Usually on the way home from the Valley, on match days we phone ahead and order a Chinese take away.
I always get a 10% reduction if I pay by cash rather than by card.
That’s without doubt to encourage people to pay with cash so that it’s money the restaurant doesn’t have to declare as income. There’s no other real reason.
100%
Can't recall what topic it was on but I posted my experience of tradesmen over the last 18-24 months whilst I refurb my house. I've only found one that would take the complete payment by bank transfer, every single other (and I'm talking 20+) wanted at least an element of cash ranging from 25% to 100%. One guy I've used a lot and have got to know him quite well declares probably less than 25% of his earnings. I've also found most of them want me to buy (or pay for) the materials directly as otherwise their turn over would breach VAT levels.
At first I tried to not use cash or very little but very quickly became apparent I'd not get much work done if I stuck to that principle! Even largish organisations, I've had new flooring fitted throughout at differing times and whilst paying for the carpet etc has been by debit/credit card, payment to the fitter always has to be cash (it even says it on the flooring invoice!)
The lost revenue due to 'cash' payments to HMRC must be huge so little wonder there is a drive to go cashless.
Maybe those tradespersons are not as wealthy as you? Furthermore, maybe they are in fear of losing the work if they slap 20% on top.
I am one of a tiny minority that believes targeted advertising, most advertising actually, is an undesirable feature of society. I don’t want my behaviour algorithmised in order for advertisers to attempt to brainwash me.
Cash isn’t going away anytime soon. Governments and central banks issue the stuff because it’s a free loan they will never repay - that piece of paper is an I.O.U and if cash ceased to exist those central banks / governments would have to pay the loan back. They could of course simply say pay your cash into a bank account which does happen around the world but not everybody has a bank account, or even access to one and not everyone would want to put their cash into a bank account for a variety of reasons and not necessarily criminal ones. But for those that credit their bank account, the problem with cash converted to money in the bank is that ‘loan’ starts to cost the government money, especially when interest rates are no longer low and the only way to pay for that is to raise taxes.
I really don't care if the govt really want to look in my bank account. I support the idea of stopping fraud from the measure. What am I missing? Why wouod you care if you arent breaking the law? Where does the fear of an "invasive" or "authoritarian" government stem from here? What is the root issue?
I take it you are not being serious?
It has bugger all to do with the government what I have in my bank account. Banks monitor (or should) AML and POC suspicious activity and report it, and HMRC control the tax I pay. Why on earth would the government want to know details of bank accounts for people in receipt of state pension? Are they considering means testing it?
To answer the question without commenting on the rights and wrongs of the approach, I assume it is to monitor people in receipt of the extra pension credit payments when they might not be entitled to them?
In any event, if my understanding is correct (it might not be) the request from the Govt. will be for the banks' algorithms to check for anomalies rather than the data en masse being sent to the Government automatically. The vast majority of said data will remain within the confines of the banks. I assume, again I might be incorrect, that only details with flagged anomalies will be passed on to Govt. Personally, as someone who had previously had to go through the tortuous hoops to obtain bank account details, statements, etc (at least officially) nods and winks were always available, I think the checks and balances in the existing systems are about right if a pain in the butt.
I am one of a tiny minority that believes targeted advertising, most advertising actually, is an undesirable feature of society. I don’t want my behaviour algorithmised in order for advertisers to attempt to brainwash me.
Do you refuse therefore to use a Tesco Clubcard, Lidl + card etc and religiously tick the opt out option for emails when you go online. Likewise do not accept the default cookies etc. online?
I get the broad gut reaction but in reality such advertising does not disadvantage you. In my opinion.
It’s how we learn things too by having access to data.
I am one of a tiny minority that believes targeted advertising, most advertising actually, is an undesirable feature of society. I don’t want my behaviour algorithmised in order for advertisers to attempt to brainwash me.
Do you refuse therefore to use a Tesco Clubcard, Lidl + card etc and religiously tick the opt out option for emails when you go online. Likewise do not accept the default cookies etc. online?
I get the broad gut reaction but in reality such advertising does not disadvantage you. In my opinion.
It’s how we learn things too by having access to data.
