The Great Private Pension Scam

[CliveH]

Robinhood - 2012-04-12 2:30 PM

 

CliveH - 2012-04-12 1:33 PM

 

The answer to part a) is that the total VAT on the two items both costing £10 each is £2.00 because one item is children’s clothing which is zero rated for VAT.

 

Which means that the answer to part b) is as close as damn-it - 9.1%

 

 

.....jeez, you just don't know when to give up do you.

 

The VAT discussion was Francis' "strawman" according to you, but despite that you still continue to prattle on about it (further and further away from the original debate). Your mind must be a very strange place. :-s

 

And now stating that there are variable rates of VAT and thus Francis' calculation (based on the majority use rate of 20%) is wrong is an odd way to turn the argument, since you yourself have been quite happy to work to date in your own arguments with that single 20% figure (so does that, in your mind, make you equally wrong?) :-S (Francis' original post on the point acknowledged there were other possiblities)

 

If you really want to play hard-ball and be "picky", then re-read your original question, because the answer above (to your question as worded) is not definitive either. :-S

 

My wife (along with many women) is quite capable of buying "childrens" clothing for herself at a zero VAT rate because of size, and my son (whilst still technically a child) had to buy adult clothes (not zero rated) because of his height. Buying for an adult or a child is not necessarily indicative of the rate of VAT paid.

 

So, the answer to your question (as worded) is that there is insufficient data to answer. BUT, in reality, and depending on the particular morphic properties of the people involved, the answer to B would be either 0%, 9.1% or 16.66% - So Francis' original statement of a potential 16.66% (I'll concede he said 17%) would still have a chance of being correct (but 20% wouldn't). ;-)

 

Anyway, I'm now bored with the repetitive debate - it isn't adding anything new and I need to go and get some gas.

 

(if the level of debate isn't raised somewhat, I might be tempted to use it ;-) )

 

 

 

You say:-

 

“My wife (along with many women) is quite capable of buying "childrens" clothing for herself at a zero VAT rate because of size, and my son (whilst still technically a child) had to buy adult clothes (not zero rated) because of his height. Buying for an adult or a child is not necessarily indicative of the rate of VAT paid.

 

So, the answer to your question (as worded) is that there is insufficient data to answer. BUT, in reality, and depending on the particular morphic properties of the people involved, the answer to B would be either 0%, 9.1% or 16.66% - So Francis' original statement of a potential 16.66% (I'll concede he said 17%) would still have a chance of being correct (but 20% wouldn't). ”

 

How twee!

 

You just underline my point in that FG stated 17% and all I said was that this was a bizarre way of expressing VAT because of exactly the point you now make in his defence!

 

Given the range of non-vatable and vatable goods – FG can ONLY be right when every item in the “basket” is vatable. WHEREAS – You have just proved that my analysis would be right in every other “basket” where any number of non-vatable items existed greater than zero.

 

This is the same as FG being akin to a stopped clock - in that FG is "correct" only twice a day and then only be default!

 

Which is why we financial professionals stick to the accepted consensus of HMR&C of stating the actual rate of VAT applying to the product in question!

 

But if you want to continue to make idiots of yourselves – be my quest. Love to be a fly on the wall of you trying to get your variable basket of VAT rates taken seriously by an Accountant!

 

We will be chuckling at your ever more desperate hole digging for some while yet!

 

More More!

 

Keep us laughing – the Accounts Department needs you!

 

(and some of those have personalities that can light up a room just by leaving it – If I thought you guys had the basic accountancy skills I would recommend you! - your personalities are just right!)

(lol) (lol)

[Symbol Owner]

What happened to pensions then?

If you guys want to continue your V.A.T. Spat why not start a new thread? >:-)

 

Colin.

[francisgraham]

Don't worry Clive, we've given up on you now. You clearly don't have the mental capacity to understand exactly what's going on, so it's pointless trying to keep explaining, even in the simplest of terms, what we're actually saying.

