I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500
Oh, wait...
I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP
In what sense is it supposed to be a refutation of your tedious regurgitations? As it happens crowdfunding has raised over £300k for Yes causes. What's the total for No?
Sorry to give you language and maths lessons this early in the morning.
Going to clarify your "war criminals" comment? Wouldn't want to get OGH into trouble.....
Ok, for clarity, Bettertogether's SECOND largest donor (formerly largest) is an employer of war criminals and sanction buster.
You missed a bit:
M"
It would be very interesting to know how much of the NO money was actually raised in Scotland
Well, we know 80% of the YES money came from the Euro lottery - so how much of that was raised in Scotland?
LIAR. Not a penny came from there.
AFAIK all the Weir's money came from the Euro Millions win......
As you well know you are just smearing and have no clue to their financial position before or after their lottery win. It could be savings or even interest , neither of which are from EURO Millions directly. Your pathetic position shows how mean and petty unionists are.
Oh get over it malcy - so you have a fat sugar daddy who has been "persuaded" to part with his winnings - embrace it - use it to get deep fried mars bars to every polling station in Sept or something.
These are the people who you are happy granting new powers with oversight to raid bank accounts?
Well, if you want taxes to be collected, you have to give the taxman powers to collect them. Of course there will always be gripes and complaints, but in the real world it is also true that a minority of people don't pay what they should - for example, I know of cases where accountants have been called in to help sort out the affairs of taxpayers and have found drawers full of unopened tax demands and assessments going back years. It's not always a case of evil and incompetent taxman versus upright and honest citizen, is it?
Indeed - but why should the taxman not have to go through the same process as anyone else (ie a small business) that is owed money by someone (ie prove the case to the satisfaction of a court at which the person can defend themselves if they choose to do so)
Exactly, why shouldn't HMG be obliged to obey the same laws that apply to the rest of us?
Mind you, we could also ask why HMG don't apply the same rules on expenses to MPs as they require the rest of us to follow?
Anyone who has had to deal with (any) bureaucratic, heartless organisation will know the dangers of giving them even more powers.
Once HMRC know they just have to send 4 letters and then can take the money anyway, what incentive is on them to make their case at all?
If this proposal is enacted, the dishonest will set up offshore accounts and only keep small amounts in UK current accounts. And the innocent will get fleeced.
I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500
So crowd sourcing raised 0.1% of the funding compared to a single Lottery win donation.
Wow, that really does refute the claim in the article that the Lottery winners are funding 80% of the campaign.
Oh, wait...
I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP
In what sense is it supposed to be a refutation of your tedious regurgitations? As it happens crowdfunding has raised over £300k for Yes causes. What's the total for No?
Sorry to give you language and maths lessons this early in the morning.
Going to clarify your "war criminals" comment? Wouldn't want to get OGH into trouble.....
Ok, for clarity, Bettertogether's SECOND largest donor (formerly largest) is an employer of war criminals and sanction buster.
You missed a bit:
Ms Baillie also pointed out that Mr Taylor had made important investments in the Harris tweed industry on the Western Isles, a constituency represented at Holyrood and Westminster by the SNP.
"Is the first minister equally suggesting that Mr Taylor should disinvest from Harris tweed?" she said. "I don't think he's said that today."
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie also defended the use of Mr Taylor's money.
He said: "If it's good enough for Harris tweed, it should be good enough for Better Together."
It would be very interesting to know how much of the NO money was actually raised in Scotland
Well, we know 80% of the YES money came from the Euro lottery - so how much of that was raised in Scotland?
LIAR. Not a penny came from there.
AFAIK all the Weir's money came from the Euro Millions win......
As you well know you are just smearing and have no clue to their financial position before or after their lottery win. It could be savings or even interest , neither of which are from EURO Millions directly. Your pathetic position shows how mean and petty unionists are.
You are seriously arguing that the £2.5 million came from their pre-Euro Millions money?
Okaaayyyyy......
He's making the obtuse point that it could be the interest from the winnings which they gave to Yes. Talk about splitting hairs LOL.
If you look at the crowdfunding by YES groups they are miles ahead of Better Together.
Very true. I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500 in less than 24 hrs. I'm sure James (if he wasn't banned) would like to thank all the PBers who still peruse his site for their no doubt substantial donations.
LOL, it was achieved very quickly. Given the Sunday Mail voodoo poll yesterday it needs someone to be analysing the polls. What is the betting we never see the detail behind their supposed "Demographics".
I d
Ah, so now you're dismissing yesterday's poll as a "Voodoo Poll" as it was done by the non-BPC registered "Progressive Scottish Opinion".
Right?
Would that be the same "Progressive Scottish Opinion" which conducted a Holyrood Poll in 2011, which correctly predicted the SNP victory, and which was rapturously greeted by Nicola Sturgeon herself?
If you're going to put quotes round "Voodoo Poll", you should probably be replying to the poster that used the term, or else you look a bit silly.
Anthony Wells of Yougov:
'you should compare them to the last PP poll, not to YG polls'
So that's a 6pt swing to Yes then?
Er, we all agreed, yesterday, that the Mail was wrongly comparing pollsters. We also agreed that the "voodoo poll" which you rejected, then accepted, then rejected, and now seem to accept again, showed a swing to YES.
However we further agreed that this poll, whatever the increase in the YES vote, showed that YES were TWENTY POINTS BEHIND - or "far behind" as Prof Curtice put it - which has gotta be dispiriting for Gnats however you view it.
Without the data behind it you cannot make any sense of it or use it in any sensible way. Except to say YES is closing an unknown gap.
The big question is not a UKIPer's touchiness but why the police got involved if they knew no law was broken?
This is a perfect illustration of where police commissioners can help: they set police priorities, and clearly this is an example of atrocious waste of taxpayers' money as well as illiberal interference in things which are nothing to do with law enforcement. If you're in the area, you can write to the police commissioner, and, when it comes to the next election, remember about this kind of nonsense when casting your vote.
I rarely disagree with you Richard, but on this point I would have though PCCers are there to prioritize which crimes they concentrate on most etc . Given there was no question of a crime in the first place here I would hope the Home Secretary gets involved to ask what the hell are police doing turning up to houses to ask for legal political posts to be removed. If anything I would think having PCCers means it is more likely to result in these sorts of political policing interference than not having them
@taffys - So you want to abolish PAYE and institute a system where the taxman has to get a court order against every taxpayer in the land?
Surely the critical difference here is that it is more reasonable for share of an incoming transaction to be delayed than for a chunk of your own assets to be seized without a court case?
Richard, when I had my dispute with HMRC a few years ago, they kept on sending correspondence to my old address, despite contacting them several times and giving them my new address.
It was fortunate I had mail forwarding on.
I've got an even better story - they managed to send me a letter with, attached to it, a very sensitive letter addressed to someone completely different.
As I said upthread, I agree with Andrew Tyrie that some extra safeguards are needed for this proposal. But let's not get hysterical about it.
I quite agree, Mr. Nabavi, we should not get hysterical about these proposals. HMG should just quietly drop them.
The courts exist to protect us from an arbitrary executive, for a Conservative Chancellor to try an circumvent that protection is a fecking disgrace and just proves that neither Cameron or Osborn have a principled bone in their bodies. Even Brown didn't try to cleave to himself the right to seize private property.
Mr. Llama
Do you realise that every time you sign a direct debit mandate you give your counterparty exactly the same powers to debit your bank account that the HMRC are now seeking?
I realise it is a 'voluntary' decision to enter into such a mandate but it is often undermined by service providers making discounts and premium products available only to those who pay by direct debit.
The best course of action for the HMRC would be to follow this marketing ploy, by giving the taxpayer additional benefits in return for their voluntary assent to the direct collection right.
I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500
Oh, wait...
I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP
In what sense is it supposed to be a refutation of your tedious regurgitations? As it happens crowdfunding has raised over £300k for Yes causes. What's the total for No?
Sorry to give you language and maths lessons this early in the morning.
Going to clarify your "war criminals" comment? Wouldn't want to get OGH into trouble.....