I am not, indeed am unable to be rigid about all the forces out there designed to gain information, although I always tick opt out boxes when they appear. When it comes to advertising, well it is clearly a successful industry given how much money is spent on it, and the success is not really about providing information rather than attempting in some way to do your thinking for you and influence your behaviour. In my view the way to maintain personal autonomy is to resist advertising as much as possible in whatever way you can. I personally do not feel comfortable surrendering so much of my life to the corporate world, governmental electronic systems, and financial electronic systems. Clearly it is impossible to avoid such things, but my strategy is to question everything and fight back where possible.
I really don't care if the govt really want to look in my bank account. I support the idea of stopping fraud from the measure. What am I missing? Why wouod you care if you arent breaking the law? Where does the fear of an "invasive" or "authoritarian" government stem from here? What is the root issue?
I take it you are not being serious?
It has bugger all to do with the government what I have in my bank account. Banks monitor (or should) AML and POC suspicious activity and report it, and HMRC control the tax I pay. Why on earth would the government want to know details of bank accounts for people in receipt of state pension? Are they considering means testing it?
So the fear is means testing?
My specific comment was in relation to a government accessing bank accounts of state pension recipients.
My overall fear is of an invasive and authoritarian government - where does it end? You seem to have no problem with a 1984 approach - I do.
That's what I'm asking - where do you see it ending? What is behind this fear/distrust/dislike/disapproval of govt being able to see into bank accounts (and potentially track spending due to lack of cash).
I am trying to explore what underlies the objection. What consequence is being implied?
I am one of a tiny minority that believes targeted advertising, most advertising actually, is an undesirable feature of society. I don’t want my behaviour algorithmised in order for advertisers to attempt to brainwash me.
Do you refuse therefore to use a Tesco Clubcard, Lidl + card etc and religiously tick the opt out option for emails when you go online. Likewise do not accept the default cookies etc. online?
I get the broad gut reaction but in reality such advertising does not disadvantage you. In my opinion.
It’s how we learn things too by having access to data.
I am not, indeed am unable to be rigid about all the forces out there designed to gain information, although I always tick opt out boxes when they appear. When it comes to advertising, well it is clearly a successful industry given how much money is spent on it, and the success is not really about providing information rather than attempting in some way to do your thinking for you and influence your behaviour. In my view the way to maintain personal autonomy is to resist advertising as much as possible in whatever way you can. I personally do not feel comfortable surrendering so much of my life to the corporate world, governmental electronic systems, and financial electronic systems. Clearly it is impossible to avoid such things, but my strategy is to question everything and fight back where possible.
So from that I infer you do use a supermarket loyalty card and derive benefit from that. The pay off is you disclose data. But you choose as do I.
The data gathered is useful throughout the whole supply chain and not only aimed at encouraging more purchases.
The reality is if we did not these organisations will likely have greater cost and more inefficiency and prices would rise further in some cases.
Usually on the way home from the Valley, on match days we phone ahead and order a Chinese take away.
I always get a 10% reduction if I pay by cash rather than by card.
That’s without doubt to encourage people to pay with cash so that it’s money the restaurant doesn’t have to declare as income. There’s no other real reason.
100%
Can't recall what topic it was on but I posted my experience of tradesmen over the last 18-24 months whilst I refurb my house. I've only found one that would take the complete payment by bank transfer, every single other (and I'm talking 20+) wanted at least an element of cash ranging from 25% to 100%. One guy I've used a lot and have got to know him quite well declares probably less than 25% of his earnings. I've also found most of them want me to buy (or pay for) the materials directly as otherwise their turn over would breach VAT levels.
At first I tried to not use cash or very little but very quickly became apparent I'd not get much work done if I stuck to that principle! Even largish organisations, I've had new flooring fitted throughout at differing times and whilst paying for the carpet etc has been by debit/credit card, payment to the fitter always has to be cash (it even says it on the flooring invoice!)
The lost revenue due to 'cash' payments to HMRC must be huge so little wonder there is a drive to go cashless.
Maybe those tradespersons are not as wealthy as you? Furthermore, maybe they are in fear of losing the work if they slap 20% on top.
So stealing is ok if you’re not wealthy?
Come on Stu, you know the score really. The combined "theft" from the treasury of every tradesman in the country is probably the equivalent of the amount the top 200 richest people "steal" every year. No great fuss in the media about that, ever. And we can all say no to the tradesman.
The amount of money hidden away in offshore accounts and various other tax avoidance schemes by the very rich is what I find obscene. If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
Usually on the way home from the Valley, on match days we phone ahead and order a Chinese take away.
I always get a 10% reduction if I pay by cash rather than by card.
