TAX

[No2]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The point of the new OECD measures is to make tax collection from people turning profits on Airbnb, ebay, etc. a lot less resource-intensive for HMRC.  If I'm understanding it correctly, the apps will provide information to HMRC, who can then cross-check it with their own records.  That needn't be too onerous.

 

Obviously, we need greater efforts to clamp down on the large-scale tax dodging of the rich, but we need this as well.

 

Also, car boot sales are not comparable to charity shops, because the latter (believe it or not) are trying to raise money for charity.

I got a book for Christmas I already have. Vat was paid on purchase, shop will pay its taxes. I donate book to charity, woman above buys said book for 2 quid, she then makes the effort I'm unwilling to make to sell it for 4 quid on ebay. 

 

Book manufacturers have been paid.

Shop has been paid.

Tax Man has been paid.

Charity shop make profit. 

Woman reseller makes profit. 

The only loser is me, but even at that I chose to donate so feel comfortable with that. The state don't need to get involved. 

[A Red]

8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The point of the new OECD measures is to make tax collection from people turning profits on Airbnb, ebay, etc. a lot less resource-intensive for HMRC.  If I'm understanding it correctly, the apps will provide information to HMRC, who can then cross-check it with their own records.  That needn't be too onerous.

 

Obviously, we need greater efforts to clamp down on the large-scale tax dodging of the rich, but we need this as well.

 

Also, car boot sales are not comparable to charity shops, because the latter (believe it or not) are trying to raise money for charity.

Its still impossible to enforce and I'm sure there are many ways around this, multiple accounts, addresses etc. Also there is the car boot market. More importantly for me, is that its not fair, I could come up with loads of case studies where taxing somebody on the sale of items would just not be right. The tax emphasise should be for those at the top end, not on those who need to make a few extra quid to supplement low wages or benefits.

[Lee909]

I get the need for this from multi home earning twats avoiding tax. But there are many things that people may get fucked on by just selling possessions. Maybe a silly example and im sure there are plenty of similar things but,Look at people selling guitars for instance, selling a couple on a year will likely take you well over the threshold on something you are already losing money selling and probably only selling to buy a new one. Now you may get taxed for something you bought, already paid tax on, will pay tax on the next one you buy and get possibly hit for selling that one. There should be a system involved that if you have proof of purchase you items bought, then sold on that would only get taxed on profits

 

Fuck haggling in a charity shop, I've seen people doing it and no time for it

[A Red]

12 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

I get the need for this from multi home earning twats avoiding tax. But there are many things that people may get fucked on by just selling possessions. Maybe a silly example and im sure there are plenty of similar things but,Look at people selling guitars for instance, selling a couple on a year will likely take you well over the threshold on something you are already losing money selling and probably only selling to buy a new one. Now you may get taxed for something you bought, already paid tax on, will pay tax on the next one you buy and get possibly hit for selling that one. There should be a system involved that if you have proof of purchase you items bought, then sold on that would only get taxed on profits

 

Fuck haggling in a charity shop, I've seen people doing it and no time for it

Imagine the bureaucracy required to police this.

 

As you've pointed out, the £1k is an annual allowance not per transaction. I cant believe that anyone who considers themselves left wing would want to introduce a system such as this which is aimed at the poorest. (not the airbnb bit)

[AngryOfTuebrook]

37 minutes ago, No2 said:

I got a book for Christmas I already have. Vat was paid on purchase, shop will pay its taxes. I donate book to charity, woman above buys said book for 2 quid, she then makes the effort I'm unwilling to make to sell it for 4 quid on ebay. 

 

Book manufacturers have been paid.

Shop has been paid.

Tax Man has been paid.

Charity shop make profit. 

Woman reseller makes profit. 

The only loser is me, but even at that I chose to donate so feel comfortable with that. The state don't need to get involved. 

For one book, the reseller wouldn't get taxed.

 

If the woman haggles the price, so the charity makes less money and she makes more, then she's a cunt.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 minutes ago, A Red said:

Imagine the bureaucracy required to police this.

