I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
It means I no more want the government in the bedroom than I do in my wallet. The transformation from supporting Section 28 to legalising gay marriage is a remarkable change that will drift away from public debate but leave a lasting legacy. I know people now married or engaged who couldn't be in the past. Ultimately though this is no longer an issue. The idea of this being undone now is unimaginable the debate is over and we move on with our lives. My daughter will grow up and find the idea gays could once not get married as incomprehensible as I grew up to find that once interracial marriage wasn't legal in some places.
So it's about whether you support gay marriage?
You see: I support prison reform, soft drugs liberalisation, embryo research, relief for the terminally ill in unbearable pain, decriminalising prostitution, have no problem with sex before marriage, and I'm anti corporal and capital punishment.
But I also believe that the best way to raise a child is by their biological parents, within wedlock, detest identity politics, have no problem with the institution of the CoE, love my country, flying its flag and its culture and traditions, and I want an end to mass immigration.
What does that make me?
I am hard yet soft, I am coloured yet clear, I am fruity and sweet, I am jelly... What am I?
Mr. Llama, just starting to lose her teeth. Growing up quickly, and becoming more of a young dog than a puppy. Still a giddy kipper at times, of course.
Haven't taken too many pictures (she likes the camera a lot. I probably have an extreme close-up [a la Wayne's World] somewhere or other). I think they're on the camera still rather than uploaded.
Richard do changes to corporation tax rates not make up for changes to dividend rules? Dividends are paid from post tax income after all.
Unfortunately not. According to the accountants there is about a 4-5% gap. For clarity I picked accountants that would always abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the law so I could sleep well at night knowing that if I was investigated by HMRC I would be absolutely fine, not because my accountants were clever but because their ethos was one of playing by the rules rather than trying to circumvent them. I could probably do much better in terms of reducing my tax bill but prefer to be honest and guilt free.
The bigger issue for me at the moment is the tax on expenses which adds around £1400 a month to my tax bill.
How will Labour respond? Are the people around Corbyn idiots? Increasingly, one cannot rule that possibility out. They watched that well-crafted speech by a confident Cameron and then issued a statement shortly afterwards saying that it proved that Corbyn has got Cameron rattled. To believe that you do have to be an idiot.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
refer to Teresa May's speech yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The bigger issue for me at the moment is the tax on expenses which adds around £1400 a month to my tax bill.
There are some consultations going on which might (I put it no stronger than that) lead to a change of heart by the government in the way that the proposed rules would apply to one-man companies such as yours.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Why not? Do you think we no longer take asylum seekers?
Teresa May yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain." "At the moment, the main way people claim asylum here is when they’re already in Britain. That fails on three counts. "
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
That's clearly nonsense, as we continue to accept refugees every year. Indeed, we are accepting 20,000 refugees directly from the Syrian camps.
The Ugandan Asian refugees arrived to a great deal of goodwill, and many were provided with accomodation and even sometimes work by people “already” here. I was then a member of a Rotary club and like many others our club obtained a small house and furnished it.
I also know of young Asian men and women who were assisted in their studies in a similar way.
One of the nastier features of modern Toryism is a “pull up the ladder Jack” mindset.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Why not? Do you think we no longer take asylum seekers?
Teresa May yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain." "At the moment, the main way people claim asylum here is when they’re already in Britain. That fails on three counts. "
I think it's only fair to compare the situation in 1950 and now.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
The government doesn't decide on those, Casino!
I know, but they can contribute to the debate, campaign and put pressure on: I would be leaning heavily on the BBC and it's bunch of pinkos on these matters for example. Do a deal.
I think the Royal Tournament was dependent on government money. New Royal Yacht would be good too.
The bigger issue for me at the moment is the tax on expenses which adds around £1400 a month to my tax bill.
There are some consultations going on which might (I put it no stronger than that) lead to a change of heart by the government in the way that the proposed rules would apply to one-man companies such as yours.
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Very pleasant , nice of you to stick up for your buddy. Is he not capable of answering for himself , needs his little helper to post insults for him. Get lost saddo and tell your buddy to man up.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
refer to Teresa May's speech yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."
Since just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015, it is not obvious to me that one would conclude that longer standing asylum seekers would be safe to return. But maybe you're making a clever point that I'm missing.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
OKC.. SO aIso said he had a great deal from the Welfare state In my hour of need... and there were a lot of them..I got SFA.. SO also runs around on good roads, has Police in the area and no doubt is pleased we have an efficient Military.. I also appreciated all those things... but in my time of need I was told to F off..
Hmm. Have I missed something? I haven’t been on PB continuously today.
However, if you were told that I’m sorry to read it. Case as stated you shouldn’t have been.
If he wanted to Cameron could make real steps towards redefining the whole way in which we view political parties. By becoming a radically socially liberal but economically conservative leader he could transform politics in the UK. Certainly with the social trends being in the direction of more liberalism he would probably not find it all that hard.
