Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question in the blue-yellow battles is how much you

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited February 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question in the blue-yellow battles is how much you can trust the Ashcroft two stage seat specific questioning

There’s a big debate going on over the Lord Ashcroft style two stage questioning in his single constituency polls of which there have been more than 150. It will be recalled that after asking the standard voting question he puts a second one suggesting that those sampled focus on their own seat and the candidates who might stand.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • First!
  • One wonders whether the Tory hierarchy listen to the noble Lord these days - perhaps his 'critical friend' has been too 'critical' for some of their tastes. More fool them.

    Unless of course the Tories private polling is being done by a Canadian firm.......
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Speaking personally, for predicting results in Con/LD marginals, I'm splitting the difference between the standard voting intention and the constituency-specific voting intentions.

    Admittedly this might just be confirmation bias, since I'm hoping for a Lib Dem annihilation, but I just find it very hard to believe Lib Dem MPs could be getting such huge boosts as these polls indicate. My suspicion is some people interpret the "thinking about your local area" as if they're being asked how they'd vote in local elections (and there's a long history of the Lib Dems doing better in local elections than they do in Westminster elections in a lot of the areas concerned).
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Greece:
    http://www.capx.co/greeks-should-look-at-what-happened-to-venezuela-under-hugo-chavez/
    The tragedy for the people of Greece is to find themselves ground between the millstones of EU economic illiteracy fuelled by geopolitical fantasy and the fiscal infantilism of Marxist La La Land. That dilemma reflects the catastrophic failure of the current political system, controlled by solemn-mannered, smooth-spoken charlatans, which represents a very grave danger for the entire continent.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Financial "back to basics" continues...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2955038/ANDREW-PIERCE-union-comrades-avoiding-tax.html
    Unite, whose votes secured Red Ed the party leadership, also had a mighty shares portfolio of £51.6 million in 2012. How much corporation tax, currently at 20 per cent, did the union pay over those two years? None.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    What no LibDem has explained to me is this. When you look at the 2010 results, the seats where the LibDems won against the Tories had bled the Labour vote dry, often down close to lost deposit levels for Labour. Many of these were borrowed Labour tactical votes. As soon as the LibDems went into Coalition with the Tories, those were the voters most pissed off with Clegg. Those are still the voters most likely to forgive Miliband his failings, most evangelical in their determination not to repeat their mistake again.

    And yet...the LibDem vote holding up depends on these people having a total change of heart, coming back to the LibDem fold WHILE THERE IS STILL A CHANCE CLEGG COULD DO EXACTLY THE SAME IN MAY - back another Coalition with the Tories.

    Sorry, but why the unfrozen-over hell should these voters come back to a Clegg-led LibDem party? Give me some rational reason why people who fundamentally hate Clegg for turning out to be a crypto-Tory should risk giving him the MPs to do exactly the same thing again?
  • Might be some local candidate bias but prob this time not as much as previous. You can't stop the tide by sitting in your chair, no matter how well known you are. LD performance somewhere between national vote share & local expectation so 20 seats?

    I want to back Labour for value but got big naggings. Alex Salmond = biggest, more than Miliband who I think may be factored in. In final week if E&W voters see Miliband + Salmond as odds on they'll run back blue won't they?

    Was also thinking y'day we may be seeing return of shy tories. Last time we had them outside the London mayor vote was last time they were in govt 1992. Several reasons to do with current news items to think shy tories may be back in frame.

    Also worried people haven't woken to election yet. When? 18th March? 30th March? Never?

    Head says NoM Lab-SNP coalition but little value there.

    Hardest election to punt on for ages. Best way is to take the spreads but put time in to follow moves. Too many variables. Chances for serious winnings but also many burnt fingers. Tough tough call this.
  • Anyone else thinking Fixed term parliament has been major ballsup? Doesn't seem to have increased voter participation in politics. It's just bubbleised Westminster even more.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    edited February 2015



    And yet...the LibDem vote holding up depends on these people having a total change of heart, coming back to the LibDem fold WHILE THERE IS STILL A CHANCE CLEGG COULD DO EXACTLY THE SAME IN MAY - back another Coalition with the Tories.

    Sorry, but why the unfrozen-over hell should these voters come back to a Clegg-led LibDem party? Give me some rational reason why people who fundamentally hate Clegg for turning out to be a crypto-Tory should risk giving him the MPs to do exactly the same thing again?

    Because it's a chance whereas electing a Tory MP turns it into a certainty.

    If you had to play russian roulette (First past the post) wouldn't you take any chance to remove some rounds from the magazine and improve your chances ?

    If you had to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, would you want the one with 6 bullets in it or the one with 4 or 5 ?

    Even if you thought there was only 10% chance of the Lib Dems supporting Labour, it's the vote that carries the best percentage of desired outcome.
  • Greens + UKIP factors in how well LDs do too compared to 2010. If Greens and UKIP balance out left and right LDs may fare ok for seats on a reduced vote share. If Greens take lot of LD naturals then could be a prob.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937



    And yet...the LibDem vote holding up depends on these people having a total change of heart, coming back to the LibDem fold WHILE THERE IS STILL A CHANCE CLEGG COULD DO EXACTLY THE SAME IN MAY - back another Coalition with the Tories.

    Sorry, but why the unfrozen-over hell should these voters come back to a Clegg-led LibDem party? Give me some rational reason why people who fundamentally hate Clegg for turning out to be a crypto-Tory should risk giving him the MPs to do exactly the same thing again?

    Because it's a chance whereas electing a Tory MP turns it into a certainty.

    If you had to play russian roulette (First past the post) wouldn't you take any chance to remove some rounds from the magazine and improve your chances ?

    If you had to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, would you want the one with 6 bullets in it or the one with 4 or 5 ?