Ok, for clarity, Bettertogether's SECOND largest donor (formerly largest) is an employer of war criminals and sanction buster.
You missed a bit:
M"
It would be very interesting to know how much of the NO money was actually raised in Scotland
Well, we know 80% of the YES money came from the Euro lottery - so how much of that was raised in Scotland?
LIAR. Not a penny came from there.
AFAIK all the Weir's money came from the Euro Millions win......
As you well know you are just smearing and have no clue to their financial position before or after their lottery win. It could be savings or even interest , neither of which are from EURO Millions directly. Your pathetic position shows how mean and petty unionists are.
Oh get over it malcy - so you have a fat sugar daddy who has been "persuaded" to part with his winnings - embrace it - use it to get deep fried mars bars to every polling station in Sept or something.
poor Flash he cannot take a beating, slink off like unionists normally do when their lies, smears and nastiness are pointed out.
I've now had a reply from the LibDems, having forwarded them their email from mid-April saying they'd get back to me about a fringe event. They say they have no record of this correspondence, and could I start again?
Oh look. Public supports knee jerk populist action against undoubted problem. May be Ed Miliband should include it in his next manifesto?
Londoners overwhelmingly support calls to ban strikes unless more than half the workforce votes for them, a poll reveals today [56% in favour, 24% opposed, presumably 20% DK although it doesn't state that]. ... Young people were among the most enthusiastic supporters of new laws, found pollsters YouGov. Even four in 10 Labour supporters were in favour
Anyone who has had to deal with (any) bureaucratic, heartless organisation will know the dangers of giving them even more powers.
Once HMRC know they just have to send 4 letters and then can take the money anyway, what incentive is on them to make their case at all?
If this proposal is enacted, the dishonest will set up offshore accounts and only keep small amounts in UK current accounts. And the innocent will get fleeced.
You can be absolutely sure that this will be abused through incompetence as well as malice. They will send four letters on the same day to the wrong address, for example. It is not possible to give "HMRC" your correct address - I am still receiving letters redirected from an address I vacated over two years ago. There is no central point such that if the address is updated there it is updated everywhere. HMRC simply send letters to any address on a paper file.
It's not always a case of evil and incompetent taxman versus upright and honest citizen, is it?
Absolutely but that is for a court to decide.
You support removing that safeguard.
Right now, the onus is on immensely wealthy and powerful HMRC to prove its case.
You propose shifting the onus to the ordinary man in the street.
No, in the end if there is a dispute it will be decided, as now, firstly by the HMRC appeals procedure, then if not resolved by the independent tax tribunal, and thereafter in the courts.
As I said, I think the current proposal needs some extra safeguards, but the idea that it is just arbitrary seizing of the assets of innocent citizens is an overreaction. And the idea that it is something new in principle is barmy - have you seen what the powers of the old Customs and Excise (now subsumed in HMRC) to seize goods have always been?
I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500
I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP
Going to clarify your "war criminals" comment? Wouldn't want to get OGH into trouble.....
Ok, for clarity, Bettertogether's SECOND largest donor (formerly largest) is an employer of war criminals and sanction buster.
You missed a bit:
Ms Baillie also pointed out that Mr Taylor had made important investments in the Harris tweed industry on the Western Isles, a constituency represented at Holyrood and Westminster by the SNP.
"Is the first minister equally suggesting that Mr Taylor should disinvest from Harris tweed?" she said. "I don't think he's said that today."
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie also defended the use of Mr Taylor's money.
He said: "If it's good enough for Harris tweed, it should be good enough for Better Together."
It would be very interesting to know how much of the NO money was actually raised in Scotland
Well, we know 80% of the YES money came from the Euro lottery - so how much of that was raised in Scotland?
LIAR. Not a penny came from there.
AFAIK all the Weir's money came from the Euro Millions win......
As you well know you are just smearing and have no clue to their financial position before or after their lottery win. It could be savings or even interest , neither of which are from EURO Millions directly. Your pathetic position shows how mean and petty unionists are.
You are seriously arguing that the £2.5 million came from their pre-Euro Millions money?
Okaaayyyyy......
He's making the obtuse point that it could be the interest from the winnings which they gave to Yes. Talk about splitting hairs LOL.
No more obtuse than Carlotta's pathetic whinging that YES have donors. Shows unionists up for what they are, lying , sneering , cheating nomarks.
''Very good news indeed. Which does rather beg the question why voters are flirting with throwing it all away.''
They see David Cameron as a big government, pro vested interest, pro big business, pro ruling elite europhile??
As his decision to let HMRC loose on the bank accounts of private citizens aptly illustrates.
taffys
David Cameron is not half as "big government, pro vested interest, pro big business, pro ruling elite europhile" as the CBI.
Just after pushing the send button on my post, I popped along to Digitallook and I see the CBI are also warning of "political risk".
But [the CBI] said political uncertainty and whims pose a major risk to the revival.
[It] wants the government to eliminate the budget deficit, scrap immigration reduction targets and ensure a long-term strategic approach to big infrastructure projects.
It also demanded an end to talk about a UK exit from the European Union, which it says would damage the economy and deter potential inward investment.
CBI Director-General John Cridland said: "The UK now has more stable economic foundations and political risks must not jeopardise this.
"The recovery is advancing after a strong performance in the first quarter of 2014. Prospects are bright and we expect the recovery to broaden out this year, with greater support from business investment in particular.
"Businesses recognise the realities of election time but want all parties to ensure their policies make a positive difference. Politicians must be wary of the risk of headline-grabbing policies that weaken investment, opportunity and jobs."
Goodness me. Radical cuts to eliminate the deficit. Increased immigration. More HS2 type projects. And an end to any talk about Brexit.
If that doesn't wake the Kippers up, I know not what will.
And not a mention of HMRC's plans to collect tax by direct debit mandate.
The biggest political uncertainty is Red's threat to freeze prices and nationalise everything.
Do you realise that every time you sign a direct debit mandate you give your counterparty exactly the same powers to debit your bank account that the HMRC are now seeking?
With a DD you can ask your bank to repay that money to you. And they do.
Mr. LP, ah, that would explain what someone said to me about a decade ago. She kept on signing up to give charities money (which she couldn't really afford...) and they kept increasing her 'contributions'.
@taffys - So you want to abolish PAYE and institute a system where the taxman has to get a court order against every taxpayer in the land?
Surely the critical difference here is that it is more reasonable for share of an incoming transaction to be delayed than for a chunk of your own assets to be seized without a court case?
I guess whether there's a difference there would depend on how much of a chance you have of actually stopping them. If they can issue your employer with a Code FU or whatever and stop all your income on a semi-permanent basis that would sound like a serious problem. Also from the point of view of someone on a low income stopping the incoming money you need is just as bad as taking money you've already got.
Re: the underground motorway. If Boris is serious about doing something about pollution, he should do more to reduce car use. This scheme is total pie in the sky and will never be built.
Re: the underground motorway. If Boris is serious about doing something about pollution, he should do more to reduce car use. This scheme is total pie in the sky and will never be built.
It accords the Elephant and Castle much needed dignity by making it the only area of London contingent to both the proposed Orbital Tunnel and the existing Inner Ring Road.
I look forward to watching local Green opposition subsiding.
I believe a site which we cannot name has just passed its Indiegogo funding target of £2500
I know maths is not a strong point for the YeSNP
Going to clarify your "war criminals" comment? Wouldn't want to get OGH into trouble.....
Ok, for clarity, Bettertogether's SECOND largest donor (formerly largest) is an employer of war criminals and sanction buster.
You missed a bit:
Ms Baillie also pointed out that Mr Taylor had made important investments in the Harris tweed industry on the Western Isles, a constituency represented at Holyrood and Westminster by the SNP.
"Is the first minister equally suggesting that Mr Taylor should disinvest from Harris tweed?" she said. "I don't think he's said that today."
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie also defended the use of Mr Taylor's money.
He said: "If it's good enough for Harris tweed, it should be good enough for Better Together."