The problem is that there is a third part of this equation which is to be truly radical in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual - cutting the involvement of the state in huge swathes of our lives and making people far more responsible for their own successes and failures whilst maintaining a very basic safety net. In effect reversing the last 70 years of encroaching socialism and welfarism. I am not convinced that Cameron has either the belief or the political will to do any of that. As a result whatever he can achieve will be too easily reversible come the next Labour Government whenever it appears.
Whether or not Cameron has the stomach for such journey, is a moot point because I am fairly certain that majority of the English people haven't. If Cameron and his clique could just deliver on what they have already promised he would go down in history as a great PM, he really doesn't need to go finding new frontiers to conquer. To put it another way he does not need to lead us to a new promised land just to make our existing land rather better than it currently is.
In my view, we have had enough of the promises let us see some delivery.
I think realistically, one can shrink the State. There's no reason why one couldn't establish a consensus that public spending would be around 30-35% of GDP, rather than 40-45% of GDP. But, I don't think there would be an appetite among the public for anything that's more radical.
Don't forget that we don't have the nationalised industries any more either.
Whereas in the coverage of the Labour conference whenever Labour people were quoted as attacking the Conservatives no response from the Conservatives was quoted.... it went unchallenged.
Today Caroline Quinn twice listed Conservative attacks and then the Labour responses... just for balance and impartiality I guess?
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
refer to Teresa May's speech yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."
Since just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015, it is not obvious to me that one would conclude that longer standing asylum seekers would be safe to return. But maybe you're making a clever point that I'm missing.
You refer told existing immigration policy...what Teresa May announced yesterday was very different. " when a refugee’s temporary stay of protection in the UK comes to an end, or if there is a clear improvement in the conditions of their own country, we will review their need for protection If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain"
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
Such people are voters that UKIP could be picking up. But since the Nigel Ego party is currently so utterly hopeless and generally shambolic, they won't.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
refer to Teresa May's speech yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."
Since just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015, it is not obvious to me that one would conclude that longer standing asylum seekers would be safe to return. But maybe you're making a clever point that I'm missing.
You refer told existing immigration policy...what Teresa May announced yesterday was very different. " when a refugee’s temporary stay of protection in the UK comes to an end, or if there is a clear improvement in the conditions of their own country, we will review their need for protection If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain"
So at what point in the past do you think that Seema Kennedy would have been deported back to Iran (even ignoring the point that your original post made no reference to floated changes in immigration policy)?
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Unfortunately if you're working on such long contracts then I think that you are likely to be caught even if there is some amelioration of the initial proposals. My own view is that the proposals are really quite unfair in a number of respects.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
Ha. Indeed some might.
I don't see children as a right for a pick-and-mix of a number of freely chosen adult lifestyles. Nothing should be ruled in or out but the ideal environment for children is with biological parents who are married and both love each other. We have strong reservations about designer babies with donor eggs and sperm with anonymous biological parents, but another surrogate mother, for example.
Both my wife and I have always believed strongly that we shouldn't have children unless in a stable marriage, and are shocked that over half of all children born now are not.
Of course, we recognise that life can be cruel, difficult and unkind. Not all kids have that choice: there are accidents, divorces, cases of rife abuse, cruelty and some simply tragic cases where one or both parents die.
When that happens, we deal with it, but all my experience (and hers) with friends and kids has taught us that marriage is a institution worthy of defending and promoting above others and most kids want their parents to be happy and together, and with them.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
The Tories are moving far beyond what they did to poor old Ed Miliband. They are framing the Corbynites as wholly unpatriotic, terrorist-loving, extremist clowns who will destroy the market economy. It remains a national tragedy that Labour has got itself into this position, where it can be framed in this way and the sensible response is: yep, that just about fits.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Angela and Francois are at the European Parliament. Predictably most speakers are calling for more Europe.
The most telling thing about Cameron today - which hardly anyone seems to have picked up upon - is his very strong signal that he will recommend Remain.
There is no virtually no chance he will pitch for Leave.
Ilkley's nice. Went up on the Moor in the past, usually with a hound bounding around.
Was also nice after the Tour de France. As per the song, I remembered to take my hat (just as well, as it pissed it down).
How is the new mutt, Mr D.? Should be developing nicely into a young dog by now, any chance of more pictures?
Afternoon Hurst, saw your post earlier, given the riff raff and tone on today I am not as ebullient as yesterday , doubt I will stick around long tonight.
Economics 101 David Smith in the Sunday Times points out that our growth since 1Q 2010 has matched America's. Revisions to the ONS figures show there were no double or triple dip recession and we had stronger growth in 2011 than 2010 when everyone was screaming against so called austerity. So sorry all you dim lefties, Osborne's policies did not stunt growth. You will have to find another fantasy world to live in.
It seems we are likely to see a slowdown in jobs growth and an increase in productivity in future.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
refer to Teresa May's speech yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."
Since just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015, it is not obvious to me that one would conclude that longer standing asylum seekers would be safe to return. But maybe you're making a clever point that I'm missing.
You refer told existing immigration policy...what Teresa May announced yesterday was very different. " when a refugee’s temporary stay of protection in the UK comes to an end, or if there is a clear improvement in the conditions of their own country, we will review their need for protection If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain"
So at what point in the past do you think that Seema Kennedy would have been deported back to Iran (even ignoring the point that your original post made no reference to floated changes in immigration policy)?