    Even if you thought there was only 10% chance of the Lib Dems supporting Labour, it's the vote that carries the best percentage of desired outcome.
    That's the Logical way to view it, sure. But this isn't about logic. It's about hurt. It's about disappointment. It's about buyers remorse. Those ex-LibDems are the mirror of the kippers who can't bring themselves to vote Tory, even when every logical argument says voting Tory delivers them the best - only? - chance of getting what they want.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    O/T

    Tonight Channel4 9pm,

    UKIP: The First 100 days - A look at a possible future where Nigel Farage's party has won a shock election victory and taken power in Great Britain. The programme follows Deepa Kaur, UKIP's only female Asian MP, as she tries to navigate frontline politics during her first 100 days in the job.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514



    And yet...the LibDem vote holding up depends on these people having a total change of heart, coming back to the LibDem fold WHILE THERE IS STILL A CHANCE CLEGG COULD DO EXACTLY THE SAME IN MAY - back another Coalition with the Tories.

    Sorry, but why the unfrozen-over hell should these voters come back to a Clegg-led LibDem party? Give me some rational reason why people who fundamentally hate Clegg for turning out to be a crypto-Tory should risk giving him the MPs to do exactly the same thing again?

    Because it's a chance whereas electing a Tory MP turns it into a certainty.

    If you had to play russian roulette (First past the post) wouldn't you take any chance to remove some rounds from the magazine and improve your chances ?

    If you had to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, would you want the one with 6 bullets in it or the one with 4 or 5 ?

    Even if you thought there was only 10% chance of the Lib Dems supporting Labour, it's the vote that carries the best percentage of desired outcome.
    That's the Logical way to view it, sure. But this isn't about logic. It's about hurt. It's about disappointment. It's about buyers remorse. Those ex-LibDems are the mirror of the kippers who can't bring themselves to vote Tory, even when every logical argument says voting Tory delivers them the best - only? - chance of getting what they want.
    You're simply trying to convince yourself that the current numbers aren't true.

    The facts are tactical voters will vote tactically and Labourites are the biggest tactical voters; only about 20% of kippers have Europe as their No. 1 priority so banging on about a referendum simply misses the target.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Indigo said:

    Financial "back to basics" continues...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2955038/ANDREW-PIERCE-union-comrades-avoiding-tax.html

    Unite, whose votes secured Red Ed the party leadership, also had a mighty shares portfolio of £51.6 million in 2012. How much corporation tax, currently at 20 per cent, did the union pay over those two years? None.
    The public are never going to view a lefty Labour opposition as more corrupt than a Tory government. That's just the way it is. The only hope for the Tories is to change the subject.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: Chuka Umunna on cash-in-hand: "I don’t think everybody will keep a receipt for every single thing they pay for... I don't." @BBCBreakfast

    Chuka distancing himself from the Eds. A clean pair of hands after the inevitable disaster?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Freggles said:

    Indigo said:

    Financial "back to basics" continues...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2955038/ANDREW-PIERCE-union-comrades-avoiding-tax.html

    Unite, whose votes secured Red Ed the party leadership, also had a mighty shares portfolio of £51.6 million in 2012. How much corporation tax, currently at 20 per cent, did the union pay over those two years? None.
    The public are never going to view a lefty Labour opposition as more corrupt than a Tory government. That's just the way it is. The only hope for the Tories is to change the subject.


    Really ? I think they'll simply view the corruption from another perspective, Labour is heavily prone to cronyism.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Scott_P said:

    @politicshome: Chuka Umunna on cash-in-hand: "I don’t think everybody will keep a receipt for every single thing they pay for... I don't." @BBCBreakfast

    Chuka distancing himself from the Eds. A clean pair of hands after the inevitable disaster?

    The BBC were on a better approach asking him why he was wasting his time chasing a bloke paying a tenner instead of looking at the tax affairs of multinats. Chuka didn't really have an answer.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    That's the Logical way to view it, sure. But this isn't about logic. It's about hurt. It's about disappointment. It's about buyers remorse. Those ex-LibDems are the mirror of the kippers who can't bring themselves to vote Tory, even when every logical argument says voting Tory delivers them the best - only? - chance of getting what they want.

    Sort of.

    The press rather missed the point of the obviously skilfully judged kipper platform for the election, as shown in their recent launch. The patriotism bit is the one thing that the ex-Labour WWC vote and the shire Tories have in common, and it can be interpreted as either or both of anti-EU or anti-immigration according to the listeners own taste.

    My view is currently Kipperdom is more about immigration than it is about the EU, because Farage is discovered is plays well with all wings of his party, and the great majority of the public (the Guardian can scoff all it wants, the BES survey showed very strong support for reducing immigration in the UK population, and its likely to be a very shy vote when examined in VI polls because of UKIPs image problem, and because a lot of people might be cautious about flaunting their views on immigration in public).

    If you accept Kipperdom is really about immigration, then Dave's failure to deliver the "no-ifs, no-buts" promise makes him no more reliable person to vote for than Redward, the view that both major parties are as bad as each other has been shown to be the case on immigration, so why vote for either ? Might as well vote kipper and see if they can get a dozen seats and start to hold the main parties feet to the flames.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2015
    Freggles said:

    Indigo said:

    Financial "back to basics" continues...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2955038/ANDREW-PIERCE-union-comrades-avoiding-tax.html

    Unite, whose votes secured Red Ed the party leadership, also had a mighty shares portfolio of £51.6 million in 2012. How much corporation tax, currently at 20 per cent, did the union pay over those two years? None.
    The public are never going to view a lefty Labour opposition as more corrupt than a Tory government. That's just the way it is. The only hope for the Tories is to change the subject.


    Nope, you miss the point. It's Tories doing what Tories do, its already factored in to their vote. Labour is meant to be cleaner and nicer than the Tories, the evidence is that it isn't, that will come as a shock to some of their voters.

    Who is more likely to be shocked about outraged about financial irregularities, readers of The Telegraph, or readers of the Guardian ? Who do they mostly vote for ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Chuka didn't really have an answer.

    When was the last time he did?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567


    Sorry, but why the unfrozen-over hell should these voters come back to a Clegg-led LibDem party? Give me some rational reason why people who fundamentally hate Clegg for turning out to be a crypto-Tory should risk giving him the MPs to do exactly the same thing again?

