Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question in the blue-yellow battles is how much you

245

Comments

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Gadfly said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Gadfly said:

    Indigo said:

    Anecdote:

    On the subject of cash-in-hand, a few years ago I was chatting with the man from Customs and Excise as he reviewed my VAT returns, and he told me that their biggest nightmare was dry-cleaning shops.

    I asked why. He said well if you have say a sandwich making company, they can look at the receipt for the bread and fillings you buy, and estimate how many sandwiches you would make as a result, look at your sales and see if the two are in anyway comparable.

    In the dry cleaning world, the business runs the machine two of three times a day, it has the same amount of solvent put in regardless of how many items of clothing are in the load, and the cycle runs for the same time regardless, in short there is no relationship between inputs and outputs, and the services are the sort of price where people just hand over a fiver or a tenner for their suit, as sufficiently inconsequential that very few customers care about, or keep the receipts. The only real chance they have he said was to watch customers going in out out for a significant period of time, or run a lot of dummy customers, both of which are expensive, so they have to be pretty sure they are on to something.

    Dry cleaning shops attach countable tags to the clothes that are submitted for cleaning, and the clothes leave the shop on countable hangers, often using countable trouser guards, and shrouded in countable polythene sleeves.

    I suspect that the main tax concern for such businesses is more likely to be an over declaration of sales, because their huge (97+%) profit margin could potentially make such businesses ripe for money laundering.


    Those discrepancies would in theory show up on a stock-take, but not in the figures because the items you mention cost virtually nothing. It's the figures the VAT man has access to. Because they are so cheap a stock take attack wouldn't work either, because the business would say that they tolerate a high spoilage/loss rate and can't be arsed with stock-taking, any more than an office-based business counts its individual paperclips.

    Because of the huge profit margin in dry cleaning, all of the figures the VAT man has access to are pretty much insignificant. As the OP said, it would be difficult to make calculations based upon the likes of solvent, but a business could be expected to use approx one hanger per £7.50 of turnover. It would be relatively simple to identify some form of correlation with or without a stock take, in the same way it would be easy to count slices of bread for the sandwich shop.

    I wonder why dry cleaning businesses like these "premium card" options where you get an nice reuseable zip up cover, complete with hanger, trouser protector and other extras ;)
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Charles said:

    Financier said:

    Financier said:

    O/T

    See that, "Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London" is a strong argument against those who wish to legalise/decriminalise the drug.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234

    Or in favour, since it would allow quality control.
    Do you expect that growers/suppliers/dealers are going to submit to quality control?
    Sent you vanilla mail over the weekend. Let me know if you are interested in exploring the concept.
    Charles,

    Sorry for the delay - did notice it but am involved in strict time-based tenders for the start of this week. I will get back to you by the weekend.
  • If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.
    With the caveat of Indigo's experience above, it is down to who the judge believes on a balance of probabilities if there is no paperwork. I am suggesting the law could be changed to stipulate consumer protection does not apply unless you have a receipt for payment. Would probably need to be backed up with criminal sanctions on the workman who fails to quite ever getting round to dropping it off....

    It would however cause a real problem for those who are illiterate, who are I would expect amongst the highest group of cash-in-hand, no paperwork workmen.
    I'm not sure it's a good idea to be removing consumer protections from people, especially if they're 'vunerable' and get taken advantage of. It'll be very difficult to prove that a seller didn't give a receipt, as they can just claim they did, and it'll be a he said/she said issue.
    I don't want to encourage governments to create what would doubtless be some god-awful mandatory computer system, but presumably sooner or later we'll get to a point where we can assume the vendor has some kind of computer (a PC, phone or cash register) at which point you can tamper-proof stuff like this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411



    The other thought is that seats the LibDems have taken from Labour might prove stickier this time, because they will have squeezed the local Conservative vote dry - which could prove to be rather more loyal because of the Coalition.

    That is completely contradictory to all the polling - Clegg is getting run close in Hallam by Labour ( I suspect he'll win by ~ 4% due to name recognition). The seat isn't really a typical Lib-Lab marginal (Where the picture is worse for the Lib Dems - see Norwich South, Brent Central, Manchester Withington), remember he starts with a 37.3% effective majority over Labour !
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    If a tradesman offers you a discount for cash, then the working assumption for both parties must be it is not going to appear in their VAT/Income Tax returns. No other explanation is very likely.

    It would be possible to clamp down on cash in hand quite effectively, by saying if No Receipt - then No Consumer Protection Laws apply..... Of course, you could go further and rigidly apply a law that made both parties guilty of fraud for cash in hand payments, but that would be a major leap and make something which may currently have a wholly innocent explanation into something automatically criminal.

    Do consumer protection laws apply to cash in hand with no receipt? How could you prove you got the service? It's one of the reasons I always get a receipt from people who do work for us at home.
    With the caveat of Indigo's experience above, it is down to who the judge believes on a balance of probabilities if there is no paperwork. I am suggesting the law could be changed to stipulate consumer protection does not apply unless you have a receipt for payment. Would probably need to be backed up with criminal sanctions on the workman who fails to quite ever getting round to dropping it off....