I think it's a noble goal, fully consonant with internationalism, to work towards a world where given a choice between residing in the UK and Iran (or even North Korea), any given person would have to weigh that decision very carefully.
Of course, Kraken is just trying to continue playing the old, tired (oh, god, so very tired) racism card, albeit somewhat disguised.
What, exactly, is wrong with returning asylum seekers to their origin country once the original reason for said asylum seeking has passed? For example, surely Syria isn't now going to remain perpetually empty?
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
Taxing travelling expenses does seem very stupid. Does this apply to employees too?
The bigger issue for me at the moment is the tax on expenses which adds around £1400 a month to my tax bill.
There are some consultations going on which might (I put it no stronger than that) lead to a change of heart by the government in the way that the proposed rules would apply to one-man companies such as yours.
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Condolences Richard. I do hope you manage to sort it out.
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Unfortunately if you're working on such long contracts then I think that you are likely to be caught even if there is some amelioration of the initial proposals. My own view is that the proposals are really quite unfair in a number of respects.
The big problem of course is that the contracts themselves are not that long. In most cases they will not be renewed as they are only for individual short term projects. One option would be to turn down contracts which might run for more than 12 - 18 months but of course that is not always a great idea.
Whereas in the coverage of the Labour conference whenever Labour people were quoted as attacking the Conservatives no response from the Conservatives was quoted.... it went unchallenged.
Today Caroline Quinn twice listed Conservative attacks and then the Labour responses... just for balance and impartiality I guess?
I gave up listening to that programme years ago. Eddie Mair is interested in only one thing; Eddie Mair, and his cynicism knows no depths.
Devasting to the country to have this person running it. Are there any positive recollections of Cameron that don't involve interviews or speeches? I can't think of any. I can remember when he gave an affecting speech on his relationship with the NHS (a million times), I remember when he came out strongly and threatened to use our veto (emptily), I remember when he summed up his strongly Tory beliefs for an hour without notes. He's just a disembodied pair of lips and a microphone isn't he? An internationalist socialist drone who is careful to ensure he just sounds a little less useless than the alternative, just giving his naive supporters a little hope that he may yet see sense. He has played this game from the very beginning. A spineless mendacious lardbucket.
I'd see the right as wanting to halt progress, to hark back to former (imagined) glories; the left as seeing the role of the state and spending as being paramount; and the sensible centre as trusting the people.
The right wing is in no way about harking back to former glories. From my position on the right it is entirely about limiting or ideally reducing the role of the state and increasing the freedom of the individual, of the family and of the community. This by definition is in direct opposition to any statist view which is generally - but not entirely - the position of the left. Bear in mind anarchists are generally considered to be of the left.
The centre is by no means necessarily sensible. Simply because something is generally agreed by consensus to be right and proper does not necessarily make it so. The centre ground for decades believed that homosexuality was wrong or something to be ashamed of. The same could be said of any number of social issues and indeed it is often those considered to be firmly of the right (Libertarians as an example) who have most strongly campaigned for freedom of the individual in social matters. .
Anarchists are nothing of the sort. Anarchist wanting more government spending and being opposed to cuts is like f**king for virginity. They don't understand the meaning of the word.
As a socially liberal, economically right relatively laissez faire Conservative (Libertarian in America) I am far more of am anarchist than any Anarchist.
What does 'socially liberal' mean?
Bullshitter comes to mind
Only if you are a f**kwit who is unable to understand basic English. But then I think you have shown often enough that you qualify for that description.
Very pleasant , nice of you to stick up for your buddy. Is he not capable of answering for himself , needs his little helper to post insults for him. Get lost saddo and tell your buddy to man up.
Not sure Cameron knows the meaning of irony but his reference to Priti Patel "the daughter of Gujarati immigrants who arrived in our country from East Africa with nothing except the clothes they stood up in" was an odd choice as her parents would not have been granted asylum by this government. Likewise, Seema Kennedy, "who was five when she and her family were forced to flee revolutionary Iran" would now be living back in Iran, having been deported
Just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015. So your final sentence is unjustified.
refer to Teresa May's speech yesterday "If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."
Since just under 60% of asylum claims from Iran were accepted in the second quarter of 2015, it is not obvious to me that one would conclude that longer standing asylum seekers would be safe to return. But maybe you're making a clever point that I'm missing.
You refer told existing immigration policy...what Teresa May announced yesterday was very different. " when a refugee’s temporary stay of protection in the UK comes to an end, or if there is a clear improvement in the conditions of their own country, we will review their need for protection If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain"
Given that we are still accepting refugees from Iran, we clearly do not consider it a safe country for political dissidents to return to. Idi Amin fell from power in the late 1970s, when Priti Patel was 7 and would have certainly classified as a British citizen under the current system.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Bet they will be loving the thought of that.
Why don't you just remunerate yourself through a salary rather than through dividends...and pay the same rate of tax / Ni as everyone else? Another contractor bemoaning the loss of a tax loop-hole that's enabled them to deprive the state of the appropriate amount of tax
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Unfortunately if you're working on such long contracts then I think that you are likely to be caught even if there is some amelioration of the initial proposals. My own view is that the proposals are really quite unfair in a number of respects.