 

As you've pointed out, the £1k is an annual allowance not per transaction. I cant believe that anyone who considers themselves left wing would want to introduce a system such as this which is aimed at the poorest. (not the airbnb bit)

The bureaucracy needn't be too onerous: eBay, etc. provide the data of the sellers to HMRC and they cross-check it with their records.  Nor is it necessarily targeted at the poorest: although they will have the details of people making profits of more than £1,000 a year, they could (and should, if only for the sake of efficiency) decide to focus on those making profits in excess of, say, £20,000 a year.

 

In practice, I'd be surprised if you saw anyone who is just cleaning out their attic on Vinted or flogging a few hand-knitted jumpers on Etsy ever paying a penny of tax as a result of this.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

52 minutes ago, A Red said:

Its still impossible to enforce and I'm sure there are many ways around this, multiple accounts, addresses etc. Also there is the car boot market. More importantly for me, is that its not fair, I could come up with loads of case studies where taxing somebody on the sale of items would just not be right. The tax emphasise should be for those at the top end, not on those who need to make a few extra quid to supplement low wages or benefits.

Collecting tax is not impossible to enforce: lots of people have been doing it for centuries.  The fact that fraud exists, doesn't mean tax collectors should pack up and go home.  Collecting tax on profits made through Airbnb, eBay, etc. is currently difficult; from next year it will be easier.

 

The car boot market is the same as any cash trade: the government relies on people accurately declaring their income (and many don't).  That's not relevant to these new OECD regs on online trading platforms.

 

I don't see why you think this data-sharing is unfair.  If the government decided that they were going after Stronts's attic clearance and ignoring all the dodgy offshore shit (which is admittedly possible with this Tory kleptocracy) that would be unfair; but that's not what's being proposed here.

[Section_31]

I think they have been doing a form of this for a good while, hmrc used to peruse ebay to find regular sellers and see if they were registered. 

[Jairzinho]

28 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

If the government decided that they were going after Stronts's attic clearance and ignoring all the dodgy offshore shit (which is admittedly possible with this Tory kleptocracy) that would be unfair; but that's not what's being proposed here.

 

That is precisely what will happen, and exactly why shit like this is so unpopular with most people.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

That is precisely what will happen, and exactly why shit like this is so unpopular with most people.

Nah.  Obviously, they'll continue to turn a blind eye to the rich, but I can't see them using this to go after people making a few quid here and there; it just wouldn't pay for itself.  The reason it will be unpopular is the misleading framing of the story (as the BBC have done) which makes it look like they're coming after Stronts, when they're really not.

[Jairzinho]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nah.  Obviously, they'll continue to turn a blind eye to the rich, but I can't see them using this to go after people making a few quid here and there; it just wouldn't pay for itself.  The reason it will be unpopular is the misleading framing of the story (as the BBC have done) which makes it look like they're coming after Stronts, when they're really not.

 

 

Well, it appears the Guardian and Independent are always to blame for the misleading framing of the story, because they're basically saying the same.

 

If you make more than about £80 a month clearing stuff out of your house, or even just flipping stuff from car boots, you may now have your bank details shared with the tax authorities. Yeah, it's a fantastic policy which will be really popular with everyone.

 

As others have said, people often trying turning a small profit re-selling stuff online precisely because of how unbelieveably fucking shit society is financially for most people. 

[No2]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

For one book, the reseller wouldn't get taxed.

 

If the woman haggles the price, so the charity makes less money and she makes more, then she's a cunt.

Nobody has argued that woman haggling with Charity shops isn't a cunt. The point is even she does it amazingly well she could end up clearing 20k in a year, I'd prefer her to pay tax on that but as ARed has pointed out the bureaucracy and cost behind that is self defeating. The idea in principle is probably fine, the threshold isn't.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, No2 said:

Nobody has argued that woman haggling with Charity shops isn't a cunt. 

A Red has.

