EU takes action against Malta, Greece and Cyprus on VAT

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted User YDKXO
  • Start date Start date
Portofino said:
That's not my Q
You missed the point

We will be out of the EU eventually
Like say an American citizen .

So run it by be
How will not paying Italian VAT in the EU effect UK " poor " ?

Think of a background of " punishment " and that type of language currently banded about in Brussels
Click to expand...

No, I did not.
My world view is one that understands the savage effects of inequity and my actions support that view. Off course the example being used is not directly starving U.K. LTD revenue stream but we are all affected or touched by acts of unfairness - it can destroy motivation and hope and while you might think it flakey, I believe that to be important. It’s all Lounge territory of course so apologies...
 
sorabain said:
This is all getting a bit "tu quoque"
Click to expand...
Uh? Non sequitur, if you don't mind me throwing in another bit of latin, for good measure.
How exactly do you think my previous post fell under the tu quoque fallacy?
It wasn't meant to accuse Deleted User by any stretch of imagination.
 
MapisM said:
Uh? Non sequitur, if you don't mind me throwing in another bit of latin, for good measure.
How exactly do you think my previous post fell under the tu quoque fallacy?
It wasn't meant to accuse Deleted User by any stretch of imagination.
Click to expand...

Thats alright I've been accused of a lot worse! For the record, I would love to be in the position to buy a new Royal Denship and if I believed it to be legal, I would have no hesitation in taking advantage of a VAT mitigation scheme like the one in Malta

When it comes to tax, I'm very much with Lord Tomlin on this

‘Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.’

Also I find moralising about tax to be hypocritical because none of us voluntarily pay a penny more than we should and virtually all of us have evaded tax at one time or another, if it is only something like paying a tradesman in cash or not paying VAT on the watch we bought abroad or buying dodgy fags in the pub
 
MapisM said:
Uh? Non sequitur, if you don't mind me throwing in another bit of latin, for good measure.
How exactly do you think my previous post fell under the tu quoque fallacy?
It wasn't meant to accuse Deleted User by any stretch of imagination.
Click to expand...

Sorry, was an unintentional quote of your post. Was more regarding the other insinuations of hypocrisy towards those otherwise putting forward a liberal/progressive point of view with regards to taxation. I editted my post soon after to remove the quote as it looked to be directed at your post rather than the ones preceding it, but not quick enough.
 
Deleted User said:
Also I find moralising about tax to be hypocritical because none of us voluntarily pay a penny more than we should and virtually all of us have evaded tax at one time or another, if it is only something like paying a tradesman in cash or not paying VAT on the watch we bought abroad or buying dodgy fags in the pub
Click to expand...
Agreed. More than likely, if I could afford a Royal Denship, I would run it VAT free.
But I wouldn't pretend that's fair, regardless of what any law (or any Lord, for that matter!) allows.
Legal, maybe, but fair, no way.
I don't think it's a matter of moralization (being more Catholic than the Pope is the last thing I'm interested in).
It's just that I can't help calling a spade a spade, nothing else.
 
Deleted User said:
When it comes to tax, I'm very much with Lord Tomlin on this

‘Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow tax-payers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.’
Click to expand...

I appreciate the theory, but in practice if the actions upset enough people then policy does end up being changed and too often in a clumsy way that whacks people who weren't avoiding anything in the first place. This is in effect "compulsion" to pay increased tax, albeit only to try and catch it going forwards rather than retrospective (which leads to people feeling like the ladder has been pulled up behind their predecessors)

Plus don't HMRC now come down hard on any "legal at the time" schemes that are later decided to be mis-used for "aggressive avoidance" (not evasion so assuming not illegal). Gary Barlow etc? (as well as making sure they get crucified in the media)
 
Last edited:
sorabain said:
Sorry, was an unintentional quote of your post.
Click to expand...
Got it (and also your pm), no worries!

Btw, I forgot to mention it previously, but your previous post #46 got my vote as the most spot on of the whole thread so far.
Are you possibly an economist by trade, if you don't mind me asking? :encouragement:
 
MapisM said:
Got it (and also your pm), no worries!

Btw, I forgot to mention it previously, but your previous post #46 got my vote as the most spot on of the whole thread so far.
Are you possibly an economist by trade, if you don't mind me asking? :encouragement:
Click to expand...

Computer programmer; Finance; London.

Always think I know nothing about (macro) economics and keep meaning to read textbooks on it and try to understand the theory. As a slightly obsessive programmer with more of a pure maths background i've always struggled to get my head around macro.
 
MapisM said:
Agreed. More than likely, if I could afford a Royal Denship, I would run it VAT free.
But I wouldn't pretend that's fair, regardless of what any law (or any Lord, for that matter!) allows.
Legal, maybe, but fair, no way.
I don't think it's a matter of moralization (being more Catholic than the Pope is the last thing I'm interested in).
It's just that I can't help calling a spade a spade, nothing else.
Click to expand...
+1 and that why there need to be fair and equal laws relating to taxation in Europe and around the world - most people will pay as little as possible, some will pay more than they need but the less fortunate don’t live in a world where a choice exists.

I certainly don’t judge anyone on their personal decisions - even if it is a grey area scheme - I just follow my own code, even if that is partially driven by some less than honourable behaviour as a younger man...never too late to atone - I hope ;)
 
sorabain said:
i've always struggled to get my head around macro.
Click to expand...
No need to be concerned about that.
One of my best Uni teachers, a well known economist, used to say that he also struggled to get his head around some aspects of macroeconomics... :rolleyes:
 
;) I'm just loving reading all this. I've never heard so much bunk in my life. So far I count two honest people and a whole host in need to salve some guilt complex. And as a last word. The politicians who set the rules are almost certainly without doubt the worst abusers of any and every loophole known to man. They are throwing a tiffy because they probably didn't get their kickback.
 
Portofino said:
Switzerland

At the mo
Click to expand...

BruceK said:
;) I'm just loving reading all this. I've never heard so much bunk in my life. So far I count two honest people and a whole host in need to salve some guilt complex. And as a last word. The politicians who set the rules are almost certainly without doubt the worst abusers of any and every loophole known to man. They are throwing a tiffy because they probably didn't get their kickback.
Click to expand...

Tiffy? :D
 
MapisM said:
My compatriot FB ran VAT free his Royal Denship - and it's easy to guess that he did the same with several other boats.

I have no children, while FB has two children, both entitled to free sanitary assistance, school system, etc.

Therefore, my humble boat purchases (as well as the costs of running them) contributed to a social system which FB and his family can exploit even more than myself, while his ships didn't.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is the mysterious FB? He keeps cropping up in this thread with no explanation.

Ferris Bueller is the only FB that springs to mind, but I'm guessing it's not him...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top