    It would however cause a real problem for those who are illiterate, who are I would expect amongst the highest group of cash-in-hand, no paperwork workmen.
    I'm not sure it's a good idea to be removing consumer protections from people, especially if they're 'vunerable' and get taken advantage of. It'll be very difficult to prove that a seller didn't give a receipt, as they can just claim they did, and it'll be a he said/she said issue.
    I don't want to encourage governments to create what would doubtless be some god-awful mandatory computer system, but presumably sooner or later we'll get to a point where we can assume the vendor has some kind of computer (a PC, phone or cash register) at which point you can tamper-proof stuff like this.
    Except to do so in a way that would stand up in court you would need end-to-end strong encryption to create an unforgeable electronic agreement.... what was that Dave was saying about encryption again ?

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,591
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    Isnt that basically the whole clusterf*ck known as IR35. For a company to do that they need to appear to be "in business on their own account" or they risk a knock on the door from HMRC. From my discussion a few years ago with HMRC they view it as tax planning if you are a "real business" and "avoidance" if you are in effect an employee working through your own limited company. It must be said that HMRCs record here is even more piss poor than usual, last time I looked they had lost something like 395 out of 400ish cases.
    No IR35 is different (but linked) IR35 is running a personal service company where you 'might' be an employee rather than a proper subcontracted company.

    Another rubbish piece of legistation though, thank Gordon Brown for that.

    This is the primarly set up for all owner managed business. Pay directors salary up to the personal allowance, and then everything else as dividends. It effectively 'avoids' paying National Insurace, but is basic tax planning which all accountants advise if its suitable.

    If labour consider that to be tax avoidance and clamp down on it; they'll effective kill all small companies dead. Not to mention my job probably.

    The not paying NI was originally seen at least tacitly as a quid-pro-quo since company directors in those sort of companies couldn't meaningfully claim sick pay or maternity benefit, since the company would not be making any money at those times.

    Regarding IR35 I found this note in Wikipedia particularly amusing
    The initial regulatory impact assessment for IR35 in 1999 stated that HMRC expected the measure to generate £220 million per year in National Insurance contributions, and a further £80 million in income tax.

    In September 2011 a Freedom of Information Request revealed that the number of cases reviewed had fallen from 158 (year ending April 2007) to 12 in year ending April 2010 and 23 in year ending April 2011. The same document also gives the "tax yield received for the requested years" as having fallen from £1,906,619 to £219,180
    Expected to raise £300m, actually raising £220k (assuming it doesn't cost anything to administer) another cracking Labour success story.

    Looking at it another way it provides IPSE with 20,000 contractors who pay £250 each to be represented by people who scare HMRC away from pursuing them.

    Its another example of a poorly implemented law with unintended consequences.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Gadfly said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Gadfly said:

    Indigo said:

    Anecdote:

    On the subject of cash-in-hand, a few years ago I was chatting with the man from Customs and Excise as he reviewed my VAT returns, and he told me that their biggest nightmare was dry-cleaning shops.

    I asked why. He said well if you have say a sandwich making company, they can look at the receipt for the bread and fillings you buy, and estimate how many sandwiches you would make as a result, look at your sales and see if the two are in anyway comparable.

    In the dry cleaning worl
    re on to something.

    Dry cleaning shops attach countable tags to the clothes that are submitted for cleaning, and the clothes leave the shop on countable hangers, often using countable trouser guards, and shrouded in countable polythene sleeves.

    I suspect that the main tax concern for such businesses is more likely to be an over declaration of sales, because their huge (97+%) profit margin could potentially make such businesses ripe for money laundering.


    Those discrepancies would in theory show up on a stock-take, but not in the figures because the items you mention cost virtually nothing. It's the figures the VAT man has access to. Because they are so cheap a stock take attack wouldn't work either, because the business would say that they tolerate a high spoilage/loss rate and can't be arsed with stock-taking, any more than an office-based business counts its individual paperclips.

    Because of the huge profit margin in dry cleaning, all of the figures the VAT man has access to are pretty much insignificant. As the OP said, it would be difficult to make calculations based upon the likes of solvent, but a business could be expected to use approx one hanger per £7.50 of turnover. It would be relatively simple to identify some form of correlation with or without a stock take, in the same way it would be easy to count slices of bread for the sandwich shop.

    Well of course it would, but so would installing secret CCTV cameras to count the customers entering the shop. Or holding the staff in a Guantanamo-type facility for ten years and waterboarding the true turnover figures out of them. It just isn't cost-effective. Your claim that because the count could in theory be done, therefore "the main tax concern for such businesses is more likely to be an over declaration of sales, because their huge (97+%) profit margin could potentially make such businesses ripe for money laundering", is wrong, not only because money-laundering is not primarily a tax issue.
  • BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    In what why though? It's tax saving sure, but are labour going to be dicating directors salaries for every SME then?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-dividends/how-dividends-are-taxed

    Looks like a very very simple method of tax planning, not even sure I'd call this one avoidance - positively encouraged by Gov't judging by that web page. Certainly doesn't look complicated to achieve at all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Pulpstar said:



    The other thought is that seats the LibDems have taken from Labour might prove stickier this time, because they will have squeezed the local Conservative vote dry - which could prove to be rather more loyal because of the Coalition.

    That is completely contradictory to all the polling - Clegg is getting run close in Hallam by Labour ( I suspect he'll win by ~ 4% due to name recognition). The seat isn't really a typical Lib-Lab marginal (Where the picture is worse for the Lib Dems - see Norwich South, Brent Central, Manchester Withington), remember he starts with a 37.3% effective majority over Labour !
    If Clegg hangs on, it will be entirely because local Tories vote to save his hide.

