Does the Government understand how VAT is meant to work? It is not a tax on a business . Based on the above this now does become a tax on the business. It is becoming more apparent that those advising Government do not fully understand the tax.
Lol typical Goverment, instead of going after the person who hasn't paid they go after everyone else. Always better to be the person that doesn't pay excpet for shingles .
Hold on, I thought the issue was the operators who were operating illegally with no license to do so. I am fairly sure there are already laws and penalties in place to deal with them. This is a typical response of seeing a problem and then pretending it is fixed because we brought in more laws. When we had laws on the books already that would deal with the issue, but as always they are not enforced.
They have no intention of paying these vendors until after the election. Then they can have a few years of large losses (whoever it maybe) and then stop paying again. Until the vendors all take Government to court nothing will change.
Think it through Tetelestai, if your argument is that the other party increased it by 60% you have no leg to stand on if you were the one to bring it in. Doesn't matter what the other person may have done. you were the one to do it. Therefore you are both as bad (or good if you want to see it that way) as each other.
you dont understand VAT, none of the changes affected the hotel, fast food or bakeries as they can claim it all back. the only effect would be the extra work to keep track
Seems they have given it to someone else so the area is still boxed in. Not sure which side correct. Mr Maury speaks of a lease which started on July 1st which said the area must be used within 3 months, that brings you to October 1st. The stop order came December 1st, so does this mean he wasnt using the area within the 3months? As always only the lawyers will win on these things.
Dawes says...
Does the Government understand how VAT is meant to work? It is not a tax on a business . Based on the above this now does become a tax on the business. It is becoming more apparent that those advising Government do not fully understand the tax.
On $1m VAT deduction change threat to business expansion
Posted 3 June 2025, 11:05 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
Lol typical Goverment, instead of going after the person who hasn't paid they go after everyone else. Always better to be the person that doesn't pay excpet for shingles .
On Realtors and attorneys 'liable' for unpaid VAT from own fee income
Posted 3 June 2025, 9:07 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
Hold on, I thought the issue was the operators who were operating illegally with no license to do so. I am fairly sure there are already laws and penalties in place to deal with them. This is a typical response of seeing a problem and then pretending it is fixed because we brought in more laws. When we had laws on the books already that would deal with the issue, but as always they are not enforced.
On Water sports operators back stricter penalties for offenses
Posted 30 May 2025, 9:19 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
They have no intention of paying these vendors until after the election. Then they can have a few years of large losses (whoever it maybe) and then stop paying again. Until the vendors all take Government to court nothing will change.
On PM touts ‘first ever’ Budget surplus despite $373m cut
Posted 30 May 2025, 9:17 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
So i have now read that there was a surplus in 2000/2001. If that is the case can the Tribune at least point that out.
On Pintard calls Davis’ surplus misleading, brands it a ‘pre-election stunt’
Posted 30 May 2025, 9:13 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
Think it through Tetelestai, if your argument is that the other party increased it by 60% you have no leg to stand on if you were the one to bring it in. Doesn't matter what the other person may have done. you were the one to do it. Therefore you are both as bad (or good if you want to see it that way) as each other.
On Pintard calls Davis’ surplus misleading, brands it a ‘pre-election stunt’
Posted 30 May 2025, 9:13 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
you dont understand VAT, none of the changes affected the hotel, fast food or bakeries as they can claim it all back. the only effect would be the extra work to keep track
On Pintard calls Davis’ surplus misleading, brands it a ‘pre-election stunt’
Posted 29 May 2025, 2:54 p.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
Think this argument through Birdie. The PLP brought it in, thereby increasing it more then any other party has done.
On Pintard calls Davis’ surplus misleading, brands it a ‘pre-election stunt’
Posted 29 May 2025, 2:01 p.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
Seems they have given it to someone else so the area is still boxed in. Not sure which side correct. Mr Maury speaks of a lease which started on July 1st which said the area must be used within 3 months, that brings you to October 1st. The stop order came December 1st, so does this mean he wasnt using the area within the 3months? As always only the lawyers will win on these things.
On Marina chief: Lease tear up ‘politically motivated’
Posted 27 May 2025, 9:47 a.m. Suggest removal
Dawes says...
Because people bought it? No one forces you to shop at Fresh market, you are free to shop anywhere.
On Secret shoppers signed up to keep retailers at their best
Posted 22 May 2025, 9:23 a.m. Suggest removal