Perhaps a good check of whether the proposal to tax the reimbursement of travel expenses as a perk is fair is whether said proposal will apply to MPs.
However, surely the answer to Mr. Tyndal's problem is to set up an office near his home address and call that his normal place of work. Any journey onwards from that address would be done in work time and not taxable, in addition the expenses of setting up and running the office will be tax deductible.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
The government doesn't decide on those, Casino!
New Royal Yacht would be good too.
Was it Major that said there would be a new one originally? I remember the headline in The Sun "Queen wins the Yachtery"
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Unfortunately if you're working on such long contracts then I think that you are likely to be caught even if there is some amelioration of the initial proposals. My own view is that the proposals are really quite unfair in a number of respects.
The big problem of course is that the contracts themselves are not that long. In most cases they will not be renewed as they are only for individual short term projects. One option would be to turn down contracts which might run for more than 12 - 18 months but of course that is not always a great idea.
I had a contract that while initially was for four weeks, turned into nearly two years. It was wonderful but caused me all sorts of issues with VAT registration, IR35 and so forth.
I was still dealing with the repercussions three years after the contract ended. I only escaped the vile coils of HMRC by shutting my company down in May this year.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Devasting to the country to have this person running it. Are there any positive recollections of Cameron that don't involve interviews or speeches? I can't think of any. I can remember when he gave an affecting speech on his relationship with the NHS (a million times), I remember when he came out strongly and threatened to use our veto (emptily), I remember when he summed up his strongly Tory beliefs for an hour without notes. He's just a disembodied pair of lips and a microphone isn't he? An internationalist socialist drone who is careful to ensure he just sounds a little less useless than the alternative, just giving his naive supporters a little hope that he may yet see sense. He has played this game from the very beginning. A spineless mendacious lardbucket.
An international socialist who is cutting the size of the state by about 10% of GDP.
You can tell we are doing well as a party when supporters of rival parties are going into frenzies of ridiculous claims to attack him.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
Taxing travelling expenses does seem very stupid. Does this apply to employees too?
Sounds dodgy more like, you cannot claim travel expenses to a permanent place of work. Hard to try and say 2 years is not permanent workplace.
MG.. You still seem unable to grasp the point about insults...the best ones should be buried deep in your message to the recipient..so deep that they don't realize they have been insulted but everyone else does..that is the fun part..Your repeated references to turnips does not do that and is repetitive to the point of extreme boredom... you may wish to revisit this area soon... Relying on your PB Tag buddy Dair does both of you no favours. Two seriously depleted brain cells ,not exactly flying in formation, do not usually create great insults..and as the pair of you base what you define as debate on the production of said insults then it does tend to render your arguments null and void..For further instructions on insults please wait for further lessons and in the meantime go into that damp dark midge infested cubby hole you call home ,find a dry spot and try to relax, have another haggis if that helps..
The big problem of course is that the contracts themselves are not that long. In most cases they will not be renewed as they are only for individual short term projects. One option would be to turn down contracts which might run for more than 12 - 18 months but of course that is not always a great idea.
Yes, the trouble is that HMRC have a civil-service mindset which means that they don't seem to be able to understand that you are taking the risk of periods without work and that you have no job security. Conservative ministers have been poor on this IMO.
MG if a poster calls you a sad little freak then it is not cool to send the same insult back...you have to think of another one..geddit
freakoid get lost, if you had read it the cretinous halfwit used "northern". Did not even have enough brain cells to put Scottish.
If I had used 'Scottish' then I would have been condemning a whole country with your idiocy. Better to use the more amorphous term 'northern'. Besides, most of the Scots I know would kick the shit out of a twat like you for giving them such a bad name.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Of course, the idea that there are a mere three sexes is laughably naive, but we forgive Isam because we love him here.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
The government doesn't decide on those, Casino!
New Royal Yacht would be good too.
Was it Major that said there would be a new one originally? I remember the headline in The Sun "Queen wins the Yachtery"
There was talk of a private sector led solution a year or two ago. Don't know why the government didn't get behind that.
Personally I think the UK would profit far more from it diplomatically than it'd cost us. Plus it'd be a worthy token of our thanks from the nation to HMG for everything she's done for us.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
The government doesn't decide on those, Casino!
The Royal Tournament was revived by the ABF, but the cancelled because didn't buy enough tickets, Casino!
Devasting to the country to have this person running it. Are there any positive recollections of Cameron that don't involve interviews or speeches? I can't think of any. I can remember when he gave an affecting speech on his relationship with the NHS (a million times), I remember when he came out strongly and threatened to use our veto (emptily), I remember when he summed up his strongly Tory beliefs for an hour without notes. He's just a disembodied pair of lips and a microphone isn't he? An internationalist socialist drone who is careful to ensure he just sounds a little less useless than the alternative, just giving his naive supporters a little hope that he may yet see sense. He has played this game from the very beginning. A spineless mendacious lardbucket.
An international socialist who is cutting the size of the state by about 10% of GDP.