    If only we had someone posting here who was struggling with that very dilemma.....

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    In what why though? It's tax saving sure, but are labour going to be dicating directors salaries for every SME then?
    Again judging by the web page it looks like a very "vanilla" form of tax planning, presumably to encourage entrepreneurship. I assume if you start paying the dividend to another company in Jamaica HMRC may have far more concern.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    edited February 2015
    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    I know you're an accountant Ben, so you should be well aware that is common practice for hundreds of thousands of small companies.

    Thats before we get into husband/wife share structures... Artic Systems where HMRC got beaten into a pulp is surely familar to you.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    "He was an evil scumbag".

    Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it
    is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.

    I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,591
    edited February 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-dividends/how-dividends-are-taxed

    Looks like a very very simple method of tax planning, not even sure I'd call this one avoidance - positively encouraged by Gov't judging by that web page. Certainly doesn't look complicated to achieve at all.
    It was only a problem for Ken as he claimed to be whiter than white... The complaint was very much those in glass houses.

    There is a valid argument for taking the money from a limited company. The person who using the company is taking a risk and they should be rewarded for doing so by not being subjected to the same rules as those who are employed by someone. That was the reason for IR35 it stopped people leaving employment to return on Monday doing the same job on a "self-employed" basis..

    Like everything else that merges employment and tax laws the implementation was messed up....
  • Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
  • One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    I don't suppose they'll reach this conclusion but the obvious root cause is too-high taxes on wages and too-low taxes on corporate profits / dividends.
    Exactly. If the tax rates were basically the same then it wouldn't matter.

    One problem here is Employer's National Insurance, which is a fairly hefty tax on wages, but is relatively well-hidden from most employees, so there's no political incentive to remove it and increase more visible taxes elsewhere.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    The Lib Dems will hold onto 30+ seats, because they have this fortress strategy, with local councillors and MP working together across the constituency. This is how the Lib Dems have developed through their Focus teams and they are popular even with Tory voters. In my Lib Dem stronghold, the Tories spend loads of money on election campaigning, take part in local campaigns on a variety of issues and have been more active than the Lib Dems over the last 6 months, but most people are not listening to them.

    If the local MP is popular, it does not really matter too much whether national politics is not helping them, because they have a level of following that makes it difficult for opponents to take votes from them.

    At most elections, it is only about 70 seats that decide the election. The Tories will lose many of the marginals they won in 2010 and not take many of the seats that the Lib Dems will lose UKIP will cause the Tories major problems in many parts of England, much more than UKIP or Greens will cause to Labours vote.
  • Roger said:

    "He was an evil scumbag".

    Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it
    is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.

    I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it

    I am not sure I agree with that. What injustice are the ISIS thugs decapitating 20 Egyptian Christians protesting against? What injustice remotely justifies the daylight decapitation of a working class, off-duty foot soldier in south London, or the gunning down of cartoonists?

    Some young men get a thrill out of violence. They enjoy it, it arouses them, it gives them the attention they crave. They will justify it in whatever way they like - but in the end it comes down to the sheer pleasure of having power over another's life. In a lot of the cases we see now - both in Europe and elsewhere - that is what is driving things

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Roger said:

    "He was an evil scumbag".

    Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it
    is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.

    I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it

    I am with you on that, Roger. We are all, in a very real sense, guilty here. There are no winners.

    Which particular injustice did you have in mind?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
  • Ishmael_X said:

    Roger said:

    "He was an evil scumbag".

    Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it
    is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.

    I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it

    I am with you on that, Roger. We are all, in a very real sense, guilty here. There are no winners.

    Which particular injustice did you have in mind?
    Murderers will always have a justification. No one believes that they are the bad guy..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    ISIS seems to be determined to turn every Gov't who may previously have sat on their hands actively against them.

    Jordan and Egypt now bombing them - which other Gov'ts ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    He was the future once..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11415060/Labour-Britain-needs-to-be-more-like-France.html

    "Labour believes Britain's economy should be more like that of France because its workers are "more productive".

    Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, suggests that Britain needs to be more like France despite sluggish growth and high unemployment levels across the Channel."
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Izzy

    "Which particular injustice did you have in mind?"

    The most obvious one recently will be the slaughter in Gaza. Watching so many innocents in a cage being killed was difficult for most people. For tose who felt a kinship it must have been excruciating
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Roger said:

    "He was an evil scumbag".

    Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it
    is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.

    I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it

    Injustices exist in every society. They always have, and always will, but most people refrain from behaving like IS

  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
  • Pulpstar said:

    ISIS seems to be determined to turn every Gov't who may previously have sat on their hands actively against them.

    Jordan and Egypt now bombing them - which other Gov'ts ?

    Once they have all the Arab states bombing them I am sure they will try to provoke Israel. Enormous problem for the Arab states to be seen to be on the same side as Israel.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    I thought Labour had chucked Hollande under the bus?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11415060/Labour-Britain-needs-to-be-more-like-France.html

    More like France?