    A lot of people routinely vote on the basis of the lesser evil - indeed I'd say that negative politics is dominant in Britain: you don't often meet undiluted enthusiasm. If a Tory wins he'll certainly support a Tory government. A LibDem MP might or might not. For quite a lot of tactical voters it's as simple as that.
  • I expect the second stage will be most reliable where parties are organised enough to remind the voters of the virtues of their MP, but not otherwise. To identify which constituencies the Lib Dems are organised enough in, local election results may well be a guide.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Scott_P said:

    @politicshome: Chuka Umunna on cash-in-hand: "I don’t think everybody will keep a receipt for every single thing they pay for... I don't." @BBCBreakfast

    Chuka distancing himself from the Eds. A clean pair of hands after the inevitable disaster?

    Indeed. Cash-in-hand is nigh on impossible to stop, and its very small beer compared to the big fish, and it's disproportionately advantageous to lower income groups, one could almost call it "progressive tax evasion" ;)

    Here people are required to issue a receipt for any purchase of goods or services by law, if your tradesman doesn't issue a receipt you can phone the hotline and he will get a visit from revenue inspectors. Does that stop cash-in-hand ? You have to be joking! Receipts are instead made out for a much smaller sum than the actual value of the transaction, the customer goes away happy with his discount, the tradesman pockets (most) of the cash.
  • To clamp down effectively on cash in hand, the state would first need to make it socially unacceptable. Perhaps politicians could have a long hard think about why it is not?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2015
    Anecdote:

    On the subject of cash-in-hand, a few years ago I was chatting with the man from Customs and Excise as he reviewed my VAT returns, and he told me that their biggest nightmare was dry-cleaning shops.

    I asked why. He said well if you have say a sandwich making company, they can look at the receipt for the bread and fillings you buy, and estimate how many sandwiches you would make as a result, look at your sales and see if the two are in anyway comparable.

    In the dry cleaning world, the business runs the machine two of three times a day, it has the same amount of solvent put in regardless of how many items of clothing are in the load, and the cycle runs for the same time regardless, in short there is no relationship between inputs and outputs, and the services are the sort of price where people just hand over a fiver or a tenner for their suit, as sufficiently inconsequential that very few customers care about, or keep the receipts. The only real chance they have he said was to watch customers going in out out for a significant period of time, or run a lot of dummy customers, both of which are expensive, so they have to be pretty sure they are on to something.
  • Anyone else thinking Fixed term parliament has been major ballsup? Doesn't seem to have increased voter participation in politics. It's just bubbleised Westminster even more.

    If it's reduced short term thinking in any way, that would be a plus. We certainly needed stability in 2010 and could do with it going forward.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2015
    antifrank said:

    To clamp down effectively on cash in hand, the state would first need to make it socially unacceptable. Perhaps politicians could have a long hard think about why it is not?

    Three reasons off the top of my head.

    People like to be able to pay for items untraceable, as a privacy thing, certain sorts of items are always going to be paid for cash, because people don't want it on their bank statement or credit card bill. One wonders how many cheques "adult shops" get in the average day! Similarly people are often nervous about handing their financial details to an unknown tradesman, cash is much more cut and dried with no follow-on exposure.

    Plausible deniability. When I pay a tradesman, whether he pays his tax or not is none of my business, I might have my suspicions, but its really not my problem, any more than if I was selling garden implements I should be worried in case every time someone buys an axe that they are going to use it for murder.

    Most people save money from it, tradesmen offer a discount for cash, so the customer pays less. Making paying less socially unacceptable is going to be an uphill fight!

    More fundamentally most of the population view taxation as legalised robbery, I have never met anyone that was offended by the request from a tradesman for a cash payment, reactions have varied between indifferent to "good one if you can get away with it". The vast majority of the population would avoid tax if it could, that makes making socially unacceptable effectively impossible, contrast say drink-driving, which the vast majority of the population wouldn't do, so was easier (but still took a long time) to make socially unacceptable.
  • Greens + UKIP factors in how well LDs do too compared to 2010. If Greens and UKIP balance out left and right LDs may fare ok for seats on a reduced vote share. If Greens take lot of LD naturals then could be a prob.

    A lot of the 2010 'new' LibDems moved to Labour on the creation of the coalition. When UKIP appeared some jumped on the bandwagon. As UKIP became more toxic some moved to the Greens. I suspect that they don't have a full appreciation of the Green's policies yet.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    The second seat specific question indicated that the Labour vote was going to be squeezed in these seats by tactical voting but it in fact underestimated the result. My guess is that this time it will be the other way around with more Labour supporters voting for the home team after they found that they had in fact voted for a tory led coalition the last time around.

    A bigger factor is that I suspect the reason the second specific question understated the result was the Cleggasm. Although they lost a few seats the Lib Dems polled really well in 2010, more than twice as well as they are polling at the moment and better than they would have been polling when PoliticsHome did their polling. This shows the major problem for me of the Ashdown constituency polls. Even if they were accurate (very big if) they are historic and the general drift down of the Lib Dem vote since most of them were done is not reflected.

    This shows that even strong incumbents are vulnerable to national swings. If the Lib Dems do not substantially improve their national polling they are facing serious losses (that is up to 30). Last time around the debate structure gave Clegg a tremendous boost. This time around he is not going to get that, being excluded from the head to head and in amongst the minor parties. It is not a good position and I suspect it will cost the Lib Dems up to 10 additional seats.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    I've backed the blues heavily in Solihull, Wells and Somerton. Lightly in St Ives, yellows in Eastleigh and Sutton. Have 1_10 blue gains as a bet too at relatively good odds against. Torbay is hedged but hope Kevin wins.

    Also have small blue punts in Bath and Twickers

    I think this is one of the trickiest ones to call, LDs who have kept a distance from Govt may fare better than those who haven,t
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ed Balls 'Asked if he always conformed to his own rule, he replied: “Over my life — have I ever given people a tenner and not got a receipt for it? Probably yes. Since I’ve been involved in politics and Treasury matters, absolutely, I think it’s really important to have a record.” '

    ...otherwise I would not be able to expense it...
  • Financier said:

    O/T

    Tonight Channel4 9pm,

    UKIP: The First 100 days - A look at a possible future where Nigel Farage's party has won a shock election victory and taken power in Great Britain. The programme follows Deepa Kaur, UKIP's only female Asian MP, as she tries to navigate frontline politics during her first 100 days in the job.