It would be very interesting to know how much of the NO money was actually raised in Scotland
Well, we know 80% of the YES money came from the Euro lottery - so how much of that was raised in Scotland?
LIAR. Not a penny came from there.
AFAIK all the Weir's money came from the Euro Millions win......
As you well know you are just smearing and have no clue to their financial position before or after their lottery win. It could be savings or even interest , neither of which are from EURO Millions directly. Your pathetic position shows how mean and petty unionists are.
You are seriously arguing that the £2.5 million came from their pre-Euro Millions money?
Okaaayyyyy......
He's making the obtuse point that it could be the interest from the winnings which they gave to Yes. Talk about splitting hairs LOL.
No more obtuse than Carlotta's pathetic whinging that YES have donors. Shows unionists up for what they are, lying , sneering , cheating nomarks.
Mr. LP, ah, that would explain what someone said to me about a decade ago. She kept on signing up to give charities money (which she couldn't really afford...) and they kept increasing her 'contributions'.
Chuggers are the bain of my existence.
Especially the pretty ones in t shirts two sizes too small and leave me with the impression millions across the world will die if I don't donate today and set up a Direct Debit.
There's literally* millions of chuggers in Manchester City Centre.
As you didn't know what changing at Baker Street meant, here's what a chugger is
Re: the underground motorway. If Boris is serious about doing something about pollution, he should do more to reduce car use. This scheme is total pie in the sky and will never be built.
Thanks. That's (ahem) interesting. £30 billion for 22 miles through Central London seems on the cheap side, even comparing to Crossrail, which you cannot directly.
(As an aside, when I was a civ eng student I was lucky enough to go into the Limehouse Tunnel whilst it was being built. That was in 1991/2, and the tunnel cost £100,000 per metre even back then. That was the most expensive form of construction - cut and cover - in difficult ground, but even so it shows the costs of building road infrastructure in London).
Oh look. Public supports knee jerk populist action against undoubted problem. May be Ed Miliband should include it in his next manifesto?
Londoners overwhelmingly support calls to ban strikes unless more than half the workforce votes for them, a poll reveals today [56% in favour, 24% opposed, presumably 20% DK although it doesn't state that]. ... Young people were among the most enthusiastic supporters of new laws, found pollsters YouGov. Even four in 10 Labour supporters were in favour
It's not always a case of evil and incompetent taxman versus upright and honest citizen, is it?
Absolutely but that is for a court to decide.
You support removing that safeguard.
Right now, the onus is on immensely wealthy and powerful HMRC to prove its case.
You propose shifting the onus to the ordinary man in the street.
No, in the end if there is a dispute it will be decided, as now, firstly by the HMRC appeals procedure, then if not resolved by the independent tax tribunal, and thereafter in the courts.
As I said, I think the current proposal needs some extra safeguards, but the idea that it is just arbitrary seizing of the assets of innocent citizens is an overreaction. And the idea that it is something new in principle is barmy - have you seen what the powers of the old Customs and Excise (now subsumed in HMRC) to seize goods are?
It will be resolved after your business has been broken and your home forfeit, Richard.
The only way I would tolerate this is if the presumption of individual culpability that attaches to individual errant taxpayers, and to - for example - individuals in the financial industry, attaches equally also to individual tax collectors.
That is, if an HMRC apparatchik lazily robs my bank account just because he can, I should be entitled to pursue that individual for recompense, at his home address and through his own bank account, in exactly the same way.
I don't for a second buy the idea that there is anything special about tax collectors. CEOs have to sign off the veracity of their accounts or face personal consequences; compliance officers likewise. Everyone has had to get used to taking personal responsibility for their actions. If the result of a raid on my bank account were that the tax collector and his boss - who should have to sign the raid notice - found their goods distrained by bailiffs to compensate me, you'd find compliance standards rose sharply.
If you think this would not improve standards then you must also think that there is no point to regulation of the City.
Do you realise that every time you sign a direct debit mandate you give your counterparty exactly the same powers to debit your bank account that the HMRC are now seeking?
I realise it is a 'voluntary' decision to enter into such a mandate but it is often undermined by service providers making discounts and premium products available only to those who pay by direct debit.
The difference between voluntary or not is huge, especially if you have the ability to stop the arrangement if you get in a dispute with the counter-party.
The best course of action for the HMRC would be to follow this marketing ploy, by giving the taxpayer additional benefits in return for their voluntary assent to the direct collection right.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
Continuing my quest to book stands/fringe events, I've got to UKIP. Last year I was put through to the CEO (!) who said crisply that he had no idea how to book a stand and didn't know who would (!) He resigned shortly afterwards and eventually I sorted it out. This year I got a perfectly nice lady who said she didn't know when the conference was, let alone how to book a stand. I can't see anything about it on their website. The same applies to the SNP. The Greens have a narrow timeslot - you CANNOT book before June 16 and you MUST book by July 15.
Why are parties making it so hard to give them money? Labour and the Tories were straightforward enough, but everyone else seems to feel their conference is something to get round to sometime...
Mr. LP, ah, that would explain what someone said to me about a decade ago. She kept on signing up to give charities money (which she couldn't really afford...) and they kept increasing her 'contributions'.
Chuggers are the bain of my existence.
Especially the pretty ones in t shirts two sizes too small and leave me with the impression millions across the world will die if I don't donate today and set up a Direct Debit.
There's literally* millions of chuggers in Manchester City Centre.
As you didn't know what changing at Baker Street meant, here's what a chugger is
Richard, when I had my dispute with HMRC a few years ago, they kept on sending correspondence to my old address, despite contacting them several times and giving them my new address.
It was fortunate I had mail forwarding on.
I've got an even better story - they managed to send me a letter with, attached to it, a very sensitive letter addressed to someone completely different.
As I said upthread, I agree with Andrew Tyrie that some extra safeguards are needed for this proposal. But let's not get hysterical about it.
I quite agree, Mr. Nabavi, we should not get hysterical about these proposals. HMG should just quietly drop them.
The courts exist to protect us from an arbitrary executive, for a Conservative Chancellor to try an circumvent that protection is a fecking disgrace and just proves that neither Cameron or Osborn have a principled bone in their bodies. Even Brown didn't try to cleave to himself the right to seize private property.
Mr. Llama
Do you realise that every time you sign a direct debit mandate you give your counterparty exactly the same powers to debit your bank account that the HMRC are now seeking?
I realise it is a 'voluntary' decision to enter into such a mandate but it is often undermined by service providers making discounts and premium products available only to those who pay by direct debit.
The best course of action for the HMRC would be to follow this marketing ploy, by giving the taxpayer additional benefits in return for their voluntary assent to the direct collection right.
Not sure what you are getting at here, Mr. LP. For more than thirty years now I have filed a return with what is now HMRC. I have subsequently sent them a cheque by the due date. Our relationship has been cordial throughout. I see no need for them to have a direct debit access to my bank account or any benefit to me in them having such a facility.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Flat Rate Scheme for VAT is what you're thinking of.
Re: the underground motorway. If Boris is serious about doing something about pollution, he should do more to reduce car use. This scheme is total pie in the sky and will never be built.
The problem I can see with that is it will create its own demand. I currently do not drive through London, and avoid journeys half way round the M25 if I can. When they built the M25 it did not seem to occur to transport planners that it would create demand for the sort of cross-London journeys that people previously avoided. The difference is that an overground road can much more easily be expanded (which they have finally got round to doing). I can't see them doing that with an underground ringroad.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
"Something quite remarkable happened in London in the first decade of the new millennium. The number of white British people in the capital fell by 620,000 - equivalent to the entire population of Glasgow moving out."
If you add the people who moved further out of London rather than just those who moved out completely and add all the others who did the same from other towns and cities then you're probably looking at 1-2 million people.
The seats most effected by immigration will be the seats those people moved away from - which become safer Labour - and the seats they moved to.