    Well, if you get in I am sure that will be true.... and not in a good way.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited February 2015
    hucks67 said:

    The Lib Dems will hold onto 30+ seats, because they have this fortress strategy, with local councillors and MP working together across the constituency. This is how the Lib Dems have developed through their Focus teams and they are popular even with Tory voters. In my Lib Dem stronghold, the Tories spend loads of money on election campaigning, take part in local campaigns on a variety of issues and have been more active than the Lib Dems over the last 6 months, but most people are not listening to them.

    If the local MP is popular, it does not really matter too much whether national politics is not helping them, because they have a level of following that makes it difficult for opponents to take votes from them.

    At most elections, it is only about 70 seats that decide the election. The Tories will lose many of the marginals they won in 2010 and not take many of the seats that the Lib Dems will lose UKIP will cause the Tories major problems in many parts of England, much more than UKIP or Greens will cause to Labours vote.

    According to YouGov the Greens are a bigger threat to the LDs than they are to Labour.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-and-new-politics-protest/

    ------

    I suspect the number of MPs who are popular in their constituency is lower than a party supporter might think.

    http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/if-politicians-want-love-they-should-get-a-spaniel-by-phil-cowley/
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Roger said:

    "He was an evil scumbag".

    Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it
    is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.

    I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it

    I am not sure I agree with that. What injustice are the ISIS thugs decapitating 20 Egyptian Christians protesting against? What injustice remotely justifies the daylight decapitation of a working class, off-duty foot soldier in south London, or the gunning down of cartoonists?

    Some young men get a thrill out of violence. They enjoy it, it arouses them, it gives them the attention they crave. They will justify it in whatever way they like - but in the end it comes down to the sheer pleasure of having power over another's life. In a lot of the cases we see now - both in Europe and elsewhere - that is what is driving things

    Sure, 20 years ago they would have been violent revolutionary Marxists but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle the root causes that fuel the fire. IS arose through Western, Sunni and Israeli support in an effort to topple Assad. IS sustains itself as they are seen as standing up for Sunnis against the Kurds and Shias. IS will destroy themselves and all we should do is quietly encourage this process whilst tightening up our borders.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    SeanF

    "but most people refrain from behaving like IS"

    I wasn't talking about IS. They seem to kill others not themselves.I suspect their motivations are more varied including adventurism. I was talking about the people who did what this man did in Copenhagen
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Roger said:

    Izzy

    "Which particular injustice did you have in mind?"

    The most obvious one recently will be the slaughter in Gaza. Watching so many innocents in a cage being killed was difficult for most people. For tose who felt a kinship it must have been excruciating

    You mean forcing women and children to play and sit beside missiles being sent into Israel? Yes that WAS deplorable.

    I have no sympathy with the Palestinians in Gaza - Israel gives them food, education and health - yet gets missiles in return.
  • Mr. Pulpstar, Jordan were bombing them before.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Mr. Pulpstar, Jordan were bombing them before.

    About to look at the world map, assuming bad news ...
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006



    And yet...the LibDem vote holding up depends on these people having a total change of heart, coming back to the LibDem fold WHILE THERE IS STILL A CHANCE CLEGG COULD DO EXACTLY THE SAME IN MAY - back another Coalition with the Tories.

    Sorry, but why the unfrozen-over hell should these voters come back to a Clegg-led LibDem party? Give me some rational reason why people who fundamentally hate Clegg for turning out to be a crypto-Tory should risk giving him the MPs to do exactly the same thing again?

    Because it's a chance whereas electing a Tory MP turns it into a certainty.

    If you had to play russian roulette (First past the post) wouldn't you take any chance to remove some rounds from the magazine and improve your chances ?

    If you had to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, would you want the one with 6 bullets in it or the one with 4 or 5 ?

    Even if you thought there was only 10% chance of the Lib Dems supporting Labour, it's the vote that carries the best percentage of desired outcome.
    That's the Logical way to view it, sure. But this isn't about logic. It's about hurt. It's about disappointment. It's about buyers remorse. Those ex-LibDems are the mirror of the kippers who can't bring themselves to vote Tory, even when every logical argument says voting Tory delivers them the best - only? - chance of getting what they want.
    The one outcome that I don't want on May 7th is a Tory majority (except perhaps for the opportunity to watch them tear themselves apart over the EU referendum!) Furious as I was with the Lib Dems in 2010 and having sworn never to vote for them again I actually would vote for them if I lived in a Tory-Lib Dem marginal in order to try and avoid the one outcome I don't want. There has always been a lot of voters on the left of centre that are prepared to vote tactically to keep the Tories out. Where the Lib Dems are in real trouble is in those smaller number of seats that they took from Labour like Manchester Withington.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Pulpstar said:

    ISIS seems to be determined to turn every Gov't who may previously have sat on their hands actively against them.

    Jordan and Egypt now bombing them - which other Gov'ts ?

    Once they have all the Arab states bombing them I am sure they will try to provoke Israel. Enormous problem for the Arab states to be seen to be on the same side as Israel.
    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926
    http://m.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/syrias-president-speaks

    Israel supports IS, regularly bombing Syrian military targets. Israel always has supported extremists in order to destabilise their neighbours.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Weejonnie

    "You mean forcing women and children to play and sit beside missiles being sent into Israel? Yes that WAS deplorable."

    That won't be how it comes accross to the radicals of Paris and Copenhagen (and frankly it's not how it came accross to me but I'm sure you have better souces)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
    Directors are exempt from the minimum wage.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I should imagine if Palestine and Israel signed a peace deal and an official state was formed that was acceptable to both sides then guns would be laid down all over the entire middle east and war and troubles would be a thing of the past.