    I'm sure it will be about as balanced as Neil Ashton's opinion of Jose Mourinho.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: Chuka Umunna on Ed Balls' cash comments: "Is he demanding that your viewers keep every single receipt they get?...No, he wasn’t." @SkyNews

    Ummm...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    To clamp down effectively on cash in hand, the state would first need to make it socially unacceptable. Perhaps politicians could have a long hard think about why it is not?

    Three reasons off the top of my head.

    People like to be able to pay for items untraceable, as a privacy thing, certain sorts of items are always going to be paid for cash, because people don't want it on their bank statement or credit card bill. One wonders how many cheques "adult shops" get in the average day! Similarly people are often nervous about handing their financial details to an unknown tradesman, cash is much more cut and dried with no follow-on exposure.

    Plausible deniability. When I pay a tradesman, whether he pays his tax or not is none of my business, I might have my suspicions, but its really not my problem, any more than if I was selling garden implements I should be worried in case every time someone buys an axe that they are going to use it for murder.

    Most people save money from it, tradesmen offer a discount for cash, so the customer pays less. Making paying less socially unacceptable is going to be an uphill fight!

    More fundamentally most of the population view taxation as legalised robbery, I have never met anyone that was offended by the request from a tradesman for a cash payment, reactions have varied between indifferent to "good one if you can get away with it". The vast majority of the population would avoid tax if it could, that makes making socially unacceptable effectively impossible, contrast say drink-driving, which the vast majority of the population wouldn't do, so was easier (but still took a long time) to make socially unacceptable.
    One of the more entertaining cases I have been involved in concerned VAT in a brothel. HMRC were seeking to aggregate the girls' earnings with those of the establishment for VAT purposes. They lost but what I found astonishing was that the establishment did indeed receive quite a number of cheques for the room hires.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    DavidL said:

    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    To clamp down effectively on cash in hand, the state would first need to make it socially unacceptable. Perhaps politicians could have a long hard think about why it is not?

    Three reasons off the top of my head.

    People like to be able to pay for items untraceable, as a privacy thing, certain sorts of items are always going to be paid for cash, because people don't want it on their bank statement or credit card bill. One wonders how many cheques "adult shops" get in the average day! Similarly people are often nervous about handing their financial details to an unknown tradesman, cash is much more cut and dried with no follow-on exposure.

    Plausible deniability. When I pay a tradesman, whether he pays his tax or not is none of my business, I might have my suspicions, but its really not my problem, any more than if I was selling garden implements I should be worried in case every time someone buys an axe that they are going to use it for murder.

    Most people save money from it, tradesmen offer a discount for cash, so the customer pays less. Making paying less socially unacceptable is going to be an uphill fight!

    More fundamentally most of the population view taxation as legalised robbery, I have never met anyone that was offended by the request from a tradesman for a cash payment, reactions have varied between indifferent to "good one if you can get away with it". The vast majority of the population would avoid tax if it could, that makes making socially unacceptable effectively impossible, contrast say drink-driving, which the vast majority of the population wouldn't do, so was easier (but still took a long time) to make socially unacceptable.
    One of the more entertaining cases I have been involved in concerned VAT in a brothel. HMRC were seeking to aggregate the girls' earnings with those of the establishment for VAT purposes. They lost but what I found astonishing was that the establishment did indeed receive quite a number of cheques for the room hires.
    May be classified as HMO?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Indigo said:

    When I pay a tradesman, whether he pays his tax or not is none of my business

    Exactly.

    And getting a receipt does nothing to stop the tradesman not declaring it, not does it help the taxman if there is an audit. How does he know you got a receipt, and how does he get you to produce it?

    Madness.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Re Cash in Hand:
    One area always under HMRC scrutiny is taxis - where HMRC will calculate an assumption for tips. Believe that there has been some interesting battles over this. Of course this could apply to the restaurant/cafe trade where a service charge is not invoiced or where a tip is given on top of the the service charge.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Danny565 said:

    Speaking personally, for predicting results in Con/LD marginals, I'm splitting the difference between the standard voting intention and the constituency-specific voting intentions.

    Admittedly this might just be confirmation bias, since I'm hoping for a Lib Dem annihilation, but I just find it very hard to believe Lib Dem MPs could be getting such huge boosts as these polls indicate. My suspicion is some people interpret the "thinking about your local area" as if they're being asked how they'd vote in local elections (and there's a long history of the Lib Dems doing better in local elections than they do in Westminster elections in a lot of the areas concerned).

    You could perhaps look at the local election results in the seat to judge if the 1st or 2nd response is closer to recent voting behaviour.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    Scott_P said:

    Indigo said:

    When I pay a tradesman, whether he pays his tax or not is none of my business

    Exactly.

    And getting a receipt does nothing to stop the tradesman not declaring it, not does it help the taxman if there is an audit. How does he know you got a receipt, and how does he get you to produce it?

    Madness.
    Well most businesses keep books of receipts which show the tax man how many have been issued.

    But the real point of a receipt is to be allowed to set that cost against something whether it is recoverable expenses in the case of Mr Balls or taxable income in the case of any other business. As homeowners cannot do that why on earth should they demand receipts? I don't. We have enough clutter from my VAT receipts for my business.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    Financier said:

    Re Cash in Hand:
    One area always under HMRC scrutiny is taxis - where HMRC will calculate an assumption for tips. Believe that there has been some interesting battles over this. Of course this could apply to the restaurant/cafe trade where a service charge is not invoiced or where a tip is given on top of the the service charge.

    I had another case recently where a taxi driver was claiming that he had been the main source of income for the household. Not according to his HMRC books he hadn't. A couple of not so gentle warnings from the Judge and sense prevailed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Could be some long game elements too to not voting LD this time. If you're on the left seeing a Conservative MP might well be a price worth paying to attempt to bury the LDs
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Ask a person once, they give you an answer.

    Ask a person the same (or similar) question again, some will think they answered wrongly the first time and say something different because of that.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Going well then...

    @afneil: Jim Naughtie getting exasperated with Chuka Umunna on #r4today. Don't blame him.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Looking at 2010 LD incumbency advantage may be over-emphasised.