You can tell we are doing well as a party when supporters of rival parties are going into frenzies of ridiculous claims to attack him.
Yes, I'm sure he'll come right in the end. He must do musn't he? If the EU is unreasonable enough, if his negotiations are rebuffed, if the migrant crisis continues unchecked, he will absolutely show what he's made of and give them what for. He's really in our corner - you can tell from his heartfelt speeches can't you?
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
Such people are voters that UKIP could be picking up. But since the Nigel Ego party is currently so utterly hopeless and generally shambolic, they won't.
Funnily enough although I am a UKIP member at present and voted for them for a long time in the past, that has never been because of their economic policies. I still see UKIP as more of a pressure group than a realistic mainstream political party. As I suppose is fairly obvious from my postings, were it not for the issue of the EU and things like the snoopers charter I would probably be voting Tory.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Bet they will be loving the thought of that.
Why don't you just remunerate yourself through a salary rather than through dividends...and pay the same rate of tax / Ni as everyone else? Another contractor bemoaning the loss of a tax loop-hole that's enabled them to deprive the state of the appropriate amount of tax
Yes, not happy that the fiddles are being shut down, my heart bleeds for them. Pay your taxes like the rest of us.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Of course, the idea that there are a mere three sexes is laughably naive, but we forgive Isam because we love him here.
Have to say I was lost last night with the amount of sexes available, was amazed that there were more than two.
MG if a poster calls you a sad little freak then it is not cool to send the same insult back...you have to think of another one..geddit
freakoid get lost, if you had read it the cretinous halfwit used "northern". Did not even have enough brain cells to put Scottish.
If I had used 'Scottish' then I would have been condemning a whole country with your idiocy. Better to use the more amorphous term 'northern'. Besides, most of the Scots I know would kick the shit out of a twat like you for giving them such a bad name.
Devasting to the country to have this person running it. Are there any positive recollections of Cameron that don't involve interviews or speeches? I can't think of any. I can remember when he gave an affecting speech on his relationship with the NHS (a million times), I remember when he came out strongly and threatened to use our veto (emptily), I remember when he summed up his strongly Tory beliefs for an hour without notes. He's just a disembodied pair of lips and a microphone isn't he? An internationalist socialist drone who is careful to ensure he just sounds a little less useless than the alternative, just giving his naive supporters a little hope that he may yet see sense. He has played this game from the very beginning. A spineless mendacious lardbucket.
An international socialist who is cutting the size of the state by about 10% of GDP.
You can tell we are doing well as a party when supporters of rival parties are going into frenzies of ridiculous claims to attack him.
Yes, I'm sure he'll come right in the end. He must do musn't he? If the EU is unreasonable enough, if his negotiations are rebuffed, if the migrant crisis continues unchecked, he will absolutely show what he's made of and give them what for. He's really in our corner - you can tell from his heartfelt speeches can't you?
I'm not going to engage with your childish sarcasm any more. The point I was talking about was the ludicrous idea that Cameron was a socialist. You then responded by knocking down a strawman argument I have not made. I have criticised Cameron on plenty of occasions so you can not throw the blind loyalist accusation at me.
MG.. You still seem unable to grasp the point about insults...the best ones should be buried deep in your message to the recipient..so deep that they don't realize they have been insulted but everyone else does..that is the fun part..Your repeated references to turnips does not do that and is repetitive to the point of extreme boredom... you may wish to revisit this area soon... Relying on your PB Tag buddy Dair does both of you no favours. Two seriously depleted brain cells ,not exactly flying in formation, do not usually create great insults..and as the pair of you base what you define as debate on the production of said insults then it does tend to render your arguments null and void..For further instructions on insults please wait for further lessons and in the meantime go into that damp dark midge infested cubby hole you call home ,find a dry spot and try to relax, have another haggis if that helps..
LOL, given that you are one of the most cretinous dribblers of rubbish on here , I will take that as a compliment. No need to worry about you burying anything deep given you could not be any more shallow. Jog on loser.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Of course, the idea that there are a mere three sexes is laughably naive, but we forgive Isam because we love him here.
Sorry, I was guided by Dair's post yesterday that stated the blatantly obvious, long accepted truth that humans are easily divided into either male, female or intersex... the three standards
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
Taxing travelling expenses does seem very stupid. Does this apply to employees too?
Sounds dodgy more like, you cannot claim travel expenses to a permanent place of work. Hard to try and say 2 years is not permanent workplace.
Nope. If you have a number of contracts spread around the country then obviously you cannot live next to more than one of them. Most of the sorts of contracts I deal with are 6 months or so - some as short as a few weeks, some up to 18 months. But there will be several on the go at any one time. The Government at some point in the past has decided that if any of these contracts go over 2 years (actually from the day you know they will go over 2 years) because of extensions or delays, then you have to pay full tax on any travel/accommodation expenses associated with that contract.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Of course, the idea that there are a mere three sexes is laughably naive, but we forgive Isam because we love him here.
Sorry, I was guided by Dair's post yesterday that stated the blatantly obvious, long accepted truth that humans are easily divided into either male, female or intersex... the three standards
Cameron's speech seems to have brought out the best in the Tories today , they are snarling and gnashing on every post. It was supposed to be great as well.