    Rolls eyes..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    Just had a look at the Labour candidate for Bradford East, it was the candidate I thought would be best for Bradford West several threads ago !

    Anyway Imran Hussain looks to be an excellent choice for Labour here.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
    Directors are exempt from the minimum wage.
    Maybe not for long since Labour appears to be singing the same tired hymn about giving employee rights to agency workers that don't want them.

    Employers pay a premium for agency workers because of the flexibility it gives them, and because they don't have to worry about all sorts of HR hassles like maternity and sick pay. The agency worker then is happy to put aside those rights because of the nice fat pay check they receive.

    If you force agency workers to have employees rights, they wont be any more convenient or affordable than permanent employees, so people wont hire agency workers any more.

    At the same time British industry massively loses flexibility and competitiveness, and jobs disappear overseas.

    Another lose-lose policy from Labour.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    This "tax avoidance" thing is pure hypocrisy by the public. There are millions of people who avoid tax by participating in schemes like this or cash in hand etc. These will be the people moaning loudest about other people avoiding tax. Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
  • Indigo said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
    Directors are exempt from the minimum wage.
    Maybe not for long since Labour appears to be singing the same tired hymn about giving employee rights to agency workers that don't want them.
    Would love to see how that was workable.... labour prying into timesheets of every small business..
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015

    Indigo said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
    Directors are exempt from the minimum wage.
    Maybe not for long since Labour appears to be singing the same tired hymn about giving employee rights to agency workers that don't want them.
    Would love to see how that was workable.... labour prying into timesheets of every small business..
    It would be a classic exercise in spending more on administration than any gain.

    All those BBC staff working through service companies are in for an unpleasant surprise. At some point they'll wake up to the 'threat'.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Pulpstar

    What do you make of Graham Evans chances in Vale Royal?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Roger said:

    Pulpstar

    What do you make of Graham Evans chances in Vale Royal?

    Hmm

    Not alot, I'd certainly back Labour at Evens in this one judging by the fact it's in Northwest and doesn't need much to swing it.

    Warrington South looks like it'll go to me too

    5-2 maybe ?

    I'll check odds after making this post.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    Indigo said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
    Directors are exempt from the minimum wage.
    Maybe not for long since Labour appears to be singing the same tired hymn about giving employee rights to agency workers that don't want them.

    Employers pay a premium for agency workers because of the flexibility it gives them, and because they don't have to worry about all sorts of HR hassles like maternity and sick pay. The agency worker then is happy to put aside those rights because of the nice fat pay check they receive.

    If you force agency workers to have employees rights, they wont be any more convenient or affordable than permanent employees, so people wont hire agency workers any more.

    At the same time British industry massively loses flexibility and competitiveness, and jobs disappear overseas.

    Another lose-lose policy from Labour.
    I am by no means sure that the sentence "The agency worker then is happy to put aside those rights because of the nice fat pay check they receive.” is universally true. Unquestionably it is for some, or at first, (or both) but soon an awareness develops that they are having to allow for all those hassles like holiday pay and pensions. Employment is very often temporary, as well, and can become lonely.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Yep 5-2 Weaver Vale, 3-1 Warrington South.

    Both correct assesments imo - the Tories are toast here.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited February 2015

    Indigo said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    This all seems like tremendously simple stuff compared to the shenanigans the multi-nats get up to :)
    ...and the corporation tax level for a small business is roughly inline with the standard PAYE rate. Or it certainly was when I ran a small business a few years ago.

    An issue with the scheme PBers have been discussing this morning is whether a Director who is also an employee of the company and working on it full time has to be paid, via PAYE, the minimum wage.
    Directors are exempt from the minimum wage.
    Maybe not for long since Labour appears to be singing the same tired hymn about giving employee rights to agency workers that don't want them.
    Would love to see how that was workable.... labour prying into timesheets of every small business..
    It would be a classic exercise in spending more on administration than any gain.

    All those BBC staff working through service companies are in for an unpleasant surprise. At some point they'll wake up to the 'threat'.
    Labour knew which side it's bread was buttered, the wording of IR35 explicitly excluded most people in the "Film & TV" industries (certainly all the ones in influential positions).
  • currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015

    currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb
    'In a further sign of Labour’s difficulties over tax, Mr Balls was embarrassed over a £1.6million donation from shopping channel tycoon John Mills, who gave the money in shares in order to reduce the tax bill.

    'Mr Balls sheepishly described the donation as ‘tax efficient’, and suggested the tax saved was ‘small beer compared to what the Tories get up to’.'

    Small beer = £1.5 million, in a tax avoidance scheme devised by Labour Party advisers.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited February 2015
    A trivial difference.

    "...for those with Lib Dem MPs (+1.3). Again, though, whilst it’s clearly higher, it’s not massively higher, and yes, it’s positive, but only just."

    http://nottspolitics.org/2014/12/09/not-love-actually/

    "At Westminster MPs say people do not like MPs in general, but they like their local MP, he says.

    But he says the data does not back this up. In fact, there are just a few people who trust their local MP a little bit more than MPs in general, he says.

    People are also more likely to recognise the name of their MP if he or she is a Lib Dem than if he or she is Tory or Labour, he says.