You're not back on that Rioja are you? Something is definitely affecting your cognitive processes! Take it easy old chap, the strain is beginning to show again!

Seriously though Clive, you really should go and see a doctor. You are not well.

[francisgraham]

Symbol Owner - 2012-04-12 8:18 PMWhat happened to pensions then?If you guys want to continue your V.A.T. Spat why not start a new thread? >:-) Colin.

It's pointless going on now about pensions as we even can't make him understand why I said that, when buying almost everything except the most basic items, the government's VAT share of the retail price is about 17%.

You see he just knows that VAT is 20% and can't comprehend that it's 20% on the net price, which works out at about 17% of the retail price.

It's very sad really that he just doesn't understand what I was trying to explain. Everyone else does, but of course they're not 'financial advisers'. (Thank God!)

So it's pretty pointless burdening him with anything more complex at this stage I'm afraid!  He'd meltdown even faster than he is now poor man!

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-04-12 8:13 PM

 

 

We will be chuckling at your ever more desperate hole digging for some while yet!

 

 

....and I thought you were the one accusing me of having multiple personalities. (lol)

 

All the "points" you raise have already been addressed in the parts that you choose selectively not to repost, a fact that is so transparent I really can't be bothered to add any more.

 

As I said, .....jeez, you just don't know when to give up do you. :-S

 

Now where did I put that gas?

[Guest Tracker]

I wonder what it is about this forum that makes people repeat themselves over and over again and again ad nauseum?

 

Who are they trying to convince - themselves - or everyone else?

 

I wonder what it is about this forum that makes people repeat themselves over and over again and again ad nauseum?

 

Gosh that sounds familiar - apologies if I have already said that!

[Robinhood]

Symbol Owner - 2012-04-12 8:18 PM

 

What happened to pensions then?

If you guys want to continue your V.A.T. Spat why not start a new thread? >:-)

 

Colin.

 

....well, Colin, you could always start another Pensions thread, and see how long it takes to go OT. ;-)

 

(I might otherwise get drawn into the issue of the existence of recoverable VAT percentages that bear no relationship whatsoever to any of the HMRC published rates - but if we can't get past the basics, I suspect that might be a step (or several) too far). ;-)

[francisgraham]

Tracker - 2012-04-12 8:38 PMI wonder what it is about this forum that makes people repeat themselves over and over again and again ad nauseum?Who are they trying to convince - themselves - or everyone else?I wonder what it is about this forum that makes people repeat themselves over and over again and again ad nauseum?Gosh that sounds familiar - apologies if I have already said that!

We were trying to convince Clive of what I actually wrote and meant but I've given up now! I know what I meant and so does everyone else!

Everyone is wrong but him. One of the first signs I'm afraid. You're a bright enough bloke, what do you think this means and do you understand it?

If you spend the £500 that you have left on anything but the most basic of products, you will pay even more tax in the shape of VAT which works out at about 17% of the retail price.

Is the message that I'm trying to convey clear to you?

[CliveH]

francisgraham - 2012-04-12 8:20 PMDon't worry Clive, we've given up on you now. You clearly don't have the mental capacity to understand exactly what's going on, so it's pointless trying to keep explaining, even in the simplest of terms, what we're actually saying.

You're not back on that Rioja are you? Something is definitely affecting your cognitive processes! Take it easy old chap, the strain is beginning to show again!

Seriously though Clive, you really should go and see a doctor. You are not well.