So the answer would be the seats surrounding the areas where the political class have been getting rid of the indigenous population.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Mr. Bond, When I first got involved in the world of self-employment and tax returns my new accountant gave me a very solid piece of advice - "Never claim for everything you are entitled to, just be reasonable". I have followed that advice and so far have never had any falling out with the Revenue. Of course, it does mean I have paid more in tax than perhaps, strictly speaking, I needed to but I have avoided being investigated. Some of my friends have been put under the microscope by the tax authorities and the costs and, especially, the stress, even though they were proved "clean", were horrendous.
Re: the underground motorway. If Boris is serious about doing something about pollution, he should do more to reduce car use. This scheme is total pie in the sky and will never be built.
The problem I can see with that is it will create its own demand. I currently do not drive through London, and avoid journeys half way round the M25 if I can. When they built the M25 it did not seem to occur to transport planners that it would create demand for the sort of cross-London journeys that people previously avoided. The difference is that an overground road can much more easily be expanded (which they have finally got round to doing). I can't see them doing that with an underground ringroad.
I'm sure you're right - I expect within days, if not hours, of opening it will have jams - but London already has an excellent integrated transport system (something many English cities used to, until a bit of vandalism under Thatcher) - so I'm not sure what more we should be doing.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Everyone is supposed to do SA, not doing one if you are purely a PAYE taxpayer is a concession. If you are a higher rate taxpayer they assume you probably have untaxed income, even if only bank interest taxed at source at BR. In any case, if your only income is a PAYE salary and a bit of bank interest it should take you about half an hour online, tops. Nothing to get excited about.
Richard, when I had my dispute with HMRC a few years ago, they kept on sending correspondence to my old address, despite contacting them several times and giving them my new address.
It was fortunate I had mail forwarding on.
...
I quite agree, Mr. Nabavi, we should not get hysterical about these proposals. HMG should just quietly drop them.
The courts exist to protect us from an arbitrary executive, for a Conservative Chancellor to try an circumvent that protection is a fecking disgrace and just proves that neither Cameron or Osborn have a principled bone in their bodies. Even Brown didn't try to cleave to himself the right to seize private property.
Mr. Llama
Do you realise that every time you sign a direct debit mandate you give your counterparty exactly the same powers to debit your bank account that the HMRC are now seeking?
I realise it is a 'voluntary' decision to enter into such a mandate but it is often undermined by service providers making discounts and premium products available only to those who pay by direct debit.
The best course of action for the HMRC would be to follow this marketing ploy, by giving the taxpayer additional benefits in return for their voluntary assent to the direct collection right.
Not sure what you are getting at here, Mr. LP. For more than thirty years now I have filed a return with what is now HMRC. I have subsequently sent them a cheque by the due date. Our relationship has been cordial throughout. I see no need for them to have a direct debit access to my bank account or any benefit to me in them having such a facility.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
I agree the new powers are not being sought to collect from the likes of you, Mr. L.
And not wanting to get immersed in the detail of the proposal, I would assume that safeguards could be established which would reassure the majority of taxpayers that the powers will not be used arbitrarily or without proper limits.
I remain in favour of a voluntary scheme, where there are real benefits of participation and even disadvantages to non-participation.
We all hate tax collectors and inspectors, but that shouldn't stop us giving the tools an easier job.
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
If it's a charity you don't particularly care for anyway, it is tempting to sign up and then immediately cancel. If the charities start losing money consistently then they might stop doing it. (Not that I've actually done that - my response is always to say "I need to discuss with my wife - can you give me a leaflet so that we can discuss it and if we want to we can set up a Standing Order or make a 1-off gift? No... Oh, you clearly don't care about the charity then, how interesting"
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Mr. Bond, When I first got involved in the world of self-employment and tax returns my new accountant gave me a very solid piece of advice - "Never claim for everything you are entitled to, just be reasonable". I have followed that advice and so far have never had any falling out with the Revenue. Of course, it does mean I have paid more in tax than perhaps, strictly speaking, I needed to but I have avoided being investigated. Some of my friends have been put under the microscope by the tax authorities and the costs and, especially, the stress, even though they were proved "clean", were horrendous.
there is some alternative good advice I once heard to basically claim for something that was a bit of a grey area but something you could have at least some justification for claiming (ie not fraud). When a tax investigation or visit comes your way , they will find this item and you can then agree it is not claimable and the tax man will be happy to have found something and leave .
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Everyone is supposed to do SA, not doing one if you are purely a PAYE taxpayer is a concession. If you are a higher rate taxpayer they assume you probably have untaxed income, even if only bank interest taxed at source at BR. In any case, if your only income is a PAYE salary and a bit of bank interest it should take you about half an hour online, tops. Nothing to get excited about.
You underestimate my laziness! :') But thanks for the reassurance
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
One of the dirty secrets of the charity industry is that many fundraisers are paid per application. That means they generate reams of paper for any grant giving organisation to wade through.
Our trick is to have a very short application form with very open ended questions. 1 page on factual information, 1 page on what you will do with the money and 1 page on why it will be transformational for you. Professional fund raisers really really hate it
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
If it's a charity you don't particularly care for anyway, it is tempting to sign up and then immediately cancel. If the charities start losing money consistently then they might stop doing it. (Not that I've actually done that - my response is always to say "I need to discuss with my wife - can you give me a leaflet so that we can discuss it and if we want to we can set up a Standing Order or make a 1-off gift? No... Oh, you clearly don't care about the charity then, how interesting"
Charities get a lot of money from chuggers; for many it is the primary source of income. They are an effective marketing tool (like the adverts you see with small children on the tv the whole time, or billboards, or...or...why not chuggers?)
If you don't like them, don't stop (with a very polite "no thank you").
If you are going through all kinds of contortions to thwart them then you perhaps are missing the point (going home to set up a Standing Order having been "chugged" is taking a free ride on the chugger, will inhibit their effectiveness and therefore raise less money for the charity).
They are for the most part young, extrovert, polite people. If you are being harrassed, then ask to see their supervisor (usually local to any group) and that will stop it there and then.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Mr. D., Don't try and do it yourself. Really, and believe me on this, it ain't worth the grief and aggravation and you'll probably (no disrespect) feck it up. Go to an accountant, whose fees are tax deductible so don't actually cost you anything. Furthermore, get an accountant who the Revenue hold in good regard (because he/she is honest) and they will pass the accounts without problem.
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
Just jumping on this to bump this site about the charities that give most bang for your buck. There's obviously going to be a philosophical debate about the worthiness of the top one on the list, but the deworming ones are certainly very worthy:
Re: the underground motorway. If Boris is serious about doing something about pollution, he should do more to reduce car use. This scheme is total pie in the sky and will never be built.
The problem I can see with that is it will create its own demand. I currently do not drive through London, and avoid journeys half way round the M25 if I can. When they built the M25 it did not seem to occur to transport planners that it would create demand for the sort of cross-London journeys that people previously avoided. The difference is that an overground road can much more easily be expanded (which they have finally got round to doing). I can't see them doing that with an underground ringroad.
I'm sure you're right - I expect within days, if not hours, of opening it will have jams - but London already has an excellent integrated transport system (something many English cities used to, until a bit of vandalism under Thatcher) - so I'm not sure what more we should be doing.
Build it well over capacity I suppose.
The alternative is to do nothing, and let Londoners cope with the costs of their own stupidity. But London is too important to the economy to take that approach, and in any case a lot of the users will be non-Londoners trying to get round/through/past it.
But I have worked with a lot of people too stupid to realise that public transport is often the best, quickest, cheapest option for a journey across London.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Mr. Bond, When I first got involved in the world of self-employment and tax returns my new accountant gave me a very solid piece of advice - "Never claim for everything you are entitled to, just be reasonable". I have followed that advice and so far have never had any falling out with the Revenue. Of course, it does mean I have paid more in tax than perhaps, strictly speaking, I needed to but I have avoided being investigated. Some of my friends have been put under the microscope by the tax authorities and the costs and, especially, the stress, even though they were proved "clean", were horrendous.
there is some alternative good advice I once heard to basically claim for something that was a bit of a grey area but something you could have at least some justification for claiming (ie not fraud). When a tax investigation or visit comes your way , they will find this item and you can then agree it is not claimable and the tax man will be happy to have found something and leave .