    But the differences are not that large, he says."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/dec/09/british-election-study-conference-politics-live-blog#block-54870fd4e4b0251e38c7f53f
  • currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb

    I am struggling to see a sh*tstorm. The Tory papers have predictably gone after some Labour donors, but that is not a huge surprise and is a price worth paying for the message that recent events will have sent to those whose votes Labour is going to need in May.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    currystar said:

    This "tax avoidance" thing is pure hypocrisy by the public. There are millions of people who avoid tax by participating in schemes like this or cash in hand etc. These will be the people moaning loudest about other people avoiding tax. Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning

    There will be a lot of people who gain from all manner of arrangements who will be looking at it and ignoring the detail of the to-ing and fro-ing and digesting one general message only:

    Labour = More Tax. ('a bigger bill for me')


  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    No its not, I run a small business and can only afford a wage of around £20 - £30k between me and my wife. If we had to pay all that as PAYE i would be paying double the NI rates (employers and employees NI) than the ordinary PAYE Worker earning the same wage. which is only a low wage. If i had to pay myself this way my business would close and go bust, and then I would be a burden on the state claiming benefits. I still pay tax at the same rate as income tax on my profits through corporation tax, so the saving in on NI, which as a director I can take no sick leave so I do not see it as tax avoidance, the inland revenue are fully aware that most small businesses operate this way, its perfectly legal to take dividends from your own company, its a reward for the risk you put in
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.

    Pulpstar said:

    @Slackbladder Could you as a Director pay yourself £10,500 and then take a divi as a "non tax payer" :D ?

    The arguement is that the dividend has already been taxed on the profit (via corporation tax), and so no further basic rate tax is due upon it.

    It's the fact theres no national insurance to pay on it which makes it the tax saver.
    There is no NI on dividends but you have to pay the difference between the tax paid by the company and the notional tax if your total earnings hit the higher rate brackets.

    If you pay yourself the maximum amount before becoming liable for income tax, then you (and the company) have to pay NI as the limit is £666 a month.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Perhaps the press might revisit the expense claims of all of Brown's Treasury Team. The behaviour of too many MPs over expense claims looked very self serving, and hypocritical.

    Stuff about Duck Houses was a bit of a Red Herring, when Brown appeared to have some odd arrangements re flat cleaning - whilst Ussher & Darling appeared to be flipping from one house to another for expense purposes.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb

    I am struggling to see a sh*tstorm. The Tory papers have predictably gone after some Labour donors, but that is not a huge surprise and is a price worth paying for the message that recent events will have sent to those whose votes Labour is going to need in May.
    Not sure how far it gets you. Trying to out "soak the rich" real socialists like the Greens is going to be hard work for Labour, its like the Tories trying to take UKIP on about immigration. Plus like UKIP, Natalie can make up any old bollocks because she is never going to be in government.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Dear Marge

    Yesterday I went out for lunch with my daughter. I told her I trusted she would be voting Labour and she said she hadn't yet made up her mind! Taken aback that she had reached an age where her father's wisdom no longer counted for anything I asked her why and this story unfolded.....

    She does the PR for a large charity and Graham Evans MP helps them in ways way beyond the call of duty. If she sets up even the smallest event he'll turn up.

    Last week she got a directive from head office that from now till the election she has to invite all the candidates. It's the law. So the next event came along and when she told Graham Evans that all the candidates would be invited he was reallly put out and declined to go.

    So to make it up to him she was thinking of voting Tory (though she's not even in his constituency)

    Saddened of Soho
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Populus, LA and Yougov today ?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    dr_spyn said:

    Perhaps the press might revisit the expense claims of all of Brown's Treasury Team. The behaviour of too many MPs over expense claims looked very self serving, and hypocritical.

    Stuff about Duck Houses was a bit of a Red Herring, when Brown appeared to have some odd arrangements re flat cleaning - whilst Ussher & Darling appeared to be flipping from one house to another for expense purposes.

    Yes, I wonder why Balls was trying to move the topic on

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    TGOHF said:

    Populus, LA and Yougov today ?

    We're also due ICM #megapollingmonday

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    IDS seems to have done a decent job - and is a decent man.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11414408/With-Universal-Credit-work-might-finally-pay.html

    Testament is that Labour have determined that UC should not be repealed.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    Re. Labour telling people to get receipts for every cash transaction, no matter how small...

    These people are totally clueless about business aren't they? I mean complete devoid of any understanding whatsoever.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    TGOHF said:

    IDS seems to have done a decent job - and is a decent man.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11414408/With-Universal-Credit-work-might-finally-pay.html

    Testament is that Labour have determined that UC should not be repealed.

    No they want to "pause" it http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27963650
  • Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later).

    Hello, Matthew! What's your screen name? ;-)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited February 2015
    Roger said:

    Dear Marge

    Yesterday I went out for lunch with my daughter. I told her I trusted she would be voting Labour and she said she hadn't yet made up her mind! Taken aback that she had reached an age where her father's wisdom no longer counted for anything I asked her why and this story unfolded.....

    She does the PR for a large charity and Graham Evans MP helps them in ways way beyond the call of duty. If she sets up even the smallest event he'll turn up.

    Last week she got a directive from head office that from now till the election she has to invite all the candidates. It's the law. So the next event came along and when she told Graham Evans that all the candidates would be invited he was reallly put out and declined to go.

