buffers ?
But that’s apparently what at least one Labour MP is advocating. And, of course, none of the Labour hierarchy saw fit to denounce such calls.
Austin Mitchell is just a mouth on a stick, and a big Yorkshire one at that.