TAX

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Strontium said:

Worth remembering that charity shops get their stock for free, their labour for free, and don't pay tax, so their profit margins are well ahead of most businesses.

Their shareholders must be raking it in!

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Their shareholders must be raking it in!

 

CEO compensation among charities in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

[Dr Nowt]

13 minutes ago, Strontium said:

I'm sure the charity shop would be so much better off if the person didn't buy the items off them in the first place.

 

The threshold is £1k. That means they will go after anyone selling more than £1k of stuff in a year. Sell a couple of things a month and you're fucked. But how else will Michelle Mone afford her next yacht.

 

 

Odd it’s starting on and being counted from January 1st, suggesting it’s being calculated over the calendar year rather than the fiscal year.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 minutes ago, Strontium said:

The threshold is £1k. That means they will go after anyone selling more than £1k of stuff in a year. Sell a couple of things a month and you're fucked. But how else will Michelle Mone afford her next yacht.

Not necessarily.  It's entirely up to HMRC (with a steer from the government) who they go after.  Anyone selling a couple of things a month would probably not be worth chasing; the much smaller number of people making significant profits would be worth chasing, and rightly so.

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You're wrong on... just about everything.

 

You (and Stronts) seem to have forgotten what the article actually says, so here it is again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67855872

 

The only thing that is changing is that the HMRC will have easier access to information about people's taxable income. That's it.

While HMRC was already able to request information from UK-based online operators, from the start of this year there are new rules that the UK has signed up to via the international body, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as part of a global effort to clamp down on tax dodgers

 

When it says the UK has signed up , who do you think they mean, who is the UK? 

 

The government said the new rules would help it "bear down on tax evasion", as sellers on digital platforms would now be treated more like traditional businesses.

 

Jumper sellers? 

 

The only thing that is changing is that the HMRC will have easier access to information about people's taxable income. That's it.

 

What do you think the tories will do with this information?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

CEO compensation among charities in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Irrelevant, as usual.

 

What do you think would happen if, next time you're buying a second-hand Girls Aloud CD from the Cats Protection League, you haggled them down from £3.50 to £2.50?  Would the CEO lose a quid from their salary? Or would the cats lose a quid?

 

Obviously, you could choose not to buy the CD, but then someone else would and the cats would get the full price.

[A Red]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not necessarily.  It's entirely up to HMRC (with a steer from the government) who they go after.  Anyone selling a couple of things a month would probably not be worth chasing; the much smaller number of people making significant profits would be worth chasing, and rightly so.

I really cant believe I'm reading this, you of all people.

 

You actually trust the tories.

[No2]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not necessarily.  It's entirely up to HMRC (with a steer from the government) who they go after.  Anyone selling a couple of things a month would probably not be worth chasing; the much smaller number of people making significant profits would be worth chasing, and rightly so.

You have a lot more faith in the authorities than I do. Most people want to avoid the tax man at all costs, whether you're right or not people will look at 1k threshold and say fuck it, it's going in the bin. It unnecessarily low, if they have no intention of going after little people why would would that be the case?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, A Red said:

While HMRC was already able to request information from UK-based online operators, from the start of this year there are new rules that the UK has signed up to via the international body, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as part of a global effort to clamp down on tax dodgers

 

When it says the UK has signed up , who do you think they mean, who is the UK? 

 

The government said the new rules would help it "bear down on tax evasion", as sellers on digital platforms would now be treated more like traditional businesses.

 

Jumper sellers? 

 

The only thing that is changing is that the HMRC will have easier access to information about people's taxable income. That's it.

 

What do you think the tories will do with this information?

I've no idea what point you think you're making here.  Nothing that you've highlighted goes against anything I've posted.

[Strontium]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not necessarily.  It's entirely up to HMRC (with a steer from the government) who they go after.  Anyone selling a couple of things a month would probably not be worth chasing; the much smaller number of people making significant profits would be worth chasing, and rightly so.

 

But they don't need to actively chase anyone now as they're getting a list of names, addresses and bank account details emailed to them! It will require virtually zero effort on their part to go after anyone.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, A Red said:

I really cant believe I'm reading this, you of all people.

 

You actually trust the tories.

Why would you assume that?

 

Tories are happy to waste vast amounts of public money chasing people that the right-wing press identify as bogeymen (asylum seekers, Just Stop Oil, trade unions, etc.).  People flogging stuff out of their attic aren't on the list, so - in the absence of interference from the Tories - HMRC will be free to make rational decisions i.e. only spend money chasing people if it brings more money in

 

[Leyton388]

So the tories won't tax their billionaire mates but Doris selling her used jumpers on vented will get a knock on the door from HMRC? 

 

Honestly anyone who keeps voting for this scum needs their heads testing. 

 

This will get challenged in court IMO. 

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've no idea what point you think you're making here.  Nothing that you've highlighted goes against anything I've posted.

Ok, the tories have signed up to be able to tax people on anything they sell over £1k. Not HMRC but the tories. They have the right, using the OCED as an excuse, to go after anyone. You dont think they will.

 

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Irrelevant, as usual.

 

What do you think would happen if, next time you're buying a second-hand Girls Aloud CD from the Cats Protection League, you haggled them down from £3.50 to £2.50?  Would the CEO lose a quid from their salary? Or would the cats lose a quid?