    So to make it up to him she was thinking of voting Tory (though she's not even in his constituency)

    Saddened of Soho

    What to do when your kids start getting minds of their own...

    Anyway, hope your getting receipts from all your "staff" Roge?

    The Ed's will be round everyone's hose's later to see how much Aunty Pam is getting for running the J. Edgar over your Shag.

  • currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb
    Interesting how little traction what you describe as a sh*tstorm actually got. Telling.
  • GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Populus, LA and Yougov today ?

    We're also due ICM #megapollingmonday

    The Guardian has taken to publishing its ICM poll on Tuesdays - probably to avoid the clashes with all the other polls that come out on Mondays.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    TGOHF said:

    I should imagine if Palestine and Israel signed a peace deal and an official state was formed that was acceptable to both sides then guns would be laid down all over the entire middle east and war and troubles would be a thing of the past.

    Rolls eyes..

    It would have a significant impact of course, certainly for the West. Understanding why we have borders would also help.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015

    Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later).

    Hello, Matthew! What's your screen name? ;-)

    I'm a bit heavy Ed Mili against Con most seats in the book right now but I think the Con seats price will push out if the polls don't change much as the seat forecasts move towards Labour.

    That Dave Cameron tip to survive past 2015 was a complete rick, should have got more on at 7-2 than the £40 odds quid I did.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386

    GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Populus, LA and Yougov today ?

    We're also due ICM #megapollingmonday

    The Guardian has taken to publishing its ICM poll on Tuesdays - probably to avoid the clashes with all the other polls that come out on Mondays.

    That's a nuisance. :(
  • currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb

    I am struggling to see a sh*tstorm.
    I guess you're also struggling to see hypocrisy.....

  • Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later).

    Hello, Matthew! What's your screen name? ;-)

    Matthew is a great follower of PB but I don't think he posts here

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Small beer = £1.5 million, in a tax avoidance scheme devised by Labour Party advisers.

    But £10 to a window cleaner is a scandal...

    Labour, the workers millionaire donors' party
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb
    Ed Balls - the gift that keeps giving.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later).

    Hello, Matthew! What's your screen name? ;-)

    I'm a bit heavy Ed Mili against Con most seats in the book right now but I think the Con seats price will push out if the polls don't change much as the seat forecasts move towards Labour.
    Yes that's my headline position now, but against that I have a bundle of Con & SNP constituency bets. I've also taken the chance to lay NOM in size as recommended by Pong - probably a bet to trade out of with a small loss, but a chance of a big win if something happens or the polls start to break more decisively.

    The other thing is to keep backing Con Minority & Lab Minority.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later).

    Hello, Matthew! What's your screen name? ;-)

    I'm a bit heavy Ed Mili against Con most seats in the book right now but I think the Con seats price will push out if the polls don't change much as the seat forecasts move towards Labour.
    Yes that's my headline position now, but against that I have a bundle of Con & SNP constituency bets. I've also taken the chance to lay NOM in size as recommended by Pong - probably a bet to trade out of with a small loss, but a chance of a big win if something happens or the polls start to break more decisively.

    The other thing is to keep backing Con Minority & Lab Minority.
    Hmm Yes my book is very much like that too !

    Don't want to speak too soon but Kingswood and Elmet/Rothwell Con bets look like they could be nice double winners even with Eddy PM.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @GuidoFawkes: 5 times @ChukaUmunna was asked if Labour would pay back cash from tax avoiding donor, 5 times he dodged the question: http://t.co/bvBQymlgtN
  • currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb

    I am struggling to see a sh*tstorm.
    I guess you're also struggling to see hypocrisy.....

    And that's the thing, isn't it? People who would never vote Labour believe there is hypocrisy, those who might don't. A sh*tstorm would cut across that.

  • currystar said:

    BenM said:

    One key thing for me personally in this tax avoidance thing (as an accountant) is labour thoughts on small companies paying small wages (up to personal allowance) and then paying dividends as profit extraction.

    Is that tax planning or tax avoidance?

    That's avoidance. The sort of thing that scuppered Ken Livingstone.
    Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
    It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.

    This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:

    Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955022/Balls-twice-refuses-answer-Ed-acted-morally-tax.html#ixzz3RtyvhUfb
    Interesting how little traction what you describe as a sh*tstorm actually got. Telling.
    Interesting that voters blame Labor more than the current government (when picking one or the other) for the Swiss HSBC mess. Telling.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    TP

    "Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later)."

    Doesn't that suggest one of those bets has to lose?
  • Scott_P said:

    @GuidoFawkes: 5 times @ChukaUmunna was asked if Labour would pay back cash from tax avoiding donor, 5 times he dodged the question: http://t.co/bvBQymlgtN

    But! but! but!

    The story has no traction!

    It is deceased!

    It is forgotten!

    It never happened!

    Just ask bobachildallowance........finger on the pulse about how there is 'nothing to see' in Scottish Labour.....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,963
    edited February 2015
    Roger said:

    TP

    "Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later)."

    Doesn't that suggest one of those bets has to lose?

    Not necessarily, if Labour allow Ed to do a Kinnock and stay on after a defeat, and Ed wins the say the 2020 General Election.
  • Roger said:

    TP

    "Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later)."

    Doesn't that suggest one of those bets has to lose?

    Well, theoretically they could all win, with Ed taking over in 2016 as DC's minority government succumbs to by-elections or whatever. But in practice I think Ed is either PM by June or not at all.