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Unfortunately if you're working on such long contracts then I think that you are likely to be caught even if there is some amelioration of the initial proposals. My own view is that the proposals are really quite unfair in a number of respects.
Perhaps a good check of whether the proposal to tax the reimbursement of travel expenses as a perk is fair is whether said proposal will apply to MPs.
However, surely the answer to Mr. Tyndal's problem is to set up an office near his home address and call that his normal place of work. Any journey onwards from that address would be done in work time and not taxable, in addition the expenses of setting up and running the office will be tax deductible.
That is exactly the sort of dodgy tax avoidance I have always avoided. It might be strictly legal but is so close to the edge that I wouldn't consider it. My accountants would also have a fit for the same reason.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
The government doesn't decide on those, Casino!
The Royal Tournament was revived by the ABF, but the cancelled because didn't buy enough tickets, Casino!
Yeah, I went to that once. It was really shit. Nothing like the Royal Tournament, with lots of x-factor whizzes and gimmicks and about 30 troops who looked like costume extras.
The troops need the time off, the funding and the support and the proper RN gun race back please.
There are all sorts of cultural things that annoy me too, where there's been a failure to mount a full conservative sociocultural defence. I want the Radio 4 theme, a proper last night of the proms, the royal tournament back, and the stupidity of a female James Bond.
The government doesn't decide on those, Casino!
New Royal Yacht would be good too.
Was it Major that said there would be a new one originally? I remember the headline in The Sun "Queen wins the Yachtery"
There was talk of a private sector led solution a year or two ago. Don't know why the government didn't get behind that.
Personally I think the UK would profit far more from it diplomatically than it'd cost us. Plus it'd be a worthy token of our thanks from the nation to HMG for everything she's done for us.
SO I was paying over 80k in tax during the late 80s..to a state that gave me absolutely SFA..so I stopped doing that and just cut back on the work load....
This is unfortunately the position I am starting to face now. Although even more unfortunately not at earnings levels that would result in anywhere near an 80K tax bill.
I currently spend some 220 - 240 days a year working away from my family. I have my own company so basically if I am not working I don't get paid. Up until now the return on that amount of work has made it worth the pain so I can provide the best for my family. But with the new tax changes that are being proposed on dividends and particularly on expenses I am now starting to believe that it is no longer worth all the pain and I am better off cutting back considerably on the work and spending more time with the family, accepting that some of our goals will no longer be achievable.
Could you explain to me the changes that have been made, the reasons the government had for them, and why they hit you so hard?
The two changes are the dividend tax change (which will add 7 1/2% to the amount of tax paid but is offset by the equivalent of about a 2% drop in tax paid because of corporation tax changes) and the classing of travelling expenses as a perk taxable at whatever your highest tax rate is.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
Taxing travelling expenses does seem very stupid. Does this apply to employees too?
Sounds dodgy more like, you cannot claim travel expenses to a permanent place of work. Hard to try and say 2 years is not permanent workplace.
Nope. If you have a number of contracts spread around the country then obviously you cannot live next to more than one of them. Most of the sorts of contracts I deal with are 6 months or so - some as short as a few weeks, some up to 18 months. But there will be several on the go at any one time. The Government at some point in the past has decided that if any of these contracts go over 2 years (actually from the day you know they will go over 2 years) because of extensions or delays, then you have to pay full tax on any travel/accommodation expenses associated with that contract.
It does not apply if you are an employee.
Most of these are just a fiddle though, PAYE employees do not get the option to offset anything and everything, you just get hammered. You get massive benefits in dividends and what you can claim against versus PAYE.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Of course, the idea that there are a mere three sexes is laughably naive, but we forgive Isam because we love him here.
Sorry, I was guided by Dair's post yesterday that stated the blatantly obvious, long accepted truth that humans are easily divided into either male, female or intersex... the three standards
Cameron's speech seems to have brought out the best in the Tories today , they are snarling and gnashing on every post. It was supposed to be great as well.
Thanks, wires leading to explosives from the 60s. Must have been a Friday afternoon job.
The explanation is more far fetched than any of Blaster Bates' tales.
We'll see - I suspect it is just media reporting that has muddled it a bit. My guess is that there was some leftover det cord from the old 1960s blasting of the routes for the first road bridge. I wondered if the 'wires' were prestressed concrete that hadn't been severed, but the EOD were there.
Fair enough. My view is tolerance and freedom but that the traditional family unit is so fundamental to a free and stable society that the government should encourage and promote it.
Plenty of social liberals would disagree with that.
Mr. Royale, when you say a traditional family unit do you mean a woman and man in wedlock and their children (together with the extended family grandparents, aunts, uncles cousins etc.)? If so then your idea that the state should encourage and promote such an institution puts you beyond the pale. Never mind social liberals, even the modern Conservative Party will see such attitudes as belonging to some ghastly person unfit to take part in human discourse.
I would regard the traditional family as two adults in wedlock, observing monogamy, plus any children born to them.
