FoMo.
On my late mother's grave, cross my heart and hope to die etc., I swear to you that I have absolutely no bias towards anyone or anything in this matter other than solid evidence and hard facts. You produce them and, just as Jon has made clear several times, I will happily eat humble pie and on a sixpence support your allegations. I really am completely neutral. The point being that I've listened, I've read the same points over and over again and please trust me when I say that they have sunk in. Deep down. All of them were fully taken on board by about page three of the thread! So, what's the issue here?
The issue here is that you are prepared to accept theory, opinion, conjecture, personal anecdote and the ramblings of some bloke called Terry as 'fact' and 'evidence'. You're pretty much alone in that. Just about everyone else subscribes to the well established definition of the two words which is none of the above. We all uphold the dictionary definitions which are as follows:
Fact: /fakt/, noun, 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'.
Evidence: /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/, noun, 'the available body of facts (see above definition) or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.
Even those whose natural inclination is agree with you on this want proper evidence. Tom (Orton) wrote in an earlier post: "Upshot is I tend towards believing HMRC reserve the option to pursue any one of us for tax on SB winnings if they can think of a way to do it and if the sums in question are large enough." However, he ends his post thus: "But where's the
evidence?"
alexaherself asked for evidence and yet again you referred her to your own experience. Until you back up what you say with real evidence then your story is nothing more than an interesting personal anecdote. I'm sorry if you don't view it this way or don't understand the point. But this is the plain and simple fact of the matter and until you make some attempt to acknowledge and embrace these points - the thread will continue to go nowhere and you will continue to alienate people rather than persuade them to your way of thinking. And that might well be a pity because, like Tom, I'm still open minded to the thought that you might be right and will happily say so when you provide verifiable facts supported by solid evidence. Just so you are in no doubt as to what constitutes real evidence as opposed to theory and opinion etc. I've copied the examples I posted earlier. I apologise for repeating myself, but I thought it would save you time trawling through the thread!
1. A SB firm that has been sued and/or reported to the regulatory bodies for miss selling their products, i.e. by someone who opened an account and traded with them on the grounds that it was tax free and has then had to pay tax.
2. A directive from Trading Standards or Advertising Standards clearly stating that SB firms can not claim to offer tax free trading.
3. A case where the FCA have been involved following a complaint about SB firms offering tax free trading.
4. Examples where rival brokers (who lose business to SB firms or, alternatively, stand to gain hugely if it can be proven that SB profits are not tax free) call into question the right / ability for SB firms to be allowed to offer tax free trading.
5. Policy documents or letters from HMRC clearing stating that profits made from SB are not tax free. Or, if they are tax free in some cases but not in others, a clear explanation as to who will have to pay tax and under what circumstances etc.
This is what I, Jon, Alexa, Tom and everyone else needs to see and this is the sort of evidence you're going to have to produce to stand any hope of convincing anyone that your allegations have any substance at all.
Tim.