    "The Lib Dems gained in weak seats and declined in strong seats"

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

    "It is also worth noting that even with a much smaller sample size, a similar analysis of the 2009 wave of the BES internet panel rightly suggested little difference in Liberal Democrat 2010 performance in the seats they previously won compared with those where they came second in 2005."

    http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/what-the-bes-suggests-about-constituency-variation-in-party-performance-by-stephen-fisher-university-of-oxford/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @steve_hawkes: Aha, Ed Balls explains it all, Labour donors may avoid tax but "it's small beer compared to what the Tories are up to"
  • Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Scott_P said:

    @steve_hawkes: Aha, Ed Balls explains it all, Labour donors may avoid tax but "it's small beer compared to what the Tories are up to"

    This is the same Ed Balls who says you should get a receipt for cash in hand hedge cutting...
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    As there is more and more fraud associated with electronic payment/banking systems, increasingly I am using cash payments for more and more transactions.

    Also as a a business we never use the cloud for any of our databases - all those are held on systems that do not link to the internet.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
  • Financier said:

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
    If it were legalised rather than just decriminalised, then yes. It would become like any other consumer product (and probably its trade dominated by a couple of large American corporations). Look at alcohol.
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    There was another test in 2010 UNS v various tactical voting models.In practice the UNS between 2005 and 2010 was an accurate forecaster of of total Lid Dem seats( not necessarily individual seat results) which went down largely due to the overall swing from Lib To Con.
    Given the Lid Dems rating are so low the tactical voting argument is less strong than in 2010.
    My belief is therefore that UNS will again be the best seat forecaster with a few additional losses where Lib Dem MP,s are standing down and in University seats where a strong tuition fees backlash can b expected.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Offtopic, and completely loaded question.

    Does abuse in earlier life transpire as narcissim later on ?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    This tax avoidance discussion will be doing wonders to the C2 vote.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @DecrepitJohnL
    Have they found definitive proof that cannabis causes psychosis then?
    Until I see the details of the study, I will remain sceptical as the headlines are usually less nuanced than the actual study.
  • Financier said:

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
    Do you expect distillers/brewers/vinters to submit to quality control? Oh, that's right, they already do.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Financier said:

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
    Are the psychoses caused by poor quality control ?
  • Good morning, everyone.

    I'm really quite surprised the Danish attacks haven't gotten more coverage.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Pulpstar said:

    Offtopic, and completely loaded question.

    Does abuse in earlier life transpire as narcissim later on ?

    Quite the opposite, Narcissist tend to be the abusers

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-creativity-cure/201408/if-you-are-the-target-narcissistic-abuse
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,155
    edited February 2015
    Smarmeron said:

    @DecrepitJohnL
    Have they found definitive proof that cannabis causes psychosis then?
    Until I see the details of the study, I will remain sceptical as the headlines are usually less nuanced than the actual study.

    In the case of skunk it sounds like it, on a statistical basis.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Tho'

    'They also concluded the use of hash, a milder form of the drug, was not associated with increased risk of psychosis.'
  • Good morning, everyone.

    I'm really quite surprised the Danish attacks haven't gotten more coverage.

    Seems as if the attacker was a loner with few links to Islam and a history of violence.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Indigo said:

    Financier said:

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
    Are the psychoses caused by poor quality control ?
    See the report by Kings College which names 'skunk' as being the cause. The problem is that when people no longer get a 'hit' from the normal stuff then they go for the 'stronger' product, which in fact may have a different base.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Indigo said:

    Anecdote:

    On the subject of cash-in-hand, a few years ago I was chatting with the man from Customs and Excise as he reviewed my VAT returns, and he told me that their biggest nightmare was dry-cleaning shops.

    I asked why. He said well if you have say a sandwich making company, they can look at the receipt for the bread and fillings you buy, and estimate how many sandwiches you would make as a result, look at your sales and see if the two are in anyway comparable.

    In the dry cleaning world, the business runs the machine two of three times a day, it has the same amount of solvent put in regardless of how many items of clothing are in the load, and the cycle runs for the same time regardless, in short there is no relationship between inputs and outputs, and the services are the sort of price where people just hand over a fiver or a tenner for their suit, as sufficiently inconsequential that very few customers care about, or keep the receipts. The only real chance they have he said was to watch customers going in out out for a significant period of time, or run a lot of dummy customers, both of which are expensive, so they have to be pretty sure they are on to something.

    Dry cleaning shops attach countable tags to the clothes that are submitted for cleaning, and the clothes leave the shop on countable hangers, often using countable trouser guards, and shrouded in countable polythene sleeves.

    I suspect that the main tax concern for such businesses is more likely to be an over declaration of sales, because their huge (97+%) profit margin could potentially make such businesses ripe for money laundering.


  • Balls' and Umunna's interventions this morning confirming what we already knew - Labour haven't thought this through in the slightest. Rank amateurism.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @DecrepitJohnL
    Have they found definitive proof that cannabis causes psychosis then?
    Until I see the details of the study, I will remain sceptical as the headlines are usually less nuanced than the actual study.

    I've no idea. I don't smoke dope and have not looked at the study -- it was @Financier who raised the matter. Really I think there are two important and interesting consequences. First it provides an environmental explanation for what might otherwise be seen as a genetic effect. Second is that if dope is legalised then, besides its recreational use, it will be enabled for legitimate medical use. There have been many anecdotal accounts of its benefits for conditions like MS and chronic pain, and legalisation will allow proper medical research and prescription.
  • Mr. Observer, a history of violence also describes the men who carried out the Parisian attacks.

    We might also say that being a loner makes things more disturbing, not less (cf Breivik). Hard to intercept communications if someone's working solo. As for 'few links to Islam', he carried out a copycat attack based on the murderous assault of jihadist lunatics. He may have few links to Islam, but that's a pretty damned big link to jihad.
  • If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Couple of other thoughts on the LibDems. Where they have won seats on massive swings, then when they start to slip back down the slope towards the party of the previous incumbent, they really come down to earth witha bump in the subsequent election. Look at Newbury for example - the LibDem majority since the by-election have been +38%, +15%, +4%, then -6% and -20% - pretty much to where it was before the by-election. There doesn't seem to be a fundamental, long-term reallignment of the local politics. (I haven't done much work yet to see how this differs from sests won at general rather than by-elections.)