Yeah yeah whatever. I can live with myself - which is more than I suspect you can do given the bile and vindictive nature of your posts.So having proved my point on E/er's NIC and now VAT - you are going to depart saying I am beyond understanding your unique version of NIC and VAT calculations.And yet I have always said that I understand HOW you get to the figs you do - for example I actually stated that for an employee to receive a £1000 bonus (which was the original wording) the firm has to make a profit of £1380.You clearly do not understand how the UEL and P11D interact - but I am not surprised - it is relatively complex and you do need to get HMRC approval for SS or BS. Something I do for client regularly - so I KNOW your calculations whilst interesting are not how the real world works.Similarly you simplistically assume all retail goods have VAT applied at 20% of the purchase price and go on to assume that therefore the rate of VAT is akin to circa 17% of the total purchase price inclusive of VAT.A simple example of a non-vatable item and a vatable item in the same shopping basket blew that out of the water!Then we had your SP mate RH blathering on about his rather small wife and strapping lad buying children’s and adults clothes respectively. Well what can I say............................................ 8-) Apart from the fact that he inadvertently proved the point I was making :-D re the VAT rather better than I managed.Thanks RH - You're a pal (lol) (lol) (lol) Oh and thanks for your concern FG (tho' we all know WHY you have now resorted to Ad Homs which is par for the course with you given the above) I saw a GP today re the A9 Concession and his possible 24 hour retirement and his lovely wife who is a Consultant Rheumatologist - her NHS pension CETV is well over the now £1.5M LTA - so I am glad we protected it. So is she seeing as the now LTA is lower than last years £1.8M LTA. And the Rioja is orgasmic B-)

[CliveH]

Robinhood - 2012-04-12 8:43 PM

 

Symbol Owner - 2012-04-12 8:18 PM

 

What happened to pensions then?

If you guys want to continue your V.A.T. Spat why not start a new thread? >:-)

 

Colin.

 

....well, Colin, you could always start another Pensions thread, and see how long it takes to go OT. ;-)

 

(I might otherwise get drawn into the issue of the existence of recoverable VAT percentages that bear no relationship whatsoever to any of the HMRC published rates - but if we can't get past the basics, I suspect that might be a step (or several) too far). ;-)

 

Oh come on RH - you did me a great service in showing poor old FG to be "barking" (up the wrong tree) so least I can do is to show how our Sage package deals with partially recoverable VAT!!

(lol)

 

 

Partially Recoverable VAT

 

There are cases when VAT on a purchase is not recoverable or is only partially recoverable. The percentage not recoverable is defined for each VAT code.

 

You can enter a non-recoverable VAT rate against all VAT codes, regardless of the setting of the Ledger indicator. However, non-recoverable VAT is only calculated in the following modules:

 

Accounts Payable

Purchase Order Processing

Purchase Order Requisitions

Cash Management

General Ledger

When an element of VAT on a purchase invoice is non-recoverable, the effective cost of the goods is increased by the non-recoverable amount.

 

Example

An Accounts Payable purchase invoice is received from a supplier as follows:

 

General Ledger Code Amount VAT Code Goods/VAT

1-01-10-01-003 100.00 AA1 G

5-00-30-19-043 25.00 AA1 V

 

Where the VAT rate for VAT code AA1 is 25% with, for example, 60% recoverable and 40% non-recoverable, the postings become:

 

General Ledger Account Debit Credit

Accounts Payable Control 125.00

1-01-10-01-003 110.00

5-00-30-19-043 15.00

 

i.e. the non-recoverable VAT amount is added to the goods amount.

 

 

--------------------------------

 

Go on mate

#

 

 

Knock yourself out.

 

I will sit back with my 25th bottle of Rioja and - ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2012-04-12 8:38 PM

 

I wonder what it is about this forum that makes people repeat themselves over and over again and again ad nauseum?

 

Who are they trying to convince - themselves - or everyone else?

 

I wonder what it is about this forum that makes people repeat themselves over and over again and again ad nauseum?

 

Gosh that sounds familiar - apologies if I have already said that!

Wrong diagnosis Rich! :-D It isn't the forum, it is the people. I think some would go on repeating themselves standing in the dark in an anechoic chamber!

 

Shame really, because I think there may have been some interesting, and even valuable, information hiding behind those egos.

 

This has been a classic scorched earth debate, where the protagonists have effectively destroyed any potential value or interest to anyone else in order to promote their own claims. So many words signifying so little. What struck me as odd is that the issue concerns calculation of benefit, and so hinges on numeracy, yet there is hardly a calculation on show to support the various claims being made. Instead, we descend to the level of "how many tax accountants can dance on a 5p piece"? Who cares? Really, who cares? Is this not conceit and arrogance on a grand scale?