The taxman always likes to find something. They will also pay far more attention to director's expenses of companies over employees. Anecdotal 1st hand evidence only on this one. But yes they won't be happy if they don't find something... I reckon reclaiming a French VAT receipt for some wine in there would probably be a decent idea if your VAT records are 100% others accurate.
Its not so much chuggers that put me off giving to big charities its the fact that if you look at a lot of big charity accounts they mention defined benefit pension schemes for staff. Basically this means that not only are they expecting donors to fund a pension scheme for staff that many donors will not be so lucky to get it also means that if push comes to shove and pension costs escalate (as they are and will for defined benefit schemes) then its staff who are front in line in terms of what the funds are raised for by the charity and not the potential recipients of the charity's raison d'etre.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Mr. D., Don't try and do it yourself. Really, and believe me on this, it ain't worth the grief and aggravation and you'll probably (no disrespect) feck it up. Go to an accountant, whose fees are tax deductible so don't actually cost you anything. Furthermore, get an accountant who the Revenue hold in good regard (because he/she is honest) and they will pass the accounts without problem.
It's not too tricky as it is just salaried income. But I'll consider that (didn't want to have to pay more!)
Anyway on the tarmac at LHR, so I'll catch PB on the other side!
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
If it's a charity you don't particularly care for anyway, it is tempting to sign up and then immediately cancel. If the charities start losing money consistently then they might stop doing it. (Not that I've actually done that - my response is always to say "I need to discuss with my wife - can you give me a leaflet so that we can discuss it and if we want to we can set up a Standing Order or make a 1-off gift? No... Oh, you clearly don't care about the charity then, how interesting"
Charities get a lot of money from chuggers; for many it is the primary source of income. They are an effective marketing tool (like the adverts you see with small children on the tv the whole time, or billboards, or...or...why not chuggers?)
If you don't like them, don't stop (with a very polite "no thank you").
If you are going through all kinds of contortions to thwart them then you perhaps are missing the point (going home to set up a Standing Order having been "chugged" is taking a free ride on the chugger, will inhibit their effectiveness and therefore raise less money for the charity).
They are for the most part young, extrovert, polite people. If you are being harrassed, then ask to see their supervisor (usually local to any group) and that will stop it there and then.
The ones in the street are easily avoidable - its the ones that ring the doorbell when I am at home and in the middle of putting the kids to bed that pee me off. Saying 'No Thank You' just doesn't get them to go away, and I am too polite to be able to just close the door in their face so I find a way of getting rid of them as fast as possible, without having to spend half an hour justifying to them why I wont give them money.
FPT I may be turning into an old fuddy duddy but I still prefer women without beards.
According to the ST yesterday the BoE is going to increase its growth forecast again this week to 3.5% and implicitly suggest that the first interest rate rises will be in Q1 of 2015. This is the longest run of increases in growth forecasts since 1997. I still think that Q4 of this year for the first modest rise is more likely and politically easier as well.
Many economists seem to have assumed that the UK economy would slow down a bit in the second half of this year. It appears the Bank does not agree. We will also get yet more good news on unemployment this week as well.
Is it really conceivable that the great British public will throw out a government which has produced such stunning results in time for the election and bring back those responsible for the mess? As the economic results move from good to excellent surely some credit will accrue? There is not a lot of evidence of this so far but the Labour vote is starting to soften which gives some hope.
"produced such stunning results"
1) GDP on its own is meaningless. 2) Adding 200,000 extra people's worth of GDP (edit: a year) isn't growth. 3) Vast sums pouring in from the BRICs is a result of globalization coming unstuck not government success. It's like the tide going out before a tsunami.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Mr. D., Don't try and do it yourself. Really, and believe me on this, it ain't worth the grief and aggravation and you'll probably (no disrespect) feck it up. Go to an accountant, whose fees are tax deductible so don't actually cost you anything. Furthermore, get an accountant who the Revenue hold in good regard (because he/she is honest) and they will pass the accounts without problem.
Some accountant's fees for tax returns are tax deductable,others not. Its only tax deductable if you have trading income and the fees are really for preparing accounts. If you just employ an accountant to do a tax return then it is not tax deductable. In any case if a thing is tax deductable it does not mean it is effectively free it means you get a percentage 'free' that equates to yor marginal tax rate (ie 0,20,40 or 45%)
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Mr. Bond, When I first got involved in the world of self-employment and tax returns my new accountant gave me a very solid piece of advice - "Never claim for everything you are entitled to, just be reasonable". I have followed that advice and so far have never had any falling out with the Revenue. Of course, it does mean I have paid more in tax than perhaps, strictly speaking, I needed to but I have avoided being investigated. Some of my friends have been put under the microscope by the tax authorities and the costs and, especially, the stress, even though they were proved "clean", were horrendous.
there is some alternative good advice I once heard to basically claim for something that was a bit of a grey area but something you could have at least some justification for claiming (ie not fraud). When a tax investigation or visit comes your way , they will find this item and you can then agree it is not claimable and the tax man will be happy to have found something and leave .
This sounds as though it is based on a good understanding of the psychology of the tax inspector. The paper work for opening and closing a tax investigation is unsurprisingly onerous, and a tax inspector is not going to want to close a case without having reclaimed any tax - there doesn't appear to be a "Whoops! I made a mistake" procedure to make walking away from a mistake at an early stage an attractive option for the tax inspector [this may be for the good reason of not encouraging bribery].
That said, if you can avoid having a tax inspection opened in the first place it is probably for the best. For that reason, when I worked with the Revenue, we would sometimes receive covering letters from an accountant with the self-assessment tax return setting out the basic facts of their clients situation when it might otherwise appear suspicious.
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
Just jumping on this to bump this site about the charities that give most bang for your buck. There's obviously going to be a philosophical debate about the worthiness of the top one on the list, but the deworming ones are certainly very worthy:
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Mr. D., Don't try and do it yourself. Really, and believe me on this, it ain't worth the grief and aggravation and you'll probably (no disrespect) feck it up. Go to an accountant, whose fees are tax deductible so don't actually cost you anything.
How does this work? Surely your accountants' fees are netted off your profits, not your tax bill. So you pay 60% of what the parasite charges you.
Only worth doing if you think the accountant saves you more tax than you will pay in his fees.
Especially as the PAYE, bank interest etc bit of the tax return you can do yourself without breaking sweat.
Although Mike specifically didn't want the top UKIP targets, I'm going to post this anyway, as it might be of interest.
These are the 10 seats with the shortest UKIP odds at Ladbrokes. We've only got just over half of the UK seats priced up, but I don't think there will be many (if any) remaining that will have UKIP in single figures.
Eastleigh 2/1 Thanet South 9/4 Folkestone & Hythe 3/1 Great Yarmouth 5/1 Castle Point 5/1 Thanet North 6/1 Louth & Horncastle 7/1 Thurrock 7/1 Boston & Skegness 8/1 Cambridgeshire North West 10/1
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
Just jumping on this to bump this site about the charities that give most bang for your buck. There's obviously going to be a philosophical debate about the worthiness of the top one on the list, but the deworming ones are certainly very worthy:
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never rwally stops so far as I can tell.
I'm going to be filling out my first self assessment this year due to foreign earnings. Not really looking forward to it or reading those double taxation agreements. I had assumed that you'd be taken off SA after a few years of putting in zeros in the relevant boxes. Perhaps I'm wrong!!
Mr. D., Don't try and do it yourself. Really, and believe me on this, it ain't worth the grief and aggravation and you'll probably (no disrespect) feck it up. Go to an accountant, whose fees are tax deductible so don't actually cost you anything. Furthermore, get an accountant who the Revenue hold in good regard (because he/she is honest) and they will pass the accounts without problem.
Some accountant's fees for tax returns are tax deductable,others not. Its only tax deductable if you have trading income and the fees are really for preparing accounts. If you just employ an accountant to do a tax return then it is not tax deductable. In any case if a thing is tax deductable it does not mean it is effectively free it means you get a percentage 'free' that equates to yor marginal tax rate (ie 0,20,40 or 45%)
If it was fully tax deductible as Mr Llama says then you'd just have people doing each other's returns and making spongdoodles of cash off the Gov't !