    But it doesn't matter if you have some losers, Roger - value is the key...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    The previous prompted questions and results were when the LDs were cuddly and nice and all things to all men (and women of course). Now they have been in government and come from a base where they have lost their lefty basically pro Labour but anti warmonger Blair support. I only point this out - does it affect the theory? If so, how?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    Roger said:

    TP

    "Matthew Engel in the RP today does me the honour of endorsing my staking strategy, recommending Con Most Seats and EM next PM.

    In a previous column, he also picked up on a 7/2 tip I put on here (DC to last until 2016 or later)."

    Doesn't that suggest one of those bets has to lose?

    It doesn't matter if you make a profit no matter the bet, of course both may win if Labour are close enough on seats that PC/SNP/Green/Respect get them over the line.

    The "fall through the middle" trap is that there is a knifing in the Labour camp as he can't form a majority even though he's beaten the Conservatives in seats. And then Harman takes over as PM or some such, but that's a very low chance... or Dave simply continues as PM - can't see that myself though.

    Betting at the wrong price is the key to making money, not betting on what you think will happen. For instance the Weaver Vale seat you asked me about previously... even though it's Labour 1-3, that's probably a correct price. So it is unclear as to whether it's a profitable bet or not.
  • Scott_P said:

    @GuidoFawkes: 5 times @ChukaUmunna was asked if Labour would pay back cash from tax avoiding donor, 5 times he dodged the question: http://t.co/bvBQymlgtN

    But! but! but!

    The story has no traction!

    It is deceased!

    It is forgotten!

    It never happened!

    Just ask bobachildallowance........finger on the pulse about how there is 'nothing to see' in Scottish Labour.....

    Tories telling each other how awful Labour is makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.

  • Against the Engel/TP tip, Jonathan Todd of Labour Uncut has five predictions, the first of which is:

    1.) Whichever of David Cameron and Ed Miliband has most MPs will be PM

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/02/16/five-thoughts-on-where-uk-politics-is-going/
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    GIN1138 said:

    Roger said:

    Dear Marge

    Yesterday I went out for lunch with my daughter. I told her I trusted she would be voting Labour and she said she hadn't yet made up her mind! Taken aback that she had reached an age where her father's wisdom no longer counted for anything I asked her why and this story unfolded.....

    She does the PR for a large charity and Graham Evans MP helps them in ways way beyond the call of duty. If she sets up even the smallest event he'll turn up.

    Last week she got a directive from head office that from now till the election she has to invite all the candidates. It's the law. So the next event came along and when she told Graham Evans that all the candidates would be invited he was reallly put out and declined to go.

    So to make it up to him she was thinking of voting Tory (though she's not even in his constituency)

    Saddened of Soho

    What to do when your kids start getting minds of their own...

    Anyway, hope your getting receipts from all your "staff" Roge?

    The Ed's will be round everyone's hose's later to see how much Aunty Pam is getting for running the J. Edgar over your Shag.

    It’s the effect of the “anti-lobbying”: legislation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Against the Engel/TP tip, Jonathan Todd of Labour Uncut has five predictions, the first of which is:

    1.) Whichever of David Cameron and Ed Miliband has most MPs will be PM

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/02/16/five-thoughts-on-where-uk-politics-is-going/

    He also thinks the Lib Dems may save 45 seats... I'll have some of what he is smoking thanks.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Pulpstar

    "Yep 5-2 Weaver Vale, 3-1 Warrington South.

    Both correct assesments imo - the Tories are toast here."

    Thanks for that. I know the candidate isn't supposed to make much difference but from what I hear he's put himself about like no other living MP and is very well liked. Might be worth an outside bet on GE.
  • BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction:

    Cash payments are not dirty. In case you had gained the opposite impression, paying a self-employed person in cash for doing a job around your house or garden is completely legal.

    Furthermore there is no legal obligation on you to keep a record of the payment, or to account for it to anyone at all. It is your money and you can do what you like with it.

    All UK tax obligations lie with the self-employed person you are paying. As a matter of fact, a tradesman is not obliged to even offer you a receipt.

    But they should keep proper records so they can pay the right income tax and pay VAT too, if applicable.

    Of course, everyone knows that some tradesmen prefer cash because it is hard to trace.

    That makes it easier for them to dodge their own tax obligations, if they so choose.

    But so long as you have not colluded with them, there is no onus on you to do anything about it. You aren't even obliged to grass them up, though HMRC would like you to do so.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31483886

    Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
  • Pulpstar said:

    Against the Engel/TP tip, Jonathan Todd of Labour Uncut has five predictions, the first of which is:

    1.) Whichever of David Cameron and Ed Miliband has most MPs will be PM

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/02/16/five-thoughts-on-where-uk-politics-is-going/

    He also thinks the Lib Dems may save 45 seats... I'll have some of what he is smoking thanks.

    That would effectively mean the Lib Dems would have losses only in Scotland, and a push, 1 or 2 losses in England & Wales
  • Against the Engel/TP tip, Jonathan Todd of Labour Uncut has five predictions, the first of which is:

    1.) Whichever of David Cameron and Ed Miliband has most MPs will be PM

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/02/16/five-thoughts-on-where-uk-politics-is-going/

    "Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."

    There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
This discussion has been closed.