Mr Ball et all whatever party

secretsqizz

"tax dodgin, you are all at it"... but it's easier to nail the plebs for their ten quid cash in hand stuff though....
These geezers at the top have feck all to be proud of when it comes to paying up what should be paid up..
2 faced... double standards...

bdu98252

My view is that everyone should pay their taxes based on all turnover and subsequent profit. The little guys not putting all their turn over through the books is not good for the economy in general just as massive corporations paying little or no corporation tax due to accountancy locations is also not good.

I am no fan of Labour but the response from the media is ridiculous. He has stated the bloody obvious and getting hammered for it. Should he have said if we get into power we will only go after the little guys after we have clamped down on all the big guys. This would have been equally ridiculous.

slowmart

Ed balls, the bloke that makes milland look intelligent.......


This is Gordon's reaction to the name Ed Balls




And too keep this thread politically balanced

DeVlaeminck

This whole story seems to be a media invention based on Ed Balls not wanting to say it's OK for people to pay cash for a discount on the understanding it wont go through the books.

Just noticed BDU has already said as much above - well I agree - it is so ridiculous it almost looks like there is some agenda to discredit Labour - though on balance it is probably just the tendency of modern journalism to sensationalise anything in order to make a story out of it.

solosuperia

Targets are to blame in some cases.......... Mate of mine an ex tax inspector! Used to chase the big boys and nasty landlords.
You are not meeting targets go after the easier cases and get clear ups ............
That is why he is an ex-tax inspector

slowmart

Oh dear, despite assurances to the contrary Ed looks like he's failed to attain and submit receipts for casual labour which he and his mrs have claimed back through Parliamentary expenses.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eipts.html


The two Eds, The Tories secret WMD. :roll:

DeVlaeminck

Do you really think that is a story ? Whatever your political allegiance this kind of nonsense belittles our democracy.

mr_goo

1st. If Ed Balls ends up as Chancellor then we are totally fcuked.
2nd. Nearly all money from cash in hand jobs end up back in the system and will eventually be subjected to tax over and over again. ie; petrol, clothing, takeaways etc etc.
3rd. Its is easy to go after the low to middle earners for underpaid tax. None of us can afford an accountant to ensure we are 'tax efficient'.

Ed Balls =

DeVlaeminck

But Labour aren't planning some blitz on low to middle income earners - the actual interview was quite reasonable - it's one of those topics where whatever answer he gave the estalished interests that control our press would twist to damn him with.

slowmart

DeVlaeminck wrote:

But Labour aren't planning some blitz on low to middle income earners - the actual interview was quite reasonable - it's one of those topics where whatever answer he gave the estalished interests that control our press would twist to damn him with.

'Established interests" "twist" "damn him" He can do all these things himself quite ably actually. Unless Manc33"s view of conspiracies is catching....you can't blame the press for reporting its daylight outside when the sun is out...


It's illuminating that non of the possible future leaders of the labour party are being seen with these two clowns. Oh then again they must be part of the "interested parties" world......or they are looking at the post election landscape and filling the shoes of the two Ed's red and inept.

debeli

I find Balls and Cooper toxic, which might prejudice my views when he gaffes in interview.

I think it rather sweet that he thinks anyone will trim a hedge for a tenner. Does he spend his free moments reminiscing with octogenarians about when a pint was thruppence?

I think it slightly odd, too, that he said that he couldn't swear that he'd never paid cash for a lower quote, but that once he was Shadow Chancellor he realised he needed to be squeaky clean. Mr Balls, most people never become Shadow Chancellor - does that mean we can still pay cash for a low quote?

But then I vote Lib Dem, so what do I know?

Phil_D

SoloSuperia wrote:

Targets are to blame in some cases.......... Mate of mine an ex tax inspector! Used to chase the big boys and nasty landlords.
You are not meeting targets go after the easier cases and get clear ups ............
That is why he is an ex-tax inspector

Because he wasn't meeting his targets and they got rid of him?

solosuperia

Phil_D wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Targets are to blame in some cases.......... Mate of mine an ex tax inspector! Used to chase the big boys and nasty landlords.
You are not meeting targets go after the easier cases and get clear ups ............
That is why he is an ex-tax inspector

Because he wasn't meeting his targets and they got rid of him?

He fundamentaly disagreed with chasing the little people just to improve the figures in terms of clear ups while the big boys got away with murder because their cases were complex.
So he resigned.
Quite admirable in my opinion.

Phil_D

SoloSuperia wrote:

Phil_D wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Targets are to blame in some cases.......... Mate of mine an ex tax inspector! Used to chase the big boys and nasty landlords.
You are not meeting targets go after the easier cases and get clear ups ............
That is why he is an ex-tax inspector

Because he wasn't meeting his targets and they got rid of him?

He fundamentaly disagreed with chasing the little people just to improve the figures in terms of clear ups while the big boys got away with murder because their cases were complex.
So he resigned.
Quite admirable in my opinion.

Where did he end up?