    The other thought is that seats the LibDems have taken from Labour might prove stickier this time, because they will have squeezed the local Conservative vote dry - which could prove to be rather more loyal because of the Coalition.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Financier
    This would be the same skunk that is a thousand times more powerful than normal cannabis?
    Or is it specifically the THC/CBD ratio?
  • One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?
  • DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    Indigo said:

    When I pay a tradesman, whether he pays his tax or not is none of my business

    Exactly.

    And getting a receipt does nothing to stop the tradesman not declaring it, not does it help the taxman if there is an audit. How does he know you got a receipt, and how does he get you to produce it?

    Madness.
    Well most businesses keep books of receipts which show the tax man how many have been issued.

    But the real point of a receipt is to be allowed to set that cost against something whether it is recoverable expenses in the case of Mr Balls or taxable income in the case of any other business. As homeowners cannot do that why on earth should they demand receipts? I don't. We have enough clutter from my VAT receipts for my business.

    I guess it depends on how much work you have done at home. We might have people in to do something, say, ten times a year. Most will automatically provide a receipt. I am very suspicious of those that do not.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Southam,

    The "lone" wolf seems to have had accomplices. Two more arrested in Copenhagen on charges of supporting him.

    There are attacks by mentally deranged people but obviously when groups attack in defence of Mohammed and attack Jewish places, it's entirely unconnected with Islam. Mere coincidence.

    When five hundred lone wolves leave the UK to join IS and when the numbers reach thousands, you need to know the collective term for lone wolves.

    They're small in percentage terms, but significant in effect.

    We await an attack by lone wolf nuns.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    edited February 2015
    Gadfly said:

    Indigo said:

    Anecdote:

    On the subject of cash-in-hand, a few years ago I was chatting with the man from Customs and Excise as he reviewed my VAT returns, and he told me that their biggest nightmare was dry-cleaning shops.

    I asked why. He said well if you have say a sandwich making company, they can look at the receipt for the bread and fillings you buy, and estimate how many sandwiches you would make as a result, look at your sales and see if the two are in anyway comparable.

    In the dry cleaning world, the business runs the machine two of three times a day, it has the same amount of solvent put in regardless of how many items of clothing are in the load, and the cycle runs for the same time regardless, in short there is no relationship between inputs and outputs, and the services are the sort of price where people just hand over a fiver or a tenner for their suit, as sufficiently inconsequential that very few customers care about, or keep the receipts. The only real chance they have he said was to watch customers going in out out for a significant period of time, or run a lot of dummy customers, both of which are expensive, so they have to be pretty sure they are on to something.

    Dry cleaning shops attach countable tags to the clothes that are submitted for cleaning, and the clothes leave the shop on countable hangers, often using countable trouser guards, and shrouded in countable polythene sleeves.

    I suspect that the main tax concern for such businesses is more likely to be an over declaration of sales, because their huge (97+%) profit margin could potentially make such businesses ripe for money laundering.


    Those discrepancies would in theory show up on a stock-take, but not in the figures because the items you mention cost virtually nothing. It's the figures the VAT man has access to. Because they are so cheap a stock take attack wouldn't work either, because the business would say that they tolerate a high spoilage/loss rate and can't be arsed with stock-taking, any more than an office-based business counts its individual paperclips.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.

    Not in my experience. Even with a receipt it can be a long and painful hiding to nothing. I had a shoddy job done by a painter a few years ago, who left having "finshed" the job with gloss paint all over the window glass, the masking tape still on the glass etc, I was told they would be back the next week to clear up, then they couldn't make it, then it would be the next week, then they stopped taking my calls. Trading standards told me I would have to take it to the small claims court and it would probably cost me more than I would realistically get back. Yes, with a receipt.

    Most cash in hand probably isn't the couple of grand for tarting up the bathroom, because people are more caution with big sums, its more likely to be window cleaners, gardeners, odd job men, sparkies, plumbers etc. Fifty notes for an hour or twos work which may or many not go straight into the back pocket.

  • Mr. Observer, a history of violence also describes the men who carried out the Parisian attacks.

    We might also say that being a loner makes things more disturbing, not less (cf Breivik). Hard to intercept communications if someone's working solo. As for 'few links to Islam', he carried out a copycat attack based on the murderous assault of jihadist lunatics. He may have few links to Islam, but that's a pretty damned big link to jihad.

    The scumbags who carried out the Paris attacks also had demonstrable links with Islamic militants and a chronicled process of radicalisation. This bloke did not. It does not make what he did any less revolting, but as a narrative it is very different.

  • Balls' and Umunna's interventions this morning confirming what we already knew - Labour haven't thought this through in the slightest. Rank amateurism.

    This was predicted as a consequence of Labour's say-nothing tactics. That as the election looms into view, Labour shadow ministers will not have gained experience in defending and explaining policies in interviews, and nor will these policies have been tested. Some posters took the view that bacon sandwiches were of more interest.

    Soon we shall see the same phenomenon in the American primaries, where leading candidates will stumble after years of preaching to the choir have left them unprepared for hostile questioning.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    CD13 said:



    We await an attack by lone wolf nuns.

    It does keep Tristram Hunt awake at night though....


  • One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    I don't suppose they'll reach this conclusion but the obvious root cause is too-high taxes on wages and too-low taxes on corporate profits / dividends.

    Japan is screwed up in the opposite direction (lowish income taxes, national insurance de-facto optional for small businesses, crazy-high corporate taxes), and everybody tries to get all their money out in wages and perks and have the company end up making as close as possible to zero.
  • Mr. Observer, a history of violence also describes the men who carried out the Parisian attacks.

    We might also say that being a loner makes things more disturbing, not less (cf Breivik). Hard to intercept communications if someone's working solo. As for 'few links to Islam', he carried out a copycat attack based on the murderous assault of jihadist lunatics. He may have few links to Islam, but that's a pretty damned big link to jihad.