[Rushies tash]

They'll probably scrap the whole idea then include it as one of their 'tax cuts' in their election campaign.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 minutes ago, No2 said:

Nobody has argued that woman haggling with Charity shops isn't a cunt. The point is even she does it amazingly well she could end up clearing 20k in a year, I'd prefer her to pay tax on that but as ARed has pointed out the bureaucracy and cost behind that is self defeating. The idea in principle is probably fine, the threshold isn't.

I agree about the threshold: £1,000 seems very low.  So low that, I believe, HMRC will know that chasing people earning that level of extra income won't be worth it (which is why I think that - as someone in the BBC article says - the vast majority of people on Etsy or eBay won't be affected in any way). 

 

HMRC will, however, have access to the details of people who regularly make more than that and they will be able to estimate a level at which it is cost-effective to check whether people are paying the correct rate of tax.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rushies tash said:

They'll probably scrap the whole idea then include it as one of their 'tax cuts' in their election campaign.

It's not a Tory idea: it's an OECD one.

[Rushies tash]

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's not a Tory idea: it's an OECD one.

 

Just checked, and yeah. How very sovereign. 

[A Red]

11 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

A Red has.

No, I argued that negotiating a price isn't ripping people off.

 

But there could be scenarios that negotiating with a charity shop is fair enough. Imagine a young couple without much money looking to get married and she sees a wedding dress in a charity shop for £300 (it does happen). She offers £250, is she a cunt?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

13 minutes ago, A Red said:

No, I argued that negotiating a price isn't ripping people off.

 

But there could be scenarios that negotiating with a charity shop is fair enough. Imagine a young couple without much money looking to get married and she sees a wedding dress in a charity shop for £300 (it does happen). She offers £250, is she a cunt?

It still amounts to taking money that should have gone to the charity and putting it in your own pocket.

[A Red]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The bureaucracy needn't be too onerous: eBay, etc. provide the data of the sellers to HMRC and they cross-check it with their records.  Nor is it necessarily targeted at the poorest: although they will have the details of people making profits of more than £1,000 a year, they could (and should, if only for the sake of efficiency) decide to focus on those making profits in excess of, say, £20,000 a year.

 

In practice, I'd be surprised if you saw anyone who is just cleaning out their attic on Vinted or flogging a few hand-knitted jumpers on Etsy ever paying a penny of tax as a result of this.

You don't seem to have any idea about how some people on low incomes survive. 

 

This OECD thing that the Tories are now looking to enforce doesn't require a change in the law, its already there. The Tories are choosing to pick it up and as part of it go after the poor. They can hide behind the OECD. I cant believe you cant see this. Forget the 20k a year you are now saying it should be, or that you'd be surprised if they went after jumper sellers, it is £1k a year for anything people sell.

 

Its the tories clamping down on the poor and its me that's having to explain it to you.

[Strontium]

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.

 

 

[No2]

50 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

A Red has.

He has and he hasn't, he thinks negotiating isn't the same as ripping off. I'd be inclined to agree, even if I wouldn't do it myself. Charity shops generally want to move goods on ASAP to make room for more, any profit they make is better than it staying on the shelf.

[Strontium]

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.

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, No2 said:

He has and he hasn't, he thinks negotiating isn't the same as ripping off. I'd be inclined to agree, even if I wouldn't do it myself. Charity shops generally want to move goods on ASAP to make room for more, any profit they make is better than it staying on the shelf.

I wouldn't do it either

[AngryOfTuebrook]

21 minutes ago, A Red said:

You don't seem to have any idea about how some people on low incomes survive. 

 

This OECD thing that the Tories are now looking to enforce doesn't require a change in the law, its already there. The Tories are choosing to pick it up and as part of it go after the poor. They can hide behind the OECD. I cant believe you cant see this. Forget the 20k a year you are now saying it should be, or that you'd be surprised if they went after jumper sellers, it is £1k a year for anything people sell.

 

Its the tories clamping down on the poor and its me that's having to explain it to you.

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.