Pross

Surely the issue here is that Ed Balls apparently thinks it is the responsibility of the purchaser / client to ensure that a supplier is paying tax by demanding a receipt. Surely a receipt is just an acknowledgement that someone has been paid for goods or services provided. So if we all get a receipt off our hairdresser how does that help ensure that they pay tax on that payment? Are we supposed to then let HMRC know everyone we ever pay cash to so that they can make sure it is all declared? What if I pay cash in Tesco, do I then send it to HMRC to make sure it's included in the company accounts?

The worrying thing is that the man who wants to run our economy and, presumably, maximise tax revenue seems to think that this barmy suggestion would in some way help!

Phil_D

Pross wrote:

Surely the issue here is that Ed Balls apparently thinks it is the responsibility of the purchaser / client to ensure that a supplier is paying tax by demanding a receipt. Surely a receipt is just an acknowledgement that someone has been paid for goods or services provided. So if we all get a receipt off our hairdresser how does that help ensure that they pay tax on that payment? Are we supposed to then let HMRC know everyone we ever pay cash to so that they can make sure it is all declared? What if I pay cash in Tesco, do I then send it to HMRC to make sure it's included in the company accounts?

The worrying thing is that the man who wants to run our economy and, presumably, maximise tax revenue seems to think that this barmy suggestion would in some way help!

Obviously he is not suggesting that about Tesco.

For the smaller trader, if we insist on a "receipt", by which I hope he means an invoice, then there is a greater chance overall that the income will either be put through the books and declared, or its omission will be spotted should HMRC ever decide to check the trader's records.

If you ask for an invoice, then you will hopefully get (or insist on) one of the trader's official invoices, rather than simply a scrap of paper. Official invoices tend to be sequentially numbered. Should that invoice, and many other such invoices, not be put through the records then HMRC will be able to spot it when reviewing the records.

If all they are going to give us is a scrap of paper or a non-sequentially numbered invoice, then it is no better than no invoice. If the trader wishes to declare the income he will, if not then he won't. It won't be traceable unless there is other evidence of its existence.

Balls's suggestion is by no means barmy. He is not transferring the responsibility onto the customer, just pointing out that if everybody insisted on the profduction of paperwork to evidence every transaction, it would make it less easy for such a seemingly high number of sales not to be recorded.

Taken to the extreme, if we didn't have mechanisms in place whereby evidence of transactions was produced, and it resulted in no evidence ever being produced, we would be in a situation where we were reliant on the honesty of every trader to report every transaction. One thing we have learned in all of this is that we cannot rely on people's honesty.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

Surely the issue here is that Ed Balls apparently thinks it is the responsibility of the purchaser / client to ensure that a supplier is paying tax by demanding a receipt. .................
The worrying thing is that the man who wants to run our economy and, presumably, maximise tax revenue seems to think that this barmy suggestion would in some way help!

The only barmy thing is that you and others seem to form your political views based on what you read on a forum ! In the interview he specifically said it wasn't the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that a tradesman is paying tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31480231

Last week he forgot someone's surname and that was something to knock him with - now he gives a relatively reasonable response to an interview and that makes him barmy. Yes I do think there are established interests who do not want a Labour govt - newspapers tend to be owned by wealthy men and wealthy men tend to favour the party that favours them - and that isn't Labour. This is hardly ground breaking stuff is it?

slowmart

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

Surely the issue here is that Ed Balls apparently thinks it is the responsibility of the purchaser / client to ensure that a supplier is paying tax by demanding a receipt. .................
The worrying thing is that the man who wants to run our economy and, presumably, maximise tax revenue seems to think that this barmy suggestion would in some way help!

The only barmy thing is that you and others seem to form your political views based on what you read on a forum ! In the interview he specifically said it wasn't the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that a tradesman is paying tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31480231

Last week he forgot someone's surname and that was something to knock him with - now he gives a relatively reasonable response to an interview and that makes him barmy. Yes I do think there are established interests who do not want a Labour govt - newspapers tend to be owned by wealthy men and wealthy men tend to favour the party that favours them - and that isn't Labour. This is hardly ground breaking stuff is it?

Oh dear, it seems Labour donors have the same issue. A politician who fails to articulately communicate.........is the oppositions asset. A bit like red ed forgetting to mention how Labour would tackle the deficit at the Labour conference last year.....it's mis direction to blame the press for reporting the two ed's shortcomings and blame it on bias.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... i-business

The bottom-line here is both Ed's are irrelevant and a liability and ensure Labour are un electable.

ballysmate

Slowmart wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

Surely the issue here is that Ed Balls apparently thinks it is the responsibility of the purchaser / client to ensure that a supplier is paying tax by demanding a receipt. .................
The worrying thing is that the man who wants to run our economy and, presumably, maximise tax revenue seems to think that this barmy suggestion would in some way help!

The only barmy thing is that you and others seem to form your political views based on what you read on a forum ! In the interview he specifically said it wasn't the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that a tradesman is paying tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31480231

Last week he forgot someone's surname and that was something to knock him with - now he gives a relatively reasonable response to an interview and that makes him barmy. Yes I do think there are established interests who do not want a Labour govt - newspapers tend to be owned by wealthy men and wealthy men tend to favour the party that favours them - and that isn't Labour. This is hardly ground breaking stuff is it?