    The scumbags who carried out the Paris attacks also had demonstrable links with Islamic militants and a chronicled process of radicalisation. This bloke did not. It does not make what he did any less revolting, but as a narrative it is very different.

    It's a rather moot point. With the internet and access to radical material, anyone can be inspired. Its the ideas and idealogy which is true cancer.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    Isnt that basically the whole clusterf*ck known as IR35. For a company to do that they need to appear to be "in business on their own account" or they risk a knock on the door from HMRC. From my discussion a few years ago with HMRC they view it as tax planning if you are a "real business" and "avoidance" if you are in effect an employee working through your own limited company. It must be said that HMRCs record here is even more piss poor than usual, last time I looked they had lost something like 395 out of 400ish cases.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    CD13 said:

    Southam,

    The "lone" wolf seems to have had accomplices. Two more arrested in Copenhagen on charges of supporting him.

    There are attacks by mentally deranged people but obviously when groups attack in defence of Mohammed and attack Jewish places, it's entirely unconnected with Islam. Mere coincidence.

    When five hundred lone wolves leave the UK to join IS and when the numbers reach thousands, you need to know the collective term for lone wolves.

    They're small in percentage terms, but significant in effect.

    We await an attack by lone wolf nuns.

    Perhaps Israel should get out of Palestine.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    antifrank said:

    I expect the second stage will be most reliable where parties are organised enough to remind the voters of the virtues of their MP, but not otherwise. To identify which constituencies the Lib Dems are organised enough in, local election results may well be a guide.

    The presence of independents in rural areas can make that difficult. Take Cornwall, for example. I think it will be an absolute lottery how the seats fall in that county.

    But, I agree that in more urban areas, local elections should be a good guide. It's why I'm still fairly bullish about Nick Clegg's chances.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Financier said:

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
    Sent you vanilla mail over the weekend. Let me know if you are interested in exploring the concept.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FalseFlag said:

    CD13 said:

    Southam,

    The "lone" wolf seems to have had accomplices. Two more arrested in Copenhagen on charges of supporting him.

    There are attacks by mentally deranged people but obviously when groups attack in defence of Mohammed and attack Jewish places, it's entirely unconnected with Islam. Mere coincidence.

    When five hundred lone wolves leave the UK to join IS and when the numbers reach thousands, you need to know the collective term for lone wolves.

    They're small in percentage terms, but significant in effect.

    We await an attack by lone wolf nuns.

    Perhaps Israel should get out of Palestine.
    You know grievance mentality better than that, people just move to the next item on the list to be angry about.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Slackbladder
    Islam causes psychopathy in 24% of cases?
  • Mr. Observer, do we need a record of radicalisation? He copied a jihadist attack, seeking to kill those in favour of free speech (and who had derided some chap called Mohammed), and then sought to kill Jews.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    edited February 2015
    Mr Observer,

    Raoul Moat had a following of deluded morons, but we didn't see copycat attacks.

    School attacks in America may be so, but the attacker usually had a pre-existing grudge against the school.

    The Copenhagen attacker and his colleagues may have been encouraged by the Paris attack but they already had issues based on anti-Western values (or even, dare we say it, Islam).

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.
    With the caveat of Indigo's experience above, it is down to who the judge believes on a balance of probabilities if there is no paperwork. I am suggesting the law could be changed to stipulate consumer protection does not apply unless you have a receipt for payment. Would probably need to be backed up with criminal sanctions on the workman who fails to quite ever getting round to dropping it off....

    It would however cause a real problem for those who are illiterate, who are I would expect amongst the highest group of cash-in-hand, no paperwork workmen.
  • Indigo said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    Isnt that basically the whole clusterf*ck known as IR35. For a company to do that they need to appear to be "in business on their own account" or they risk a knock on the door from HMRC. From my discussion a few years ago with HMRC they view it as tax planning if you are a "real business" and "avoidance" if you are in effect an employee working through your own limited company. It must be said that HMRCs record here is even more piss poor than usual, last time I looked they had lost something like 395 out of 400ish cases.
    No IR35 is different (but linked) IR35 is running a personal service company where you 'might' be an employee rather than a proper subcontracted company.

    Another rubbish piece of legistation though, thank Gordon Brown for that.

    This is the primarly set up for all owner managed business. Pay directors salary up to the personal allowance, and then everything else as dividends. It effectively 'avoids' paying National Insurace, but is basic tax planning which all accountants advise if its suitable.

    If labour consider that to be tax avoidance and clamp down on it; they'll effective kill all small companies dead. Not to mention my job probably.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    It would however cause a real problem for those who are illiterate, who are I would expect amongst the highest group of cash-in-hand, no paperwork workmen.

    Not to mention immigrant tradesmen with poor or non-existent English. It also would have definite practical limitations with people like Big Issue sellers, or sweet shops (anyone fancy itemising a pick-or-mix ;) )
  • Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.

    The consumer protection laws generally apply to contracts. Contracts for the sale of goods or provision of services generally need not be in writing or evidenced thereby.
  • If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.
    With the caveat of Indigo's experience above, it is down to who the judge believes on a balance of probabilities if there is no paperwork. I am suggesting the law could be changed to stipulate consumer protection does not apply unless you have a receipt for payment. Would probably need to be backed up with criminal sanctions on the workman who fails to quite ever getting round to dropping it off....

    It would however cause a real problem for those who are illiterate, who are I would expect amongst the highest group of cash-in-hand, no paperwork workmen.
    I'm not sure it's a good idea to be removing consumer protections from people, especially if they're 'vunerable' and get taken advantage of. It'll be very difficult to prove that a seller didn't give a receipt, as they can just claim they did, and it'll be a he said/she said issue.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Ishmael_X said:

    Gadfly said:

    Indigo said:

    Anecdote:

    On the subject of cash-in-hand, a few years ago I was chatting with the man from Customs and Excise as he reviewed my VAT returns, and he told me that their biggest nightmare was dry-cleaning shops.

    I asked why. He said well if you have say a sandwich making company, they can look at the receipt for the bread and fillings you buy, and estimate how many sandwiches you would make as a result, look at your sales and see if the two are in anyway comparable.