[francisgraham]

It’s actually about one man’s utter dishonesty and I’ve refrained from using that word up to now but his continuing stance forces me!

After an explanation that showed how a man was left with just over £500 from the £1000 that his employer has available, would then lose even more when he purchases things, I made the following comment.

‘If he then spends his increase on anything but the most basic items, whatever he buys will have VAT at about 17% of the retail price, another £86.64 so, from the original £1000, the state has taken £567!’

Note that I said VAT AT 17% OF THE RETAIL PRICE.

 

Clive H came back with:

‘You are wrong on so many levels FG - you post is akin to farting in lift. For a start – a minor point but you quote VAT at 17% ‘

From that it is quite clear that he hadn’t understood my calculation and he thought, that I thought, that VAT was levied at 17% instead of 20%.

Instead of simply admitting that he’d misunderstood, and later on he accepted that VAT on most products is 16.66% of the retail price he takes us into a wilder and wilder fantasy world in an effort to draw attention away from his basic error. His dishonesty comes in simply refusing to admit that he made a mistake when by now, he clearly must know.

His desperation to be right is now farcical. You made a simple mistake Clive. Forget all the waffle.

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 10:36 PM.... yet there is hardly a calculation on show to support the various claims being made. Instead, we descend to the level of "how many tax accountants can dance on a 5p piece"? Who cares? Really, who cares? Is this not conceit and arrogance on a grand scale?

Please start with my first post, after which I do actually do the calculations and try to spell them out for Clive in the simplest of terms!

It's my calculations that he can't understand but I hope that you can.

This, I'm sure you will be pleased to read will be my last post about him. It's clear that he has problems with simple arithmetic such as that involved in calculating that 20% VAT equates to a tax of about 17% of the retail price. That's the trouble with calculators and computers. They rob people of the ability to do fourth-form mathematics.

I really have given up on him now. His entire stance has sunk to simply telling everyone how he's right and we're wrong, without any understanding of what the original hypotheses was. 

Goodbye Clive. Carry on telling everyone how clever you are, but not clever enough to have understood the original simple statement that started all this!

[Brian Kirby]

francisgraham - 2012-04-12 11:08 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 10:36 PM.... yet there is hardly a calculation on show to support the various claims being made. Instead, we descend to the level of "how many tax accountants can dance on a 5p piece"? Who cares? Really, who cares? Is this not conceit and arrogance on a grand scale?

Please start with my first post, after which I do actually do the calculations and try to spell them out for Clive in the simplest of terms..........................

I did that Francis, but after that got lost in all those words! Surely two sets of calculations, set out with fewer words, would have sufficed to illustrate where the difference, or misunderstanding, lay? I promise I have no wish to prolong this, but wouldn't the numbers speak truth with greater eloquence? It seems to me you are both saying much the same thing, while getting awfully het-up over very small differences. I still think that was a shame, and more or less destroyed what could have been an informative discussion. I'm sorry, but there is a whiff of Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the shenanigans! :-D

[CliveH]

I agree Brian but with one major difference re the calculations because FG states clearly and repeats the mistake above that VAT is 17% of the retail price:-

 

“‘If he then spends his increase on anything but the most basic items, whatever he buys will have VAT at about 17% of the retail price, another £86.64……………….”

 

He even states a figure of £86.64 which is indeed 17% of the retail sum he cites.

 

However I queried his 17% because I have never seen VAT expressed in this way and for good reason. Some retail items are exempt from VAT and some are zero rated and some have a reduced rate of VAT applied.

 

I quoted one simple shopping basket as an example – I suggest we look at another, perhaps more typical one that should demonstrate FG mistake once and for all.