Oh dear, it seems Labour donors have the same issue. A politician who fails to articulately communicate.........is the oppositions asset. A bit like red ed forgetting to mention how Labour would tackle the deficit at the Labour conference last year.....it's mis direction to blame the press for reporting the two ed's shortcomings and blame it on bias.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... i-business

The bottom-line here is both Ed's are irrelevant and a liability and ensure Labour are un electable.

I hope so. God, I hope so!

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

Surely the issue here is that Ed Balls apparently thinks it is the responsibility of the purchaser / client to ensure that a supplier is paying tax by demanding a receipt. .................
The worrying thing is that the man who wants to run our economy and, presumably, maximise tax revenue seems to think that this barmy suggestion would in some way help!

The only barmy thing is that you and others seem to form your political views based on what you read on a forum ! In the interview he specifically said it wasn't the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that a tradesman is paying tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31480231

Last week he forgot someone's surname and that was something to knock him with - now he gives a relatively reasonable response to an interview and that makes him barmy. Yes I do think there are established interests who do not want a Labour govt - newspapers tend to be owned by wealthy men and wealthy men tend to favour the party that favours them - and that isn't Labour. This is hardly ground breaking stuff is it?

I made my view based on the reporting on the BBC which once upon a time was renowned for its high quality! What exactly was his point in suggesting we should get a receipt for cash in hand work then? There is absolutely nothing to be gained other than to prove you paid if the person later claims you haven't. Even and invoice like someone suggested above may have been the intended word would do nothing. All that is is a piece of paper confirming you have supplied the goods and want paying. The whole thing is just band wagon jumping to try to sound like you are intending being tough on tax evasion which has apparently taken over from immigration as this week's political football.

The forgetting a name didn't bother me at all, he was responding to an off the cuff question and wasn't anything to do with policy but suggesting people request receipts in the hope it will convince others to pay their lawfully due tax seems rather naïve for a person who wants to be in charge of a nations finances.

mamba80

Pross wrote:

The forgetting a name didn't bother me at all, he was responding to an off the cuff question and wasn't anything to do with policy but suggesting people request receipts in the hope it will convince others to pay their lawfully due tax seems rather naïve for a person who wants to be in charge of a nations finances.

thing is he was between a rock and a hard place, say what he did and get all the flack for being so called naïve, say "oh it doesn't matter, its only a few quid here an there" and he d be strung up for encouraging tax evasion.
a loaded question and perhaps if he is at fault, its that he didn't bat the question away like Cameron or Osborne would have, talking of which, the very same Osborne that 12 years ago, encouraged people to use so called "sophisticated products" to avoid certain taxes.... and this guy really is in charge :roll:

pblakeney

I wonder what kind of service Ed Balls gets in restaurants. He either:-

1. Doesn't pay.
2. Doesn't tip.
3. Does tip but asks for a receipt.

4. Doesn't go back.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what kind of service Ed Balls gets in restaurants. He either:-

1. Doesn't pay.
2. Doesn't tip.
3. Does tip but asks for a receipt.

4. Doesn't go back.

Hopefully he doesn't get in.

mamba80

He asks for a receipt, just in case he can get it in on Parliamentary expenses :shock:

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

He asks for a receipt, just in case he can get it in on Parliamentary expenses :shock:

Why on earth would he need to do that?

Just a slight whiff of hypocrisy . Classic case of 'Do as I say, don't do as I do.'

ballysmate

After sharing a candlelit dinner with Yvette, he could perhaps claim it wasn't their main meal of the day at all.
After all, Mr and Mrs Balls managed to flip their main residence 3 times in 2 years. Snouts in troughs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... enses.html

It is some days since I mentioned the Miliband family tax arrangements, so just a gentle reminder.

Party of the people indeed.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

He asks for a receipt, just in case he can get it in on Parliamentary expenses :shock:

Why on earth would he need to do that?

Just a slight whiff of hypocrisy . Classic case of 'Do as I say, don't do as I do.'

Apparently under the previous expense arrangements, MPs could claim £400 a month for food, without having to provide receipts, and a further £250 for other items.

Amazing. OK for Ed, but not us.

ballysmate

I wonder if Len McCluskey got a receipt when he bought and paid for Ed Miliband?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

I wonder if Len McCluskey got a receipt when he bought and paid for Ed Miliband?

I expect that the family company of that self righteous harridan Margaret Hodge got a receipt for the £163k of tax they paid on revenues of £2.1 billion a few years back:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html

Leftie hypocrisy has never gone out of fashion.

DeVlaeminck

It's a bit rich criticising Labour for this kind of thing - sure they aren't blameless but it's not as if the Conservatives are unknown to take political "donations" or avoid paying tax - I mean there is even a video of Osbourne advocating it http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... care-costs

Anyone who felt strongly about these issues surely wouldn't be voting Conservative that's for sure.

It's also ironic people posting links to Telegraph articles given today's news concerning that newspaper.