I suppose we are to assume these adults are cisgender and from the male and female sections of the three possible sexes? Pfff
I'm sorry, I get you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand your point. Are you protesting the idea that gay people should be able to participate in the traditional family model?
I believe he is commenting from viewpoint of a great discussion we had last night, which if you had been in it makes it funny comment.
Of course, the idea that there are a mere three sexes is laughably naive, but we forgive Isam because we love him here.
Sorry, I was guided by Dair's post yesterday that stated the blatantly obvious, long accepted truth that humans are easily divided into either male, female or intersex... the three standards
Cameron's speech seems to have brought out the best in the Tories today , they are snarling and gnashing on every post. It was supposed to be great as well.
It would be great if they did. I have recently fallen foul of this having now been working in the same place for 2 years on one of my contracts. The problem is that they expect that after that time I should move to where I work but given that my contracts are usually never more than 6 months and that I have worked in over 20 different locations in the last 20 years I am not really in a position to keep moving my family around from one place to another when I could be out of work in a few months. It is just one of those things I suppose but it does rather rankle in that it is unavoidable.
Unfortunately if you're working on such long contracts then I think that you are likely to be caught even if there is some amelioration of the initial proposals. My own view is that the proposals are really quite unfair in a number of respects.
Perhaps a good check of whether the proposal to tax the reimbursement of travel expenses as a perk is fair is whether said proposal will apply to MPs.
However, surely the answer to Mr. Tyndal's problem is to set up an office near his home address and call that his normal place of work. Any journey onwards from that address would be done in work time and not taxable, in addition the expenses of setting up and running the office will be tax deductible.
That is exactly the sort of dodgy tax avoidance I have always avoided. It might be strictly legal but is so close to the edge that I wouldn't consider it. My accountants would also have a fit for the same reason.
Like you I always wanted to sleep soundly and that was only possible when I knew that HMRC had nothing on me. So I too chose an accountant who played by the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. However, I did choose a good accountant. You might need to look elsewhere if your chaps are telling you that you have to pay £1400 a month extra because of changes to rules on expenses.
MG You have convinced me..you are obviously a severe case and I will discount my fee..all lessons from now on will be free..this may be seen as a benefit in kind so please inform the HMRC...I will.
Ilkley's nice. Went up on the Moor in the past, usually with a hound bounding around.
Was also nice after the Tour de France. As per the song, I remembered to take my hat (just as well, as it pissed it down).
How is the new mutt, Mr D.? Should be developing nicely into a young dog by now, any chance of more pictures?
Afternoon Hurst, saw your post earlier, given the riff raff and tone on today I am not as ebullient as yesterday , doubt I will stick around long tonight.
Ilkley's nice. Went up on the Moor in the past, usually with a hound bounding around.
Was also nice after the Tour de France. As per the song, I remembered to take my hat (just as well, as it pissed it down).
How is the new mutt, Mr D.? Should be developing nicely into a young dog by now, any chance of more pictures?
Afternoon Hurst, saw your post earlier, given the riff raff and tone on today I am not as ebullient as yesterday , doubt I will stick around long tonight.
I had to look up "ebullient" on OED as I couldn't reconcile my understanding of its meaning with your use of it. It seems that I had underestimated the breadth of your grasp of English as OED offered the, admittedly archaic, definition
boiling or agitated as if boiling
Now I understand. You must have had a very bad day yesterday; my commiserations.
If you thought Nigel Farage was a swivel eyed loon, this Guy Verhofstadt is in a league of his own. This is what the Europhiles really have in mind for us:
Hollande just said leave Europe(EU) and you leave democracy,pathetic comment.
Hands up if you care what the French think.
I think it's a bit unfair to saddle all of the French with Hollande's lunacy but I've still got my hand up
correction
I think it's a bit unfair to saddle all of the French with Hollande's lunacy but I'll still not put my hand up
Hollande is an inspirational figure. He's a physical and intellectual dwarf with an unharmonious face and yet he's pulled numerous beauties and become President of France. Chapeau to il nanetto.
Economics 101 David Smith in the Sunday Times points out that our growth since 1Q 2010 has matched America's. Revisions to the ONS figures show there were no double or triple dip recession and we had stronger growth in 2011 than 2010 when everyone was screaming against so called austerity. So sorry all you dim lefties, Osborne's policies did not stunt growth. You will have to find another fantasy world to live in.
It seems we are likely to see a slowdown in jobs growth and an increase in productivity in future.
Oh dear. Mr Blanchflower wrong again. Corbyn clearly choosing advisors from the bottom of the barrel.
Ilkley's nice. Went up on the Moor in the past, usually with a hound bounding around.
Was also nice after the Tour de France. As per the song, I remembered to take my hat (just as well, as it pissed it down).
How is the new mutt, Mr D.? Should be developing nicely into a young dog by now, any chance of more pictures?
Afternoon Hurst, saw your post earlier, given the riff raff and tone on today I am not as ebullient as yesterday , doubt I will stick around long tonight.
I had to look up "ebullient" on OED as I couldn't reconcile my understanding of its meaning with your use of it. It seems that I had underestimated the breadth of your grasp of English as OED offered the, admittedly archaic, definition
boiling or agitated as if boiling
Now I understand. You must have had a very bad day yesterday; my commiserations.