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
The chugging companies typically receive £70-100 per signed direct debit....
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
Just jumping on this to bump this site about the charities that give most bang for your buck. There's obviously going to be a philosophical debate about the worthiness of the top one on the list, but the deworming ones are certainly very worthy:
Hmmmm. Give a man a fish etc. However, if he’s actually starving he needs the fish NOW rather than going off to try and catch one!
Or if, as a child, he consistently suffers from parasites, he will have nutritional deficiencies that will limit brain capacity as well as spend a lot more time off school, both of which will weaken his training to be a fisherman, or, more likely, a successful professional.
Continuing my quest to book stands/fringe events, I've got to UKIP. Last year I was put through to the CEO (!) who said crisply that he had no idea how to book a stand and didn't know who would (!) He resigned shortly afterwards and eventually I sorted it out. This year I got a perfectly nice lady who said she didn't know when the conference was, let alone how to book a stand. I can't see anything about it on their website. The same applies to the SNP. The Greens have a narrow timeslot - you CANNOT book before June 16 and you MUST book by July 15.
Why are parties making it so hard to give them money? Labour and the Tories were straightforward enough, but everyone else seems to feel their conference is something to get round to sometime...
With the greatest respect Nick it may be because the other parties still regard their conferences as primarily political events where the members get together and discuss/argue policy as opposed to gigantic lobbying fests designed to make the party money. The other parties may be a little hidebound and as you say probably will not make as much money but I rather admire their attitude.
In addition I am in any event surprised that other parties (UKIP particularly) would be that comfortable about a Labour ex-mp (and current candidate) such as yourself hanging around their conference (just imagine what you might hear by evesdroping!).
incidentally any criticism in this post is directed just as much at Conservatives, of whom I am still (just about) a supporter, as Labour and I would say exactly the same to a Conservative ex-mp complaining in this vein.
[edited for space ... That said, if you can avoid having a tax inspection opened in the first place it is probably for the best. For that reason, when I worked with the Revenue, we would sometimes receive covering letters from an accountant with the self-assessment tax return setting out the basic facts of their clients situation when it might otherwise appear suspicious.
On a related matter, what's the best way to pay, please? How can one prove one has paid?
I have had to deal with elderly relatives and their probate, and I find that the tax demands now no longer have unique identifying numbers stamped on the bank paying in slip. As a result I have had to prove again and again that I have paid the amounts in question - fortunately for the larger sums I had made a note of the time (to minutes) and place and bank on the counterfoil and got the bank to stamp it as well, and a letter and photocopy of that and of the bank account for the relevant month seemed to do the trick. I didn't do that for the £2 bill for an elderly relative, with unfortunate results ...
The usual advice is presumably to pay online or through the next years' income but these are not possible for probate and/or if the elderly relative refuses to do it online/gets into a total panic about all the minatory warnings and wants to pay now rather than in the next year's tax.
Eagles, the Scots have had Alex Salmond appearing on their TV screens almost daily for years as our FM. We reached saturation point on this politician about a year ago, and if he couldn't make serious inroads into the No vote over the seven years, he ain't going to manage it now. Alex Salmond is not a positive for the Yes Campaign, he is fast becoming the lightening rod for anger towards the Nationalist cause/campaign tactics among No voters. The biggest loser in this Indy Ref will be Alex Salmond the politician and FM, and to a slightly lesser extent, the SNP.
If you don't like them, don't stop (with a very polite "no thank you").
The worst thing I found in London was they came out in swarms about 5pm. Despite the fact that a large proportion of the people on the street are walking very briskly to get to a railway station in time for a particular time train, they would still attempt to stop you and engage you in conversation about the Squirrels Protection League. They were worse than the tourists bimbling about aimlessly at their finished-tourism-but-not-yet-time-to-eat time of day.
If you don't like them, don't stop (with a very polite "no thank you").
The worst thing I found in London was they came out in swarms about 5pm. Despite the fact that a large proportion of the people on the street are walking very briskly to get to a railway station in time for a particular time train, they would still attempt to stop you and engage you in conversation about the Squirrels Protection League. They were worse than the tourists bimbling about aimlessly at their finished-tourism-but-not-yet-time-to-eat time of day.
Because it's their job to do that?!
I find that fixing them in the eye and a firm "no thanks" works every time and usually gets me a "have a nice day".
Twenty years ago John Smith passed away. Arguably we still live in the fallout from that. Would Labour have won quite as big under Smith as Blair, would the Conservatives have had quite as many problems had Smith lived etc? We will never ever know, but it's intriguing and certainly doesn't feel that long ago.
OT: I'm having big problems with the site, I keep getting logged out of Vanilla and when I log back in it screws up the formatting (there is a big green line down the left hand side and the list of green Archive dates has been shifted over to partially obscure the comment text). if I reload to sort out the formatting it logs me out again. I did wonder if it's a problem with Virgin Media but other websites are doing OK. If it is a connectivity problem on my part, it looks as if Vanilla is losing the plot if I have a micro-outage of a few seconds whereas other websites reconnect no bother.
[edited for space ... That said, if you can avoid having a tax inspection opened in the first place it is probably for the best. For that reason, when I worked with the Revenue, we would sometimes receive covering letters from an accountant with the self-assessment tax return setting out the basic facts of their clients situation when it might otherwise appear suspicious.
On a related matter, what's the best way to pay, please? How can one prove one has paid?
I have had to deal with elderly relatives and their probate, and I find that the tax demands now no longer have unique identifying numbers stamped on the bank paying in slip. As a result I have had to prove again and again that I have paid the amounts in question - fortunately for the larger sums I had made a note of the time (to minutes) and place and bank on the counterfoil and got the bank to stamp it as well, and a letter and photocopy of that and of the bank account for the relevant month seemed to do the trick. I didn't do that for the £2 bill for an elderly relative, with unfortunate results ...
The usual advice is presumably to pay online or through the next years' income but these are not possible for probate and/or if the elderly relative refuses to do it online/gets into a total panic about all the minatory warnings and wants to pay now rather than in the next year's tax.
Bearing in mind that when I worked for the Revenue I don't think it was yet possible to pay online, and I'm afraid I wouldn't have a clue how it's done these days. If you can still get to see a human at one of the offices I'd do it that way.
If you don't like them, don't stop (with a very polite "no thank you").
The worst thing I found in London was they came out in swarms about 5pm. Despite the fact that a large proportion of the people on the street are walking very briskly to get to a railway station in time for a particular time train, they would still attempt to stop you and engage you in conversation about the Squirrels Protection League. They were worse than the tourists bimbling about aimlessly at their finished-tourism-but-not-yet-time-to-eat time of day.
Because it's their job to do that?!
I find that fixing them in the eye and a firm "no thanks" works every time and usually gets me a "have a nice day".
You would have thought that trying to stop people who very obviously have some other purpose in mind, and a hard deadline to meet, would be counter productive. For example, I am sure I exhibited entirely different behaviours on evenings I was going to meet my mates in the Buckingham Arms and not hurrying because I would probably be there first anyway, and on those evenings I was on a mission to catch the 1812 "first stop Brookwood" train.
OT: I'm having big problems with the site, I keep getting logged out of Vanilla and when I log back in it screws up the formatting (there is a big green line down the left hand side and the list of green Archive dates has been shifted over to partially obscure the comment text). if I reload to sort out the formatting it logs me out again. I did wonder if it's a problem with Virgin Media but other websites are doing OK. If it is a connectivity problem on my part, it looks as if Vanilla is losing the plot if I have a micro-outage of a few seconds whereas other websites reconnect no bother.
There is a different way of accessing the comments if the main page fails:
[edited for space ... That said, if you can avoid having a tax inspection opened in the first place it is probably for the best. For that reason, when I worked with the Revenue, we would sometimes receive covering letters from an accountant with the self-assessment tax return setting out the basic facts of their clients situation when it might otherwise appear suspicious.