    In the dry cleaning world, the business runs the machine two of three times a day, it has the same amount of solvent put in regardless of how many items of clothing are in the load, and the cycle runs for the same time regardless, in short there is no relationship between inputs and outputs, and the services are the sort of price where people just hand over a fiver or a tenner for their suit, as sufficiently inconsequential that very few customers care about, or keep the receipts. The only real chance they have he said was to watch customers going in out out for a significant period of time, or run a lot of dummy customers, both of which are expensive, so they have to be pretty sure they are on to something.

    Dry cleaning shops attach countable tags to the clothes that are submitted for cleaning, and the clothes leave the shop on countable hangers, often using countable trouser guards, and shrouded in countable polythene sleeves.

    I suspect that the main tax concern for such businesses is more likely to be an over declaration of sales, because their huge (97+%) profit margin could potentially make such businesses ripe for money laundering.


    Those discrepancies would in theory show up on a stock-take, but not in the figures because the items you mention cost virtually nothing. It's the figures the VAT man has access to. Because they are so cheap a stock take attack wouldn't work either, because the business would say that they tolerate a high spoilage/loss rate and can't be arsed with stock-taking, any more than an office-based business counts its individual paperclips.

    Because of the huge profit margin in dry cleaning, all of the figures the VAT man has access to are pretty much insignificant. As the OP said, it would be difficult to make calculations based upon the likes of solvent, but a business could be expected to use approx one hanger per £7.50 of turnover. It would be relatively simple to identify some form of correlation with or without a stock take, in the same way it would be easy to count slices of bread for the sandwich shop.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited February 2015
    Indigo said:

    FalseFlag said:

    CD13 said:

    Southam,

    The "lone" wolf seems to have had accomplices. Two more arrested in Copenhagen on charges of supporting him.

    There are attacks by mentally deranged people but obviously when groups attack in defence of Mohammed and attack Jewish places, it's entirely unconnected with Islam. Mere coincidence.

    When five hundred lone wolves leave the UK to join IS and when the numbers reach thousands, you need to know the collective term for lone wolves.

    They're small in percentage terms, but significant in effect.

    We await an attack by lone wolf nuns.

    Perhaps Israel should get out of Palestine.
    You know grievance mentality better than that, people just move to the next item on the list to be angry about.
    Establishment of a Palestinian state would defuse much of the anti-Western rhetoric in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, a net gain for any British citizen who travels or does business overseas. Not just the morally right thing to do. Ending support of the rebels in Syria and engaging in the Russian proposal for a peaceful settlement would also help.

    Inviting in large numbers of Muslim immigrants whilst destabilizing the Middle East and insulting their religion is not a good strategy. Pamela Geller et al do not speak for me.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2015

    Indigo said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    Isnt that basically the whole clusterf*ck known as IR35. For a company to do that they need to appear to be "in business on their own account" or they risk a knock on the door from HMRC. From my discussion a few years ago with HMRC they view it as tax planning if you are a "real business" and "avoidance" if you are in effect an employee working through your own limited company. It must be said that HMRCs record here is even more piss poor than usual, last time I looked they had lost something like 395 out of 400ish cases.
    No IR35 is different (but linked) IR35 is running a personal service company where you 'might' be an employee rather than a proper subcontracted company.

    Another rubbish piece of legistation though, thank Gordon Brown for that.

    This is the primarly set up for all owner managed business. Pay directors salary up to the personal allowance, and then everything else as dividends. It effectively 'avoids' paying National Insurace, but is basic tax planning which all accountants advise if its suitable.

    If labour consider that to be tax avoidance and clamp down on it; they'll effective kill all small companies dead. Not to mention my job probably.

    The not paying NI was originally seen at least tacitly as a quid-pro-quo since company directors in those sort of companies couldn't meaningfully claim sick pay or maternity benefit, since the company would not be making any money at those times.

    Regarding IR35 I found this note in Wikipedia particularly amusing
    The initial regulatory impact assessment for IR35 in 1999 stated that HMRC expected the measure to generate £220 million per year in National Insurance contributions, and a further £80 million in income tax.

    In September 2011 a Freedom of Information Request revealed that the number of cases reviewed had fallen from 158 (year ending April 2007) to 12 in year ending April 2010 and 23 in year ending April 2011. The same document also gives the "tax yield received for the requested years" as having fallen from £1,906,619 to £219,180
    Expected to raise £300m, actually raising £220k (assuming it doesn't cost anything to administer) another cracking Labour success story.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.
    With the caveat of Indigo's experience above, it is down to who the judge believes on a balance of probabilities if there is no paperwork. I am suggesting the law could be changed to stipulate consumer protection does not apply unless you have a receipt for payment. Would probably need to be backed up with criminal sanctions on the workman who fails to quite ever getting round to dropping it off....

    It would however cause a real problem for those who are illiterate, who are I would expect amongst the highest group of cash-in-hand, no paperwork workmen.
    I'm not sure it's a good idea to be removing consumer protections from people, especially if they're 'vunerable' and get taken advantage of. It'll be very difficult to prove that a seller didn't give a receipt, as they can just claim they did, and it'll be a he said/she said issue.
    Not advocating it - merely trying to explore how you could enforce prevention of cash-in-hand.
  • Mr. Observer, do we need a record of radicalisation? He copied a jihadist attack, seeking to kill those in favour of free speech (and who had derided some chap called Mohammed), and then sought to kill Jews.

    Yes, he was an evil scumbag. You are asking why there has not been so much coverage as the Paris attacks. I am giving you an explanation. It's much more similar to the Sydney attack than the Paris one. All vile and undoubtedly linked to Islam, but not in the same way. Plus the Copenhagen attacks saw fewer people killed and there was no prolonged manhunt.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    CD13 said:

    Mr Observer,

    Raoul Moat had a following of deluded morons, but we didn't see copycat attacks.

    School attacks in America may be so, but the attacker usually had a pre-existing grudge against the school.

    The Copenhagen attacker and his colleagues may have been encouraged by the Paris attack but they already had issues based on anti-Western values (or even, dare we say it, Islam).

    Raoul Moat had no political purpose.
This discussion has been closed.