MONEY MORAL DILEMMA:Should Chanelle avoid using Ziggy?

davetheair

I have my own building business -so I'm biased! HOWEVER.
Ziggy is a prat for the following reasons:
If he's 50% cheaper it that does not add up to dodging tax. 22% cheaper, maybe. It means he is getting business by being cheap rather than doing a good job. Unless he's entirely stupid, he should have an idea what other tradesmen would charge, and if he doesn't, he has no idea how long your job will take.

This leads to it's own problems - if he's undercharging, how long will it take him to realise and start to claw back more from you? At the end of the day, someone who cheats tax will willingly cheat you too.

Given the skills shortage where I am, and how busy my business is, Ziggy must be rubbish to ask for so little. "Pay peanuts, get monkeys!"

Scorpio_Brighton

I seem to have stung Guppy! (See post #56). However, if Guppy is going to argue an adult case, rather than just registering an emotional upset, it will be necessary to read my original posting (#51) rather more carefully and stop inventing things that were not said in order to refute them more easily.

As just one example, I did not say that my friend pays 17½% on his undeclared earnings. I said that he pays 17½% VAT, PLUS EXCISE DUTY. That means, for instance, that he pays 177% tax on the basic selling cost of the product when it is petrol (2006 figures), or about 146% tax if he can still find a £2.99 bottle of wine. (The honest employed pay up to 362% on petrol and 310% on the £2.99 wine, because they are paying out of income already taxed at up to 40%). By the way, the rich pay only 18% tax on a £200 bottle of wine, because it carries the same fixed amount of excise duty, about £1.33. Why is that, do you think?

Luckily, my friend doesn't smoke; but since the 10% tax rate has gone, he will now pay 120% instead of 110% on his Council Tax when paid from his taxed pension, as the 'product' is already 100% tax. I don't see any tax rates at these over-100% levels in Guppy's carefully selected cut-and-paste list of national taxes. Guppy seems to have a carefully-selected view of the world. I wonder how that came about? Do you think Guppy works for the government? Even the 33.5% overall taxes figure for UK in the list is a bit suspect compared with the June 1st Tax Freedom Day calculated by the Adam Smith Institute. Five-twelfths of a year is nearly 42% on my calculator.

To encourage us to inform on them, governments like to promote the idea that workers who resist paying tax are paid for by the rest of us. To some extent they are, but they may benefit us all by acting as a warning to the state. They risk heavy fines and imprisonment because they consider tax rates too high. They do not do it for altruism, but for individual profit; yet it shows that they have assessed the balance of risk against gain, and decided that the risk is worth it. Their existence helps to determine the level of tax that the government believes can be imposed without social breakdown.

Those of us under-achievers who have paid taxes all our lives know that high tax prevents us from accumulating savings or freeing ourselves from constant employment for someone else's profit. Those who want to keep employing us for their profit move, strangely enough, in the same social circles as the politicians, and often contribute heavily to their party funds. Naturally, this is just a coincidence, isn't it, Guppy?

Try becoming self-employed. If you make £10,000, then the government will immediately want tax on it, even if you haven't yet received the money, or if you need it to finance further business. See what happens if instead you lose £10,000 and give up. Do you get a cheque from the government for the equivalent share of your lost life-savings? Where's this 'partnership' between worker and government that Guppy's view of the world implies? Isn't 'Heads they win, Tails we lose' more like it?

Honest low-paid workers in the 20% tax band pay a higher percentage of their income in tax (and 'National Insurance', another tax) than the super-rich do, and it hurts them much more because they have so little to live on. Take only £20 a week from somebody earning £200. They are left with £180 and may not be able to eat properly. Take twenty times as much from an employed tax-payer who has £2000 a week, and he is still left with £1600 a week, probably only having to worry about keeping his cottage in Provence or his second Ferrari. He is likely to be philosophical and 'moral' about taxation. He is even let off extra National Insurance when his income gets into the 40% band, so the difference between the bands is less than it seems. The opinion-formers in society are mostly in this 'comfortable' income band. How about you, Guppy? Are you an opinion-former, or do you just have your opinion formed for you?