That’s without doubt to encourage people to pay with cash so that it’s money the restaurant doesn’t have to declare as income. There’s no other real reason.
100%
Can't recall what topic it was on but I posted my experience of tradesmen over the last 18-24 months whilst I refurb my house. I've only found one that would take the complete payment by bank transfer, every single other (and I'm talking 20+) wanted at least an element of cash ranging from 25% to 100%. One guy I've used a lot and have got to know him quite well declares probably less than 25% of his earnings. I've also found most of them want me to buy (or pay for) the materials directly as otherwise their turn over would breach VAT levels.
At first I tried to not use cash or very little but very quickly became apparent I'd not get much work done if I stuck to that principle! Even largish organisations, I've had new flooring fitted throughout at differing times and whilst paying for the carpet etc has been by debit/credit card, payment to the fitter always has to be cash (it even says it on the flooring invoice!)
The lost revenue due to 'cash' payments to HMRC must be huge so little wonder there is a drive to go cashless.
Maybe those tradespersons are not as wealthy as you? Furthermore, maybe they are in fear of losing the work if they slap 20% on top.
So stealing is ok if you’re not wealthy?
Come on Stu, you know the score really. The combined "theft" from the treasury of every tradesman in the country is probably the equivalent of the amount the top 200 richest people "steal" every year. No great fuss in the media about that, ever. And we can all say no to the tradesman.
Which is absolutely wrong, like all stealing. I know who the authorities should go after first and I’m sure you’d agree, but the idea that it’s ok to break the law if you’re not wealthy is ridiculous.
Usually on the way home from the Valley, on match days we phone ahead and order a Chinese take away.
I always get a 10% reduction if I pay by cash rather than by card.
That’s without doubt to encourage people to pay with cash so that it’s money the restaurant doesn’t have to declare as income. There’s no other real reason.
100%
Can't recall what topic it was on but I posted my experience of tradesmen over the last 18-24 months whilst I refurb my house. I've only found one that would take the complete payment by bank transfer, every single other (and I'm talking 20+) wanted at least an element of cash ranging from 25% to 100%. One guy I've used a lot and have got to know him quite well declares probably less than 25% of his earnings. I've also found most of them want me to buy (or pay for) the materials directly as otherwise their turn over would breach VAT levels.
At first I tried to not use cash or very little but very quickly became apparent I'd not get much work done if I stuck to that principle! Even largish organisations, I've had new flooring fitted throughout at differing times and whilst paying for the carpet etc has been by debit/credit card, payment to the fitter always has to be cash (it even says it on the flooring invoice!)
The lost revenue due to 'cash' payments to HMRC must be huge so little wonder there is a drive to go cashless.
Maybe those tradespersons are not as wealthy as you? Furthermore, maybe they are in fear of losing the work if they slap 20% on top.
So stealing is ok if you’re not wealthy?
Come on Stu, you know the score really. The combined "theft" from the treasury of every tradesman in the country is probably the equivalent of the amount the top 200 richest people "steal" every year. No great fuss in the media about that, ever. And we can all say no to the tradesman.
Which is absolutely wrong, like all stealing. I know who the authorities should go after first and I’m sure you’d agree, but the idea that it’s ok to break the law if you’re not wealthy is ridiculous.
Let's just agree that we have a different take on the Robin Hood stories then Stu...
The amount of money hidden away in offshore accounts and various other tax avoidance schemes by the very rich is what I find obscene. If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
You are doing it all wrong Blackpool. Its charlton life. You need to get on your highhorse and pretend you would demand to pay more because you want the sparky to put it through the books.
The amount of money hidden away in offshore accounts and various other tax avoidance schemes by the very rich is what I find obscene. If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
What about the other tradesman that might go out of business because s/he is getting undercut by a criminal?
The amount of money hidden away in offshore accounts and various other tax avoidance schemes by the very rich is what I find obscene. If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
You are doing it all wrong Blackpool. Its charlton life. You need to get on your highhorse and pretend you would demand to pay more because you want the sparky to put it through the books.
My window cleaner comes round once a month. I pay in cash. If I have extra rubbish to be removed I pay the dustman cash. If I have a meal out I tip the waitress in cash.
The amount of money hidden away in offshore accounts and various other tax avoidance schemes by the very rich is what I find obscene. If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
What about the other tradesman that might go out of business because s/he is getting undercut by a criminal?
