• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Gorilla accounting. Are they that good?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    So the difference between x and y is a few tens of pounds but the inaccuracies could cost 100's if not 1000's plus the stress and effort to get it right then your equation falls over.

    Some areas might be worth paying a bit less and getting an average service but when it comes to 100's of K of my money I'm happy paying a bit more for an account that I can trust thank you.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
      So the difference between x and y is a few tens of pounds but the inaccuracies could cost 100's if not 1000's plus the stress and effort to get it right then your equation falls over.

      Some areas might be worth paying a bit less and getting an average service but when it comes to 100's of K of my money I'm happy paying a bit more for an account that I can trust thank you.
      You're assuming everyone is as emotional as you. You're also assuming the relative values and ranges of X and Y. And you also assumed the reasons for M <= N, and ignoring (or not noticing) that I said M <= N and not M < N. I see that maths and logic are not your strong points.

      Comment


        #23
        I see that maths is not your strong point.
        Which is why I don't think saving a couple of quid getting an average accountant is a good move
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
          Which is why I don't think saving a couple of quid getting an average accountant is a good move
          I agree with this statement (given 'couple of quid' means 'insignificant amount'), but that's got very little to do with (or is a very narrow aspect of) what we just discussed.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Neo View Post
            Accountant 1: 100% accurate. Charges X. Tax = M. Net income = A.
            Accountant 2: <100% accurate. Charges Y. Tax = N. Net income = B.

            If X > Y and M <= N and B > A, then 'not perfect and cheaper' is better.
            Mate, your logic isn't so hot either.

            You obviously aren't accounting for the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect accountant who will be 100% accurate.

            More importantly, your formulas don't accommodate the risk that Accountant 2 might tell you to pay tax = L (L < M, M being the accurate tax bill). So the risk is not merely that you pay more tax than you have to (that amount being presumably mitigated by a smaller accountancy fee), but also the risk that you might end up paying less than you have to, and then end up owing interest and penalties. And of course, there are ramifications to that which may not be measurable in strictly pecuniary terms.

            And your whole formula depends on knowing the unknowable -- knowing what M and N would be. Your formula may be accurate enough in theory but in actual practice it is worthless -- if you could arrive at M and N in the decision-making process you may not need an accountant at all.

            There are significant risks that have to be considered and in general make it worth getting an accountant who knows what he is about.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
              You obviously aren't accounting for the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect accountant who will be 100% accurate.

              More importantly, your formulas don't accommodate the risk that Accountant 2 might tell you to pay tax = L (L < M, M being the accurate tax bill). So the risk is not merely that you pay more tax than you have to (that amount being presumably mitigated by a smaller accountancy fee), but also the risk that you might end up paying less than you have to, and then end up owing interest and penalties. And of course, there are ramifications to that which may not be measurable in strictly pecuniary terms.
              I fully accounted for it. See my earlier reply to northernladuk.

              Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
              And your whole formula depends on knowing the unknowable -- knowing what M and N would be. Your formula may be accurate enough in theory but in actual practice it is worthless -- if you could arrive at M and N in the decision-making process you may not need an accountant at all.

              There are significant risks that have to be considered and in general make it worth getting an accountant who knows what he is about.
              The "formula" was intended to be a refutation of northernladuk's illogical statement, not an absolute rule (although it could certainly serve as a indicative guide). For you to think otherwise indicates logic is also not your strong point.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Neo View Post
                I fully accounted for it. See my earlier reply to northernladuk.
                I've made my point. I'll leave it to anyone reading to judge whether your quibbling over the difference between 'M <= N' and 'M < N' made the same point I was making about the much more significant dangers of M > N.
                Originally posted by Neo View Post
                For you to think otherwise indicates logic is also not your strong point.
                At this point, you've shifted the discussion from the logic to the person. I'll not enter into discussions with you about myself, certainly not on a professional forum, which is supposed to be of benefit to others looking for advice / help. Your opinion about my logical capabilities is of no interest to me and will benefit no one, nor would my counter-opinion, so I'll spare others reading this thread any further response.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
                  I've made my point. I'll leave it to anyone reading to judge whether your quibbling over the difference between 'M <= N' and 'M < N' made the same point I was making about the much more significant dangers of M > N.
                  Hardly quibbling. The use of <= instead of = was clearly an important detail I deliberately intended to include. M > N is outside the scope of the discussion.

                  Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
                  At this point, you've shifted the discussion from the logic to the person. I'll not enter into discussions with you about myself, certainly not on a professional forum, which is supposed to be of benefit to others looking for advice / help. Your opinion about my logical capabilities is of no interest to me and will benefit no one, nor would my counter-opinion, so I'll spare others reading this thread any further response.
                  Reactive. But your general language indicates you are attempting to 'win the Internet'.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    I'm not as hip as kids these days, I had to look up 'win the Internet' to see what you meant by it.

                    Carry on.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
                      I'm not as hip as kids these days, I had to look up 'win the Internet' to see what you meant by it.

                      Carry on.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X