Uncle Charlie wrote: » How ? Are you saying there is an unmarked car outside my house watching my movements 24/7 ?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » They spy on everybody. It's not that hard to use data analytics to monitor large numbers of people and flag up exceptions.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » They would have to be spying on me to pick up anything. Nobody would notice if I used the money to pay off bills.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The scenario is fairly unlikely, isn't it? No-one is going to be spending a few hundred quid seven nights a week. But to answer your question - because something about your 'on the record' spending will be significantly different to your peers, which will result in you appearing on someone's list for closer attention.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » How would the Revenue know how I spend my cash ? Like if I went out every night on the town and spent a few hundred quid every night 7 days a week. The Revenue would have no way of picking up on that.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Bwaahaahaa. That's funny. You have no clue about the sophistication of technology used in Revenue to analyse a whole range of factors. If you're travelling more than your peers, or owning a nicer car than your peers, or getting more work done on your house than your peers, Revenue will notice one day. The money isn't going to much use to you if you keep it in a box under the bed. It has to come out somewhere.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I know these lads I've even seen them collecting the dole in the post office.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Its only a technical difference the end result is the same.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Just in the last 10 years a I would have paid at least 6 figures in tax. As for education etc I have more than paid back for anything I have gotten out of ths system.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » There is no junkies in my family and no one outside the family would have any way of knowing whether or not we had money in the house. Yeah but I trust my family and would rather do it that way then have the government rob the money.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » The revenue would have no way of knowing if are you are spending cash.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Right, so you don't know whether the lads who live near you with the new vans are employed or not. That's pretty much what I thought.
No, I'd call you a legal tax avoider, rather than an illegal tax evader - that's a significant difference.
Apart from the fact that it's not how public services work, I'd love to see how you worked out that you paid for the roads you drive on, and the Gardai that enforce the law on those roads, and the RSA that enforce safety on those roads. Let's see how that calculation comes out.
And are you seriously expecting people to believe that you've never been in a public hospital or dentist, never got education in a public school, never taken a walk on a public park or a beach, and you're never going to be buried in a public cemetery?
There's a few problems with that line of thinking, as have been previously pointed out.
For a start, it's a bit difficult to keep cash or gold safe in a domestic environment, particularly if it is 'hot money' that you don't want reported to Gardai or Revenue if it is stolen. All it takes is an opportunistic burgler, or a targeted attack from someone who works out or hears that you have such assets, or a family member who is an addict or who is under duress from other parties.
The other problem is that you can't enforce anything. If your Dad's wife changes her mind, and decides to spend the money on a series of cruises instead of giving it to you, you've zero rights to enforce anything.
And then we have the Revenue monitoring that will result in you popping up as an exception on a list somewhere once you start using the cash or gold. And that's when they start adding interest and penalties onto the tax due.
suicide_circus wrote: » i'm being sarcastic but this is literally the mission statement of elected representatives like Paul Murphy
cnocbui wrote: » Sarcasm noted. Back to the stone age then and infant mortality rates of 80%.
Deleted User wrote: » STRs go to Revenue too
suicide_circus wrote: » Growing wealth results in inequality. Inequality is bad. Therefore growing wealth is bad.
wfdrun wrote: » alert revenue? how? file str with CBI maybe
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Just going by official figures tells us that 84% travellers are unemployed. But you seem to think that Travellers that live near me have jobs.https://www.thejournal.ie/84-per-cent-of-travellers-unemployed-640261-Oct2012/
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Yet if I tried to do with Bono does you would call me a criminal.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I don't use any public services apart from roads which I have more than paid for.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Everything carries risk but I would rather do that than let the government rob my money. Not if a family member leaves you a load of gold or cash.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » If my Dad died he could get his wife or another family member to hand out cash to the family.
Leg End Reject wrote: » You'll have to lodge that cheque and the bank will ask questions and alert revenue. Edit: Yes, the solicitor must disclose the transfer of assets to revenue. One of the first things you'll be asked for is proof of identity and PPS number.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Let's say a great aunt died and left you a million euro, could you retire and having put the money to work, live off it?.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » You may think its funny but I see no reason why we shouldn't become "tax efficient" just like Bono and the rest of them.
Kyrie Tinkling Reimbursement wrote: » :rolleyes:
Kyrie Tinkling Reimbursement wrote: » I don't know why anybody is evening their wit to what is obviously a mick take but...…. by definition anything "left" to you goes through probate and the usual tax conditions cannot be avoided.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Not if a family member leaves you a load of gold or cash.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I've highlighted the important point there. You don't know and I don't know, just as you don't know what's going on with your neighbouring travellings, but that doesn't stop your assumptions to justify breaking the law.
You're right, rich people can avoid tax left right and centre, and you're right that it's a problem that needs to be fixed.
I'm not having a go at you for trying to limit your tax liabilities. I'm having a go at you for advising and encouraging others to break the law, because: 1) of the ethical issues involved in using public services left, right and centre while illegally avoiding funding them, and
2) of the practical issues that you ignore that will very likely cost recipients of your advice considerable amounts of money in the future.
Inheritances, by definition, 'go through the books'. The Probate process involves taking things through the books.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I don't know the exact figure but given all the tax avoidance schemes they are involved in. You can be sure they pay very little tax in percentage terms.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I'm pointing out how the rich can avoid tax left and right and centre. Yet you will have a go at me for trying to limit my tax liabilities. If I was to inherent a large amount of money I would be hit with a massive 33% tax bill if that money went through the books.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I'm pointing out how the rich can avoid tax left and right and centre. Yet you will have a go at me for trying to limit my tax liabilities.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » If I was to inherent a large amount of money I would be hit with a massive 33% tax bill if that money went through the books.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » What did Jefferson say then ?
dxhound2005 wrote: » You also have no problem trying to mislead people with spurious quotations. Jefferson never said what you posted.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I have no problem breaking an unjust law.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2b6abd1dfa48dd1de9143b108494281e.svg)