As for Guppy's reference to 'Benefits' for pensioners, those convert a right that was worked for and paid for into an apparent bonus at the discretion of the state. They are an acknowledgement that the basic pension cannot be lived on, yet they deliberately penalise by means-tested exclusion those who denied themselves immediate pleasures to buy extra pension or savings. Obviously mugs, who deserve to be badly treated by the state.

I repeat, we don't keep taxes down by paying them, we keep them down by resisting them, so that the authorities recognise that they are reaching the limits of what they can get away with. Was it rational argument or rioting that killed the Poll Tax? Can I hear that answer again, please, Guppy? Are riots legal? Are they 'moral'? Did they work?

If I want something, I have to look at how much I earn, and tailor my desires or my date of purchase within that limitation. If the government or the local authority want something they can't afford on last year's taxes, they take more. The poor are more numerous than the rich (why is that, Guppy?), and they are less organised, less well-advised, and less well-connected. So it is easier to take from them than from the rich. They are also less educated and more credulous, so they may even believe the tale that it is for their own good.

I can't get into an ongoing discussion. I have real work to do in the real world, and a real tax form to fill in. I make no apology for sympathising with my friend's point of view, and to a large extent I support it. Remember, he paid all his dues for fifty years of working, and only began to question the system when his modest pension was taxed and left him short of money to live on. With the advance of surveillance and other technology, we move ever closer to the Orwellian state depicted in '1984', and my friend may be one of the last generation who are able to resist at all. The time is coming when every newspaper we buy will be recorded automatically against our 'smart' ID card, and every penny we spend will have to be accounted for in our income tax return. Enjoy a little freedom while it lasts, serfs.

guppy

Scorpio_Brighton wrote: »

I seem to have stung Guppy! (See post #56). However, if Guppy is going to argue an adult case, rather than just registering an emotional upset, it will be necessary to read my original posting (#51) rather more carefully and stop inventing things that were not said in order to refute them more easily.

:rotfl: Don't worry, not stung. Rendered speechless by your twisted logic, but not stung

Scorpio_Brighton wrote: »

As just one example, I did not say that my friend pays 17½% on his undeclared earnings. I said that he pays 17½% VAT, PLUS EXCISE DUTY.

Sorry! I take it all back! This clearly excuses your friend from paying any other taxes at all.

Scorpio_Brighton wrote: »

I can't get into an ongoing discussion. I have real work to do in the real world, and a real tax form to fill in. I make no apology for sympathising with my friend's point of view, and to a large extent I support it. Remember, he paid all his dues for fifty years of working, and only began to question the system when his modest pension was taxed and left him short of money to live on. With the advance of surveillance and other technology, we move ever closer to the Orwellian state depicted in '1984', and my friend may be one of the last generation who are able to resist at all. The time is coming when every newspaper we buy will be recorded automatically against our 'smart' ID card, and every penny we spend will have to be accounted for in our income tax return. Enjoy a little freedom while it lasts, serfs.

I almost believed you when you said you couldn't reply because you had things to do in the real world...but the last bit makes me think you lost touch with it long ago and are holed up in your basement with 3000 cans of beans, a gun and a tin foil hat.

At least we both agree on resisting ID cards anyway...but the difference between resisting ID cards and avoiding tax is that refusing an ID card doesn't cost anyone else money. We'll have to agree to disagree on that

BigSky_3

Scorpio_Brighton wrote: »

I can't get into an ongoing discussion. I have real work to do in the real world, and a real tax form to fill in.

I take from your posts that you won't be filling in your real tax form with real information about your financial affairs. :rotfl:

harryhound

Hi there Guppy & Scorpio,

Very interesting debate. I'm with Scorpio on most things and don't find his (?) argument at all twisted.