 

Your shopping basket for a weekend away in your MH contains the following:-

 

Pack of Chicken

Various vegetables

Newspaper

Book

Magazine

Box of Tampax (apologies Brian for your good lady or female family member of course and I include these for a specific point so I am sorry for any offence in advance)

Bottle of Rioja

 

Now Food and the print items listed have no VAT charged (many retail items are either exempt or zero rated) the sanitary items are rated at 5%. In this list, only the Rioja has the full 20% VAT applied and so:-

 

Chicken £3 ZERO VAT

Veg £3 ZERO VAT

Paper £1 ZERO VAT

Book £12 ZERO VAT

Mag £3 ZERO VAT

Tampax £5 VAT @5% So VAT circa 25p

Rioja £7 VAT @ 20% So VAT circa £1.40

 

So of a RETAIL shopping basket of £34 the total VAT charged to you in this example would be approx £1.65.

 

Which when expressed as a percentage of the total retail basket of goods represents just 4.85% - way way different to FG’s bizarre notion of 17%

 

Hence my querying FG’s simplistic notion that VAT represents 17% of Retail. I queried it – he explained – I pointed out the reality – FG spits his dummy out.

 

Given the above info – which I have stated ad nausium now (sorry folks I am the type of person with a “terrier” type mentality that when I know I am right WILL keep going) and sorry if it is annoying – but the figs above speak for themselves

:-S

[francisgraham]

He's really not well. What is it about ' on anything but the most basic items' that he simply cannot understand? 

Basic items such as food don't have VAT. It's just amazing that he continues this farce to draw attention from his original simple misunderstanding. Chicken doesn't have VAT! It's one of the 'basic items' not covered. Give me strength!

It was an example to show that the government can further take tax from you when you buy anything but the most 'basic items'. Everyone understands that except CliveH who read it and, because he's a bit dense, thought that I thought, that VAT was 20%.

He actually agreed that it was 20% for several posts. Then he remembered that some items don't have VAT so introduces another red herring to divert from his first cock up. Yes Clive we know that some items don't have VAT (basic items). Now go and take your pills that's a good chap.

Your entire waffle is based on one big lie. You blundered, admit it!

I know I said I wouldn't post on this again but this continuing deceit from this preposterous man just deserves a response.

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 11:59 PM

francisgraham - 2012-04-12 11:08 PM

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 10:36 PM.... yet there is hardly a calculation on show to support the various claims being made. Instead, we descend to the level of "how many tax accountants can dance on a 5p piece"? Who cares? Really, who cares? Is this not conceit and arrogance on a grand scale?

Please start with my first post, after which I do actually do the calculations and try to spell them out for Clive in the simplest of terms..........................

I did that Francis, but after that got lost in all those words! Surely two sets of calculations, set out with fewer words, would have sufficed to illustrate where the difference, or misunderstanding, lay? I promise I have no wish to prolong this, but wouldn't the numbers speak truth with greater eloquence? It seems to me you are both saying much the same thing, while getting awfully het-up over very small differences. I still think that was a shame, and more or less destroyed what could have been an informative discussion. I'm sorry, but there is a whiff of Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the shenanigans! :-D

Here's the numbers Brian again.

I said that if a man buys anything but the most basic items that 17% of the retail price will be tax.

You sell something that's VATable (anything but the most basic items) and want to get £100. On top of the £100 you have to add 20% VAT, so your retail price is £120.

£20 as a percentage of £120 is 16.66% so VAT, as I said, is about 17% of the RETAIL price.

Cliveh didn't mention anything in his earlier posts about the non-basic items which don't have VAT, instead he told me that I was wrong on so many points and said:

'On a minor point, you quote VAT at 17%'

He later spend many posts arguing about how VAT should be quoted. On every occasion he mentioned the 20% rate. Now for some reason he's decided to muddy the waters by introducing 'non-basic items' which never came into it!

I said VAT was 17% of the retail price. Clive H thought that I was suggesting that the VAT RATE imposed on the net price was 17%.

That is as clear as the nose on any face if you read the posts properly.

