New houses should not have to meet high BER requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
T McGibney said:
There is no basis for any assumption that the intake of people entering accountancy as a career are any more honest or ethical than anyone else,
Click to expand...
Good. We agree on that.
T McGibney said:
but the training and career progression path that they will follow will certainly weed out, sooner or later, those who are dishonest or unethical.
Click to expand...
How? It might weed out those who make bad judgements or break the rules but it is the rules and fear of sanction that binds them to behave well.
I always think there is greater level of trust required to have a tradesperson in your home when your children are there than to hire a solicitor to sell your house or an accountant to do your tax return.
Dishonest and incompetent people generally find their career paths limited.
T McGibney said:
Nobody minds a wideboy plumber or engineer, but they will steer a mile away from a wideboy accountant.
Click to expand...
The engineers shoddy work might kill you.
T McGibney said:
And by and large the same goes for solicitors.
Click to expand...
Is it fair to say that it is a reluctance to lose your livelihood than limits the malfeasance of professionals rather than the inherent ethics or honesty of the individuals?
 
_OkGo_ said:
It is unethical not to ask for more information where there is a suspicion of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
That's a sweeping statement that is not always true, for example where there is a suspicion of money laundering and where the accountant or other professional is bound by law not to risk tipping off the subject that they have rumbled a suspected ML offence.

_OkGo_ said:
But many won't ask and rely on the "we only had what was put in front of us" to remain compliant with their own standards.
Click to expand...
You have a very poor understanding of auditing standards if you think this sort of excuse will pass muster.
_OkGo_ said:
Again I'm only using accountants because you have gotten hung up on defending them
Click to expand...
So your primary motivation here is to get one over on another poster? Wow.
 
T McGibney said:
How does this accountant register you with Revenue as their client without including in their own books any income from the work they have completed for you? Genuine question.
Click to expand...
They charge you a lower fee and take the balance in cash.
Over the last 25 years I’ve been offered cash discounts by accountants, structural engineers, solicitors and, most commonly, doctors. Then there's the teachers who do grinds for cash, they claim to be professionals too.
 
There’s been quite a few doctors done for tax evasion in the last few years. Im sure they have accounts.
I was at a meeting with a doctor and her accountant and the accountant went through in quite some detail how she could skim cash out of the business. I was shocked. The doctor in question was delighted.
 
Purple said:
They charge you a lower fee and take the balance in cash.
Click to expand...
That's not what he said and not what a cash job is. And no accountant worthy of the name thinks the Revenue are that stupid.

Purple said:
Over the last 25 years I’ve been offered cash discounts by accountants, structural engineers, solicitors and, most commonly, doctors.
Click to expand...
Did you give repeat custom to these people?
 
T McGibney said:
Did you give repeat custom to these people?
Click to expand...
That’s actually a good question
The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque.
The engineer was signing off on a house extension.
The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.
 
Purple said:
but it is the rules and fear of sanction that binds them to behave well.
Click to expand...
Who csn tell? It was Elizabeth I who said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls," when asked a similar question.
Purple said:
I always think there is greater level of trust required to have a tradesperson in your home when your children are there than to hire a solicitor to sell your house or an accountant to do your tax return.
Click to expand...
If you're allowing tradesmen unsupervised access to your children, the problem is with you, not the professionals you hire.
Purple said:
Is it fair to say that it is a reluctance to lose your livelihood than limits the malfeasance of professionals rather than the inherent ethics or honesty of the individuals?
Click to expand...
Again, refer to Elizabeth I. I don't read minds either.
 
Well this sort of evasion wouldn't be happening if consumers were refusing to entertain it. A contract tainted by illegality is generally unenforceable so you could easily have refused to pay any of these geezers.
 
T McGibney said:
Who csn tell? It was Elizabeth I who said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls," when asked a similar question.
Click to expand...
Okay, we’re getting somewhere. You now accept that their adherence to the rules may not be due to their ethics and may indeed be due to a fear of the consequence of breaking the rules.
T McGibney said:
If you're allowing tradesmen unsupervised access to your children, the problem is with you, not the professionals you hire.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about unsupervised access?
T McGibney said:
Again, refer to Elizabeth I. I don't read minds either.
Click to expand...
And I refer you to my reply above.
 
Last edited:
The accountants?
 
T McGibney said:
Well this sort of evasion wouldn't be happening if consumers were refusing to entertain it. A contract tainted by illegality is generally unenforceable so you could easily have refused to pay any of these geezers.
Click to expand...
I agree, people are not always ethical, though one of the above geezers was going to operate on me in a place disturbingly close to my testicles so I though it better to keep him sweet.
 
Purple said:
You not accept that their adherence to the rules may not be due to their ethics and may indeed be due to a fear of the consequence of breaking the rules.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this means.
Purple said:
Who said anything about unsupervised access?
Click to expand...
You, when you referenced "greater levels of trust" in connection with children. If not, what were you trying to say?
 
Purple said:
My typo, “now”, not “not”.
Click to expand...
Putting words in my mouth again. Not good. Nor is your haranguing me and other accountants here for our supposed collective moral failures while you now admit to repeatedly facilitating and profiting from tax evasion.
Purple said:
If someone is working in your house for days or weeks at a time you cannot supervise their every move.
Click to expand...
I can only refer you to my earlier comment. Child protection isn't optional.
 
T McGibney said:
Putting words in my mouth again. Not good.
Click to expand...
I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from what you are saying.
T McGibney said:
Not is your haranguing me and other accountants here for our supposed collective moral failures while you now admit to repeatedly facilitating and profiting from tax evasion.
Click to expand...
I’m not haranguing anyone. I’m proposing that people in all walks of life are prone to the same moral failures to more or less the same degree. That’s all.
 
Purple said:
I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from what you are saying.
Click to expand...
"You accept that..." is at best doing both.
Purple said:
I’m proposing that people in all walks of life are prone to the same moral failures to more or less the same degree. That’s all.
Click to expand...
Sure we all knew that from day one. What an utter and dispiriting waste of time this has all been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register