On a related matter, what's the best way to pay, please? How can one prove one has paid?
I have had to deal with elderly relatives and their probate, and I find that the tax demands now no longer have unique identifying numbers stamped on the bank paying in slip. As a result I have had to prove again and again that I have paid the amounts in question - fortunately for the larger sums I had made a note of the time (to minutes) and place and bank on the counterfoil and got the bank to stamp it as well, and a letter and photocopy of that and of the bank account for the relevant month seemed to do the trick. I didn't do that for the £2 bill for an elderly relative, with unfortunate results ...
The usual advice is presumably to pay online or through the next years' income but these are not possible for probate and/or if the elderly relative refuses to do it online/gets into a total panic about all the minatory warnings and wants to pay now rather than in the next year's tax.
Bearing in mind that when I worked for the Revenue I don't think it was yet possible to pay online, and I'm afraid I wouldn't have a clue how it's done these days. If you can still get to see a human at one of the offices I'd do it that way.
Many thanks. I had not thought of that - will bear it in mind.
Why not Merlin? They are probably the most impactful in terms of Medical Emergency Relief.
www.merlin.org.uk
I knew people who worked for MSF and The Red Cross, don't know anyone who worked Merlin. I'll have a gander at their website.
In terms of fair disclosure, we sorted them out in the mid 90s by providing an office, administrator and common business sense / logistical management. Made them one of the most efficient charities out there. And gave us a great name for a labrador
Why not Merlin? They are probably the most impactful in terms of Medical Emergency Relief.
www.merlin.org.uk
Don't they own Alton Towers?
That's a different Merlin (Entertainments).
This is Medical Emergency Relief International - effectively they go into war zones / disaster areas while the shooting is still happening, while the others prefer to wait until it is safe
OT: I'm having big problems with the site, I keep getting logged out of Vanilla and when I log back in it screws up the formatting (there is a big green line down the left hand side and the list of green Archive dates has been shifted over to partially obscure the comment text). if I reload to sort out the formatting it logs me out again. I did wonder if it's a problem with Virgin Media but other websites are doing OK. If it is a connectivity problem on my part, it looks as if Vanilla is losing the plot if I have a micro-outage of a few seconds whereas other websites reconnect no bother.
There is a different way of accessing the comments if the main page fails:
@Shadsy Nice to see Eastleigh coming in , on that one at 7-2
Does Thanet South go odds on when Farage announces he is standing there ?
I have been watching out for Farage's comment on Pfizer's bid for AstraZeneca due to Pfizer's historical connection with the Thanet South constituency. After 60 years of operating an R&D facility in Sandwich, Pfizer announced it would be closing down its operations in 2011 with the loss of some 5,000 jobs. Pfizer was by far the largest employer in the constituency.
Since then the former Pfizer site, now sold by Pfizer and renamed as "Discovery Park", has attracted significant funds as a designated Enterprise Zone has attracted over sixty new, mainly R&D, companies employing 1,500. Even Pfizer itself changed its all-out plans and has retained a small operation on site.
All in all the general view is that Pfizer has behaved well in the circumstances and has been very supportive of attempts to regenerate the site. Portraying the company as the villain may not therefore be well received in Thanet.
Given that Farage has close links with the area (born just outside Thanet South's boundaries, stood in the constituency in the 2005 GE and UKIP is supported nationally by a major donor, Alan Bown, a constituency resident), his reluctance to attack Pfizer may well be connected to his local knowledge and his plans to stand in the constituency in 2015.
Note his comment today on his LBC phone-in where he is merely content to portray the EU as the villain rather than the US company:
Q: What conditions should be put on the Pfizer AstraZeneca deal for it to be allowed to go ahead?
Farage says for the last week we have had farcical debate. We cannot decide, because this is in the hands of a Brussels bureaucrat, Mr Almunia.
It is difficult to accredit Farage with being subtle and light-touched but here may be a rare example. I am slightly more confident in my bet on Farage standing in Thanet South as a result of the way he has been handling the Pfizer takeover.
Interesting thought. I also wonder if they could come up with schemes that traded simplification from the point of view of the taxpayer for slightly more tax to pay in typical case.
These already exist. You can remit a lower VAT rate than you collect in some circumstances. I forget what they are.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
Mr. Bond, When I first got involved in the world of self-employment and tax returns my new accountant gave me a very solid piece of advice - "Never claim for everything you are entitled to, just be reasonable". I have followed that advice and so far have never had any falling out with the Revenue. Of course, it does mean I have paid more in tax than perhaps, strictly speaking, I needed to but I have avoided being investigated. Some of my friends have been put under the microscope by the tax authorities and the costs and, especially, the stress, even though they were proved "clean", were horrendous.
there is some alternative good advice I once heard to basically claim for something that was a bit of a grey area but something you could have at least some justification for claiming (ie not fraud). When a tax investigation or visit comes your way , they will find this item and you can then agree it is not claimable and the tax man will be happy to have found something and leave .
Not sure that's true, if they find errors they'll dig for more and of course they'll fine you as well.
I went from a salary of £160k to being self employed on, eventually, about twice that. I didn;t understand why my accountants said I should pay myself a salary of £75k or so - why couldn't I take the lot as dividends? The reply was that the Revenue just wouldn't believe it; you can't go from a salary of X to a salary of nothing without being challenged on what you were living on.
Comments
Mind you, we could also ask why HMG don't apply the same rules on expenses to MPs as they require the rest of us to follow?
Absolutely but that is for a court to decide.
You support removing that safeguard.
Right now, the onus is on immensely wealthy and powerful HMRC to prove its case.
You propose shifting the onus to the ordinary man in the street.
Don't agree with you on the HMRC idea.
Anyone who has had to deal with (any) bureaucratic, heartless organisation will know the dangers of giving them even more powers.
Once HMRC know they just have to send 4 letters and then can take the money anyway, what incentive is on them to make their case at all?
If this proposal is enacted, the dishonest will set up offshore accounts and only keep small amounts in UK current accounts. And the innocent will get fleeced.
If anything I would think having PCCers means it is more likely to result in these sorts of political policing interference than not having them
Do you realise that every time you sign a direct debit mandate you give your counterparty exactly the same powers to debit your bank account that the HMRC are now seeking?
I realise it is a 'voluntary' decision to enter into such a mandate but it is often undermined by service providers making discounts and premium products available only to those who pay by direct debit.
The best course of action for the HMRC would be to follow this marketing ploy, by giving the taxpayer additional benefits in return for their voluntary assent to the direct collection right.
I've now had a reply from the LibDems, having forwarded them their email from mid-April saying they'd get back to me about a fringe event. They say they have no record of this correspondence, and could I start again?
Sigh.
Londoners overwhelmingly support calls to ban strikes unless more than half the workforce votes for them, a poll reveals today [56% in favour, 24% opposed, presumably 20% DK although it doesn't state that]. ... Young people were among the most enthusiastic supporters of new laws, found pollsters YouGov. Even four in 10 Labour supporters were in favour
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/londoners-back-tube-strike-rule-change-9355049.html
As I said, I think the current proposal needs some extra safeguards, but the idea that it is just arbitrary seizing of the assets of innocent citizens is an overreaction. And the idea that it is something new in principle is barmy - have you seen what the powers of the old Customs and Excise (now subsumed in HMRC) to seize goods have always been?
It's part of the DD guarantee.
Mr. LP, ah, that would explain what someone said to me about a decade ago. She kept on signing up to give charities money (which she couldn't really afford...) and they kept increasing her 'contributions'.
It accords the Elephant and Castle much needed dignity by making it the only area of London contingent to both the proposed Orbital Tunnel and the existing Inner Ring Road.
I look forward to watching local Green opposition subsiding.
Especially the pretty ones in t shirts two sizes too small and leave me with the impression millions across the world will die if I don't donate today and set up a Direct Debit.
There's literally* millions of chuggers in Manchester City Centre.
As you didn't know what changing at Baker Street meant, here's what a chugger is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2090680.stm
*Sorry Richard.