- Vintage wine pays the same duty as plonk (In the latter case the bottle and the transport is probably more valuable than the wine). But don't forget there is 17.5% VAT as well on both so the vintage wine does raise more revenue per bottle (and where does the first 1.5 of the 17.5% VAT go ? Am I right in thinking it is paid by the acre, as a non means tested subsidy to agricultural land owners?).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6980382.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/country/article/0,2763,1444597,00.html

- Guppy, you have not answered some of the questions:

* Do you accept that there is a geopolitical class of international smart-a rses, who know how to maximise income and minimise tax?

* Are you paid by the state?

* What is your job?

* Do you consider yourself an opinion former?

* Did riots, especially in Scotland, kill the poll tax? (I am proud to say I gave a talk to the local 6th form on the importance of voting. It included an explanation of how pressure groups can influence government and in reply to a question, included a rant against the proposed 'tax on breathing'; a piece of "gerrymandering" intended to stop the "underclass" registering to vote.).

Anyway I must rush, I've got to waste an extra day of my life this year filling in a manual tax return, as I have acquired an extra income of about 200 GBP that does not fit the boxes on the on-line version. Must get it done & delivered by the end of the month!

TTFN

Harry.

Colin_In_Brum

Regardless of any moral questions regarding tax etc I would avoid like the plague. If he is prepared to cheat the taxman then I'm sure he wouldn't bat an eye at cheating me - using cheap materials, thinned down paints etc. Sometimes real money saving is about paying a FAIR/REALISTIC price not necessarily the cheapest.

Tetsuko

I had to fill in a tax return this year because I earned £8 last year from self employment. It probably cost more than that for IR to process the form.

*palm head* :rotfl:

guppy

harryhound wrote: »

Hi there Guppy & Scorpio,

Very interesting debate. I'm with Scorpio on most things and don't find his (?) argument at all twisted.

- Vintage wine pays the same duty as plonk (In the latter case the bottle and the transport is probably more valuable than the wine). But don't forget there is 17.5% VAT as well on both so the vintage wine does raise more revenue per bottle (and where does the first 1.5 of the 17.5% VAT go ? Am I right in thinking it is paid by the acre, as a non means tested subsidy to agricultural land owners?).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6980382.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/country/article/0,2763,1444597,00.html

Genuinely don't understand your point about the wine.

My main problem with Scorpio's argument was, was that he seems to think that paying VAT and fuel duty means that his friend is morally justified in evading income tax. This is plainly ridiculous and simply shifts the burden on to the rest of us. It doesn't affect the Government in any way. It also makes a formerly law abiding person a criminal.

As I said previously, if Scorpio's friend is poor, he should apply for benefits/tax credits, not just help himself.

harryhound wrote: »

- Guppy, you have not answered some of the questions:

* Do you accept that there is a geopolitical class of international smart-a rses, who know how to maximise income and minimise tax?

If the "geopolitical class" means the super rich in their tax havens, Phil Collins(!) for example...then yes. Irritating as they however, there aren't that many of them and I think they're a bit of red herring here. Irritating as they are, they ain't breaking the law.

* Are you paid by the state?

* What is your job?

* Do you consider yourself an opinion former?

My background is irrelevant. My opinion and argument stands on it's own two feet. I assume you're making the assumption that only those paid by the state in the first place have any principles regarding not dodging tax?

* Did riots, especially in Scotland, kill the poll tax? (I am proud to say I gave a talk to the local 6th form on the importance of voting. It included an explanation of how pressure groups can influence government and in reply to a question, included a rant against the proposed 'tax on breathing'; a piece of "gerrymandering" intended to stop the "underclass" registering to vote.).

Personally, I imagine the riots were just the tip of the iceberg. For every person rioting, there were no doubt thousands at home who were equally outraged, but a little less rash. Have to admit, I don't vote. I now despise the lot of them.

Anyway I must rush, I've got to waste an extra day of my life this year filling in a manual tax return, as I have acquired an extra income of about 200 GBP that does not fit the boxes on the on-line version. Must get it done & delivered by the end of the month!

Good luck. At least you have the option to try and fiddle it if you want, unlike the rest of us who get it deducted at source...