Poor old Reggie , cannot understand even with a dictionary. Using the archaic meaning just about typifies you as the dinosaur you are, any modern educated person would know its real meaning. Given your posts I doubt you understand what cheerful means mind you.
Ilkley's nice. Went up on the Moor in the past, usually with a hound bounding around.
Was also nice after the Tour de France. As per the song, I remembered to take my hat (just as well, as it pissed it down).
How is the new mutt, Mr D.? Should be developing nicely into a young dog by now, any chance of more pictures?
Afternoon Hurst, saw your post earlier, given the riff raff and tone on today I am not as ebullient as yesterday , doubt I will stick around long tonight.
I think it's Mr Hurst to you!
How do you know he is Mr today , you being sexist.
Comments
Haven't taken too many pictures (she likes the camera a lot. I probably have an extreme close-up [a la Wayne's World] somewhere or other). I think they're on the camera still rather than uploaded.
The bigger issue for me at the moment is the tax on expenses which adds around £1400 a month to my tax bill.
http://www.capx.co/david-cameron-wiped-the-floor-with-jeremy-corbyn/
I also know of young Asian men and women who were assisted in their studies in a similar way.
One of the nastier features of modern Toryism is a “pull up the ladder Jack” mindset.
I think the Royal Tournament was dependent on government money. New Royal Yacht would be good too.
I am not sure people have quite grasped how hard many small companies are going to be hit by the changes.
However, if you were told that I’m sorry to read it. Case as stated you shouldn’t have been.
he'll take that.
Whereas in the coverage of the Labour conference whenever Labour people were quoted as attacking the Conservatives no response from the Conservatives was quoted.... it went unchallenged.
Today Caroline Quinn twice listed Conservative attacks and then the Labour responses... just for balance and impartiality I guess?
I don't see children as a right for a pick-and-mix of a number of freely chosen adult lifestyles. Nothing should be ruled in or out but the ideal environment for children is with biological parents who are married and both love each other. We have strong reservations about designer babies with donor eggs and sperm with anonymous biological parents, but another surrogate mother, for example.
Both my wife and I have always believed strongly that we shouldn't have children unless in a stable marriage, and are shocked that over half of all children born now are not.
Of course, we recognise that life can be cruel, difficult and unkind. Not all kids have that choice: there are accidents, divorces, cases of rife abuse, cruelty and some simply tragic cases where one or both parents die.
When that happens, we deal with it, but all my experience (and hers) with friends and kids has taught us that marriage is a institution worthy of defending and promoting above others and most kids want their parents to be happy and together, and with them.
David Smith in the Sunday Times points out that our growth since 1Q 2010 has matched America's. Revisions to the ONS figures show there were no double or triple dip recession and we had stronger growth in 2011 than 2010 when everyone was screaming against so called austerity. So sorry all you dim lefties, Osborne's policies did not stunt growth. You will have to find another fantasy world to live in.
It seems we are likely to see a slowdown in jobs growth and an increase in productivity in future.
Of course, Kraken is just trying to continue playing the old, tired (oh, god, so very tired) racism card, albeit somewhat disguised.
What, exactly, is wrong with returning asylum seekers to their origin country once the original reason for said asylum seeking has passed? For example, surely Syria isn't now going to remain perpetually empty?
However, surely the answer to Mr. Tyndal's problem is to set up an office near his home address and call that his normal place of work. Any journey onwards from that address would be done in work time and not taxable, in addition the expenses of setting up and running the office will be tax deductible.
I remember the headline in The Sun
"Queen wins the Yachtery"
I was still dealing with the repercussions three years after the contract ended. I only escaped the vile coils of HMRC by shutting my company down in May this year.
You can tell we are doing well as a party when supporters of rival parties are going into frenzies of ridiculous claims to attack him.
Relying on your PB Tag buddy Dair does both of you no favours. Two seriously depleted brain cells ,not exactly flying in formation, do not usually create great insults..and as the pair of you base what you define as debate on the production of said insults then it does tend to render your arguments null and void..For further instructions on insults please wait for further lessons and in the meantime go into that damp dark midge infested cubby hole you call home ,find a dry spot and try to relax, have another haggis if that helps..
The explanation is more far fetched than any of Blaster Bates' tales.
Personally I think the UK would profit far more from it diplomatically than it'd cost us. Plus it'd be a worthy token of our thanks from the nation to HMG for everything she's done for us.
It does not apply if you are an employee.
'Luckily that did not apply for me. And in January I will be writing a cheque to HMRC for well over £100,000.'
Couldn't you make it £250,000 that would be more impressive ?
I think it's a bit unfair to saddle all of the French with Hollande's lunacy but I'll still not put my hand up
The troops need the time off, the funding and the support and the proper RN gun race back please.
boiling or agitated as if boiling
Now I understand. You must have had a very bad day yesterday; my commiserations.
How much bullshit is in this policy:
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nusdigital/document/documents/17915/2474048df1f844083a5a1a91da3dc5bd/Safe Space Policy ws.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_VbHfgPVlg
Chapeau to il nanetto.