(As an aside, when I was a civ eng student I was lucky enough to go into the Limehouse Tunnel whilst it was being built. That was in 1991/2, and the tunnel cost £100,000 per metre even back then. That was the most expensive form of construction - cut and cover - in difficult ground, but even so it shows the costs of building road infrastructure in London).
The only way I would tolerate this is if the presumption of individual culpability that attaches to individual errant taxpayers, and to - for example - individuals in the financial industry, attaches equally also to individual tax collectors.
That is, if an HMRC apparatchik lazily robs my bank account just because he can, I should be entitled to pursue that individual for recompense, at his home address and through his own bank account, in exactly the same way.
I don't for a second buy the idea that there is anything special about tax collectors. CEOs have to sign off the veracity of their accounts or face personal consequences; compliance officers likewise. Everyone has had to get used to taking personal responsibility for their actions. If the result of a raid on my bank account were that the tax collector and his boss - who should have to sign the raid notice - found their goods distrained by bailiffs to compensate me, you'd find compliance standards rose sharply.
If you think this would not improve standards then you must also think that there is no point to regulation of the City.
The problem comes not with people like me but with people like me who for whatever reason have a falling out with the HMRC over the amount owed (e.g. TSE some years ago). The proposal then shifts the burden of proof from the State to the individual. That is wrong, as the Select Committee noted.
Had a churglar once. I have rarely been so angry in recent years as I was when patronised by a pretty little idiot telling me how little she was asking for.
All it takes is for you to be self-employed. If you ever have been the harassment never really stops so far as I can tell.
I always like to ask how long will it be before the cost to the charity of me signing up is paid in full. That shuts them up very quickly.
I also refuse to give any money to any charity who use such people as clearly they don't actually need my cash...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904
"Something quite remarkable happened in London in the first decade of the new millennium. The number of white British people in the capital fell by 620,000 - equivalent to the entire population of Glasgow moving out."
If you add the people who moved further out of London rather than just those who moved out completely and add all the others who did the same from other towns and cities then you're probably looking at 1-2 million people.
The seats most effected by immigration will be the seats those people moved away from - which become safer Labour - and the seats they moved to.
So the answer would be the seats surrounding the areas where the political class have been getting rid of the indigenous population.
And not wanting to get immersed in the detail of the proposal, I would assume that safeguards could be established which would reassure the majority of taxpayers that the powers will not be used arbitrarily or without proper limits.
I remain in favour of a voluntary scheme, where there are real benefits of participation and even disadvantages to non-participation.
We all hate tax collectors and inspectors, but that shouldn't stop us giving the tools an easier job.
Our trick is to have a very short application form with very open ended questions. 1 page on factual information, 1 page on what you will do with the money and 1 page on why it will be transformational for you. Professional fund raisers really really hate it
If you don't like them, don't stop (with a very polite "no thank you").
If you are going through all kinds of contortions to thwart them then you perhaps are missing the point (going home to set up a Standing Order having been "chugged" is taking a free ride on the chugger, will inhibit their effectiveness and therefore raise less money for the charity).
They are for the most part young, extrovert, polite people. If you are being harrassed, then ask to see their supervisor (usually local to any group) and that will stop it there and then.
http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
The alternative is to do nothing, and let Londoners cope with the costs of their own stupidity. But London is too important to the economy to take that approach, and in any case a lot of the users will be non-Londoners trying to get round/through/past it.
But I have worked with a lot of people too stupid to realise that public transport is often the best, quickest, cheapest option for a journey across London.
Amnesty (since 1997), MSF and The Red Cross.
Anyway on the tarmac at LHR, so I'll catch PB on the other side!
1) GDP on its own is meaningless.
2) Adding 200,000 extra people's worth of GDP (edit: a year) isn't growth.
3) Vast sums pouring in from the BRICs is a result of globalization coming unstuck not government success. It's like the tide going out before a tsunami.
That said, if you can avoid having a tax inspection opened in the first place it is probably for the best. For that reason, when I worked with the Revenue, we would sometimes receive covering letters from an accountant with the self-assessment tax return setting out the basic facts of their clients situation when it might otherwise appear suspicious.
www.merlin.org.uk
Only worth doing if you think the accountant saves you more tax than you will pay in his fees.
Especially as the PAYE, bank interest etc bit of the tax return you can do yourself without breaking sweat.
These are the 10 seats with the shortest UKIP odds at Ladbrokes. We've only got just over half of the UK seats priced up, but I don't think there will be many (if any) remaining that will have UKIP in single figures.
Eastleigh 2/1
Thanet South 9/4
Folkestone & Hythe 3/1
Great Yarmouth 5/1
Castle Point 5/1
Thanet North 6/1
Louth & Horncastle 7/1
Thurrock 7/1
Boston & Skegness 8/1
Cambridgeshire North West 10/1
Does Thanet South go odds on when Farage announces he is standing there
In addition I am in any event surprised that other parties (UKIP particularly) would be that comfortable about a Labour ex-mp (and current candidate) such as yourself hanging around their conference (just imagine what you might hear by evesdroping!).
incidentally any criticism in this post is directed just as much at Conservatives, of whom I am still (just about) a supporter, as Labour and I would say exactly the same to a Conservative ex-mp complaining in this vein.
Give him a Poisson process, he eats at a known average rate at times independent of each other.
I have had to deal with elderly relatives and their probate, and I find that the tax demands now no longer have unique identifying numbers stamped on the bank paying in slip. As a result I have had to prove again and again that I have paid the amounts in question - fortunately for the larger sums I had made a note of the time (to minutes) and place and bank on the counterfoil and got the bank to stamp it as well, and a letter and photocopy of that and of the bank account for the relevant month seemed to do the trick. I didn't do that for the £2 bill for an elderly relative, with unfortunate results ...
The usual advice is presumably to pay online or through the next years' income but these are not possible for probate and/or if the elderly relative refuses to do it online/gets into a total panic about all the minatory warnings and wants to pay now rather than in the next year's tax.
I find that fixing them in the eye and a firm "no thanks" works every time and usually gets me a "have a nice day".
Salmond is a positive for Yes.
BUT he also has an absolute mountain to climb that he won't waltz up as easily as the some of the YES bunch seem to think.
45-55 Yes - No would be my best guess right now
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ed-miliband-is-blundering-about-on-a-crutch-provided-by-disillusioned-lib-dem-voters-9349637.html
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions
And click on the current discussion.
This is Medical Emergency Relief International - effectively they go into war zones / disaster areas while the shooting is still happening, while the others prefer to wait until it is safe
Since then the former Pfizer site, now sold by Pfizer and renamed as "Discovery Park", has attracted significant funds as a designated Enterprise Zone has attracted over sixty new, mainly R&D, companies employing 1,500. Even Pfizer itself changed its all-out plans and has retained a small operation on site.
All in all the general view is that Pfizer has behaved well in the circumstances and has been very supportive of attempts to regenerate the site. Portraying the company as the villain may not therefore be well received in Thanet.
Given that Farage has close links with the area (born just outside Thanet South's boundaries, stood in the constituency in the 2005 GE and UKIP is supported nationally by a major donor, Alan Bown, a constituency resident), his reluctance to attack Pfizer may well be connected to his local knowledge and his plans to stand in the constituency in 2015.
Note his comment today on his LBC phone-in where he is merely content to portray the EU as the villain rather than the US company:
Q: What conditions should be put on the Pfizer AstraZeneca deal for it to be allowed to go ahead?
Farage says for the last week we have had farcical debate. We cannot decide, because this is in the hands of a Brussels bureaucrat, Mr Almunia.
It is difficult to accredit Farage with being subtle and light-touched but here may be a rare example. I am slightly more confident in my bet on Farage standing in Thanet South as a result of the way he has been handling the Pfizer takeover.
I went from a salary of £160k to being self employed on, eventually, about twice that. I didn;t understand why my accountants said I should pay myself a salary of £75k or so - why couldn't I take the lot as dividends? The reply was that the Revenue just wouldn't believe it; you can't go from a salary of X to a salary of nothing without being challenged on what you were living on.