So yes, I and others have continually shown him the sums but instead of understanding our basic concept he waffles on about chicken in order to convince us that he didn't make a mistake and really is the terribly clever 'financial adviser'.

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 11:59 PM

 

I did that Francis, but after that got lost in all those words! Surely two sets of calculations, set out with fewer words, ........

 

.........is that really you, Brian? ;-)

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 11:59 PM ........would have sufficed to illustrate where the difference, or misunderstanding, lay? I promise I have no wish to prolong this, but wouldn't the numbers speak truth with greater eloquence? It seems to me you are both saying much the same thing, while getting awfully het-up over very small differences. I still think that was a shame, and more or less destroyed what could have been an informative discussion. I'm sorry, but there is a whiff of Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the shenanigans! :-D

 

...actually Brian, such calculations as have been set out by both parties have been relatively easy to follow, and are both broadly correct.

 

The reason that the debate has deteriorated (at least IMO) is that Francis (as the first of the protagonists on this "thread") posted entirely reasonable and correct statements on both the application of VAT, and the payment by an employer of his £1000 "to spare" as an employee bonus.

 

Of necessity, there were some acknowledged generalisations, but the arguments were entirely easy to follow.

 

He was then challenged by Clive that both examples were incorrect (they weren't - Clive either misunderstood, misinterpreted, or was just plain wrong about both).

 

Now the calculations Clive put forward are indeed, in themselves, also largely correct, but the problem is that they address a different proposal to that Francis originally put forward, so they do nothing to prove him wrong.

 

But, though Francis (implicitly) acknowledges that Clive's calculations are correct, and has explicitly stated that they address a different argument to that originally put forward, Clive continues (even in his latest post :-s ) to accuse Francis of being wrong.

 

He isn't! And under the circumstances, (though I also find the repetition somewhat tedious), I'm not surprised that Francis is still annoyed.

 

I must admit that I've also been on the receiving end of the same (and I try at least to be temperate in my posts and not be drawn into the insults that get liberally scattered, but Clive would try the patience of a Saint, which I'm not - and I doubt Francis comes from Assisi!)

 

IMO, Clive displays a near-pathological inability to simply say he misunderstood, and that (in an explained context) someone else's argument is correct. He will wriggle, insult, change track, change words (both his own and others) and misrepresent in a never-ending attempt to prove black is white, (even in the middle of this debate he acknowledged that Francis' VAT figure was correct, and then continued in the same post to dispute it 8-) ). It is a trait, accompanied by a propensity to jump in and challenge, which litters Clive's posts, and I know I should resist getting drawn in, but that's why (IMO) it kicks off!

 

There comes a point, however, where continuing to post in reponse simply encourages more of the above.....

 

....so having posted that, it really is my last word on this particular thread. (sighs of relief all round :-) )

[CliveH]

 

 

Oh deary deary me again FG!

 

It was precisely because you stated that apart from "basic items" retail items were 17% that I queried the figure! If you knew the range of retail items that were VAT exempt, Zero rated or charged at a reduced rate - why go onto quote a figure of 17%?

 

It is exactly because the use of your unusual calculation of VAT is so variable in its output that it is indeed - so unusual, not used in the financial world, inaccurate because its accuracy is dependent on the specific contents of the "basket"

 

I have never stated that the calculation is in itself wrong - but to indicate that VAT is applied at 17% on retail items is wrong in my opinion - and I have provided the calculations to demonstrate why I believe the use of the 17% is wrong.

 

It is a calculation not used in accountancy or financial planning because of its inherent inaccuracy.

 

 

If you feel comfortable using it - fine - go ahead.

 

Just do not expect those of us that deal with these matters on a daily basis to give your notion any credit.

 

[CliveH]

 

Robinhood - 2012-04-13 9:07 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 11:59 PM

 

I did that Francis, but after that got lost in all those words! Surely two sets of calculations, set out with fewer words, ........