 

Obviously, you could choose not to buy the CD, but then someone else would and the cats would get the full price.

 

It's not irrelevant, you made a crack about shareholders, so I just pointed out that charity CEOs are making a pretty penny.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you fail to appreciate that £2.50 right now is often a better deal than a hypothetical £3.50 at some unspecified point in the future. I mean, you could try to buy some cat food with the prospect of £3.50 in the future, but I don't fancy your chances.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

So the tories won't tax their billionaire mates but Doris selling her used jumpers on vented will get a knock on the door from HMRC? 

 

Honestly anyone who keeps voting for this scum needs their heads testing. 

 

This will get challenged in court IMO. 

There are no grounds for a legal challenge.

 

All that has happened here is that some people's taxable income which is currently hidden from the tax authorities is going to be more accessible to them.  So more people who should be paying tax (to fund public services and infrastructure) will pay tax.  That's a good thing.  It would be better still if they also tackled the large scale tax Dodgers, but this is a reasonable start.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

18 minutes ago, A Red said:

Ok, the tories have signed up to be able to tax people on anything they sell over £1k. Not HMRC but the tories. They have the right, using the OCED as an excuse, to go after anyone. You dont think they will.

 

OK.

 

The UK is a member of OECD.  All OECD countries have agreed that a growing sector of the economy should be as visible as the rest of the economy, when it comes to taxable income.  That income is already subject to the usual tax laws: no new taxes are being introduced here.  It's just that it's going to be less easy for people to hide their taxable income.

 

Serious enforcement action costs money.  HMRC will balance the cost of chasing Doris and Stronts against the likely income they'll get.  The only reason they would chase after loads of small traders is if there was direct pressure from the Government, and I can't see that happening in an election year.

[lifetime fan]

Working in care we never get paid the full mileage allowance allowable under tax, 45p. We should in theory be able to claim tax back on top of whatever we do get paid (22p for myself) but the system is so fucking difficult to use I never bother.

 

I estimate I paid an extra 2 grand a year in tax last year.
 

I’d love to see the government start an app for all care workers overpaying tax on fucking minimum wage jobs first. But they bank on carers not jumping through all the loopholes to get what’s rightfully theirs. 

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

OK.

 

The UK is a member of OECD.  All OECD countries have agreed that a growing sector of the economy should be as visible as the rest of the economy, when it comes to taxable income.  That income is already subject to the usual tax laws: no new taxes are being introduced here.  It's just that it's going to be less easy for people to hide their taxable income.

 

Serious enforcement action costs money.  HMRC will balance the cost of chasing Doris and Stronts against the likely income they'll get.  The only reason they would chase after loads of small traders is if there was direct pressure from the Government, and I can't see that happening in an election year.

The UK chose to sign up to this, well, the Tories did.

 

You are confident that the Tories didn't sign up in order to be able to tax poor people and even if they tried HMRC would make sure they didn't, but the Tories wont anyway because its an election year. Its a genuine Tory attempt to get after proper tax evaders.

 

That's a fair reflection of your view?

[littletedwest]

52 minutes ago, Dr Nowt said:

Odd it’s starting on and being counted from January 1st, suggesting it’s being calculated over the calendar year rather than the fiscal year.

This has always been the law, what's new is the reporting on it. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

41 minutes ago, A Red said:

The UK chose to sign up to this, well, the Tories did.

 

You are confident that the Tories didn't sign up in order to be able to tax poor people and even if they tried HMRC would make sure they didn't, but the Tories wont anyway because its an election year. Its a genuine Tory attempt to get after proper tax evaders.

 

That's a fair reflection of your view?

No.

 

If you want a fair reflection of my view, read the fucking words 

[Dr Nowt]

1 hour ago, littletedwest said:

This has always been the law, what's new is the reporting on it. 

So the £1,000 you can make is within the fiscal year?

[littletedwest]

Yes. Also bear in mind this is in addition to your normal 12570 tax free. Not that that's a lot nowadays.

You've always been obliged to fill in a self assessment return if you make more than 1000 profit through self employment. It's just this reporting mechanism began from 1st Jan

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you fail to appreciate that £2.50 right now is often a better deal than a hypothetical £3.50 at some unspecified point in the future. I mean, you could try to buy some cat food with the prospect of £3.50 in the future, but I don't fancy your chances.

Try that theory in Tesco. Let me know how you get on.

[Jairzinho]

13 minutes ago, littletedwest said:

Yes. Also bear in mind this is in addition to your normal 12570 tax free. Not that that's a lot nowadays.

You've always been obliged to fill in a self assessment return if you make more than 1000 profit through self employment. It's just this reporting mechanism began from 1st Jan

 

Yes, the main difference here/now is the previous general acceptance that chasing after people who make a few extra quid selling CDs or jumpers, partly because they're on such shit pay, is poor form, a waste of time, and deeply unpopular, is now going to change.

 

I genuinely can't understand anyone supporting this shit. It's clearly going to be people who haven't got a pot to piss in that get fucked by this. 

[Bjornebye]

8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Try that theory in Tesco. Let me know how you get on.