My window cleaner comes round once a month. I pay in cash. If I have extra rubbish to be removed I pay the dustman cash. If I have a meal out I tip the waitress in cash.
Cash still serves a purpose.
It does indeed! I also keep cash in the house to tip delivery people and the like. However I don’t agree that all businesses should have to accept it.
I’ve worked in a lot of small, independent pubs. And I know people who still do.
Those in small businesses are much less likely to have multiple staff members on hand, CCTV cameras, and other security measures (eg bouncers) due to the higher cost of having them. For these businesses being able to eliminate cash on the premises (and being able to advertise that) gives a sense of security, as their businesses are less likely to be targeted for robbery. I’m sure we all know at least one local boozer that’s been robbed - they come for the cash. It’s a bloody terrifying experience to go through, and for some businesses it could even force them to go under.
So I don’t begrudge businesses for going cashless, even the bigger ones who can afford good security measures. The risk to the staff just isn’t worth it.
Plus, there is nothing to stop people from tipping the staff in these businesses with cash if that’s a concern.
The amount of money hidden away in offshore accounts and various other tax avoidance schemes by the very rich is what I find obscene. If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
What about the other tradesman that might go out of business because s/he is getting undercut by a criminal?
There are great swathes of employed people who because of the way they are paid can't avoid paying their correct tax. In terms of fairness I suppose, if a nurse, or a bank employee, or a soldier, or a shop worker has to contribute to their society by being in 'pay as you earn', surely it isn't fair for a tradesperson to underdeclare their income to avoid tax when an Amazon worker for example can't. Am I missing something obvious?
There are great swathes of employed people who because of the way they are paid can't avoid paying their correct tax. In terms of fairness I suppose, if a nurse, or a bank employee, or a soldier, or a shop worker has to contribute to their society by being in 'pay as you earn', surely it isn't fair for a tradesperson to underdeclare their income to avoid tax when an Amazon worker for example can't. Am I missing something obvious?
Quite right.
That’s why there is little reasonable excuse for businesses to refuse card payments.
There are great swathes of employed people who because of the way they are paid can't avoid paying their correct tax. In terms of fairness I suppose, if a nurse, or a bank employee, or a soldier, or a shop worker has to contribute to their society by being in 'pay as you earn', surely it isn't fair for a tradesperson to underdeclare their income to avoid tax when an Amazon worker for example can't. Am I missing something obvious?
Quite right.
That’s why there is little reasonable excuse for businesses to refuse card payments.
I probably naively thought that if you got a proper receipt, yes a paper one probably, for the exact money you paid even if in cash, that would help with the payment of tax. Isn't that the way it used to be before the internet and whatnot?
Comments
In any event, if my understanding is correct (it might not be) the request from the Govt. will be for the banks' algorithms to check for anomalies rather than the data en masse being sent to the Government automatically. The vast majority of said data will remain within the confines of the banks. I assume, again I might be incorrect, that only details with flagged anomalies will be passed on to Govt. Personally, as someone who had previously had to go through the tortuous hoops to obtain bank account details, statements, etc (at least officially) nods and winks were always available, I think the checks and balances in the existing systems are about right if a pain in the butt.
I get the broad gut reaction but in reality such advertising does not disadvantage you. In my opinion.
When it comes to advertising, well it is clearly a successful industry given how much money is spent on it, and the success is not really about providing information rather than attempting in some way to do your thinking for you and influence your behaviour.
In my view the way to maintain personal autonomy is to resist advertising as much as possible in whatever way you can.
I personally do not feel comfortable surrendering so much of my life to the corporate world, governmental electronic systems, and financial electronic systems. Clearly it is impossible to avoid such things, but my strategy is to question everything and fight back where possible.
I am trying to explore what underlies the objection. What consequence is being implied?
If a tradesmen wants too knock 10 % of my bill by me paying cash I'm only to happy to oblige.
Sad really.
I pay in cash.
If I have extra rubbish to be removed I pay the dustman cash.
If I have a meal out I tip the waitress in cash.
Cash still serves a purpose.
In terms of fairness I suppose, if a nurse, or a bank employee, or a soldier, or a shop worker has to contribute to their society by being in 'pay as you earn', surely it isn't fair for a tradesperson to underdeclare their income to avoid tax when an Amazon worker for example can't.
Am I missing something obvious?
Isn't that the way it used to be before the internet and whatnot?