 

.........is that really you, Brian? ;-)

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-12 11:59 PM ........would have sufficed to illustrate where the difference, or misunderstanding, lay? I promise I have no wish to prolong this, but wouldn't the numbers speak truth with greater eloquence? It seems to me you are both saying much the same thing, while getting awfully het-up over very small differences. I still think that was a shame, and more or less destroyed what could have been an informative discussion. I'm sorry, but there is a whiff of Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the shenanigans! :-D

 

...actually Brian, such calculations as have been set out by both parties have been relatively easy to follow, and are both broadly correct.

 

The reason that the debate has deteriorated (at least IMO) is that Francis (as the first of the protagonists on this "thread") posted entirely reasonable and correct statements on both the application of VAT, and the payment by an employer of his £1000 "to spare" as an employee bonus.

 

Of necessity, there were some acknowledged generalisations, but the arguments were entirely easy to follow.

 

He was then challenged by Clive that both examples were incorrect (they weren't - Clive either misunderstood, misinterpreted, or was just plain wrong about both).

 

Now the calculations Clive put forward are indeed, in themselves, also largely correct, but the problem is that they address a different proposal to that Francis originally put forward, so they do nothing to prove him wrong.

 

But, though Francis (implicitly) acknowledges that Clive's calculations are correct, and has explicitly stated that they address a different argument to that originally put forward, Clive continues (even in his latest post :-s ) to accuse Francis of being wrong.

 

He isn't! And under the circumstances, (though I also find the repetition somewhat tedious), I'm not surprised that Francis is still annoyed.

 

I must admit that I've also been on the receiving end of the same (and I try at least to be temperate in my posts and not be drawn into the insults that get liberally scattered, but Clive would try the patience of a Saint, which I'm not - and I doubt Francis comes from Assisi!)

 

IMO, Clive displays a near-pathological inability to simply say he misunderstood, and that (in an explained context) someone else's argument is correct. He will wriggle, insult, change track, change words (both his own and others) and misrepresent in a never-ending attempt to prove black is white, (even in the middle of this debate he acknowledged that Francis' VAT figure was correct, and then continued in the same post to dispute it 8-) ). It is a trait, accompanied by a propensity to jump in and challenge, which litters Clive's posts, and I know I should resist getting drawn in, but that's why (IMO) it kicks off!

 

There comes a point, however, where continuing to post in reponse simply encourages more of the above.....

 

....so having posted that, it really is my last word on this particular thread. (sighs of relief all round :-) )

 

RH

 

I said that the arithmetic was correct - NOT that FG's VAT calculation was correct.

 

And you accuse ME of misinterpretation! How is your glass house?

 

The point I keep making is that the 17% figure - whilst arithmetically correct - relies on a retail basket of goods that are all VATable at 20%.

 

This is nonsense because of the huge variability in those retail items that are Vatable or rated at a lower rate than 20%.

 

So I state again - FG uses a false accounting premise to obtain the 17% figure and even tho' the arithmetic is correct it does nothing to support the silly notion that on a retail basket of goods the VAT represents 17% of the retail price.

 

I have given an example of another spurious use of arithmetic to falsify a percentage and that was the £1 payment (net) into a pension for a BRTP. This is grossed up to £1.25. So tho we all know the tax relief is 20%, it could be said by some that the individual is 25% better off.

 

Like the E/er NIC and SS - FG's understanding is poor.

 

His focus on the VAT angle is a typical Strawman argument where his bluff has been called.

 

[francisgraham]

I now give up in trying to explain to you about a generalisation regarding VAT on everything but the most 'basic' items. You are clearly incapable of understanding this, despite repeated attempts to simply it for you.

Carry on trying to convince us all that you didn't just jump in and make a rather silly, but understandable error, in assuming that I thought that the standard rate of VAT was 17%.

Despite your wriggling and obfuscation about basic products that don't attract VAT (which has nothing to do with my original proposition) everyone does know that you misunderstood and that now, you refuse to admit that you could have made a mistake and that you continue to try to bamboozle with all this nonsense.

I know that you like to think of yourself as this forum's financial genius and that you see that position as being threatened, but you really are the saddest man I think I have ever come across. Stop the dishonesty and just admit that , "Yes, I did jump to the wrong conclusion" and that's all there is to it.

I've had it with you now. Please carry on waffling about mixed baskets and chickens, which has bugger all to do with anything. If it helps to keep you off the bottle and to hang on to a little bit of the dignity that you wish to preserve, that's fine with me.

You are always right Clive, everyone else is wrong. You never read a post hurriedly and jump to the wrong conclusion and you never ever, make a mistake, where money or mathematics is concerned.

I really do hope that this statement helps you to achieve some kind of balance in your life.

[Guest Tracker]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CliveH]

francisgraham - 2012-04-13 10:31 AMI now give up in trying to explain to you about a generalisation regarding VAT on everything but the most 'basic' items. You are clearly incapable of understanding this, despite repeated attempts to simply it for you.

Carry on trying to convince us all that you didn't just jump in and make a rather silly, but understandable error, in assuming that I thought that the standard rate of VAT was 17%.

Despite your wriggling and obfuscation about basic products that don't attract VAT (which has nothing to do with my original proposition) everyone does know that you misunderstood and that now, you refuse to admit that you could have made a mistake and that you continue to try to bamboozle with all this nonsense.

I know that you like to think of yourself as this forum's financial genius and that you see that position as being threatened, but you really are the saddest man I think I have ever come across. Stop the dishonesty and just admit that , "Yes, I did jump to the wrong conclusion" and that's all there is to it.

I've had it with you now. Please carry on waffling about mixed baskets and chickens, which has bugger all to do with anything. If it helps to keep you off the bottle and to hang on to a little bit of the dignity that you wish to preserve, that's fine with me.

You are always right Clive, everyone else is wrong. You never read a post hurriedly and jump to the wrong conclusion and you never ever, make a mistake, where money or mathematics is concerned.

I really do hope that this statement helps you to achieve some kind of balance in your life.

(lol) (lol) (lol) That's right FG - ignore the facts - spit bile and blusterThe contents of a retail "basket" have EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE AMOUNT OF VAT PAID AND THE RESULTING %AGE OF TOTAL COST - really not that difficult dear boy!Because dependent upon what is in the basket will determine the amount of VAT paid and hence the variable %'age rate of VAT paid. Which will vary from 0% to 16.66666666666666666666r%. Which whilst I agree that your arithmetic is correct, it hardly gives one faith that you know what you are talking about. I even said it was a minor point at the start but having put you right on E/er’s NIC and SS and the UEL – you did what you always do and pick a Strawman argument you think you can win.As I keep saying – oh deary deary me.!After all what other taxes could we play your game with?What about IHT?We could re-write the CapTaxOff IHT rule book to give a variable rate of IHT dependent upon the size of the estate and the number of ZRbands applicable! So if we have a married couple we have 2 ZRB’s but only one if it is a same sex relationship or siblings!If a previous deceased spouse set up a will trust then we could use 3 ZRB’s – that would give almost an infinite range of possible %rates we could confuse the tax man with!I am sure he will go for that.Oh! And what about gifts to charities – zero rated for IHT – another variable!WOW – using the standard 40% that everyone has used for some time could look very old hat once we have convinced the HMRC that FG’s methodology, tho flawed and confusing is the way to go. Then we have CGT - that could be fun - 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) But the reality is that finance professionals look at what you say and dismiss it as an irrelevance to normal financial accounting and planning because if the rate you cite varies with what is in the basket/investment/estate or the beneficiaries or trustees - what the hell is the point of citing a percentage that is so variable given the differing rates as to be meaningless?Time YOU accepted that and move on.

[francisgraham]

Yawn! *-) *-) *-)

[nightrider]

After reading all these mind boggling posts on high finance i'm glad that I am just a common ol workin man of modest means.

The very thought of having to engage high powered lawyers, tax accountants and financial advisers in order to protect my millions would be daunting and give me cause for sleepless nights.